Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Village pump)
Jump to: navigation, search


  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
This project page in other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | українська | +/−

Welcome to the Village pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


Centralized discussion

See also Commons:Village pump/Proposals

Please help by translating these messages into other languages.

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]

Contents





Oldies[edit]

Librarian congress images[edit]

Hello, there's a lot of CC-By-SA images of the World Libraries Congress (Lyon, France) on FlickR: could anyone download them on Commons? Best

Encouraging pro photographers to contribute[edit]

I've just been reading our well-written obituary to Jorge Royan, a pro photographer and commons contributor, who "donated hundreds of beautiful photos to Wikimedia Commons so that, in his own words, they won’t stay lost in his computer when he’s no longer around and serve a greater purpose other than just as a curiosity to his grandchildren".

It had me wondering if we have a page or project dedicated to encouraging individual professional photographers to contribute. I often speak to such people, and they usually express concerns about losing money, or people mistakenly thinking that all of their pictures are freely reusable. It would be good to have a FAQ or other document which specifically addresses their concerns, and perhaps has some examples of good contributions from pros. I'd be willing to help put a page together. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As an amateur sport photographer, I met a lot of sport photographers. During the 2014 Rugby World Cup, I've talk with a sport (pro) photographer. She tried to upload a photo on Wikipedia. But each time, her photo was deleted. So, we probably need to improve our documentation ;) Pyb (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

CC 4.0 side issue[edit]

We put barriers in the way of pro photogs that causes images to be deleted if they don't provide OTRS confirmation they have the copyright to the image being offered. Regardless, CC 4.0 probably killed any chance we had of convincing pro photogs of the validity of creative commons licensing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the 4.0 issue, or point to somewhere that does? The Wikipedia article makes it sound like 4.0 just tightened up the legalese for international jurisdictions, without changing the intent. --Ppelleti (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Ppelleti, I don't remember where the discussion took place, but as I recall (and someone correct me if I'm mistaken) the interpretation of the wording of 4.0 meant that professionals could not contribute lower resolution images freely and retain non-free copyright on higher resolution versions...that releasing one resolution under Creative Commons meant that all resolutions would fall under the same license. This raised a lot of concerns amongst those who contributed like this, and rightfully so. I think it was a huge mistake on the part of the CC team, insofar as it relates to our mission on Commmons. Huntster (t @ c) 05:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
There's https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_CC_license_to_low-resolution_copies_of_a_licensed_work_and_reserve_more_rights_in_high-resolution_copies.3F and also some discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/06#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F - I was under the impression [IANAL] that it wasn't so much a cc 4.0 issue as much as the issue just generally being ambiguous. Bawolff (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Toollabs facilitating MP4[edit]

I discovered today that someone has build a tool on wmf labs, that converts MP4 videos on the tool labs hardware, before uploading it to Commons. This seems to fly in the face of what was the output of Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video, which specifically said that we wanted NO mp4, not even through a converter ingress pipeline. In my opinion, we cannot just put a tool on labs afterwards, that is doing the exact same thing on WMF owned hardware and then say: "ah, but now it's cool"... I would like to hear more opinions.
P.S. I'm sorry User:Prolineserver, I think it is a great tool, but I just can't agree with it's existence on WMF hardware, in the face of that community consultation. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So, if the tool converts everything but mp4 on labs its ok? If the tool runs with the same functionality on a non-WMF server its ok too? Btw.: The conversion tool is much older than the rfc, and was previously running on tools.wikimedia.se and the toolserver. Since the beginning of the year it just moved to tools and got more user friendly with the OAuth and jQuery upload. --Prolineserver (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes as I interpret this, that would be fine. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
For what its worth, when I was voting oppose on that RFC, all I wanted to oppose was the use of MP4 in production (Directly on commons). I personally have no objection to the use of MP4 on labs or other external servers. I wonder if I'm in the minority on that or if others feel similar. Bawolff (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This RFC was only about hosting MP4 videos on Commons (including automatic conversion after upload). External tools were not discussed. Many opposes were not against this option: "my second choice on the observation that there would be nothing stopping the WMF from providing a separate transcoding space/tool for contributors to both transcode and edit video in preparation for releasing to Commons". Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This tool seems to be unrelated to the RfC. The RfC seems to have discussed two things:
  • Should people be able to upload MP4 files which are then stored in MP4 format on the server?
  • Should people be able to download MP4 copies of files which potentially have been uploaded in other formats?
This tool seems to do another thing: download MP4 files, convert them to other file formats and presumably delete the MP4 version. If I run a program locally on my computer and then go to Special:Upload, I would get the same result. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This tools corresponds to option: Partial MP4 support - Contributions only which clearly was defeated by option No MP4 support whatsoever. I fail to see how we can think different on this occurring on WMF owned labs hardware, compared to Commons hardware (which are literally just meters away from each other). On ... "If I run a program locally on my computer", well this is not that, it's running the program on WMF hardware, NOT your local computer. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No. That option seems to imply that files are stored in MP4 format on the servers, although those files are inaccessible to people. This tool does not store any files on the servers, unless I have misunderstood something. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Its really rather ambigious. I think that option could have been interpreted 1 of 3 ways. First it could mean video is converted from mp4 on upload, original thrown away. Second it could mean that video is converted and kept somewhere for posterity, but generally not accessible (Or only accessible to admins or something). Last of all it could mean handling it much like we do DjVu files, where the original file is kept, and you can get to it by clicking a link on the file page, but generally we never present the original version to the user for general viewing, and they can basically just "download" the mp4 file if they hunt for it but not play in browser. (Someone could make a weak argument that perhaps this option could even mean just integrating fireogg into upload wizard). All these different options have quite differing political ramifications. I wonder if that option was specified as convert on upload and then throw away original, if it would have gotten more support. Oh well, too late now. Bawolff (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with your interpretation, TheDJ. Like Bawolff, I voted "oppose," but I have elsewhere emphatically supported the "contributions only" approach. I voted that way, I suppose, for two main reasons: (1) it seemed important to emphatically reject the main proposal, which I felt was a major shift away from foundational principles; and (2) a core component of the main proposal involved a secret and non-transferable contract with the MP4 patent-holders, which Prolineserver's approach does not. I think it is safe to assume that many "no" votes were not intended to oppose the "contributions only" approach. I read through them a while ago, and did not see significant opposition to the idea of converting at the time of upload in the various comments. -Pete F (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can fully support that, but I still think it should not be run on WMF hardware then. If people want to do this stuff, fine, but keep it on your own property. Don't open up the foundation to any potential liability. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the tool would be very useful, and I am not sure how it "opens up the foundation to any potential liability". If that is a concern than may be we should check with the foundation to see if they see it as a potential problem. --Jarekt (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why community consensus on Commons should prevent development of a tool on Tool Labs, as long as it does not violate any patents (not sure about this), and the tool complies with wikitech:Wikipedia:Labs Terms of use. How is it any different from using any other MP4 converter? Hypothetically, would a tool that convert the video, deletes or garbage collects the MP4, and saves it on the user's computer be different from one which uploads it to Commons directly? Either way, if the MP4 converter is not legal (perhaps due to patent violation), then there is no doubt it should be removed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If the foundation is exposed to any liabilities then it is up to the foundation to make a decision whether to keep the tool on labs. I don't see why we should worry about this at this point. Labs is sufficiently insulated from commons. --Dschwen (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea for someone to run it by User:Coren, just to make sure there's no legal liability issue, but I agree that generally we should let the foundation tell us where there is such issues (Although it should be noted that avconv with h264 decoding is including in the default tool labs packages. One would assume if there was a problem it wouldn't have been installed). Bawolff (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no licensing issues with that tool, and it complies with the Labs TOU as far as I can tell. The patent issues are ridiculously complicated and could suffice to distract a flock of lawyer for many months; but are not an issue for the Foundation as it did not write the software (Canonical is the licensee), does not provide the service, and the resulting output (which is the only thing sent to Commons) is unencumbered by patents. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Canonical H.264 license is for OEMs only (basically sold hardware). I'd suggest taking down this tool (you like doing that, right?) and removing the library until WMF's legal team figures what (patent) license they do have (encode, decode, transcoding, reading metadata). Lab's could use Cisco's H.264 binaries packages, but that messes with the FLOSS requirement (FLOSS code you can't legally compile). Dispenser (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 08[edit]

Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images[edit]

In response to the WMF opinion provided in the title there is talk:Watermarks#m:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images discussion ongoing about how we on Commons will address the legal risks of removing watermarks and/or copyright notices (aka CMI). Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would summarize the conclusion as nothing to see here—it is inconclusive as it states that the way we work at the moment is "most likely" fine and advises uploaders that they are better off "consulting their own attorney".
It would be refreshing if these series of essays from WMF legal interns actually broke new ice, and could be used in lobbying for change rather than hedging bets.
If the Wikimedia Commons community wants legal advice, then we would be much better off asking for a grant to pay a legal expert for a solid opinion, or to pursue a clarification from a trusted advisory organization. The Foundation does not exist to fill this need. -- (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course they are indeed this vague partly on purpose, to protect the organization by keeping liability with the contributors, safe harbor, and also partly because that's just the actual situation. It's America, judges usually have an enormous amount of leeway with interpreting the law, and many of our problems are exactly in the area that interpretation by the judge would be required. I've had a few discussions with Legal team members during Wikimania, and it was quite enlightening I must say. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is something significant here. WMF legal are unable to recommend removing watermarks from CC images. Yet CC BY-SA is supposed to be designed to permit images to be free to reuse, modify, adapt, crop. So if the licence is unclear on our response to a practice that is widespread throughout the internet (watermarking) then it is not fit for purpose. WMF should spend its money working with CC to create a licence that has fewer of these legal uncertainties. We've seen this before with issues surrounding image resolution and doubts about what exactly is being licensed. Essentially, every time we ask WMF legal to clarify an issue surrounding CC licenses, and they respond with something vague, they should treat that as a bug report on the CC and consider how they can fix this for v5.0. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Quite significant if you care about editors. WMF has said legal risk for removal of watermarks (CMI) appears to be increasing as case law has been moving in the direction of more liberal interpretations of what is CMI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Fæ -- when Mike Godwin was the one delivering such advice, he almost always opted for the more lenient or permissive interpretation of copyright etc. law, to the degree that some on Commons lost respect for his advice. Not sure which situation you'd prefer... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The situation I would prefer is implicit from my first comment, i.e. we (unpaid volunteers) should consider a grant to pay for legal advice for us, rather than having informal opinions/essays from Foundation interns which are subject to being misquoted as if it were advice or a resolution (as can be seen on this page).
It would be really interesting if legal insurance for uploaders of certain types of media file were to be paid for out of the millions of grant money. If, say, U.S. legal liability insurance for volunteers removing watermarks were to be offered at $5,000, this would seem a perfectly good proposal for a Wikimedia Commons grant from the IEG and avoid changes in policies for this project for an arguable and relatively trivial clarification of CC standard terminology and interpretation in U.S. courts. (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's do a direct quote: "There are good-faith arguments and caselaw supporting both interpretations, so neither position is ironclad. As a result, individual editors who are considering removing watermarks should seriously consider the legal issues involved and consider consulting an attorney before doing so.". Rather than wasting money on legal advice that may apply only to one image, created in one country, edited by a user in one country, hosted by a server in one country and reused by a publisher in one country, it would be far better for WMF/CC to realise they have drafted a licence that fails us as an international community drawing images from varied sources which are then reused internationally. The opinion of a US lawyer, should it be purchased by some grant, is of only marginal interest to a UK editor editing UK images. The position, as it currently stands, is that cropping watermarks from CC/GFDL images is simply not worth it. There are plenty really free images, without volunteers needing to take chances, or exposing our reusers to potential lawsuits. We have to recognise that by adding a watermark, the author really didn't intend their image to be truly free to reuse for any purpose by anyone. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 11[edit]

Media Viewer Consultation Results[edit]

Screenshot of the Media Viewer's new design prototype

Thanks to all contributors who participated in the recent Media Viewer Consultation!

The Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team appreciates the many constructive suggestions to improve the viewing experience for readers and casual editors on Wikimedia projects. We reviewed about 130 community suggestions and prioritized a number of important development tasks for the next release of this feature. Those prioritized tasks have now been added to the improvements list on the consultation page.

We have already started development on the most critical ('must-have') improvements suggested by the community and validated through user testing (see research findings and design prototype). We plan to complete all “must have” improvements by the end of October and deploy them incrementally, starting this week. See the multimedia team's improvements plan and development planning site for details.

As we release these improvements, we will post regular updates on the Media Viewer talk page. We invite you to review these improvements and share your feedback there.

The foundation is also launching a file metadata cleanup drive to add machine-readable attributions and licenses on files lack them. This will lay the groundwork for the structured data partnership with the Wikidata team, to enable better search and re-use of media in our projects and many other features. We encourage everyone to join these efforts.

This community consultation was very productive for us and we look forward to more collaborations in the future. Thanks again to all our gracious contributors! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fabrice Florin (WMF): Where exactly have people asked for the removal of metadata in your consultation? I found one comment opposing this change and none in favour of it, and I don't think removing features is a good way to improve the popularity of a product … If you want more people to go to filedesc pages, remove the MV, but if you want to improve the media viewing experience, don't remove features from your viewing product.    FDMS  4    01:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@FDMS4: If people want the metadata, they should come to the file page on Commons. MV should not be a replacement for visits to Commons. That is a message the Multimedia team have had loud and clear from a lot of the community, not least at Wikimania. That's why MV will be much more focussed as a different way principally to view the information on the Wikipedia page, with a big blue "More details" button that will bring people straight to Commons. For Commons, the simplification of MV, and reduction of metadata provided, is a good thing. As well as giving users a simpler, more focussed initial experience. Jheald (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jheald: Thanks for jumping in. Totally agree. I think we should revisit a more comprehensive expanded viewer when we can do editing of metadata right in the viewer (for which proper structured data underneath is a prerequisite). Otherwise it's appropriate for the File: page to be primary and any expanded info to be minimal, so that readers learn about the File: page as a place to not only find the advanced info, but also possibly curate/edit.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jheald: "MV should not be a replacement for visits to Commons." What should it be then? I'm using a Mac with a trackpad, I don't need a media viewer to enlarge images. Yes, being able to view files and metadata from projects like the English Wikipedia reduces Commons traffic. However, if traffic is all we care about, we should probably stop using free licenses as they encourage copying and transferring. I personally don't think that traffic is more important than the usability of our user interface, and the financing of Commons fortunately does not depend on traffic. There was a very loud and clear message from the community, namely we don't want the Media Viewer. It should not come as a surprise that large parts of the community, often having very strong feelings about this product, would welcome any removal of features. The WMF has decided not to listen to these parts of the community, and instead start a process to find out what the actual users think about their product. Also unsurprisingly, none of the actual users said remove features from it. Now, probably because of the superprotect fiasco, it has been decided to fulfill one wish of the angry croud perceived as important, and do exactly that. The full description and date of creation are essential information, the MV could as well only display a low-res version of the image – imagine how much Commons would profit from that.
@Erik Moeller (WMF): "I think we should revisit a more comprehensive expanded viewer when we can do editing of metadata right in the viewer […]." Are you aware that it isn't currently possible to edit metadata right on the file description pages either? If you wanted metadata to be modifiable in the Media Viewer, why didn't you just add [edit] links? Also, if you want to encourage the curation of files, why does the prototype make exactly that even harder? Yes, there are tools on filedesc pages that can't be made available in the MV. However, using the current MV, I was able to detect metadata with errors (typos in decriptions, wrong date formats, overcats, …) and fix them.    FDMS  4    22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The prototype is better than the current version :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we please make Media Viewer opt-in only, especially on Commons? On commons it really serves no purpose at all since you are already on commons. I appreciate that it has been removed for logged in users, but I am not always logged in and find it extremely annoying to click on an image to get to that file and instead have the media viewer pop up. I note that the result of the RFC on EN was to make it opt-in only. Delphi234 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have been implemented now. Very good. Or was Media Viewer completely deleted from commons? Delphi234 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Fabrice's comments earlier. MediaViewer was set to opt-in for only logged in users on about august 20 [1]. Logged out users still have the feature enabled. Bawolff (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I spoke too soon. I may have had javascript shut off when I thought it was not being used. It is still here for IP users. Delphi234 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Image generation broken[edit]

For each of our images (e.g., File:Old Pier, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg) one can ask MediaWiki to generate an image of any size. This is used for the preview image on the image-description-page as well as the "other sizes" options. What may be little-known is that the "1280px" in that URL is actually a parameter to the resizing code and can be anything you like. See User talk:Dschwen#Image viewing tool for FP for details. But when playing with this again today, I find it is broken for large sizes. For example 5727px works but 5728px fails. For another image 3435px works but 3437px fails. Has something in the software changed to impose limits? I was hoping someone (e.g. Dschwen) might be able to generate a template that does the maths to scale any image to a given megapixels, thus making it easy to offer an image sized for review which still having the option to upload an original-sized version. Who would know more about this? -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Colin: If you just want to build a URL you will be better off with using Special:Redirect. Of course someone still has to do the math, if a fixed width or height is not acceptable. I don't think this can be done in a template though, as it would require an API call to get the image dimensions. --Dschwen (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a new limit, just doesn't come up very often in terms of result image size. There is a limit that image scaling can only take at most 400 MB of RAM (If that's exceeded, it generates error code 137 [137 = 128+9. 9 = SIGKILL]). In order to scale an image, generally the image scaling program needs enough ram to have the result image fully decompressed in RAM, sometimes have the source image fully decompressed (Whether or not that's needed depends on the image format. non-progressive JPEG only needs about as much of the source loaded as the size of the result [AFAIK], and PNG (when using VIPS) generally do not need source loaded), plus some general overhead. The bigger the resulting thumbnail, the more memory it will use. Bawolff (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Bawolff, thanks for the info, but something has changed because the examples I gave on Dschen's talk page all used to work when I wrote that message. And the File:Old Pier, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg is only an 8MB JPG (and 110MB uncompressed) so shouldn't hit the 400MB limit. So I wonder if some coding change has meant less efficient use of memory or perhaps higher than 8-bit colour for some intermediate stage. It is becoming more important to be able to deal with and specify large JPGs at less than 100% resolution because 100% detail is seldom flattering and often too much. On Dschen's talk page, I indicated it would be wonderful if the image description page offered more choices for reduced-size versions: relative (25%, 50%, 75%) and megapixel (2MP, 4MP, 8MP, 16MP, 24MP, 36MP). The current size options max out at 0.7MP, the size of a small monitor bought 10 years ago. Whereas many of us are viewing on screens 2, 3 or 4 times that width/height. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any recent changes to the relavent config. I believe image magick is compiled to use 16 bit colour internally (Q16 option), but its always been that way. There's plans to update the OS on those servers soon-ish, but I don't think that has happened yet. Bawolff (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Naturalis license" ?[edit]

Howdy,

May I run something by you? In the past year I've been visiting in the entomological collection of the natural history museum "Naturalis" in Leiden, Netherlands to research collection specimen and also to shoot images of these. The museum made me sign an agreement that states that I'm obliged to credit the museum for the usage of their collection whenever work resulting from this is published. As such I can only make the images from these sessions available under a special license form that includes this limitation. Here is an example. This would be very similar to selecting a CC-BY license using the museum as "author" but not quite the same. It would not be correct to name the museum as the author as they didn't create the images. For my part, I couldn't care less, my images are CC0/PD anyway, but it may not be fair to have the museum associated with the quality level of the images or some such. Anyway, it would surely be best to not abuse some existing license for this purpose but to simply indicate properly and truthfully what the license limitations are. Also, more authors working in the collection may have this problem and some may wish to make their images available under some other license (GFDL, or CC-BY-SA or some such) with the additional limitation of requiring credits for the usage of the collection. So what we would be looking at is a a set of licenses/templates to indicate this additional requirement such as:

Usage of this image requires that Naturalis always be credited for the usage of their collection

(or some other wording) Note: Although I'm not totally convinced, on principle, that the museum would have full legal rights to claim this requirement (it being largely government funded and all that), that is not the path I want to follow. If this is what they want, I'm happy to comply. Questions:

  • Is this something wikikmedia commons can live with (is it compatible with what we aim to do here)?
  • Would it require a full-fledged new license system with long legalese, or will a simple template do?
  • I'm pretty much "done" worrying about and discussing policies and templates on wikimedia projects, so I would be happy to supply images and keep doing so after future visits, but it would require help from the policy and template gurus here to set it up.

Your thoughts on this please :o) Cheers Pudding4brains (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggestions: Don't try to reinvent the wheel. Don't try to mix different licenses, or a CC-0 declaration with an attribution obligation, or any other attempt at creatively making compatible stuff that is normally not compatible. it will just totally confuse the potential reusers. To me, it seems what you want to do is exactly what a CC-by license can do, with an attribution that you will word to say exactly what you want to say. In the attribution under CC-by, you don't have to credit yourself if you don't want to and you don't have to present the museum as being the author of the photograph. You can write that attribution to say anything you want. The only thing that you are requiring with the CC-by is the presence of that credit, for example something like "Specimens of the Naturalis biodiversity center, Leiden", or "This image uses specimens of the Naturalis biodiversity center, Leiden", or "Specimens photographed at the Naturalis biodiversity center, Leiden" or whatever wording you want and you think will make the museum happy and is short enough to be easily reusable. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Museums often sell postcards or books including copies of their images, and while the collection and card is protected, the images that it contains are not, but retain the copyright status of each image. While you are contractually bound by your agreement to provide attribution where ever you use the image, no one else who uses that image is. I would recommend noting in the description that the image is from the Museum, yourself, but I do not see how anyone can be constrained to include that description who sees it and uses it - other than the fact that it is very helpful to know where the work actually exists, but where it exists is not a part of any copyright, as far as I can tell. Delphi234 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the question was that the photographer wants to require that the mention of the museum be retained when the image is reused, and is looking for a way to actually require only that, while not requiring anything else. He should be able to do that with a license. The obligation of the reuser of the licensed photograph is to the photographer, not to the museum, and the photographer would probably not be interested to sue a reuser who would not include the credit to the museum, but still, the principle remains that if the license from the photographer requires mentioning the museum, then in theory reusers should include that mention. (We know that many reusers ignore the licenses anyway, but that's a different matter). -- Asclepias (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Asclepias. Adding an "institution" template as used here will help to highlight the museum from which the specimen is coming. Jee 02:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay folks, thanks for all the replies. I've now (quick&dirty) done this with it: File:Puncha_ratzeburgi_aberrations_-_collection_Naturalis.jpg.
The license terms (non human readable) seem to indicate that if the name of the author is supplied that it must be included in the attribution. This is not what I want, so the only way around that is not supplying an author name (or pseudo), which is actually technically and policy-wise impossible here, as WC requires me to truthfully state that it is my own work. So the solution is not "elegant".
The supposedly free licenses, be it GFDL or Creative Commons, make it near impossible to do anything useful with the work released under those licenses. If you care to do exactly as the license requires that is. Which is exactly why all my work is PD/CC0. All the attribution, linking, license mentioning etc etc would make it totally impossible to create a collage such as the example here if you would care to do so from CC-licensed work by others (not your own images). I was looking at creating my own template, using some cc-by icon, but the as the icon is licensed under a more severe license (cc-by-sa) than what it even stands for, I would need to include all sorts of bullocks for that license on the page just to be able to use the icon to indicate some other license. GFDL and CC licensing sucks big time. Sorry for the rant ;o)
If anyone feels I should handle things differently, be it due to policy/lagal issues or efficiency or whatever, pleas let me know.
Thanks and all that :o) Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of some related questions. Haven't some museums been inappropriately expansive in their claims to intellectual property rights. Haven't some museums made naive claims that their physical possession of artifacts give them ownership of the IP rights to that artifact -- even when the artifact is clearly old enough that the original IP rights expired, and the artifact is really in the public domain?
  • Can't we just ignore the claims of museums that have made bizarre assertions? Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Museums have a legal right to permit or not photography in their exhibits, and they can use that right to compel photographers to sign licenses that give them arbitrary control, up to and including signing over copyright to the pictures. The recourse photographers have is not to take photos there.
  • Or smuggle a camera in--in this day and age, it's virtually impossible for a museum open to the public to stop cell phones at the door. I don't know what recourse a museum has there, besides throwing you out, but it's a way to avoid signing a license.
  • In this case, they gave Pudding4brains permission to photograph in the museum conditioned on a signed agreement. I can see a court ruling that he had no right to release the photos under license that didn't demand citation, and thus any such licenses would be null and void. At the least, the museum would refuse to work with us.
  • No clandestine photos of public areas are going to equal what we get with proper equipment (like tripods) and getting full access to the collection. Asking for a line of credit beside pictures that were taken with the assistance of the museum is hardly a bizarre assertion that we should reject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 14[edit]

usage of KML script[edit]

I have copied and pasted two kml scripts in a personal test area. (User talk:Smiley.toerist/test area kml files)

  • How can these underlying kml files used in google maps links in Wikipedia articles be activated and maintained?
  • Can the google map link in the scripts be replaced with a more general script wherby the reader has the choice to activate other background maps such as Openstreetmaps. The same as used for Geocoordinates?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Something like that exists on en.wp: en:Template:Attached KML. You have to upload the files locally though. And I don;t know if any projects besides en.wp support this. --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I would have to adapt the kml script to deploy on other background maps than google maps. (xmlns= ....) It looks wastefull to apply the template to only one language wp, as it can be used in any wp. Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 15[edit]

Custom license marker[edit]

Hi. I noticed that {{Custom license marker}} is on many files but what is it good for? Anyone know? --MGA73 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I've often wondered too. Some knowledgeable person ought to prepare documentation explaining its purpose. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Same as above. Pinging Saibo who created the template, on the unlikely chance he still visits from time to time. Huntster (t @ c) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Colourising and replacing images[edit]

I'm alarmed to see that some colleagues, notably as part of en:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop, are colourising b&w images and overwriting the original. Recent examples are File:King Luarsab II of Kartli.jpg, File:King Archil.jpg and File:Chavchavadze 31-155 s.jpg (in the latter case, the b&w version already replaced a different image). The b&w originals are often historic documents. Overwrting them replaces the original on all projects and external sites that transclude them. Can we agree a clear policy that this is not to be done, and that colourised versions must be uploaded as new files, not overwriting the original? An example of such good practice is File:Sabinin. St George the Hagiorite colourised.jpg. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about colorizing old photos (if it looks good, at least), as long as in the file description it's clearly said that it's a modern colorized photo. Having said, the original photo should never be replaced by the new colorized photo. The colorized photo must be uploaded into a new file. --Lecen (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
While I agree with Andy Mabbett that these colorizations should be reuplaoded as new files and reverted, one thing makes this much less of a scandal than I first thought: These 1st two images are both derivatives — extracted / cropped off from an original that has been properly kept. (Not the case of File:Chavchavadze 31-155 s.jpg, whose file history shows three items which should all be reuploaded separately.) -- Tuválkin 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with colourising old photographs. It misrepresents history. There is no purpose served by creating colourised photographs of, say, Abraham Lincoln. It provides no useful information and misrepresents the image. As for the Luarsab II/ Archil of Kakheti etc images, yes, the engravings are derivatives from the original medieval works, but they are also historical works in their own right. Colourising them creates the impression that they are chromolithographs, which is very misleading. There needs to be some clear thinking about this. Are we going to create colourised film stills for b+w films? I hope not. It's one thing to represent the fact that a film, such as Casablanca, for example, has been colourised. It's another thing to create such images. The same applies to photographs. I can see no justification for the creation of this unspeakable thing: File:Mary Eristavi (crop) colorized.jpg or its new friend File:Mary Eristavi (color2).png. Compare them to the beautiful original photo File:Mary Eristavi (crop).jpg. Paul Barlow (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem with it, porovided that the original image is still available (no overwriting it); the image is here to illustrate someone/sopmething where ther color is present (as opposed to a PD image uploaded to represent itself); and the description page states clearly that the image was colorized. Abraham Lincoln wasn'r black-and-white, and a colorized image of him would presumably look more like he did than a blackj-and-white image. A film still would be here to represent the film; if the film was black-and-white, then the colorized image would not be a better representation of the film. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean by "the image is here to illustrate someone/sopmething where ther color is present". In many cases it does not illustrate anything but the fantasy of the colouriser. To say that the real Abraham Lincoln existed in colour is to wholly misunderstand the nature of images and what we get from them. There are two issues. One is that image is represented for what it is: a historical photograph, engraving or whatever. The other is that is does not represent something that is either useless, or potentially false. The editor who made File:Mary Eristavi (color2).png made up the colours. These images appear on google searches. Paul Barlow (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The colorized image is not a historical photograph; it is an artist's impression closely based off a historical photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Limiting myself to the actual question posed; Colourised images should never overwrite an original. The only potential exception I can think of is when the original was only uploaded in order to ask for a colourisation of it. I believe a discussion of the merits of colourisation itself is being discussed elsethread. Hohum (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You refer to discussion on en.WP about the use of colourised images in its articles; it's not relevant here, because each project can set its own policy. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Never mind what’s being discussed in w:en — this thread is about overwriting colorized images over their b/w originals, not the merits of colorization itself; if anything, Commons is way more permissive than Wikipedia when it comes to such matters, but feel free to open a thread about said merits here too. -- Tuválkin 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Er, that's what I said: "it's not relevant here". Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That’s right. Apparently I borked the indentation. -- Tuválkin 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Because nobody mentioned it yet: There is a template ({{retouched picture}}) for that.    FDMS  4    18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a more specific template, or parameter, and category, for colourised images? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please: We do need a kind of warning template for prospective users, saying something like «This color image was created from a monochrome original» (with a link to it), similar to {{personality}} and also to {{extracted}}. Simply saying it is a {{retouched picture}} is not enough — sometimes retouching is a mere cleanup of a dusty scan or a damaged photograph, while colorization is a derivative new work — its contents may be signficantly different and re-licensing may apply, too. -- Tuválkin 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Re-licensing won't apply in the US; both the recent Copyright Office report and their report on the decision to register colorized movies make it clear they won't register colorized pictures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thnking of the “viral” nature of licenses such as CC-SA or GDFL: Any derivative work, such as colorizing, must be licensed in the same terms as the original. Unlike restoring, colorizing is not “mere labour”. -- Tuválkin 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
In the US, colorizing is not a derivative work; it has no separate copyright from the original. There's no point in discussing whether it's “mere labour” in the US; it's an explicit ruling. That may not apply in the rest of the world, of course.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
You and I know that US copyright laws matter especially for Commons, but that is not evident for the casual contributer. Colorizing a black and white original should follow the ruling you mention, yes — that’s why a specific template should be created and applied — like I said, matters about licensing of the colorized version are relevant: If the colorizer wants to license s/his work under a new license, s/he’s out of luck and must be informed about it, as well as possible re-users. A specific template to tag colorized works could also be used as a cleanup tool, flagging files whose licensing is incorrectly more restrictive than their monochrome original’s. -- Tuválkin 12:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a new template for colorized images would be helpful. MjolnirPants (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 
I am the editor Pigsonthewing referred to in the OP. I uploaded colorized version over old images because I was asked to colorize those images, not to create separate, colored versions, and because I never gave a thought to the use of the image, only to the request itself. Despite the rather unproductive argument which ensued at en:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop, I agree that a policy of always creating new files when an existing file is modified in such a way is a good thing to have. I can find no mention of such a policy already, and so I think that WP and commons would be best served by using this thread to arrive at such a policy. To that end, I propose the following:
  • Works of art should only be colorized when doing so is part of an effort to restore the image, not to improve the image.
  • When an image used to illustrate some subject is colorized, it should be uploaded as a separate file and labelled as a colorized version.
I think that a way of communication this policy needs to be implemented as well. There is a header at the photography workshop that could be modified to show this and any other policies governing alterations to images used on WP. The problem is most likely to be solved by working to ensure that everyone is on the same page, not by berating or making demands of other users. MjolnirPants (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants:: There already is Commons:Overwriting existing files. Might be enough to add this to the header of the graphics lab? --El Grafo (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo:, Yes, adding a link to that would be a good idea. I'm not sure it's enough, though. I still believe there should be a policy regarding colorizing files, and that all policies relevant to requests made there should be linked. MjolnirPants (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You are not "the editor referred to in the OP", as I did not refer to a single editor, but to a trend among editors, plural. The argument on en.WP was unproductive, because in response to my polite request that you create new files when colourising, you told me to fix the issue myself. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If you intend to do nothing other than whine and complain, then please excuse yourself from this discussion. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It was said before, but it needs to be said again: Colorizations from monocrhome originals are perfectly acceptable as such in Commons, even for items whose substantive use in Wikipedia (any language version) would be abominable. So if the discussion in the English Wikipedia was «unproductive», here it will be even more so. -- Tuválkin 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy is undoubtably correct about uploading colourized images separately. And the more I think on it the more I agree with Paul too. These images appear on Google searches, and some of them arguably have negative EV. Perhaps there should be an equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria that deals with the poorest quality images/edits, so that they can be deleted/reverted by consensus? All too often, valid concerns about image edits (of all kinds) are seen as vitriolic by thin-skinned editors, and discussions descend into a prickly exchange in which uninvolved editors are unlikely to 'take sides'. It would be useful to be able to hand over the decision to another set of editors. Apologies if I'm drifting off topic. nagualdesign (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We sometimes use paintings of people who were dead when they were painted, as well as hand-painted postcards of b&w photos. People respond very strongly to color, and it turns some of those dull splotches of grey or brown into something that would actually attract readers' eyes. Especially if some research is done, these images can be very valuable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: I think your point about avoiding prickly discussions and side-taking is quite valid. It's unproductive to argue about the validity of certain edits. If, instead, we can reach a rough agreement on when such edits are appropriate, and a firm set of guidelines as to how they should be done, such discussions can -for the most part- be avoided in the future. Improper requests can be stopped before they are fulfilled and improper edits reverted without lengthy arguments if we can agree on standards which images must meet before being colorized, and standards which the colorized version must adhere to. That would be far better than a group of editors simply voicing complaints about certain edits without taking any steps to correct the problem. Note that despite the length of this thread, no-one has argued that overwriting images is an acceptable practice.
Also, you said "All too often, valid concerns about image edits (of all kinds) are seen as vitriolic by thin-skinned editors," I would like to point out that referring to edits as "abominations" and "unspeakable" is vitrolic, regardless of the thickness of one's skin. "The quality of this edit is quite poor," is a valid concern about an image edit, while "This is an abomination that should never happen!" is vitriol. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my original statement. You seem to be cherry picking individual words to be offended by, regardless of context. "Personally, I think unspeakable images such as this should never happen at all" is a valid concern, and I would gladly second that opinion. And "Creating the coloured abomination serves no more purpose other than creating a coloured-in version of a Julia Margaret Cameron photograph" is equally valid, IMO. I see no vitriol.
The world is full of all sorts of different people with very different sensibilities. Some people can be terse, others polite, and you just have to find a way of getting on with different personalities. If you're going to 'spit the dummy' whenever anyone words something differently to how you would have preferred, perhaps a collaborative project isn't for you. And if you honestly believe that "appending "please" to a demand does not make it less of a demand" then you're on a hiding to nowhere. nagualdesign (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Answer me this... Are you more concerned with ensuring this doesn't happen in the future, or ranting against me for doing somethign you don't disagree with? Your response indicates the latter, and if so, you're on the wrong site for that. Perhaps Facebook or a blog would be more appropriate. Do you have anything to actually contribute? MjolnirPants (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
"Answer me this"?! Sounds like a demand to me! Et cetera, ad nauseum. You can see how this going, right? Perhaps the point I was trying to make is that one can simply address the issue(s) raised by another user (especially one with a valid point that you agree with) rather than getting bogged down whining about the manner in which you were spoken to. But we digressed. The thing that actually concerns me is, as I said, not being able to pass contentious images/edits on to a group of uninvolved editors. My suggestion was that, just as with Featured Picture Candidates, a group of volunteers could arrive at consensus on a case-by-case basis through discussion, developing guidelines as they go. I'd gladly defer to the wisdom of crowds rather than engage in a one-on-one that's going nowhere. nagualdesign (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Umm.. Maybe this already exists, actually. I've just been reading Commons:Deletion policy and it seems like some of these unspeakable abominations could be dealt with under existing policies for being out of scope/not educationally useful. I'd still like to have somewhere that poor workmanship could be dealt with though. nagualdesign (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
A famous colorizing error was giving "Old Blue Eyes" brown eyes. Delphi234 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yikes! Do not overwrite the original, ever, and warn against article use when colors are guessed. For example, a reader might look at the photo/drawing of one of these kings in the article to decide whether he is wearing Tyrian purple, or some other color or dye with traditional regional significance, and if the colors have been guessed, this could entirely mislead the reader. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

bot work request[edit]

Hi, I need some categorizing work to be done by a bot. Whom and where can I ask for? Thanks sarang사랑 12:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Work requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thanks Sarang

Flickr geotag request[edit]

File:Birds (3167198086).jpg was originally posted on Flickr with a cc-by-sa-2.0 license, but without any location data. I posted a request to the photographer asking for location data, which he has provided with geotags, but he at the same time changed the license to © all rights reserved. I've added Flickr-change-of-license tag to the pic, BUT . . . this license change also means I can no longer use the Flinfo tool to extract the geotags from Flickr. I can't find any other way for downloading the geotags from the Flickr file. Can anyone help, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. On that file page on Flickr I see a link to a map: https://www.flickr.com/map/?fLat=57.933034&fLon=34.276313&zl=13&everyone_nearby=1 – are these numbers (57.933034 and 34.276313) not the latitude and longitude that can be put verbatim into {{location dec}}? darkweasel94 20:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is the right location, thanks. For whatever reason, I don't have that link appearing in my browser - the map opens as an internal pop-up without the latitude and longitude figures visible.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. MPF (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

File:Angel's Logo.png[edit]

I am not sure if the copyright rationale given for the File:Angel's Logo.png is correct. The uploader is claiming that they are the copyright holder, but the url address listed in the image leads to this page which is apparantly copyrighted by "Angel Sessions". The image appears to come from this page. I guess the uploader could either be Angel Sessions or her representative, but the same uploader has also uploaded quite a few other files, all of which have be flagged for deletion or some other problems. To me, it looks like this logo was taken from the aforementioned website and uploaded to commons entirely in good faith, but inappropriately as "own work". I am solely basing this assumption on the fact that all of the other files uploaded by this user, including File:Twitter-50x50.png, File:Facebook-50x50.png and File:Linkedin-50x50.png, have been uploaded using the same "own work" claim. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, Marchjuly. I've filed a deletion request. --El Grafo (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a closer look at this El Grafo. If you have time can you also look at "File:Amanda eliasch 2014.jpg" and "File:Amanda-Eliasch-2009.jpg". - Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

1.700 videos added[edit]

Johann Strauss arriving in Amsterdam (1931)
War vessel HMS Bristol in the port of Amsterdam (1973)

Hi all, At the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision we have in recent weeks uploaded another 1.700 videos of Dutch news reels from roughly the '20s until the '70s of the 20th century. Even though the more recent items contain Dutch commentary (and at present no subtitles are available) there is also a considerable amount of silent footage which could very well be used on other Wikipedia language versions. For some items English metadata is already available. We would highly appreciate the use of these items in articles on Wikipedia, also to 'scale' the discussion about the role of video on Wikipedia in general. Only 0.12% of all articles on enwiki contain videos! And with nearly 4000 video's on Commons, the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision provides 8% of all video on the platform. Even though we are pleased to be the largest provider, we also acknowledge that this is mainly due to the fact that there is so very little video being offered on Commons. It was the videoonwikipedia.com initiative that stated: "Motion! Videos can explain, clarify, and engage like nothing else." I hope that when Wikipedians use this collection they can illustrate this point and inspire other audio-visual archives and producers of video to, where possible, make their material available on Commons. 85jesse (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Great to have all these videos in Commons, but this is the one wrong place to call for their use in other projects — you need to tell that in those projects’ VPs and WCs and other such generic discussion boards. What Commoners must do is to categorize our videos, so that they are easy to find by people researching media items for any given subject. Lets do that! (Although categorizing video and audio is way more time-consuming than categorizing images.) -- Tuválkin 19:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Watermark[edit]

We received an "informal" opinion on Removal of watermarks from Commons images from the WMF legal team. (see the notification above.) We discussed this matter at Commons_talk:Watermarks#m:Wikilegal.2FRemoval_of_watermarks_from_Commons_images and most people suggested that we must stop encouraging/advising people to remove watermark until we get a different opinion from the legal. Currently two of our templates are not only advising people to remove watermarks, they state doing it is fully legal. This is directly contradicting with the opinion of the legal. So we need to take immediate measure to either stop the use or rewording of these templates. See the discussion. Please keep all the comments on that DR. (as a single place) Jee 12:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata property for Commons Creator templates[edit]

The wikidata:Property:P1472 may now be used to add details of a person's "Creator" template to their Wikidata biography. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy!
Note that this new property should always be used instead of direct sitelinks to the Creator template. A list of Wikidata items (currently 5) that do contain direct sitelinks to Creator templates can be found at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons/Phase 1 progress/Links/Creator, together with links to SQL queries that anyone can run to produce updated lists. Jheald (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 17[edit]

upload a page to wikepedia[edit]

How can I upload a profile to wikepedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmick98 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 September 2014‎ (UTC)

This is the Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in creating a new article on the English Wikipedia, a good place to ask for help would be w:Wikipedia:Articles for creation. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cats for photos of unnotable wikimedians[edit]

Are categories of wikimedians shown on photo ok per PS and so on? I mean of those who are not notable to have a Wikipedia/Wikiquote article about them. We've got plenties of photos with users from wikimeet-ups, wikicons, even wikiexpeditions (thought users are supposed to make photos of objects but not themselves in the latter) - I think they should have cats like Category:Photos showing User:Example or just Category:Photos of User:Example. I've seen such IIRC but are they really allowed? If yep then it's work to be done to fill them :) --BaseSat (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don’t know whether there is a guideline for these categories, but de facto, they exist, see Category:Wikimedians and its subcategories (called [[Category:User name]] or [[Category:Real name]]). But I’d hesitate to create such categories for other people without asking them. It’s a difference between a photo that only shows you and a photo that is linked to your user name or real name. ireas (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Well about real names I agree but about nicks I'm not so sure. If you go to wikimeetup and say there your nick and allow to be photographed then you definitely understand that a photo of you could be signed in wikimeeetup's report (or similar stuff for other wikievents) or just on filedesc - actually what's the point in doing it otherwise. Would be nice to hear another opinions :) --BaseSat (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest caution. I recall several past instances where Wikipedians asked to be un-identified in group photographs, or photographs where they were caught unaware, and this is a courtesy we would expect to offer even if they did originally give permission. In general, we should keep in mind that there are other tools, like profiles on user pages, Google+ or on Facebook, if any contributor wishes to make themselves easily identifiable. These other tools have the benefit of (mostly) quietly offering the user control over their image if they ever stop using their account and want to drop old photographs, on Commons that is not always an option. -- (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here. Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#India Against Corruption logo Thank you! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

"File:Amanda eliasch 2014.jpg" and "File:Amanda-Eliasch-2009.jpg"[edit]

I've come across some files which were uploaded as "own work", but which might have been taken from somewhere else. Is there anyway to verify if either File:Amanda eliasch 2014.jpg and File:Amanda-Eliasch-2009.jpg are actually each respective uploader's own work. One of the files was nominated for deletion here and the result was "keep"; the keep rationale assumes the photo was the uploader's "own work", but doesn't indicate the existence of any proof of the image actually being the uploader's "own work". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The main reason to accept our claims of "own work" is assuming good faith, because "own work" is nearly impossible to prove, but proving copyvios is easy: you just need to find where the image has been copied from.
Anyway, according to deletion request, the article where the image was (is) used is self promotional. Therefore, it's quite likely that the image was made with collaboration of subject to be used in Wikipedia, and I no see strong reasons to doubt of authorship unless some evidence is found.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

YouTube creative commons interview of Amanda Eliasch useful to us?[edit]

I googled Amanda Eliasch, saw that wikipedia has an [[en:Amanda Eliasch] article, and searched for additional creative commons images of her. Among the hits was a YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNo6VmbT7Pg -- marked as creative commons.

  1. YouTube allows uploaders to release their contributions as creative commons? I didn't know that. Their summary of CC doesn't say anything about "non-commercial", so is this considered a "free" license?
  2. The videos commons allows have to be in a non-proprietary free format, so, if a YouTube video was under a free license, and was in scope, it would have to be converted into a free format first -- correct?
  3. Screenshots from this video would also be creative commons?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See Commons:YouTube files. Like all files, whether or not a creative commons license is acceptable depends on the type. Note that youtube's parent company are the people developing the (free) webm video standard, so some videos on youtube could even be in a Free format (Although recently youtube has moved to "DASH" which makes things harder to download). Screenshots are generally a derivative work. They would probably be licensed the same as the video. Bawolff (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ans 1: Some youtube videos are CC BY 3.0 licensed [2]. Jee 09:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

German train station categories[edit]

(I also started this discussion on the German forum.)

I want to discuss German train station categories. Currently, most categories have a name like Bahnhof Sometown, where Bahnhof is the German word for train station. This contradicts the naming rules in Commons:Categories: Category names should generally be in English. They are also not proper names and the word Bahnhof is not appropriate for an international platform like Commons. I think there are two alternate naming options:

  • Sometown Süd (für unique station names) and Sometown (train station) (for ambiguous names), i.e. the category is named after whatever appears on the train station sign, with disambiguation if needed
  • Sometown train station

I prefer the first option. Another question are proper named that include the word Bahnhof, like Berlin Hauptbahnhof (literally Berlin main station). Do we use the German proper name or the english translation. Personally, I prefer the first option, because it means we have clear rules: The category name is the same as the station sign (+disambiguation if necessary). In this case even the article on English Wikipedia is named Berlin Hauptbahnhof. Also, what about Cologne main station, aka Köln Hauptbahnhof? --Sebari (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

en:Köln Hauptbahnhof :-). We could make our life real easy if we just leveraged the work that went into choosing the en.wp article names (at leas for those subjects where an en article exists). --Dschwen (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Disagree with Dschwen, train station names can be different on Commons and en.WP (for example, I think that most train stations are actually called railway stations there). The "train station" in category names isn't there for disambiguation purposes, but an essential part of the name, and therefore shouldn't be put in brackets. And, central stations are called main train stations on Commons. My suggestion: [name] train station and [name] main train station.    FDMS  4    22:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not "main train station". If the name in the timetable is "Köln Hauptbahnhof", then the exact string "Köln Hauptbahnhof" should also be in the category name (non-Latin scripts should be transliterated though). I don't really see much merit in mass-changing such a scheme (note how France has Category:Gare de Menton and such), but I will note that if the common element of such category names is at the beginning rather than the end, that makes it much quicker to categorize into these categories using HotCat because you can then define shortcuts like #bf for "Bahnhof". darkweasel94 13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It´s not broken, so don´t fix it: An estimated 95 percent of the German railway station categories are very consistently named in the form "Bahnhof X" as this is understood to be a proper name. As all of them are categorized in a "Train stations in Y" category, a descriptive English addition to each individual category seems rather unnecessary. I appreciate the category structure being English, but on the level of individual objects, the actual names in the most common form should be used. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving files into English Wikipedia from Russian Wikis[edit]

Hi, I've been advised to post an image here I would like to have converted into usage file for English language Wikipedia. The image is Файл:Madamin-bek.jpg but if someone can advice me how do this myself I will try to add other images myself. Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a tool, CommonsHelper/Move-to-commons assistant which you can use for transfer. But you need to check the copyright status of ru:File:Madamin-bek.jpg, if it is compatible with Commons licences, Template:PD-scan etc. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The image on ru.wikipedia claims PD-70 on the basis of having been taken in Russia before 1944 (the date is in 1920). The photographer and source aren't listed. I suggested Monopoly31121993 come here to ask for advice on whether this use of PD-70 is accepted these days on Commons. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Atlasowa, and Amble, thank you for your help. Sadly I couldn't figure out how to perform the upload. I typed the name of the file (:ru:File:Madamin-bek.jpg) but I got this message ("This image has no verificable good license, and can thus not be uploaded to commons through this tool."). I do think that Amble is right and since the image is 94 years old it qualifies for the public domain but I'm still not sure how to go about uploading it (and similarly PD images) to commons. Is there a help page that explains how I can upload these? Thanks again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

W.W.11[edit]

If there is anyone who would like to know what it was like growing up during the blitz in London drop me a line I was originally a Gael then moved to London so that my Pappa could work at Bletchley Park then on from there I warn you I can chat the hind leg off a donkey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta Adair-Denham (talk • contribs)

CSIRO ScienceImage bulk upload[edit]

Hi all. I'm in the process of running a bulk upload of Category:Photographs from CSIRO ScienceImage which will total ~3500 images. They're great pictures including some unusual subjects, and the majority would be of use in wiki projects. My auto-categorization is pretty poor (based on unthinking conversion of their keywords). So I'd appreciate any help in categorization or usage. CSIRO will announce the collaboration when the upload is complete, so it will look even more impressive if some are in use by then. --99of9 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you re-think your approach? Based on a random sample of one, where it has 6 redlinks and no existing categories, this does not seem to be working out that well. 3,500 is a modest number to play around with, so it should be possible to identify the most common keywords found in the text, or map the CSIRO categories to something more useful than adding "in Australia". In the past I used test batches to drive the production of a spreadsheet of matches which could then be used for batch "housekeeping". I suggest you move the current red-links to a list of keywords in the description and use these as a source for VFC or similar against the bucket category.
If in doubt, I recommend creating a project page on BATCH so that you can "show your workings" and in the long term people can chip in with cooperative suggestions for improvement. -- (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll take another look when they're uploaded. Once they're on wiki I expect I can get the common categories sorted pretty quickly with cat-a-lot/hotcat/AWB, and some of the redlinks should probably be blue. I don't think there's any harm in having redlinks in the meantime - it just makes them less findable until then, and proper category/keyword maps would take me a lot longer to implement. What is VFC? --99of9 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Help:VisualFileChange.js Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki[edit]

Please, add interwiki to Category:Darba: [[cs:Darba]], [[lt:Darba]] and [[ru:Дарба]]. This is disabled for me (by unexpected error). Thank You. --Kusurija (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Have a nice day, Kusurija! --Atlasowa (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the same problem is for me (why) with all categories of Lithuanian rivers/rivulets. Can someone help me? Thank You. --Kusurija (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually categories should not be linked with articles ans vice versa. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Just add the Wikipedia link in the category page, instead of as an interwiki list. Only one needs to be used because all the rest are linked through the language links. Delphi234 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. If there was a page for it on Commons that could be added to the interwiki links though. Delphi234 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Convert to SVG need a tiny RfC!?[edit]

Hello, there is a small "fruitless disagreement" on the rudimentary using / position / correct placing on the file desc. So it is appropriate to make an RfC? (I personally have never done this before but this RfC thing seems very useful?) User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose a standard location for all maintenance templates (either top or bottom of the file). This prevents double usage which I have seen several times. The same applies to maintenance categories (such as "Maps needing South Sudan political boundaries"). Karlfk (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I started to recommend putting them after the description, but then looked at the template and realized that it really does not matter where it is located. Delphi234 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Full image AND a cropped version?[edit]

I'm uploading a WWII Army Air Force photo. It was mounted on a card that carries all the original identifying marks. I'd like to upload the version with the card so it can be seen, but only use the actual image within it in my wiki article. I'd prefer not to upload two photos, is there a way to have a single page have both and be able to link to either one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way to go about it is to upload both, then link each to the other with the | other_versions parameter of {{Information}}. -- Tuválkin 14:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The User:We hope method is to first upload the full scan with all info, then upload the cropped scan as a new file version under the same name. The full image is available in the version history for those that want to access it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation not appearing[edit]

This File:Alaska RaceComposition2005 PieChart.svg has translations added, mostly to add a decimal point instead of a comma in the percentages, and when it is used as a thumb it works,
Language not specified
and if the language is specified,
English specified
but not on the file page when English is selected from the drop down box. Japanese works and Chinese, but not English. If your browser is set to a default language other than English this might display properly in English for you. English uses the default for the title, but a translation for the legend values. In other words our rendering works for different languages, but not on the file page. How is the rendering done for the file page, and how is that different from any other use? The various sizes that you can select all work properly. I tried uploading a new version with English, and it did not seem to work so I reverted to the old version, and now it does work, but I might have being seeing an old version both times because of the cache.

As a separate issue, the default is not showing in the drop down box, so I can not see what the image would look like in de, pl, es, fr, and any other language that uses the default, because it is not showing default as a selection in the drop down box (those languages all use "Alaska" as the name of the state). So basically, if a default is used with switch, default needs to be included in the drop down box.

No default:
     <switch>
          <text systemLanguage="en, zh">69.2</text>
          <text systemLanguage="de, es, fr, pl">69,2</text>
     </switch>

     <switch>
          <text systemLanguage="de, en, es, fr, pl">Alaska</text>
          <text systemLanguage="zh">阿拉斯加州</text>
     </switch>

Default, but does not appear in the drop down box for anyone using English, but it needs to appear, 
so that anyone using English can see that the default does not use a period, but uses a comma for the decimal point:

     <switch>
          <text systemLanguage="en, zh">69.2</text>
          <text>69,2</text>
     </switch>

     <switch>
          <text systemLanguage="zh">阿拉斯加州</text>
          <text>Alaska</text>
     </switch>

You can, though, see what say French looks like by adding ?lang=fr&title= in the URL after php and before the file name.[3] Delphi234 (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what isn't working in your first paragraph. What are you expecting to see, and what are you seeing instead? As for the second point, yes I could see how it might be appropriate to still have a (default language) option even if english (Which is the MW go-to default) is in one of the <switch>'s. As it stands, you'd have to do something like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alaska_RaceComposition2005_PieChart.svg?lang=Default Bawolff (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I am guessing that I just needed to hit "reload" to get the decimal points to show up (I was replacing one with commas with one that uses switch to select what to use). I uploaded the same file to Test.svg and it worked fine. ?lang=Default is not working for me - it should show commas as the decimal point, and does not force default to appear in the drop down box. Delphi234 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As a work around, for now I am just going to upload a version that has all of the languages that use "Alaska" for the name of the state for one of the percentages. Delphi234 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, guess it only works when you use lowercase d - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alaska_RaceComposition2005_PieChart.svg?lang=default (which is really just a hack - its looking for a language with code "default" which obviously doesn't exist so it falls back to actual default). Bawolff (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

recording[edit]

Hello, on this file, I hear a "boom" at the end, can you remove it please ? Fort123 (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't hear a boom at the end (at least not in Firefox 32 and Chrome 37). You could download the file and open it in an audio editing tool to see if you get the same results, and/or provide more information how to reproduce the problem. --Malyacko (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot of noise at the end of the file as the microphone or recording is shut off. This is corrected i.e. removed by adding a taper at the end so that it decreases to zero without that "boom". Normally a taper is added at the beginning for the same reason. Delphi234 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Comparison of no taper and a taper. File:Audio lead in and lead out taper.png Delphi234 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September 21[edit]

Fresh category members tool idea[edit]

Hi. I'd like to (and I'm almost in the process on) write a tool which would show latest category members -- with subcats, recursively -- for new page patrol purposes. It would be a web app where you type a wiki name and category name and get a list of category members sorted by time. Later on I'd have to implement pages (if there's too many) or limit the time frame. Is this worth doing given that categories would move to Wikidata soon? If so, how soon? Thoughts? (P.S. Please distribute to sister projects village pumps). Gryllida 07:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is already something similar: User:OgreBot/gallery. But that only works for newly uploaded files, not for files that were added to the category later. It does sound useful, though its usefulness depends on the implementation; it should be able to do at least as much as OgreBot. I think in the WMF office hour on structured data (18:21:48) it was mentioned that categories will not move to Wikidata. The system you mean is supposed to be in addition to categories, not as a replacement for them. darkweasel94 08:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that the point is in the tool not only being able to track old pages which were added to a category recently, but in it also being able to query categories at any sister Wikimedia project. English Wikipedia new page patrol is a pain at the moment imo. Gryllida 08:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
About Wikibase, thanks, I see -- would be nice to see the things documented in more detail. Gryllida 08:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why we stop use Commons:Photography critiques?[edit]

I'm having "problems" cause I want opinions to improve some photos, and as the Commons:Photography critiques looks like a tomb, I send the photos to "Quality images", when then a received a feedback, some of then not satisfactory, as they say the problem not a possible solution (sometimes not even the problem, just "not good enough"), and the good answers became ridiculous because of the space to answers in QI.

What we could do to bring back that page? Link in the Main Page? Here with a explanation? ... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, I've thought about that as well. Maybe archiving the old discussions could be a first step to make it look less abandoned, then put up two or three new files for discussion. Maybe also launch a watchlist notice to invite people to visit (and watchlist) the page. People seem to have forgotten about it, so make it pop up on their watchlists more often by simply using it. --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not usefull to give the uploader not the right to delete his picture after he gets a big problem[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Totenkopf3.jpg

"The employer of the uploader told me, he shares the copy right with me, because I was his employee while I did produce the picture. He don t want the picture in wikipedia under my name Hans Bug (Diskussion) 09:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)"

When I need it, to fight for my copy right, I will do it. But not under the force of wikipedia against my will and against my employer. I love my job!^^ Please make a fast deletion for me. Thank you for this -- Hans Bug (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hans Bug, you did not say "I want you to remove my own photo" you said "they don't need that any-more".
So reinsert properly your request. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ups. My first argument was, i am the uploader and beg to delete the picture. Nobody other did need it last years. And my second argument was, its possible to do it, because another admin did this without any problems (and the other uploader didn't beg to do it.)
The same argument was here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Justiz1.jpg
What's the sense of this? Why do I need more than one good argument, when I need help?
And now I give a third very big argument to help me please. But nothing happens.^^ What's the spirit of wikipedia? -- Hans Bug (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hans Bug -- "Delete this image because I uploaded it", with no other meaningful reason given, is what's known as a courtesy deletion -- we don't have to do this, but sometimes we choose to do it out of abundance of goodwill. Assuming that the file is properly licensed and not problematic in other respects, the original uploader really doesn't have any "right" as such to peremptorily demand deletion. AnonMoos (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Omg! What a horror! The uploader makes the work for wikipedia, he declares the license, he has the accountability. But why he has no power? The administration has all the power and no liability for anything. And suddenly you are the supplicant, because you have a big problem with your employer and you risk your job for nothing if you don't have the right to revise a mistake. And to be friendly to a user is not a part of the administration in this situation?
You want that I loose my job for wikipedia and for a picture nobody did need all the years? That is what you want to tell me? And you want to tell me, this is a good system for wikipedia to do this? How to understand this? -- Hans Bug (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Why don´t you simply tag it as a copyright violation with {{copyvio|Uploader does not own the rights necessary for release under GFDL}}? This should lead to a speedy deletion within a very short time. It clearly isn´t a case of courtesy deletion but an obvious copyright issue. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted this image as a courtesy and/or copyright violation. It wasn't in use, I don't see the harm in deleting it when the uploader is so clearly unhappy about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) I made me very unhappy, all time i did tell nothing else here. -- Hans Bug (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this audio recording public domain?[edit]

TLDR: There's a set of valuable audio files from a vinyl record of the famous Ukrainian signer Modest Mentsinsky (died in 1935). The musical compositions themselves are in public domain, but is the recording too? And can a digitized copy of a public-domain vinyl recording be copyrighted? --YurB (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • If the vinyl is public domain and the digital is a faithful reproduction, I can't see where a new copyright would arise (unless Ukraine has the "sweat of the brow" rule, which as far as I know only exists in the other UK). So the key would be whether the vinyl recording is in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks! If the singer died in 1935, is it possible for the vinyl to be still copyrighted? --YurB (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    If the recording was created in the Ukraine, {{PD-Ukraine}} would seem to imply its out of copyright. Bawolff (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    The recordings might have been made in Stockholm as the label on the vinyls say "сьпіває Модест Менціньский, /ц./ к. надвійрий співак, Штокгольм" = Stockholm, but it may also just refer to the city where Mentsinsky lived, because you can find on the label also the following text: "Record Manufactured by the Gramophone ...little hard to read (Czechoslovakia) ... Aussig". --YurB (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Recordings in the EU have a flat 70 years from publication; I don't know if that's relevant here. In the US, it's under copyright until 2067.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
URAA issue? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

September 22[edit]

September 23[edit]