I wanted to replace USGS_world_oil_endowment.png with a smaller version (better compression, same quality) but my account is too new. I uploaded the new image as USGS_world_oil_endowment2.png --[[User:GMPotato|GMPotato]] 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to replace USGS_world_oil_endowment.png with a smaller version (better compression, same quality) but my account is too new. I uploaded the new image as USGS_world_oil_endowment2.png --[[User:GMPotato|GMPotato]] 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
== Releasing images taken by family members with their consent but without revealing their details ==
I have uploaded a few images to Commons and/or Wikipedia under a free licence. So far, all photos have been taken by me. As I had taken the photos myself, I was able to release them either as {{tl|PD-self}} or {{tl|GFDL-self}}.
Supposing my husband or brother-in-law or father takes a photo for me, with my camera, and is happy for me to release it into the public domain. The upload page suggests that I have to name the author of the file, and e-mail the permission to permissions@wikimedia.org. Not everyone in my family uses a computer or has e-mail, and I think I'm the only one with a Wikipedia or Commons account, so I can't attribute it to their "usernames". I really don't want to give my full name or theirs, and yet I know that if I took the photo myself, it would suffice just to say that it was taken by ElinorD.
There are a few examples of photos that I'd like to upload, but that I wouldn't be physically able to take myself. For example, if I am kneading and folding bread dough, someone in the family would have to take the photo of the position of my hands.
How do I licence a genuinely-free, non-professional photo taken by a close family member (with the intention of releasing it into the public domain), without revealing his or her (or my) personal details? Thanks. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well if the intent is to release it into the public domain, you might as well state that ''you'' took it. That may not be actually illegal (PD releases ALL rights including attribution) and I somehow doubt your relative will sue you for doing so. Alternatively you could argue that they were "working" for you and waived all their rights on the image to you; . That's a couple quick and dirty solutions, I'm sure more detailed and considered ones will follow. ;)--[[User:Nilfanion|Nilfanion]] 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::I think you are being a little picky (better picky than violator tough!). If my girlfriend takes a picture of my left foot it'll be the same if I use a tripod. It'll be the same if during a trip one of the pictures were taken by her. So, if a close relative takes a picture you can upload it as your own, we just should use our "Common" sense. [[User:Dantadd|Dantadd]]<big>[[User talk:Dantadd|✉]]</big> 00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:35, 3 March 2007
The Wikimedia Commons help desk in other languages:
This Help desk is a forum for questions and help on
How to use the Commons
Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Please sign your question by typing four tildes (~~~~). In order to get quick answers consider the following points:
I came across the above image which is currently licenced under a CCBYSA-self licence. The image is a scan of a Norwegian driving licence and I would therefore suspect it comes under the copyright of the Norwegian government. I'm not sure what copyright the govt. of Norway use and whether the image should be changed to show fair use or public domain. Alexj200212:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the owner of that image, and I am not sure about what the rules says, and I am not sure I would like it if the image was to be changed to a public domain image. Anyways, if there are some rules that come into play becouse this is a govt. document, then this would most likely go for Image:Førerkort bakside.jpg too. I'll see if I find the time and info to sendt someone official an email and ask. -- Atluxity18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I link my website on my watertower to yours?
Thanks.
www.watertowerutscheid.eu
great day i hope that you have a safer wa
Dear friends I hope that you are well my name is William gottke I live in ca
I hope that all so day live in peace and that the people that are causeing us to to harm oneanother and that some how we can work together to help all the people live together with out thoose who would cause harm to the people us this world. I see that you have make great advances torwerds peace since we last spoke I hope that this brings greater peace to all people and that all good people of all nations will work together to stop those that are in our own ranks I am proud to say the the usa will always stand for peace and that together we can all live a better life. I my self am afraid of the bad guys but its not as bad as your great nation has it may I wish that you and yours will be safe I am just waiting for the day when I can feel safe in this world
Please have a great day
William gottke
Am I free to choose a free license?
I draw some coats of arms to illustrate the wikipedia pages about cities. I usually upload them with the GFDL/CC license. I found today that an other user replaced systematically the license, on every drawing of a coat of arms of Luxembourg, with one of his own creation specifically dedicated to Luxemburgish coats of arms. See for instance Bascharage, and my discussion with an other user here. Is it normal? What is the use to ask me to choose a license when I upload a picture of my own if somebody else can freely change this license? Bruno Vallette22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are doing is making a exact copy, or attempting to do so, of someone else's design (such as a coat of arms), you are not creating copyrightable content. Based on your recent contribution history, it looks to me that you've made SVG versions of various pre-existing Luxembourgish coats-of-arms; doing so does not give you any copyright interest and no say in the applicable license. The license under which the content may be used will be determined entirely by the relevant law applicable to Luxembourgish coats-of-arms (of which I am no expert, but there are others on Commons who are). Your efforts to create the SVGs are appreciated, but you do not thereby acquire droit d'auteur; you have no copyright interest in the resulting representation, and no authority to alter the conditions under which the image in question may be used. Kelly Martin23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Three remarks:
I am not making an exact copy of someone else's design, but generally making a drawing of my own from a mere description. Sometimes I have a model, but it is very rare I make an exact copy. Compare for instance Image:Blason_ville_lux_Lac-de-la-Haute-Sûre.svg and [1] and you will see I improved a lot the design of the pike.
If you did read the Luxembourgish law which they refer to, you probably found it is unrelevant to coats of arms of cities (it is only about national emblems).
I obviously did not claim any droit d'auteur since I chose a free license. I just do not understand what these free licenses mean if someone else can replace them by something else without my agreement.
It looks to me that there is sufficient creative expression involved here that you probably are entitled to claim a copyright. If that is the case, then you are entitled to decide the licensing, and it was inappropriate for another editor to alter that. Kelly Martin01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a common misunderstanding: copyright (droit d'auteur) is necessary for a free license; If you do not have the copyright, you can not specify a license. IN this case, that means:
If your work is creative, then you have the copyright automatically and, in the EU, permanently. You can then share this right, using a free license.
If you are creating mere reproductions, or a purly technical representation of something described by text, then there is no creativity involved, and you gain no copyright. In this case, you cannot apply any license, free or not. The images would be PD (if the original design is PD), and should be tagged as such.
So, AFAIK, you can claim copyright for making a graphical representation of an elaborate design, if you didn't reproduce/immitate an existing graphical representation. For very simple coats of arms (or a simple flag, like of Germany, for example), no copyright would apply. -- Duesentrieb⇌01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fuzzy derivative work case. The original coat-of-arms is subject to whatever copyright terms apply to coats-of-arms, whereas your nontrivial original modifications are subject to your own choice of license. Some licenses restrict the license of derivative works, like copyleft ones. Do we have a template for derivative works specifying both licenses? Dcoetzee02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The coats of arms in this case are probably in the public domain; if this is the case, he is free to choose whatever license he wants. In such cases, I normally indicate in a comment on the image that the included content is in the public domain for whatever reason, without using a template. We don't seem to have templates for indicating the copyright status of incorporated works. Kelly Martin03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all your answers.
The border between a creative work and a purely technical representation seems difficult to define clearly, since — at least — the shape of the shield, the tincture (azure is blue, but it can be all the panel of blue, from dark to light) and the precise dimensions of the different objects can be freely chosen by the drawer, in some measure.
Anyway, when I have good reasons to consider that the work is creative, how can I avoid that an other editor alter the license I chose? The most natural way should be to talk with this editor, but my experience of yesterday showed me that it is not always possible to discuss calmly with someone who is so sure of himself without anything serious to support his opinion. Bruno Vallette11:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, certainly drawing a coa from description does not involve sufficient creativity. In fact, CoAs are a very good example of far copyright goes: What may be protected is the essence of the CoA that is represented by the description. How to color it and how to draw the details is not creative, but mere design. It may require a lot of skill and labour, but mere skill and labour, as well as mere design, is not copyrightable. Your work may enjoy automatic design protection, such as granted in the EU for three years after publication, but CC-by-sa and GFDL are copyright licenses that are not applicable to design. Comepare this to the situation with typefaces. They are not copyrighted either, since they are mere design of existing symbols and letters. PS: "purely technical representation" can of course be copyrighted! Please abandon your myths about copyright. --Rtc11:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone give me an actual list of "ogg" VIDEO files that are used in Wikipedia articles? Not interested in these files that are associated with any User, but in ACTUAL acticles so I can see some example usages of these type video files actually being used. I am suspicious there are very few (if any) such ACTUAL articles that incorporate these type files. Can someone give me say a few dozen actual examples of usage now from apparently some 400 such files that have been uploaded. I am NOT very sophisticated in this type of searching, so I am just looking for an actual list of such articles that I can just go look up. Please, someone help me!!! Thanks alot. --Doug Coldwell00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That info isn't easy to find. Here's a list with videos on commons, by use on wikimedia wikis. I generated this by asking the toolserver database for all videos, and then running that list through CheckUsage. Note that the english wikipedia is missing because of technical difficulties. Even without en:wp, i count more than 400 uses (in the main namespace) of the about 550 videos we have.
About the structure of that file: It is a tab separated table with sections. There is a section for each wiki, and in each line, the first name is the name of an article on that wiki. After that is a list with videos used on that page.
That is great! Thanks. I am looking at these videos now in my research of this pertaining to "ogg" video files. That was MOST useful. Sometime in the future, should you also get the English parts; please feel free to make a link and drop onto my Talk Page. I would appreciate that. Thanks again for this work as I realize it is NOT easy information to get. FYI: the reason I am doing this research is because I am having trouble with an editor that will NOT allow me to enter a couple of "ogg" videos into an article as an "edit" improvement. I have worded the entry as neutral as possible, however he will still not allow me to enter in videos. He says videos are "original research". However from these hundreds of videos you are able to show me, it looks like they are used on articles all the time. Thanks again for your work on this. --Doug Coldwell15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to say I have looked over many of these videos. They are great! Should you get those missing English ones, please either put a link here so I can look at them -OR- put on my Talk Page. I am really interested in getting them also. Thanks again for your work on this!! Appreciate it. --Doug Coldwell21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes thumbnailing doesn't work right, and some times bad files get stuck in the cache. Sometimes doing a ?action=purge on the image page can help. Reuploading the image can usually unstick it. However, this image should probably be made into a SVG. --Gmaxwell23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah just noticed this page is in chronological order so moved this down... and also provided wrong file name last time :-) accidents happen ... --Miko3k16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir, I would like someone to give me information in French about how to upload pictures. I may be a bit slow to understand how to insert a new picture on a new page with the right key words and comments in order to find it again with a simple "Search". Because, I can retrieve my works with "my contributions list" but I cannot do it with the Search button. If the answer is reallay simple, feel free to give it in English. Cheers. --Brunodesacacias11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Des modifications récentes ne sont pas visible directement dans la recherche. If faut attendre quelque jours où une semaine avant les modifications sont visible dans la recherche. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please forward all communications you have had with the copyright holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please also identify in your email the URL of the image(s) on Wikimedia Commons to which the permissions grant applies. An OTRS volunteer will review the correspondence and make the appropriate determination. Kelly Martin12:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi commoners! Could somebody extract the right ghost from the pic and put it in a upright position (ca. 93°), please? Thanks a lot! Mattes14:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image editing request II
Suvarnabhumi International Airport Bangkok (full view)
Hi commoners, would there be a problem uploading a combination of a small picture and a short text in a certain language? F.e. something like this, but as a whole image, and of course without any licence violation?
The UN may want it widely circulated, but they wouldn't necessarily want it used commercially or for derivative works to be made; unless these are allowed, it won't fit Commons' definition of "free" (libre). Copyright notices on other parts of the UN site (such as press photos) typically only allow non-commercial use. --Davepape20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace image
I wanted to replace USGS_world_oil_endowment.png with a smaller version (better compression, same quality) but my account is too new. I uploaded the new image as USGS_world_oil_endowment2.png --GMPotato19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Releasing images taken by family members with their consent but without revealing their details
I have uploaded a few images to Commons and/or Wikipedia under a free licence. So far, all photos have been taken by me. As I had taken the photos myself, I was able to release them either as {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}.
Supposing my husband or brother-in-law or father takes a photo for me, with my camera, and is happy for me to release it into the public domain. The upload page suggests that I have to name the author of the file, and e-mail the permission to permissions@wikimedia.org. Not everyone in my family uses a computer or has e-mail, and I think I'm the only one with a Wikipedia or Commons account, so I can't attribute it to their "usernames". I really don't want to give my full name or theirs, and yet I know that if I took the photo myself, it would suffice just to say that it was taken by ElinorD.
There are a few examples of photos that I'd like to upload, but that I wouldn't be physically able to take myself. For example, if I am kneading and folding bread dough, someone in the family would have to take the photo of the position of my hands.
How do I licence a genuinely-free, non-professional photo taken by a close family member (with the intention of releasing it into the public domain), without revealing his or her (or my) personal details? Thanks. ElinorD23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the intent is to release it into the public domain, you might as well state that you took it. That may not be actually illegal (PD releases ALL rights including attribution) and I somehow doubt your relative will sue you for doing so. Alternatively you could argue that they were "working" for you and waived all their rights on the image to you; . That's a couple quick and dirty solutions, I'm sure more detailed and considered ones will follow. ;)--Nilfanion00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being a little picky (better picky than violator tough!). If my girlfriend takes a picture of my left foot it'll be the same if I use a tripod. It'll be the same if during a trip one of the pictures were taken by her. So, if a close relative takes a picture you can upload it as your own, we just should use our "Common" sense. Dantadd✉00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Image:Optizmied.svg removed as redundant file. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
