Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:12, 28 July 2007

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/05.

Please note:

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 probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
Have you read our FAQ?
For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
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).
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:

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

#	💭 Title	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	What issues remain before we could switch the default interface skin to Vector 2022?	15	13	Enhancing999	2024-05-16 19:25
2	Category diffusion, again	10	7	Ymblanter	2024-05-14 10:17
3	Flag of Minnesota	5	4	Gestumblindi	2024-05-17 19:11
4	Inkscape svg drawing no line-hatch shown with Firefox on Wikipedia Commons	9	3	Glrx	2024-05-14 19:13
5	Deleting images	4	2	Ser!	2024-05-14 12:02
6	Service categories in the various WikiLoves+ projects	10	5	RZuo	2024-05-15 12:02
7	I didn't find a map with the purpose I wanted	4	3	Broichmore	2024-05-21 19:58
8	Help with Flickr2Commons import	3	2	Adamant1	2024-05-15 05:52
9	Science and technology	6	3	Jmabel	2024-05-14 17:49
10	Image showing as 0 by 0 pixels in Wikipedia but entirely there in Commons	1	1	Bawolff	2024-05-14 22:11
11	Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC	1	1	MediaWiki message delivery	2024-05-14 21:21
12	Freeing the Freedom of Panorama for Mongolia and other changes	3	2	Chinneeb	2024-05-15 11:47
13	Name for this kind of images	3	2	PantheraLeo1359531	2024-05-15 13:21
14	Javascript users needed	1	1	RZuo	2024-05-15 11:54
15	Art about Holodomor	6	4	Kazachstanski nygus	2024-05-16 16:45
16	Nordisk Film	6	3	Yann	2024-05-16 20:57
17	Cat-a-lot disabled for search results?	5	4	Enhancing999	2024-05-16 19:57
18	Wrongly uploaded file.	2	2	Jmabel	2024-05-17 14:52
19	Page in PDF and page in the physical book	2	2	Jmabel	2024-05-17 22:16
20	Editor trying to rename hundreds of images to include the location	4	2	Nihonjoe	2024-05-20 18:10
21	Editing a file's metadata	3	3	Prototyperspective	2024-05-18 15:06
22	Mandatory captions	9	5	Ymblanter	2024-05-20 21:47
23	Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering	2	2	GPSLeo	2024-05-18 12:04
24	Expain to me, please, what I have done wrong	8	6	Jeff G.	2024-05-19 01:52
25	Top right icon for POTY finalists and winners	2	2	Basile Morin	2024-05-19 08:03
26	Transcriptions of uploads at Commons	4	3	Adamant1	2024-05-20 01:04
27	Is there a page or list of wikipedia entries that are considered examples to follow?	2	2	Jeff G.	2024-05-20 10:57
28	Verify the existence of paintings	6	4	Alexpl	2024-05-20 15:43
29	Новый интерфейс загрузки	3	3	Jmabel	2024-05-20 17:04
30	Identity yheft	2	2	Jmabel	2024-05-21 01:36
31	Bugs in Upload Wizard	3	3	Jmabel	2024-05-21 01:38
32	Strange behaviour of PDF previewer	1	1	ZandDev	2024-05-20 21:56
33	Photo challenge March results	1	1	Jarekt	2024-05-21 03:32
34	Rename a file	2	2	Broichmore	2024-05-21 19:31
35	Interruption from certain bnwiki editors in wikimedia commons campaign	1	1	Mrb Rafi	2024-05-21 18:49

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals ■ Archive
How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Proposal to prohibit political restriction templates (5 February 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) User talk:湯崩正海#Image Tagging File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgとUser talk:湯崩正海#File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgで議論しています。皆様のご意見を募集しています。是非、ご参加ください。(2 November 2023)
Template: View ■ Discuss ■ Edit ■ Watch

June 17

Default use of ResizeGalleries

Currently, all galleries and categories display a fixed number (4 by default) of thumbnails per row. That looks strange and "unprofessional" on larger monitors/screen resolutions. Now, Platonides and myself have written a JavaScript tool that rearranges thumbnails on page load/resize to use the whole width of your browser window. You can test it on this page (vs. original layout).

During discussion on the mailing list, we tested it in many browsers (Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari, Konqueror), and it seems to work all right. I propose to include it into the default commons JavaScript, that is, it will become standard for everyone. IMHO, this is how galleries should have worked from the beginning, but it was far too obvious to implement it ;-) Some of us (programmers:-) work on a JavaScript framework for user options, so if you don't like it, you'll (soon) be able to turn it off.

Please check the above page and report if you like it or not, or if it doesn't work in your browser. Thanks, --Magnus Manske 08:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to people who don't have Javascript enabled?

They see what is currently the default. Serves 'em right ;-)

What happens to users who aren't logged in (i.e. IPs)? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should see the full JavaScript beauty of it, unless I prevent that (don't see a reason for that, though). --Magnus Manske 10:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this script. But before it is included in the default Commons Javascript, I'd personally prefer the problem of hard-coded thumbnail size be fixed. — Xavier, 12:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bug (and the other minor things on the talk page) are now fixed. --Magnus Manske 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea, I always thought 4 was stupid. It worked but me, but it only put 7 accross when I think it could have put 8. I'm using WinXP and Firefox 2.0.0.4. My monitor resolution is 1600x1200 and I have my taskbar on the left of the screen, about 100-150px wide. I can send a screenshot to show you what I mean if you'd like. MECU≈talk 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have complained about a horizontal scrollbar appearing because the last thumbnail in a row almost, but not quite, fits the window. As a result, the script is now a little more "conservative" than before, resulting in the effect you described. This is a "border case", an issue of a few pixels. I'm not sure how to resolve the one without the other, though. This might be fixed in the future, and should not seen as a reason to not set this up for everyone by default, IMHO. --Magnus Manske 09:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like the thumbnails to "fill the screen" as they do with this script, but wouldn't it be easier to do this using float:left as the Mayflower tool does? Väsk 17:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, but then we'd have to convert the TDs to DIVs, which is apparently not wanted. Also, it would mean to write a script to do that. Why write a new script when this one works fine? --Magnus Manske 22:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that a problem that I've seeing on the QI candidates pages for at least the last 5 days, may be caused by this change. The problem is that templates that render the descriptions for the gallery images are now 'randomly' just leaving tiny square coloured boxes (the color of the border that normally surrounds the text) - maybe the template is 'seeing' a very narrow width or something in which to render itself? Experimentation shows the effect is not dependant upon the individual image description (ie the content of the template) but on it's position across the page. This effect can also be seen in the archives for QI candidates (which all previously rendered ok). --Tony Wills 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renders properly with Javascript turned off. I'm using Firefox 1.5. --Tony Wills 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with the gallery resize you can disable it at Special:Preferences in the Files section. Just uncheck Resize gallery- and categorywidths to fit screen and click Save. --Dschwen 08:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that fixes it too, so that confirms the problem is caused by the gallery resize code --Tony Wills 09:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the code, it didn't handle tables in captions well, it basically deleted them but due to a race condition some survived. Please make sure your browser cache gets refreshed, turn the Gallery resizing back on and test! I currently have no IE, Safari, or Opera to test. --Dschwen 13:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you fixed the code? Maybe that is the reason why the "captions" do no longer show in my Galleries on my Commons User Page...
--L.Willms 07:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOGO's

In the Dutch pub someone pointed out Category:Logos. Many logo's in this category go beyond text in a general typeface. Aside from this, most of them will be trademarked, and as such do not comply with the principles as outlined in http://freedomdefined.org. Teun Spaans 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark is not copyright. Trademark restricts use of the mark for certain commercial purposes and must be registered for each use. For example, there is a school named McDonald's that does not infringe McDonald's trademark because McDonald's is a restaurant. Trademarks do not affect Commons' ability to host the files, which is mostly governed by copyright. Re-users are the ones who must worry about whether they violate non-copyright laws. Some images are free software logos, others belong to the US government, and yes I do see some unfree logos in there. Please nominate any suspicious ones for deletion and man I wish I had some Wikipedia drinking buddies like you have. -N 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the Foundation's licensing policy resolution says,

"Free Content License

"a license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works specific to licenses, as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0."

Additionally, Eloquence, one of the principal drafters of both the Definition and the Resolution (I think; don't quote me on that), offered clarification in the recent Board election (see this link), saying, in response to Lupo's question,

"Trick question: would you consider Image:Empire State Building3 Dec.2005.jpg or Image:HH Polizeihauptmeister MZ.jpg "free" works? They are properly licensed CC-BY-2.0 and CC-BY-SA-2.5, respectively",

the following:

"3) The licensing policy only makes reference to the licenses section of the Definition of Free Cultural Works. The definition of individual "works" is more strict, and I think it's acceptable that we cannot ensure that all media in Wikimedia projects are free of any legal restrictions whatsoever. However, when a work can reasonably be completely free without reducing the information value, we should strive to make it so".

So I think that it is safe to say that images, if they are free of copyright restrictions, but have other restrictions (in Lupo's examples, the two images have trademark and personality rights restrictions, respectively), are okay for Commons. --Iamunknown 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should worried about possible misuse too. I remember one image (combination of McDonalds logo and trash) was deleted due trademark misuse. Also too much subjectivity involved in definitions such "simple logo". Also potential clashes between country/international laws are possible.

I think taking in account trademark restrictions is good idea too (and assume such images not free). See Commons:Trademarks.

EugeneZelenko 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why take into account trademark restrictions and not for example personality rights or coat of arms related restrictions? -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually will be good idea to account these restrictions too. --EugeneZelenko 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would host only works that are totally free of restrictions; reastically, however, almost no work is totally free of restrictions, as every work is subject to moral rights. Additionally, if we forbid works restricted by personality rights, every photograph of a person would either be forbidden or would be censored so the person was not identifiable. I think it is best to keep the cut-off at copyrights, and to add disclaimer templates (i.e. {{Personality rights}} and {{Trademark}}) where appropriate to let reusers know that they probably want to consult an intellectual property lawyer before formally publishing content. --Iamunknown 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As more such restrictions allowed on Commons, so far away we are moving from can be used by anyone, for any purpose. --EugeneZelenko 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can be used by anyone, for any purpose is nice as an ideal, but not practically applicable. This means that we will have to delete all logos, living persons, images from users that have moral rights in their home country's copyright law, coat of arms, etc. I believe we should interpret can be used by anyone, for any purpose as freely as possible. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the trademarks, I also asked about the copyrights. As many of these logo's go beyond text in a general typeface, many of them will be copyrighted. I'll het back on the trademark issue later, after the holidays. Teun Spaans 07:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not archiving this thread. :-)
As for the copyright : i listed one of these logo's for deletion, when i get back from my second holiday i'll have a look at the rest: Coca Cola, IBM, and a few others.
And as for the trademarked logos: I think the mentioning of Personality rights by EugeneZeleko is a valid point. Coats of arms also have restrictions. The difference is of course that we adopted a policy against trademarked images and are now throwing it out of the window.
It seems to me that commons contains more and more images that have additional restrictions. One solution would be to ban these images from commons and leave them to the wikis which use them. They can create an EDP and have this approved by the wikimedia foundation. Another solution is to go with the suggestion of Iamunknown and have a warning in each image with additional restrictions to consult a lawyer before using the image. Generally speaking, I regret the inclusion of more and more images here with additional udage limitations. Teun Spaans 18:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some license tags: can a bot do this?

Most of the images in Category:Das Ständebuch (1568) seem to be marked with {{GFDL}}, which is ridiculous for material published in 1568. Presumably they should be {{PD-Old}} or some such. Can a bot fix this? Or does someone need to go through tediously by hand? - Jmabel | talk 05:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bot can do it. Try posting a request at Commons:Bots/Requests. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know about that page. - Jmabel | talk 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

Uploading images in Commons

Uploading unacceptable images (or other unacceptable media files) in Commons leads to important work for experienced users, then discontent for these new users which don't understand (or don't apply) our rules.

Grounds to the Commons rules are not intuitive, but have to be learnt, I think that new users would not be allowed to upload files, unless they could demonstrate to have some basic knowledge about copyrights and authorized licences in Commons.

This could be checked with a short quiz (about 10 questions). Beforehands, the user would be asked to study a lecture, where he (or her) could find the correct answers (general cases). If an user fails to pass the test, he would wait some period of time before to be allowed to redo it (however, it will not be the same quiz, because each question would be choosed amonst a set of questions about the same theme).

What do you think about the idea? --Juiced lemon 09:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that such extreme measure would discourage people from uploading images in the first place, which is a Bad Thing. The ground rules may not be intuitive, but they are very clearly laid out in the extended "upload file" wizard. Anyone bothering to read them will have no trouble in correctly uploading a file. Anrie 12:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is definitely to discourage people to upload images which will be deleted later. However, your remarks are pertinent, so we could affect to each user a quota of uploaded images by day, and the success to pass the quiz would allow to upload an unlimited amount of images (or media files). --Juiced lemon 13:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think we can save a lot of time by better identifying those who simply don't care enough to read two paragraphs before they begin uploading copyvios, and I think we can go a long way without hindering responsible newbies who do read the instructions. A large number of the copyright violations we see every day are "fair use" images copied from English Wikipedia. If we can identify these and prevent them from being uploaded, we should see a significant reduction in the number of copyright violations. This could be done by checking if the file being uploaded is identical to an identically named fair use-tagged file on English Wikipedia (or other projects which allow fair use) or to a file linked to in the image description. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It smacks of elitism. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Flickr review status nom) 07:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected pages do that, too. I think that we must not let a new user uploading tenths of images without control. --Juiced lemon 07:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support making new users pass a quiz before receiving upload rights, but I would make the quiz even simpler in that they only have to complete it, and it doesn't matter if they actually choose the right answer or not (either way they would read an explanation). See my draft. The idea of having a daily quota is a very good one.

A wiki should be a community of users with a common goal or understanding about the project. The way it is now, we have no way of making sure new users have been "socialised" into understanding the community goals before they upload. Both the new user and the admin's time gets wasted as inappropriate material has to be removed.

Another problem is the technical one of actually implementing such an idea. I fear that even if we could demonstrate solid community support for the proposal, it would still likely be months--years before we saw it in action. But that's no reason not to try, of course. We could get lucky. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a more lateral approach. Many sites and software licenses have an "I agree to the above terms" type button thats has to be clicked to proceed - BUT we have a twist, we present the uploader with a single multi choice question eg:

Commons requires free licenses because:
a)We have vested interests in protecting lucrative copyrights
b)We want to make your life difficult
c)We want users of our images to know they'll never receive an unwelcome bill or court case from using our images

(we have a large rotating bank of questions). They can try as many times as it takes to get a correct answer (so a room full of monkeys will succeed), but it could be educational and give the uploader pause for thought :-) --Tony Wills 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a lot of people click on the button “I agree to the above terms”, without reading the terms. Here, the quiz would be intended to make people read the “Commons lecture” in order to find the correct answers. It will be educational for the users who will prepare the test, too. --Juiced lemon 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people keep uploading eN fairuse images, why do you even allow people to select "Fair use" in the licence selector? Can't that redirect to a (sub)page somewhere that says "We don't take fair use here!" rather then uploading it and simultaneously sticking a "copyrightviolation" tag on it so someone has to come along and delete it? (My understanding may be out of date) 68.39.174.238 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... we don't have a "fair use" option in the license selector. We have some "I don't know" options which stick on no-license warnings. We don't have the technical possibility to stop an upload from happening once someone clicks 'upload'; we can just mark that upload based on what options they choose.

And the problem of people thinking Commons accepts fair use is a very small one. In general the problem is people not caring about copyright at all. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'm thinking of something else. I guess the question is if stopping people uploading under "Don't know" will do any good or just cause people to make up nonsense. 68.39.174.238 19:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Museum photography policies that aim to prevent commercial use

Many museums have photography policies that aim to prevent commercial use of photographs of items in their collections even when those works are in the public domain. Most of the time, a photographer has to sign a pledge to only use photographs taken in a museum for personal and non-commercial use. I understand that a museum could ban that person from reentering the museum if he/she subsequently publishes images without copyright or under a free license that allows commercial use (and the photographer could be arrested for trespass if he/she renters the museum after being asked to stay away). However, is the act of publishing those images without copyright or under a free license illegal in itself? In other words, was a contract created when the photographer signed the pledge, thus invalidating any license that allows for commercial or public use? --Maveric149 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed fairly extensively recently at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Missouri Botanical Garden - Seiwa-en.JPG. The conclusion mostly seems to be that the museum case is analagous to the sports venue case, and if the individual photographer chooses to break the contract it doesn't affect their ownership of the image's copyright. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pledges are more like bargaining chips to hold over the heads of commercial/stock photographers, who don't want to risk losing access. It would be interesting for Wikipedians to schedule meetings with curators, I suspect that most museums will consider our free-license images to be perfectly acceptable, and even desirable, once they realize they can use the images for free themselves. Rephrasing the pledges so as to allow free-license pictures is a little messy wordingwise, perhaps we should craft an example that museums can use. Stan Shebs 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice idea. If we were ever able to get anyone to adopt it it would be a fantastic precedent. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps start with the Holocaust Museum, who supposedly were going to make their entire image collection available? They might have some sympathy to the cause... ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of small museums around... I'm sure we have several Wikipedians/Wikimedians with close connections to such community-oriented institutions, where it might be easiest to set such a precedent.--Pharos 23:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would really want to make sure they understood what they were agreeing to. A misunderstanding could backfire very messily. (What ever did happen with the Holocaust Museum agreement?) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another likely motivation for museums is a fear that high quality reproductions of works in their collection may reduce public demand to see those works (and pay an entrance fee). I think this is an unfounded fear, but we should consider it. --Maveric149 02:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an entirely different field, i got permission from a nursery and two botanical gardens to photograph their collections if i listed the location on upload. I tried to make it plain that i could not guarantee that the location would be listed here for ever, but it offers them some compensation as free publicity. And for our photos, I think it is a good think if we document the location where we took our pix. I can imagine that the same holds tree for musea. Teun Spaans 18:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000FP coming up, reminder

Hi,

At the moment we have just over 900FP. To celebrate 1000FP we would like to publish a coffee table book with the featured pictures. See Commons talk:Coffee table book to get involved. We will likely do the usual press release as well. Any other ideas for promoting this event are welcome too. It will be an important milestone for Commons and a good opportunity to promote our wealth of content. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with an image

I seem to be consistently unable to view Image:Cal Anderson Park.jpg, including on the relevant category page (this was true before I refined the category, too). Does anyone know, or can anyone determine, is there a problem with the image itself, or is the problem at my end? - Jmabel | talk 05:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have a similar problem with Image:CalAndersonPark.jpg. - Jmabel | talk 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be with the image - I am also unable to view it (Firefox user). Anrie 07:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thumb.php reports: Error creating thumbnail: convert: Corrupt JPEG data: 7078 extraneous bytes before marker 0xd8 `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Cal_Anderson_Park.jpg'.

convert: Invalid JPEG file structure: two SOI markers `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Cal_Anderson_Park.jpg'. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After duplicating the problems described above, I copied with Firefox, pasted to Paint.NET, saved to disk, was able to view in both Paint.NET and Microsoft Paint, uploaded as Image:Cal Anderson Park.jpg, tested, and marked Image:CalAndersonPark.jpg as a duplicate. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Class Citizens: Drawings and Sketches

Modern drawings and sketches designed for reproduction on the Internet are as much of an interpretation as written information. However, posting drawings to Wikipedia or to the Wikimedia Commons top level pages more often than not leads to hasty deletion with a single user deeming themselves the judge and jury of good taste. Although any number of photographs will be included, drawings and sketches are removed quicker than pornography. This is of course reflected on the Internet in general where pen and ink have been replaced by ambiguous and faceless images generated on computer or with photographs, with no regard for the skill involved in drawing. Surely as a place of knowledge and an appreciation of cultural forms such suppression should not be taking place. Have a look for modern drawings across the Wikimedia/Wikipedia sites - how many can you find that have been tailored for specific articles with the exception of "diagrams"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drantler (talk • contribs) at 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there is a general consensus in favor of photos over drawings, where available. However, Commons should have room for both, as long as the drawings are of adequate quality (comparable to what we would accept from the pre-photographic era). The various encyclopedias will probably continue to prefer photographs as primary illustrations in their articles, but that's not a Commons issue.

No one individual can effectively function as judge and jury: there is always a channel to open discussion if you think that an image had been inappropriately deleted. If someone has removed a particular image and you have not complained, then your silence has probably been interpreted as consent. Not that you'd necessarily win the dispute, but nothing in your note here indicates that you have contested any specific case. - Jmabel | talk 17:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{self}} license dropin via "Upload Your Own Work"

I recently uploaded my first Wikimedia image (hooray) and discovered that the "own work" template process dropped in the {{self}} template as {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5|author=I, [[User:Ogre lawless|Ogre lawless]]}}. This creates the rather awkward grammatical construct "I...has published or hereby publishes it under the following license". It seems like this process should instead use the template without the author parameter.Ogre lawless 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture A in country B

Do we have a convention in our categorization to deal with matters that basically relate to the culture of one country, but occur in another country? I'm looking right now at Category:Seattle Cherry Blossom Festival. Clearly, the current category hierarchy appropriately places it within the culture of Washington State, where it takes place. But there seems no obvious way to tie it to Category:Culture of Japan. It doesn't take place in Japan, but it has an obvious — a primary — relation to Japanese culture. (Similar issues exist for many other ethnic festivals, as well as for no small number of artifacts. In some specific cases there are categories that cover this, such as Category:Japanese gardens, which has to do with the type of garden rather than its location, but I see no comprehensive scheme.)

I'm inclined to create a Category:Japanese culture in the United States (and similarly for a number of other cultures), but there isn't any obvious supercategory for this, except Category:Culture of the United States, which does nothing to solve the original problem.

Is this already covered in some way that I don't see? And, if not, suggestions? - Jmabel | talk 05:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among other transcultural phenomena requiring consideration are: Category:Chinoiserie, Category:Orientalism and Category:Japonism. Man vyi 14:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to put this cherry blossom festival in "Culture of Japan" actually... may be missing something. Or maybe a new "Japanese Culture" is needed??? (Which Culture of Japan would be a subcat of?) ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's suggestion is interesting; if we can get consensus on doing something like that, I'm all for it.

Man vyi: Chinoiserie, Orientalism and Japonism are a different matter. They suggest cultural appropriation by Western culture of surface visual elements of Asian cultures, and precisely not genuine continuity with those cultures. Seattle's Cherry Blossom Festival (and the other Festál festivals) are, for the most part, genuine cultural expressions of ethnic communities in Seattle (although a few, such as the Irish Festival, are pushing it, because so many Americans have some Irish ancestry and they are, for the most part, so assimilated that their connection to Irish culture does end up having some aspect of appropriation rather than continuity). - Jmabel | talk 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the logical way to do it is to categorize it as Category:Japanese culture, Category:Culture in the United States, and beat the developers over the head until they implement category intersections. --Carnildo 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's in essence my suggestion as well, except for the beating the developers over the head part. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, may I presume you mean Category:Culture of the United States, rather than a newly introduced category? - Jmabel | talk 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hierarchy under Category:Culture is quite a mess. Incorporating the ideas here, here's what I propose. (BTW, if there is somewhere else I should be taking this discussion, let me know. I don't really know my way well around the "project space" of Commons.)

Category:Cultures, which now contains only Category:Popular culture, would be a container for things like Category:Japanese culture, Category:Jewish culture (the latter is now weirdly under Category:Culture by region), etc. I will do this unless there are objections in the next day or so.
Things like Category:Seattle Cherry Blossom Festival, Category:Japanese gardens (a type of garden, not a geographical designation), etc., would go under Category:Japanese culture, as would Category:Culture of Japan; Category:Culture of Japan would also remain under Category:Japan and Category:Culture by country. I will do this unless there are objections in the next day or so.

While we are at it:

Category:Culture of Asia belongs under Category:Culture by region, not at the same level. I will do this unless there are objections in the next day or so.
Possibly things like Category:Culture of Japan belong under Category:Culture of Asia as well as their current categorizations. I'd appreciate comment on this.
Category:Pop culture should be merged into Category:Popular culture. I will do this unless there are objections in the next day or so.
Surely Category:Nikki Tyler does not belong in Category:Subcultures. It may be news to her fans, but she is not singlehandedly a culture. I will do this without waiting but it was so weird I couldn't resist pointing it out.
There are many other messes in this area; I'm not going to try to sort them all out; attention to it by someone who has been more actively involved in categorization would be good.

- Jmabel | talk 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big category expert by any means but I support the changes you've outlined. Except for the Nikki Tyler one man, don't do it! She's bigger than Cheeses! :) ++Lar: t/c 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and recatted Category:Culture of Asia. Currently Category:Americanization is in Category:Culture of the United States - another case of culture of one country in another. My point about Japonism etc. is precisely that we don't have a simple scheme for "cross-cultural/multicultural" cat:s. Man vyi 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone take a look at what I've now done with Category:Japanese culture and Category:Culture of Japan and see if they agree that this is the way to go? Also, is there more that should be moved from Category:Culture of Japan to Category:Japanese culture? (I suspect so.) Further, I notice that there was a move six months back from Category:Japanese gardens to Category:Japanese garden. This is just the opposite way than I would have gone; am I missing something, or was this wrong? - Jmabel | talk 03:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good for me. Using Category:Cultures will be useful in that way. Thanks. Man vyi 05:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allert! Heavy porn spam on commons

See here what I've found today, I suddenly remove the links, but maybe other image are "infected". --Skyluke 09:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your report; the user has been blocked by Herbythyme. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was your IP edit that drew attention to it so thanks. For what it's worth that IP has a real track record across wikis (5 at least) placing porn spam but with a month or more gap on each occasion. I'm guessing it is an open proxy but can't confirm it for now. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw too late I wasn't logged in... --Skyluke 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds silly but because it was an IP edit I looked at it harder anyway! As I said - that IP is a "regular" contributor. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iolo Morgannwg

Sorry for asking this, because I think it should have an obvious answer, but I can't figure one out.

I want to add a picture of Iolo Morganwg (sometimes spelt Iolo Morgannwg), 1747-1826, otherwise known as Edward Williams, to the article about him on Wikipedia. Now, there was a print made of him at some point, which is currently in the National Library of Wales (JTH03446); there is a photograph of it here which was taken in 1875. If you do a Google image search you see this print being used all over the place. Clearly something which was photographed in 1875 is well out of copyright everywhere now (even if you consider the photograph the original work and not the print), but the copyright on, say, the gtj.org.uk page claims the content can only be used under a noncommercial licence. Is this something where I can just say, oh, it's out of copyright, and take the jpeg from gtj.org.uk and upload it, or would I have to have an original photo of the print? Marnanel 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: I'm aware of the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Missouri_Botanical_Garden_-_Seiwa-en.JPG etc., but this photograph was taken in 1875, never mind being a modern photograph of a nineteenth-century print. What's the proper way forward here?) Marnanel 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was of USian origin, things would be simple: such a reproduction does not constitute originality, see the Bridgeman vs. Corel case. Therefore, the copyright of the original image holds. As that one is certainly old enough, {{Pd-old}} is called for. I don't know to which extent this applies to images of british origin uploaded on American servers ... --rimshot^talk 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Public_domain and tag {{PD-old}} or {{PD-Art}}, whichever applies. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17 July

The cunning proposal

A month ago, the Community voted a proposal in order to change the existing rule to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. The alleged motive was to make real the de-adminship of inactive administrators.

However, if you read the warning message, you discover that de-adminship don't exist anymore, except for honest administrators:

If you resign your adminship voluntary because you don't need it, you can request to have it back on COM:AN and can get it back in 24 hours (if no-one objects), so you don't have to go through the full RfA process.

With this passage, we are certain to keep inactive administrators who wait “to be awaken” in order to support propaganda in Commons. --Juiced lemon 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's wrong, go and fix it. It is a proposed message, not an already sent one. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to change it but do you really think there would not be an objection if someone who had been inactive wanted to return without any explanation? I for one would be there quite quickly (I'd maybe argue about the "24 hours" bit) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I have not found any document about resigning of administrators. In my opinion, in the absence of any special (and official) measure, resigning is necessarily definitive. I mean that the former administrator is like an ordinary user, and can still become administrator by the same way.

So, I don't understand why we would mention a roundabout way to become administrator in the warning message. --Juiced lemon 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - there is a possible policy update here. In it there is mention of those who request removal of the tools voluntarily because they are away for a while for example. The suggestion is that, if they wish to return, the first opyion is to state that on the Admin board. If there are no objections a 'crat could restore the rights. However I can't see someone just saying "oh yes I'll have them back" without explanation, good reason and a good track record not getting an objection.

The warning message that you refer to is part of the de-admin through inactivity process which will affect about 25% of our current admins. These are people who have worked hard on the project in the past - it may be that they will get the warning and decide to return, it may be that they will relinquish the rights. However there is the option to "request" the return of the rights if no one objects. If I can make it clearer I will try --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Return to Adminship, an administrator can request the removal of rights. However, the resultant status in unclear. In my opinion, the administrator would have to choose between 2 options:

resignation: the removal of rights is definitive, and the administrator becomes an ordinary user
suspension: the removal of rights is temporary, and the administrator keeps the administrator status.

I think that the de-adminship policy concern all inactive administrators, including “suspended” administrators, which have not currently the administrator rights, but who can get back them quickly.

More, I don't understand why that would be a problem, for a former administrator, to follow the normal process if he want to be administrator again. A comeback can be planned, so an urgency process is unjustified.

Therefore, there are no reasons to speak about resignation in the warning message. I searched for “resign” in Commons:Administrators/Adminship policy and there was “no match”. --Juiced lemon 10:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

OK - I think we may be confusing two issues here.

Inactive admins - will be approached about loosing admin rights after 5 months without inadequate admin actions as defined by the policy. If they do not respond they will have the rights removed and be "ordinary" users again. If they say they wish to keep them they get another six months in which to become active or just loose the rights. I'm guessing if any of these returned and asked for them back someone would object and it would go to an RfA.

Admins who request removal of their rights (resign) for whatever reason (Nilfanion is an recent example). Assuming they decide to return to the project actively within a reasonable period (& those are issues that need to be addressed in the policy proposal the idea is that they are given an option to request the rights again (they have been "ordinary" users for their absence - I see nothing about suspending rights anywhere). This would only be done if no one objects (within an agreed period). Using Nilfanion as an example I certainly would not object if they were to return within say a six month period and request the return of their rights - they have been active, valued contributors to the project. There are no examples to hand but if someone who the community had doubts about merely asked for the rights I am sure someone would object and the decision would go to full RfA.

As to the lack of the word "resign" I used the words "request removal of rights". Is there something I am missing here or is this clearer? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins who request removal of their rights for whatever reason, but temporarily, are still administrators, and are a fortiori inactive. Therefore, there are inactive administrators, and the de-adminship policy concerns them as well as other Commons administrators.

Your answer justifies my title choice for this section. Several persons disagree this policy. Normally, they could propose to repeal it (by voting), but they had found a trick to make it unenforceable:

“Request the removal of rights to prevent definitive removal of rights.”

They had just to dare.

This edit on 12:06, 16 June 2007 demonstrates that the trick was ready shortly after the end of the poll.

Concerning User:Nilfanion, you had to think about such case before the poll, and to suggest some amendments to the proposal. Now, the Commons community has made it a policy, and to try to corrupt it is improper. --Juiced lemon 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - no idea where you get the idea that an admin without admin rights is still an admin of any sort - they are not in my book nor in generated lists.

Where did you find the phrase - “Request the removal of rights to prevent definitive removal of rights.”?

And I have no idea what the rest of your post means - regarding Nilfanion & "corrupting the policy"? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't become a policeman because you get an uniform, a badge, and a pistol, but because you have followed some recruitment process.

Similarly, the adminship status and the computer tools for administrators are two different things. If a bureaucrat grants the administrator tools to an user by mistake, the user doesn't become an administrator for all that. The de-adminship policy concerns the adminship status, so it doesn't matter if the administrator has or hasn't the administrators' tools. --Juiced lemon 11:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right - someone please correct me if my understanding is wrong. De-adminship refers to status and tools in my opinion. I certainly intended it to do so when I drew up the change in policy. If you are de-admin'd through policy or your own request then you have neither status or tools, am I missing something? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator tools can be granted to administrators, or to other users in special cases. If you are not a policeman, and that you are wearing policeman uniform and badge, I think real policemen will try to arrest you. Similarly in Commons, de-adminship refers to status, then refers to tools as a result (except for special cases). --Juiced lemon 12:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summing-up

I'm confused here, I've read through the discussion and I'm not actually clear what the objection to changing our policy is. To my way of thinking, we have a lot of inactive admins, and we should reduce the number of admins we have that don't actually do anything. It is within our power as a community to do this, as long as we do it in a fair and transparent way. Juiced, can you please restate what you see as the issue with the community deciding that we need a process to deadmin inactive admins, or what the issue with the current suggested process is? Please do so succinctly, in a non argumentative way, phrased in a way that does not suggest that those that disagree with you are stupid, ill intentioned, or otherwise inferior to you, and assuming good faith about everyone involved. (note that use of the word "cunning" itself casts aspersions) ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the confusion results mainly from hazy concepts and terminology. So, I go to list some assertions:

1. Administrator status is a function status which is granted to Commons users according to rules.

2. Users with administrator status have access to extra software features on the Commons web site, called “administrator tools”.

3. In some special cases, users without administrator status can use the “administrator tools”. In the other hand, “administrator tools” can be withdrawn to users with administrator status. Therefore, administrator status and access to administrator tools have to be considered and recorded separatly.

In Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, I read:

...inactive administrators may have their access removed.

That refers probably to “access to administrator tools”.

According to this policy, any sysop inactive on Commons will be desysoped.

That refers probably to “administrator status”.

Even if you read the whole text, you cannot determine for a certainty if the policy aim to withdraw “access to administrator tools” or the “administrator status”.

In the first case, administrators who have not “access to administrator tools” escape to the implementation of the inactivity policy. In the second case, every inactive administrator is affected.

This is not a subtle difference, since there was several attemps to add a text in the policy, then in the warning message, suggesting to inactive administrators the removal of “access to administrator tools” in order to escape to the de-adminship.

My proposals:

a) We must not suggest to inactive administrators any way to by-pass the de-adminship policy. If such way exists, they may find it themselves, and the Commons Community is not bound to maintain it.

b) The wording of the de-adminship policy need a review, maybe a new voting.

c) That doesn't prevent to send the warning messages, assuming we can get some consensus about the text.

--Juiced lemon 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whence the distinction between "access to administrator tools" and "administrator status"? I admit beforehand that I mightn't be fully up to speed, but what "administrator tools" are available to people who do not have "administrator status" in your proposals? If you are an admin you have the "status" (not my preferred way of looking at it, too humble for that I suppose) which comes from being able to use your "acces to adminstrator tools". NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since your mother tongue most definitely isn't English, why don't you try to explain in another language? Scrolling back I saw Herbythyme was about as confused as I am about the distinction you make between tools and status. Regarding that English isn't my mother tongue either, but that it is Herbythyme's, it probably has nothing to do with my understanding of English, although I might be wrong. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 02:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a massive distinction we can't sort out. But I do see the distinction. Suppose I am BRION, or RobChurch, or whoever. Then, because I am a developer, I have access to the Administrator tools any time I want them... all I have to do is turn the bit on, and delete, rename, you name it, to my hearts content... but I'm not a Commons Administrator because I didn't go through the Commons process to become one. I'm just some godlike abusive (Hi BRION! :) ) developer. If I've been naughty using the tools, I am a developer that people are going to be annoyed with. Similarily for stewards who turn up here, due to some call for them to handle some pressing emergency (that no admin was aware of) and give themselves temporary access to the tools... They too have tools access but they are not Adminstrators. (well Cary is, but he got it the normal way, and that doesn't dilute the example).

So there's a difference there. But I assert that it's a special case, and that it doesn't matter, and that we can handle it with special case verbiage, because in the other direction, there is no difference. No one who is an admin doesn't have access to the tools (assuming they can log in, anyway)... It's not meaningful to speak of taking away access to the tools for admins. At least not here and not permanently ... on the English Wikipedia they sometimes sanction admins to not use tools for some period of time, etc. But we don't do that here. So in my view, if we confine the discussion to those admins that were selected by our process, and special case the rest, the distinction drops away. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is important, since administrators can request “the removal of rights when taking a break from Commons” (Return to Adminship). Therefore, the list of inactive administrators is not identical to the list of inactive administrators with “access to administrator tools”.

Then, the de-adminship policy doesn't state clearly what is its purpose:

either the loss of the administrator status for the inactive administrators,
either only the withdrawal of “access to administrators tools”.

If an administrator lose the administrator status, he can regain it only in accordance with the normal process. But if a steward withdraw “access to administrators tools” to an administrator, he can get back it in a 24h-delay.

My opinion is that the de-adminship policy concerns only the administrator status because if the administrator can get back the tools in a 24h-delay, this is not really a “de-adminship policy”.

The issue is that some users don't agree; in particular, user:Fred J tried to add a section to the policy, according to its personal interpretation. --Juiced lemon 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

A steward/developer can give themselves the tools anytime they like period - no delays or anything. Under the proposals an ordinary user who was an admin who let go of the tools of their own free will may request their return by placing a message on the admin board. If there were to be no objections the ordinary user might be given the tools back (& become an administrator again - I dislike the word "status") without an RfA. If there were objections there would have to be an RfA. That is how I see it and however I look at it I cannot seem to make it as sinister and complicated as Juiced Lemon. (Even tho English is my native language it has failed me in the past and is under threat at present!). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with sources

People who check the validity of the pictures uploaded on Commons seem to expect a complete url pointing to the original picture. A source just mentionning the original site is considered as insufficient. But these urls directly pointing to the pictures are not reliable on the long term for various reasons :

the format of the url may change (especially true with dynamic websites, script-based galleries, etc.)
the url could show an error 404 instead of the original picture, but the picture still exists on the original site
the original page could simply disappear together with the original image

The two latest cases lead to this situation : the picture is suddenly considered as invalid due to the fact the source is no more accessible, ending up with a nice "no source" banner on the description page (that could be the case for many pictures in a few years). What's the official policy in that case (I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, I am interested in any link on that topic) ? Dake 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think will be good idea to use part of functionality of User:FlickreviewR in such cases (check if same file exists on given URL). --EugeneZelenko 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has been discussed extensively before and it is a tricky problem. I am not sure a bot can really solve this problem because most webpages don't have structured licensing info like Flickr. But the 'trusted users' method could definitely be extended, develop a queue for images with web sources to be checked. And then we have this problem how do we "prove" it? Take screenshots? Trust the trusted users? (As time goes on this becomes harder and harder.) keep copies somewhere else? ... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the Wayback Machine. Of course it doesn't archive *all* pages, so you'd have to get lucky in that regard, but it's better than nothing. --rimshot^talk 08:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask someone with a toolserver account to set up a Wikimedia Wayback on Request machine. ;) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would that entail, exactly? The Wayback machine depends on archiving. Would we want a process that went to every newly uploaded image and validated that the link worked at that time, ala FlickrReviewer, for all images? We'd have to take images of the screen, as you say, or take images of the HTML as it was at the time. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upload an official flag and coat of arms

Hi everybody, I want to move [1] and [2] to the Wikimedia Commons to be able to use them in other wikis. Both logos are copyrighted but according to the policy, they can be used as "Fair Use" since the aim is to represent the city, in this case Tel Aviv. I have tried to upload them but I don't seem to find an appropriate way since there is no license tag for Logos -or I don't see it. Can you help me please? thanks! --Jewbask 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want a "Fair Use"! If they aren't themselves copyrighted then you can create SVG's of them (See "Graphics Lab") and upload THEM here, but copyright fair user-ery has been outlawed on Commons. 68.39.174.238 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request...

That these images be uploaded so they may be used on Wikisource?

They're all from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11703/11703-h/11703-h.htm and should be {{PD-Gutenberg}}. 68.39.174.238 20:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you upload them yourself? BTW: PD-Gutenberg is a ridiculous template. Use {{PD-old}} for all of them. --Fb78 07:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy way of doing it is to use commonist. It allows you to put same description/license/etc on all images --Robek _{(talk|contribs)} 09:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't and PD-Gutenberg is a more accurate description of their origin, hence I gravitate towards it. 68.39.174.238 10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't? If you're not a banned user just start an account. -N 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it's not hard to start an account. If you have troubles, you are more than welcome to ask for an account creation. Regards. Wooyi 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geh, I'll have to find someone else who can upload these and maybe my old PD-scans as well. 68.39.174.238 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please see User:Jeff G./gallery#Illustrations by John Gilbert from The Swiss Family Robinson; or Adventures in a Desert Island, by Johann David Wyss. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11703/11703-h/Images/fly4.jpg did not work, so I had to use http://fulltext10.fcla.edu/DLData/UF/UF00001866/fly4.jpg (as displayed by http://fulltext10.fcla.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=juv;cc=juv;sid=b7c3b67caf6a5189b9273b5a231dc239;rgn=full%20text;idno=UF00001866;a=48;view=jpg;node=UF00001866%3A2;seq=3, Frontispiece for The Swiss family Robinson, or Adventures in a desert island, and renamed Image:Frontispiece fly4.jpg) instead. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Now I'll be able to start adding the work to WikiSource68.39.174.238 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 July

problems with monobooks an IE 6 / Win 2K

Since some days my IE 6 collapses, when I try to load pages with large galleries, e.g. Dortmund. Perhaps that is caused by a change to the CSS-Files, because it doesn't happen with other Layouts. Excuse my Beckenbauer-English ;-{ -- Mbdortmund 11:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems here using IE6 on XP. I tried disabling resizeGalleries, but that wasn't the problem... -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By collapse do you mean "crash" ? 68.39.174.238 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- Mbdortmund 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the gallery at Dortmund, it does not crash the following for me on WinXP SP2:

Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) version "7.0.5730.11"
Mozilla Firefox version "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070508 Firefox/1.5.0.12"

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I just wanted to express my thanks. I have been wanting to discuss wici with someone. And maybe I can get some help here. I have been very interrested for some time now and I can't believe I ran across this site.--72.190.100.130 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Geri Stracener[reply]

You're welcome, Geri. What would you like some help with? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr: giving permission

My friend and sometime colleague Peter Hahndorf would like to give permission to use his Flickr photos under GFDL, but is not interested in releasing the under something quite as generous as CC-By-Attribution. As far as I can tell, Flickr does not give him any explicit way to say that. Unsurprisingly, he is unwilling to go through and make an explicit comment to this effect on each of his hundreds of photos (637 at last count).

Is there something in particular that he can send to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org to clarify this? And is there anything further that he should do (and/or that anyone who uploads these photos should do?) - Jmabel | talk 22:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He can send a mail to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org stating that all images published on a particular Flickr account have a particular free license, like GFDL. Once the images have been copied to Commons, they should source to Flickr and have an {{PermissionOTRS-ID}} in the permission section of {{Information}}, with the license as given in the email to permissions@. Clear enough? Cheers! Siebrand 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly clear. How will I find out what OTRS-ID is associated with his particular permission email? - Jmabel | talk 23:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug one of the users of Commons:OTRS once the mail has been sent for the ID. Cheers! Siebrand 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading new versions

There are some differences between uploading new files and uploading new versions of old files. So if it is possible, it would be good to have special instructions on the upload page when uploading new versions of old files. Some useful instructions would be:

Only upload a new version if it is an improved version of the same image
Editing the summary field will not change the image description page, it is used as a summary in the file history, so use it to briefly describe what changes are done to the file
The license selector will not change the license (and it is often preferrable to use the same license for the new version)
If the image description needs to be changed, it has to be edited after the upload

And maybe other instructions? /Ö 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be very useful... hmmm...

There are two ways of overwriting tiles. One way, which I guess is the explicit way, is if you go to the file, and follow the link that says 'upload a new version of this file'. then you go to a page like special:upload?wpDestFile=foo.jpg. The other way, the implicit way, is if you (accidentally or intentionally) fill in the destination filename to be the same as an existing file. Then you will get a warning about file overwriting, unless you ticked 'ignore all warnings' of course (which I suspect many people do).

If people overwrite implicitly, I don't think we can do much about it. I'm not sure if this is a common problem or not.

For when people overwrite explicitly, maybe we can use some Javascript trick to see if wpDestFile is in the URL and if so, use some different content for the upload form. Let's see if any of our javascript whizzes chime in here with a prototype. ;) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How simple does something have to be to be ineligible for copyright?

Is Image:Pennsylvania Turnpike logo.svg, a copy of the logo used on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, ineligible? For that matter, there are a number of things in Category:PD ineligible that look very eligible; is there any guidance on this issue? --NE2 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The turnpike logo is ineligible because it is just a few simple words written in a generic font, and it has been redrawn by a Wikipedian so no material copyrighted by the state of Pennsylvania is actually used. -N 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much is needed to be eligible? Is en:Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg or en:Image:OhioTurnpike.svg complicated enough? I assume en:Image:Garden State Parkway shield.png and en:Image:NYS Thruway Sign.png are; how about en:Image:Chicago Skyway logo.svg? And (this will open a can of worms...) how about Image:Colorado 470.svg, Image:N-2.svg, Image:North Dakota 23.svg, and Image:Toll Texas 121.svg? --NE2 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NJTP and OH Turnpike shields are copyrighted because (1) the NJTP, GSP, NYST, and the Chicago Skyway ones is creative enough to warrant copyright, and (2) the OH Turnpike one's outline of the Ohio state border is slightly different from the MUTCD-covered one. The state highway shields, no matter how different they are, are covered under the MUTCD, which screams "public domain" to all U.S. Route and State Highway shields. (→O - R L Y?) 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the states release their MUTCDs into the public domain? --NE2 02:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're supplements of the National MUTCD - which makes them automatically public domain master son^{T - C} 03:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] That doesn't matter. All state route shields are classified as Sign M1-5 in the federal MUTCD, which means that any and all state route shields are in the public domain as well as the U.S. Route shields and practically everything else there except for the Interstate shield. Interstate shields are {{PD-ineligible}} because they are trademarked without any restrictions of use. (→O - R L Y?) 03:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MUTCD includes the Alabama shield, but I can't find any others. Certainly the FHWA can't make copyrighted designs enter the public domain; the question is whether the states claim any copyright. --NE2 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You expect them to show every shield in that doc? They (USDOT, FWHA) require states to follow it loosely - and have final say over design of shields. master son^{T - C} 03:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if a state decides to copyright its design? I don't see anything in the MUTCD stating that a state must release its work into the public domain, and, even if it does say that, states don't always follow the MUTCD. --NE2 04:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who let the road geeks in here? (grins, ducks runs) ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if we had an actual policy on this delicate question; as far as I can tell there are no guidelines whatsoever.--Pharos 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it's next to impossible to write a clear guideline on the threshold of originality. It's something mostly intuitive, and can be easily recognized most of the time. But it's hard to spell it out. Samulili 08:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "I know it when I see it" doesn't always work well. I wonder if there is any case law to be had that could give us guidance? ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@NE2: The states cannot claim any copyright, since their MUTCDs can only supplement, not replace, the federal MUTCD. (→O - R L Y?) 13:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense; it says "Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield and any other items owned by FHWA.", not "Traffic control devices contained in this Manual or which states may create as replacements...". --NE2 13:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, for most states we can be reasonably sure that the designs are not copyrighted, since a copyright notice was required before 1989, and I'm pretty sure no state placed a copyright notice on their state highway signs. (I would appreciate if someone knowledgeable in copyright law can comment on whether this is a valid argument.) (On the other hand, Image:Wfm x51 extraterrestrial highway.jpg probably is a copyvio, though it probably would be anyway even without the notice since it's from 1996.) So only the states that changed their design after 1989 are "at risk", judging by the photos on [3]:

Oklahoma might be simple enough to be ineligible (take a standard sign blank with border, place a state outline on, add the route number, and white out areas so it can be read). Texas Toll and Vermont are possibly complicated enough to be eligible for copyright. --NE2 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not jump the MUTCD's gun. Any and all state route shields are Sign M1-5, regardless of what state it comes from. State Route shields (it is ambiguous) are contained in the Manual, which means they are public domain regardless of what state designs it. (→O - R L Y?) 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are contained in the states' standard drawings, certainly not in the federal MUTCD. --NE2 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23 Code of Federal Regulations 655 - Acc to this states must adopt the standards set by the MUTCD even if they make their own drawings. As such the general design made is subject to being a part of the MUTCD and hence as federal govt property - is public domain. master son^{T - C} 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on to something there; thank you. I'm going to try to puzzle out a solid argument, and we should, if possible, run it past someone knowledgable on these matters. Then we should write it up and make a special template for state highway shields that either includes the argument or links to it. --NE2 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A modification of {{PD-USGov-MUTCD}} should be enough when the parameter has a field of M1-5. (→O - R L Y?) 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. It doesn't come from the federal MUTCD; it comes from the state supplements. The keystone is the federal law that requires the states to be in "substantial conformance" with the federal MUTCD. We should write this up nicely so we don't end up having this argument again and again. --NE2 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State supplements are still the MUTCD though. If the law says that the states have to be in "substantial conformance" with the federal MUTCD, then the modification makes sense, rather than creating a new redundant tag. I also suggest creating a subpage of Commons:Licensing to expand on this. (→O - R L Y?) 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a draft of this at User:O/SHS. Feel free to comment and modify. (→O - R L Y?) 03:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I commented on the talk page there... I agree that getting this nailed down would be helpful. Consensus is good but we may need (I hope not!) a legal opinion... those are hard to come by. ++Lar: t/c 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument

The FHWA creates the MUTCD, which includes Figure 2D-3 on page 2D-5 of Chapter 2D. This figure includes "State Route Sign M1-5", with an Alabama marker for the sake of choosing one to show. Below it states that "State Route signs shall be designed by the individual State highway agencies."
By federal law, specifically Title 23, Chapter I, Part 655, states shall adopt their own MUTCDs "in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD", which shall be used in the design of traffic control devices - including signs - on any public road.
The introduction to the MUTCD states that "Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield and any other items owned by FHWA." The state highway shields are designed by the state highway agencies, not the FHWA.
The states which adopt the federal MUTCD wholesale with their own shield drawings, and those which have their own MUTCD, are shown on the MUTCD site. [Someone should verify that none of them decided to repeal the section about the public domain. Would that still be "substantial conformance"? Only a lawyer could possibly tell, so we should check individually.]
Every state is thus bound, by federal law, to release their state highway shields into the public domain.

20 July

An Image

Hi. I don't know how to expand an image on the top of my user page, so it could fit on 17'' or 19'' sreen. For now it is too narrow. Thanks, --Janezdrilc 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your screen resolution? I've known that 17-19" screens are 1280 x 1024 pixels. (→O - R L Y?) 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there are people, like myself, whose screen is only 1024 pixels wide - they might not appreciate very wide images. --rimshot^talk 22:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I license this right?

Hi, I just uploaded Image:Cody Caves.jpg and have three more images like that to upload. I was given permission to upload them into public domain by the owner of the Cody Caves website who emailed me these four pictures with an accompanying note. Did I attach the right license for that situation?CindyBo 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{PD-author|Cody Caves}} for this situation, and to confirm that the website owner did give permission, please forward that email to permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org. Cheers, (→O - R L Y?) 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You guys are fast. I'll go do all that now, and thanks!CindyBo 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 July

Oh my! My photo is suddenly a negative!!

Anybody know what could have caused my panorama to spontaneously turn negative on its page? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Panorama_of_Mt_Roberts.jpg If I use the image code to make it show up elsewhere (i.e. an article or my userpage), it looks fine. The problem is solely on the image's specific page. Should I re-upload and nominate the old one for deletion? FireFly5 09:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that... it goes negative on my user page when I try to post a thumbnail the same size as that of the preview on the home page... FireFly5 09:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even display on Firefox. Fixed, file was broken. — Xavier, 21:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks so much and merci beaucoup pour votre aide! FireFly5 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaders removing descriptions of their uploaded images

I have seen some images now uncategorized because the uploaders removed the contents of the descriptions of their uploaded images, including self-made licenses, like Image:Yasmin.jpg. Should we revert the image descriptions or tag the images for deletions?--Jusjih 12:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to ask the uploader why the image descriptions should be deleted, there maybe have several reasons which we may not know such as the uploader want to delete the image. It should be reverted if the uploader wants to keep the image. --Shinjiman 13:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions are under the GFDL: it means in particular that an author has not the right to destroy his work. Empty a page without reasons is vandalism: such edits have to be reverted before any explanation. --Juiced lemon 14:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above. It seems that the image was taken by the uploader and he/she wanted to delete it. Therefore there is no reason to delete it. I have also an offtopic question related with the example above (Image:Yasmin.jpg): I heard that images with date stamps are allowed on commons but I'm not sure if it is a good idea to use them for example in articles on WP. Somebody said you have the possibility to cut out the date stamp but I think it would be much work with it. How does the commons policy about images with date stamps look like ? Pimke 08:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that turtle image it wouldn't be much of a problem to remove the date stamp - just crop the image so that the turtle fills the frame a bit more. The image isn't of much value without being categorized with the correct species, though. In general, I think, date stamps are acceptable only when there is no alternative photo without a date stamp. --rimshot^talk 11:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your useful advices. If I have time I will ask the uploaders why remove their own descriptions. I am bringing this issue as some images with uploaders' content removals led to no-source speedy deletions after 7 days when whoever tagged them did not check the page history, but I forget which ones, though I do check page history before tagging nsd, nld, npd, ..., as sometimes IP vandals removed the contents.--Jusjih 15:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with date stamps? I've contributed an original image using one, and it certainly doesn't detract from it. And don't say "because policy says so". Policy prohibits watermarking images, because that takes away from their freedom. Date stamps are not watermarks. -N 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen date stamps on any published photo? They look unprofessional, and (that's my personal opinion) quite ugly. In the best case, they do not detract from the image, but they never add anything to it - you cannot read them in thumbnail view anyway, and in the detailed view of the picture you will be given the date and time of the photo shooting under the heading metadata. Big yellow date stamps like the one on the turtle picture not only add nothing of value, but greatly diminish the image's quality.--rimshot^talk 08:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of George Harrison deleted

Some time ago I made a artwork of George Harrison, since there are a lack of pictures to illustrate his articles. I spent some time doing it. I went to great length making sure sure the no copyright violation excisted, but that was all i vain. I have now noticed that it is gone. Great! One thing that somebody here don't like amatour artwork, but it is surely no motivation to contribute when it is later just deleted for no reason, and surely no legal reason. I also made several maps here - will these also be deleted? --FinnWikiNo 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us an image name - I can't see anything in your "deleted" contributions? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deletion discussion page, and the image locally uploaded is here. — H92 (t · c · no) 10:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was deleted as a derivative work, but of what? -N 10:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- H92's link directs to no:Bilde:Johnlennon_head-portrait.jpg, not George Harrison. But the Lennon photo for example is a clear derivate of the famous John Lennon photo. / Fred J 11:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I think I misunderstood. At our local VP, FinnWikiNo told us about his John Lennon picture. He also said that it had happened before too. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can someone show us the original picture and the picture "before derivative" (in math, it's called the "differential":-) )? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Wooyi (talk • contribs)

Thumbnail-Rendering-problem

For Image:Meissen-pano-markt3.jpg I try all hints from FAQ to get a thumbnail, but it doesn't help. --Kolossos 11:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, using the "thumb"-function produces this: [4], while defining it more precisely (here, 250px), produces this [5]. (In the first instance I do net get an image, although I am able to see on in the second instance.) I'm a Firefox-user, for what it's worth. Anrie 12:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, now that I read my own post and follow the links, both instances suddenly display images. Anrie 12:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I reduce the resolution of the image, so I believe thats the reason why it is now ok. --Kolossos 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Every pitcure must be in Wikimedia Commons! Why? Why? This is so difficult, hard job! You can use just Wikimedia Commons pitcures in templates! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.235.53.121 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide link to relevant discussion? --EugeneZelenko 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikis have local uploading disabled. -N 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. One example is the Spanish Wikipedia. I imagine it must be really annoying for the Spanish Wikipedia editors having to having to get an account here just to upload one image for a single article. BTW, I don't have a problem with it; I don't like to edit the Spanish Wikipedia, anyway. --Boricuaeddie 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 July

Grr

I hate it when people don't properly attribute their uploads. Like Image:Stalin_1945.jpg, which was attributed as PD-Russia with no source, when in fact it's from the Library of Congress and is actually a "US Signal Corps" (PD-USGov) photo. -N 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it looks like they got it from a different print of the same image, as the LOC one is horribly oversaturated. -N 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The pose is also different - although it was obviously taken at the same event, it's not the same photo. It could easily be from a Russian photographer standing next to the US photographer. --Davepape 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (So to be technically correct, the present image ought to be deleted and replaced by the one with a known source. --Davepape 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

substing {{Unsigned2}}

O (bot) (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) as one of the tasks that O has set to it, has been substing the unsigned2 template where it is used. While this is a common practice on Wikipedia, I don't actually think it's that good an idea here... this template is not exactly a signature, and substing it means that future changes (if any) would not be picked up. Am I the only one that feels this way, and I'm all wet, or are there others that think that substing may not be needed in this case... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this discussion has been moved here (thanks lar), I would like to leave my two cents here. Though transcluding the template provides updates to the usage when it's changed, the problem is that it puts strain on the servers whenever somebody changes the template. The strain comes from re-caching all of the pages after the change. Substing the template not only reduces the strain on the servers, but also complements a concept about signatures across all wikis—no templates are to be transcluded as per the devs. In addition, the unsigned templates are also targets of vandalism, and they will always forever be. (→O - R L Y?) 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fix for server strain of something that might need to be changed is to protect it, and put noinclude text in saying not to change it needlessly. Remember that BRION has been repeatedly quoted as saying not to worry about doing things to avoid server loads, that the software will be changed to handle it... more generally, Computer Science has a saying from many years back... "don't try to outsmart the compiler". I'd support protecting unsigned2 if it isn't already (it wasn't so I did). Right now, with very few usages (unless something undid all the bot changes, there are few usages left) would be a good time to make changes to it to prevent needless changing. The real reason to subst something is not server strain, it is because you want the something (whatever it is) as it is at that time, and not to change as it is improved. Sometimes that is legit but in this case I'm not convinced. Still, the thoughts of others would be good. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favour substituting, which fixes the slight server strain without restricting edits to the template, and makes the instance permanent as part of the discussion archive of that date. —Pathoschild 05:40:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I favour subst:, too. Updating unsiged signatures (?) is really low in my priority... Samulili 08:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose substing. How could hunderds or even thousands of edits put less strain on the servers than some possible future template change? Also they clog history pages and show up in a lot of watchlists. Also, last time I checked, substing {{Unsigned2}} was "under debate" in en:WP:SUBST, it's not common practice, and as far as I know it's simply one "I-know-better" bot owner. Last thing: the bot is not smart enouth to get rid of the useless {{{3|}}} part ∴ Alex Smotrov 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the server question, a heavily-used template puts strain on the server whenever it's changed because all of the pages using it need to be re-cached. The is not useless; it's used to put the timestamp where it belongs. If there is a blank parameter lying around, then just ignore it. (→O - R L Y?) 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know about re-caching, but do you regularly check Special:Statistics and does the job queue goes as high as on en.wp? A strain on the server is a temporary thing and does not affect regular users. On the other hand, hundreds of edits distracts users, forever stay in history pages and take additional space on servers (that's the real strain).

And the {{{3|}}} part on the page IS useless; also I don't see why you added another invisible {{{3|}}} inside your message above ∴ Alex Smotrov 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. {{Unsigned2}} has changed five times in 18 months and {{Unsigned}} has changed eight times in 20 months. Seriously: don't worry about the servers. Considering our resources as a whole (software, hardware and–most importantly–wetware), the substing process is a much bigger strain. In addition to the problems already mentioned by others, substing also bogs down pages with lots of ugly markup in edit mode and makes it more difficult for new users to see how to add the boilerplate snippet since the template name is obscured. Don't forget that templates are as much about readability as they are about writability. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question

This image seems to have uploaded correctly, but the thumbnail is a mess. Is this a defect in the original or can it be fixed? Thank you for any advice you may have. - Mu 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reason could be that it's a gif. The image on enWP, which is a jpg, doesn't have the problem. --rimshot^talk 11:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I hadn't noticed the image on enWP. I guess the one should be replaced by the other. - Mu 12:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyrighted Package"

New user Mtec (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) has (as apparently just about all edits, see contributions) tagged a lot of images for speedy deletion using the reason "copyrighted package"... all of the images I spot checked (for example my image Image:CornNuts Dscn0266 crop.jpg) are indeed images of product packaging. However I see no discussion of whether this is a legitimate reason... when I uploaded my image and discussed it with others, the theory that was advanced was that images of copyrighted things are not themselves violations of the copyright of the package. Has this been discussed anywhere and has there been a change in policy? We have a LOT of images of this sort, not just the hundreds that Mtec tagged. I'd like to understand what should be done here. Note that Mtec had no discussion at all on his page prior to now, and this seems to be his or her only contribution so far. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedure, I fear this should be in one or more deletion debates. Substantively, regarding the Coke cans, since we have Image:Coca-Cola_logo.svg it's not logical to delete the picture of a Coke can. William Avery 11:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a trademark, not a copyright, which is different. I'm guessing the assertion is that since the manufacturer copyrighted the package artwork itself (which often use trademarked logos but do not necessarily have to) then an image, even one illustrating the product, rather than trying to reproduce the packaging, is a copyvio. Note that there have been other recent deletions along these lines... for example File:Brazilian Twix.jpg. I don't know how extensive these deletions are, I just found these in spot checks. But if every copyrighted packaging image is deleted, even not including ones where the copyrighted package or design is incidental to the image, rather than the topic, we are going to lose a lot of images. I think that is incorrect, and that these images are not really copyvios. Worse, though, is that we alrady have lost some, and that these images all being tagged as speedy is a big job to undo if we decide that's the right thing to do. I find it unfortunate that this user apparently hasn't discussed this anywhere (although maybe I missed it). Sure, a deletion debate seems a good idea, better late than never. Of course if consensus is that this is the correct action, then so be it (and many of the images would then be something that one could advance a fair use argument for, on, for example, en:wp... I know my image is used there, since I added it to w:Corn Nuts .... I see some of these images are already getting deleted. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polarlys (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) deleted a shedful, citing Commons:Derivative_works. (and NOT the reason given by the original taggger) However these packages are clearly industrial design, not art, in my view. See here for more on this. Good faith action, but I think, incorrect. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the ones I deleted, please discuss images like Image:Corny Schoko.jpg. ;-) --Polarlys 12:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely packaging, there is no question about that. And although there is no (c) symbol present on the packaging, the packaging is presumably copyrighted by the manufacturer, since it is not necessary to use (c) to have a copyright. However it's, in my view, industrial design, and the representation of the package is not infringing usage. That's presumably true (or false) for all of the images tagged by Mtec, as a class. Note that since the speedy is contested, I have asked him or her to convert all of the tags to regular deletion requests, per policy. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But once you concede that the manufacturer has a copyright on the packaging it's case over. William Avery 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:2eurolithuanian.jpg There is some difference between copying an objet and publishing a picture of this object. --Juiced lemon 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I think. Which is what this section of the Derivative Works page seems to be addressing. If we had to remove every image that contained anything copyrighted, we'd be pretty barren of images for any category that wasn't 100% nature/wilderness related I suspect. These images have (some of them) been here a long time. So it would be good to have a reasoned, rational discussion about this, and determine what the right course is, rather than having them speedied. I'm not going to insist they have to stay if consensus (or legal opinion) is that they infringe, that's not how we do things here, but I am not sure that a massive speedy tagging by a new user with (apparently) few or no other contributions is the best approach to getting to the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have any copyrighted money on Commons unless it's got a release from the copyrightholder, as exists for the Euro coins. Read the licence tag on that coin image. The section of the Derivative Works page cited is specifically about things that are not copyrightable. William Avery 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree here, the package design is separable from the utilitarian function (i.e. a bag of nuts is still a bag of nuts even if it had different imagery on it). As such, I believe the section you cite does not apply to this case. I'm inclined to agree with the original user that the packaging can't be the focus of an image without invoking fair use, and hence can't be used here. As to the contention that there would be nothing left, I'd disagree. Many designs are utilitarian (e.g. cars, beds, tools, phones, etc.) but that's not the same as product packaging. In addition, the de minimis principle asserts that copyright doesn't follow if the copied portion is too minor to be significant (e.g. a poster in the background of a photo). Dragons flight 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I did look at the tagging on that coin image and I actually think that the image is not eligible for being housed here, as the ECB license places restrictions on image modifications, which is not allowable in a freely licensed image. So it's not the example I would use... (perhaps it should be nominated for deletion, actually) and I was agreeing with Juiced lemon's sentiment, not his example. Again, this is apparently quite a pervasive problem, there are a LOT of images here that depict products. Speedy is not the way to go till we get to an answer we all accept. At that point, the deletion guidelines may well need modification to clarify this. I have reviewed the section I cited and I'm not sure I necessarily agree with your interpretation of what it means but I am not a lawyer. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor me. :-) William Avery 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if images like this and this are only packaging. These packages have photos and draws suitable to be copyrighted since it is a result of a intellectual effort to try to make the product more tempting. Lugusto • ※ 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they are not exact copies. But again, you will find various discussions. E.g. in the Netherlands, there once was a case of Dior against Evora. Dior tried to prevent Evora of importing its products. (try a google search on Dior/Evora). First, it used trade mark laws, but with no success. Finally, it tried to bring a charge against Evora based, claiming copyright violation. Indeed, Evora publish photo's of Dior's parfums in its brochures (as every shop publishes pictures of packages in its commercial folders, isn't it). It was judged that Evora could indeed use image of those parfums, as long as there's no damage inflicted on the other party... Anyway, this is a simplification, and it was based on some technicalities in the Dutch law, so I don't really know the details.

So... this is yet another way issues like this are judged, in yet another country.... --LimoWreck 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a "fair use" rationale, not linked to the questin whether package covers are copyrighted. I agree with User:Dragons_flight and I believe strongly that these should be deleted as derivative works. Samulili 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really "fair use"? Fair use is the direct reproduction of a copyrighted object. I think the right is more akin to freedom of panorama, which is another exception to copyright law. US law contains an exemption similar to the mentioned Dutch one for pictures of objects in advertising (17 USC 113): "In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports." (the words "lawful reproduction" refers to genuine as opposed to counterfeit goods). In reality I don't see how this isn't freedom of panorama for useful objects. It says you can make and display pictures of copyrighted articles for commercial purposes. -N 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... in connection with advertisements or commentaries ... [or] news reports" appears to be rather more limited than the general sense of freedom normally asked for here. In particular, it does not appear to allow showing images for their own sake, i.e. when not connected with commentary or a commercial purpose. Dragons flight 20:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's exactly the whole point. You state "showing images for their own sake". The whole issue is that they are *not* shown for their own sake; they're shown as part of another, user-made photograph of objects. E.g., showing a glass filled with a beer, and next to it the bottle, obviously also displays the label on the bottle. A shelf with cans is bound to have various labels visible. Most people will agree that a simple scan of the label probably can't be used on commons, but these photographs here just show images, part of images, or sometimes even just some drawings and colour, as part of a larger picture, not the paper wrapper alone... And that's an issue that's unclear ;-) --LimoWreck 20:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the start of the thread, I am focused on things like Image:CornNuts_Dscn0266_crop.jpg and Image:Corny_Schoko.jpg where showing the packaging is not incidental to the picture, but rather it is the whole point of the picture. Those are the images I think are problematic. Dragons flight 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Samulili: not really, it would be a "fair use" rationale if it was about exact reproductions of an original work of art. Note, that I don't want to justify nor reject something by showing that Dutch case; it's merely another example that it's not just a simple black/white issue. There's indeed something that "feels" related to the panorama freedom, and there are various other issue. There is room for interpretation ;-) Also note, that most of use sometimes get confused between the copyright and trade mark issues...: even the use of an image in PD can be limited due to trade mark limitations. Well even the use of "words" (i.e. the article names in Wikipedia articles) may be if they are protected brand names. But does trademark issues are not really related to the image licenses... so we shouldn't get confused on that distinction. --LimoWreck 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with that is that it specifies a limited number of purposes for which the images may be used, so they aren't wholly free. William Avery 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I don't know all the exact legal terms of US copyright law. However, what ever the Dutch case was and whatever the similar situation is called in the US, it is such an limitation/exception to copyright that it does not make the image we host "free" - that is it can't be used for all purposes as far as copyright is concerned. Samulili 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your examples. For the purposes of copyright there is nothing special about packaging in itself. Where the photographs or other artwork appear eligible for copyright a licence of some sort from the copyrightholder would be necessary. Image:Hawflakes-newpck.jpg and Image:Gum.jpg seem to me to be examples of packaging that would not be sufficiently original for copyright in the US. William Avery 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a consensus forming here that we have been wrong for several years in allowing these images here, and that these images should all be deleted, and further that policy needs to be clarified in this area to avoid folks wasting effort in future. Is that fairly characterising where we stand? Many of the images clearly would qualify for fair use to illustrate articles about the items, if in fact they were found to be unfree... but that's not directly relevant except inasmuch as it would be nice to have them around briefly so volunteers who are not admins could move them. I wonder though, if we should be seeking legal opinion of our counsel? Thanks for everyone's input... Further thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I left our counsel a note ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute. MikeGodwin 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wiki Logos

While there might be other places within the project, all over Wikicommons, indeed, at the top of this page, I see "One of the 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."

IT was brought to my attention that Wikipedia logo and other Wikimedia project logos are not free. There is likely another place/project where they can go, but they do not belong on Wikimedia Commons, and indeed, by allowing them to stay you're creating a disappointing schism between what you expect of others, and what you do yourself. --Thespian 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images tagged with {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} are not free, however they are allowed to be here because they are excepted from fair use, as the Wikimedia Foundation owns the copyright. Because of this, plus the fact that this is the Wikimedia Foundation's image repository, there is nowhere else for these images to go besides here. (→O - R L Y?) 20:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that does conflict with the repeated 'Only free content is allowed.' Why are The Wikimedia Foundation's images allowed to be licensed differently from all other content on Commons? There are other places/projects to put it that allow for more restrictive licensing (and http://wikimediafoundation.org/ for exclusive, foundation-use content), but the Commons should not contain them; the definition of Wikimedia Commons excludes them, regardless of exceptions that have been added for their exclusive use. --Thespian 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've looked at the deletion debate in Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/09 and also Commons:Alter_Wikimedia_Commons_policy_to_allow_Wikimedia_logos and its talk page. It was decided not to delete them, but no formal exception seems to have been made in Commons policy. William Avery 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and there shouldn't be. Really, making an exception seems to be a problem when there *are* other places that they can go, and indeed, moving to Foundation or Meta would actually make more sense for location. --Thespian 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After 2+ years of asking the WMF to license their logos more liberally, I am inclined to agree. This is especially true of things like Image:10Mar2005-01-34-21.jpg that are not used anywhere in any project, and Image:Bouncywikilogo.gif which exist purely to be entertaining. I would advocate expunging the ones that aren't used and moving the purely decorative ones to Meta. Anthere has made it bluntly clear that they the logos will never be copyright free in a way that is compatible with the mission of Commons, and so it misleading to keep large numbers of such logos here. Dragons flight 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much reason to oppose exceptions when a) the exceptions are few, b) they are clearly defined, c) and exceptions make it easier for Wikimedian's to operate. Samulili 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing justifies the big lie in the basic principles. Any downloader can expect to use Commons pictures freely (above all scalable pictures can be downloaded without reading the copyright licence). --Juiced lemon 20:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is ~1600 images, a few? Category:CopyrightByWikimedia. Many are user creations that bear little connection to Wikimedia's official activities. Dragons flight 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there are ~1600 images in there is because of other images that contain any Wikimedia aspect, like software screenshots for example. If they contain any Wikimedia logo in them, they also have a license of {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} along with the GNU FDL, etc. (→O - R L Y?) 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. My point is that for many of those cases their actual usefulness is too low, in my opinion, to justify bending the rules and allowing such non-free content on Commons. Hence I would argue that a large fraction should be deleted or migrated elsewhere. Dragons flight 23:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If some are determined to be not useful with a check using CheckUsage, then possibly delete them. If they are even used in Wikimedia projects, then don't. Wikimedia logos (i.e. Wikipedia, Commons, etc.) stay how they are. (→O - R L Y?) 00:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens, if not hundreds that are entirely unused. (Including for example, 2 of the first 5 in the category.) Then there are also many more like Image:394px-Wikipedia-support-Wercules.jpg that are single use on a single project (in this case as a user page decoration), and in my opinion don't deserve an exemption either. If this place is truly about free content, then it shouldn't allow unfree content here without significant justification. Unfree images used only on a single project should be returned there. Dragons flight 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation promised in February to update the policy[6]. -N 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anthere, April 2007: "The only certainty I can give is that the logos will not be transfered in the public domain nor under a cc-by-sa nor under gfdl. So, they will stay 'unfree'." Following enquiries about this very issue. Dragons flight 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this policy to change you need to take it up with the Foundation, not the Commons community. Even if Commons had a vote and decided the logos should be deleted, I feel quite certain the Board would quickly override us. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Board has no objection to deleting the decorative gimmicks and the like. Except for a limited population official logos, most uses of the WMF logos are unathorized copyright/trademark violations that are against policy as it currently exists, if that policy is taken literally. We could easily remove ~95% of what now exists in Category:CopyrightByWikimedia without bothering anything official. Dragons flight 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK recent versions of MediaWiki could support several shared file servers like Commons. So Wikimedia logos could be moved to dedicated server. --EugeneZelenko 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do. The problem is, what to do with images containing logos? Platonides 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either the inclusions of the proprietary logotypes are de minimis in which case the resulting images may be free, or it's not, and the resulting image cannot be freely licensed. The perfect-copy nature of screenshots means that de minimis is generally not accepted for such images. For example, we don't accept screenshots containing Microsoft Windows widgets. In this sense, the WMF logos are really no different from proprietary Windows widgets. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the WMF logos aren't moved to a separate, shared server (like commons is) then they should be deleted from commons and added to all the other servers (the former sounds easiest). You know: just like any and every other logo in the world. Making WMF an exception is hypocritical on several levels. Notably commons policy and WMF's mission to "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain." Cburnett 04:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WMF logos aren't educational content, so there is nothing hypocritic there. Samulili 09:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images from w:Heinrich Hoffmann

I have started a discussion at Commons talk:Licensing regarding images taken by Heinrich Hoffmann that were seized by the US government after WWII. I would appreciate some comments (or I might even move it here). To summarize the reasons I believe they should be considered PD: Germany signed a treaty with the US relinquishing all legal claims to the images. Mr. Hoffmann's German heirs later sold whatever claim they had to his photos to an American. The American sued the US government. The courts ruled the government properly owned the images. In short, nobody in either Germany or the US has a cognizable legal claim to them. -N 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. As I recall, the only seized works that are public domain in the US, are those that would otherwise have devolved to the property of the German government. So if the US considers these works public domain, then it it recognizing the German government I think (not private persons) as the erstwhile heir. And if the German government has given this up completely by treaty (as you say, I'm not familiar with that aspect), well that's it, they're PD everywhere.-Pharos 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with my pictures?

Hello! I've got some troubles with a few pictures. I uploaded various pictures of Léonce Perret last year but Rama deleted all of these a few days ago. I don't really understand why. These pictures have been taken in France and USA between 1880 and 1935 by the Perret’s family. My grand father (being the only heir) inherited and proposed me to release the pictures into the public domain. There is absolutely no copyright on it. So what can I do to put back those pictures in the Commons? --Ajor933 03:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the taking of a photograph is irrelevant to its status in these juridictions, as you would know if you had cared to read the documentation of the subject.

Can you provide the name of the photographers, the date of his death, and acertain that your grandfather holds the rights on the photographs ?

Also, would you please explain how it happens that some of your so-called "photographs" are in fact advertising posters of the time ? I also find it curious that the photographs were taken in very different times and places, and are distinctly scanned from some printed source like a book, rather than from a photographic positive or negative. Rama 08:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I can prove for sure is that my grandfather holds the right of those pictures. Isn't it enough?

And I don't really get what you mean by "advertising posters" and "taken in very different times and places", these pictures come from a photo album located in Paris in my grandfather's desk! He allowed Daniel Taillé (the author of Léonce Perret cinématographiste) to put some of the pictures in his book, but that doesn't mean my grandfather lost the rights on his photos, right? I scanned the photos from this book because I thought it didn't matter from where I scanned the photos as long as the rights are held by my granfather.

Now, does he have to send an email to Wikimedia Commons to prove that he holds the rights and want to release them in the public domain? --Ajor933 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes scanning the original would be preferable, both for quality and to make your copyright claims more convincing.

Some of the images you uploaded are advertising posters. I very much doubt that your grandfather holds the rights on these. In any case, for each photograph you upload, you should provide information on the author (his name and date of death); if applicable, explain why your grandfather holds the copyright, and provide a statement by your grandfather that the photographs are released under a free licence. Rama 11:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also stress that the fact that your grandfather possesses an album by no means makes him holder of rights of any sort on the images. Rama 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image description page holds necessary info

On former image page Image:CropCircleSwirl.jpeg , I had the correct tagging and source info for current images Image:CropCircleSwirl.jpg and Image:Crop circles Swirl.jpg , which I can't now find again... AnonMoos 09:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last version:

A crop circle in the form of a [[Triskelion]] composed of Circles:

{{PD-author|Unknown}} 

This image had been uploaded to the English wikipedia on 04:36, 5 Aug 2004 by [[:en:User:Chris 73]] (28516 bytes) (Crop circle).  The original description is: 

:Source: []: ''Though the original prototype has been patented, the material on the FuturePropulsion web site is not copyrighted.  Please feel free to use any or all of it in any way you see fit.'' ().

Last archive.org version of this declaration page is: http://web.archive.org/web/20040920093803/

EugeneZelenko 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that's not what I wrote -- I originally had the exact author and the exact archive.org URL linking to the original copyright-free declaration... AnonMoos 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? Version of AnonMoos, 13th may 2006 12:27:

A crop circle in the form of a [[Triskelion]] composed of Circles:

{{PD-author|Alan L. Baughman}} 

This image had been uploaded to the English wikipedia on 04:36, 5 Aug 2004 by [[:en:User:Chris 73]] (28516 bytes) (Crop circle).  The original description is: 

:Source: [http://futurepropulsion.members.easyspace.com/crop_circle_message.html FuturePropulsion]: ''Though the original prototype has been patented, the material on the FuturePropulsion web site is not copyrighted.  Please feel free to use any or all of it in any way you see fit.'' ([http://futurepropulsion.members.easyspace.com/ Copyright notice]).

Last archive.org version of this declaration page is: http://web.archive.org/web/20040920093803/http://futurepropulsion.members.easyspace.com/

NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it! Though as I now reflect, it may not apply to Image:Crop circles Swirl.jpg at all... AnonMoos 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto, Canada gig need photog, any know who?

Seeing how sparse Category:Users by country is, thought I'd ask here. Are there any active and competent, or at least just competent, Wikimedia Commoners from Toronto? I need someone to photograph the stars of Bratz at the movie's Canadian premiere. I can provide date and times to anyone interested. -- Zanimum 15:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has misunderstood PD-US

Someone marked Image:Mucha-Maud Adams as Joan of Arc-1909.jpg and Image:Mucha-Exhibition Brooklyn Museum-1921.jpg as copyvios, because their maker was not a US citizen. However they were works for hire in the United States and first published in the US. Am I correct that these are actually PD-US? -N 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly are public domain in the US; the only determinant there is that they were published in the country before 1923.--Pharos 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed that the other one had been deleted. You'd think I would have at least gotten a notification about the images being deleted, especially as I don't have a long history of uploading copyvios (at which point an argument might be made that there's no point in leaving a notification), but Polarlys doesn't appear to be very good about doing that. See the undeletion request. grendel|khan 15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Benkovac (grb).gif

Image:Benkovac (grb).gif has GFDL license and says its from English wikipedia, i didn't find source there. There is similar (same?) image with better resolution in hr wikipedia hr:Image:Benkovac (grb).gif. License there seems not free enough to commons? --Tomia 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28 July

Date & time-stamp for geo-coded pictures

Please see Commons talk:Geocoding#Date & time-stamp for geo-coded pictures for a proposal which may involve editing {{Information}} (perhaps by making {{Location}} a component of that template; and by adding some HTML classes and a date-time field). I suggest we keep discussion on the above page; or direct it to a new sub-page. Andy Mabbett 10:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the copyright status of a document (PD-GermanGov?)

I asked this at Template talk:PD-GermanGov, in the vain hope that an expert will notice it in time. I didn't get an answer, so I'm asking here:

Please, can someone have a look at this document and tell me if it is in the PD? If it is so, I will upload it here. --Daggerstab 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I doubt that the degree of originality is high enough to make this document even copyrightable. I think that it is an official work, but I am not sure. If this gets decided, Image:Besitzzeugnis EK1-1914.JPG should probably get the same license, as GFDL is certainly not correct. --rimshot^talk 13:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 606: / Line 606: @@
 I am seeing a consensus forming here that we have been wrong for several years in allowing these images here, and that these images should all be deleted, and further that policy needs to be clarified in this area to avoid folks wasting effort in future. Is that fairly characterising where we stand? Many of the images clearly would qualify for fair use to illustrate articles about the items, if in fact they were found to be unfree... but that's not directly relevant except inasmuch as it would be nice to have them around  briefly so volunteers who are not admins could move them. I wonder though, if we should be seeking legal opinion of our counsel? Thanks for everyone's input... Further thoughts? ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 :PS I left our counsel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikegodwin#Commerical_Product_Images a note] ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
+In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues.  Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute.  [[User:MikeGodwin|MikeGodwin]] 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 == On Wiki Logos ==

Commons:Village pump: Difference between revisions