Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)

Legal action resulting from photographs by Haraldbischoff[edit]

There has been a running wikimedia-l email thread with regard to Haraldbischoff (talk · contribs · logs · block log) making fairly significant claims of damages against reusers (over 500 euros) who fail to give an attribution against published photographs taken from Commons, in particular mouse-over attribution may not be sufficient (based on the sources cited in the emails, e.g. where failing to provide the attribution text, the license and a link to the correct license appears to be the basis of the claim).

Not all potentially interested administrators follow email lists, and there is no evidence that Haraldbischoff has been informed of discussion, so I am raising this here for the record and notifying Haraldbischoff. This provides both Haraldbischoff an opportunity to explain how they expect re-users to attribute photographs if they take them from Wikimedia Commons, for administrators to consider if this is a reasonable interpretation of our policies for reuse where attribution is required, or whether these legal actions may be excessive or a misuse of policy and harm this project. I welcome others to add any documented evidence of legal action and outcomes, as well as expressing any reasoning as to whether this is an issue worth exploring further.

P.S. Haraldbischoff's uploads to Commons include many high quality portrait photographs of actors, their value to the project and for general reuse is in no doubt. -- (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course people may enforce their copyright but making 500 euro claims? No, not even a profesional would claim that much money in my home country if their photograph is stolen. Natuur12 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where you live, but in the US that number would not be unusual. Professional societies, such as the Graphics Artists Guild (which I am familiar with), recommend that copyright violation demands be priced at three times what the upfront price would have been. By US statute, the minimal court award is typically $750 for a copyright violation (subject to a potential reduction if the reuser can show that they had a good faith reason to believe they were not infringing copyright). Dragons flight (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The Netherlands. Here the amount compensation would depend on the amount of economical damage the photographer suffers. The regular price of the product also matters. I once read about a lawsuit where the judge only assigned 60 euros to the plaintiff. Professionals don't demand high amounts of money in my experience. (there are exceptions). Not sure why but perhaps they found out that people won't pay if you demand 500-800 euros. Natuur12 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
One can pursue a claim for actual economic losses in the US as well, but the statute sets a minimum award of $750 per work for copyright infringement regardless of one's actual losses or the nominal price of the work. Dragons flight (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The blog post which triggered the discussion seems unavailable but can be read via It does not tell which image on their blog was found infringing but going through older entries one can get a feeling of their image attribution practices, e.g: [1][2][3]. The first is technically incorrect, the other two are arguable, but it is clear they made a well-intentioned effort to credit their images. In the blog post they claim that they are students and their blog is non-commercial. It also seems that this kind of litigation is going on en masse, to the extent that several German lawyers post advertisements saying "contact me for help if you get sued by Harald Bischoff".

IMO large-scale collection of significant damages from bloggers who do not make any money with their blogging and who attempt to use the images legally but slip up on technicalities amounts to copyright trolling. If reusers are sued for doing the exact same thing that Wikipedia does (link to the file description page but do not explicitly mention author or license) that's even worse. Commons needs to take steps to prevent that kind of abuse, just like we expect e.g. Amazon to take steps against people who sell autogenerated Wikipedia article collections for several dozen dollars[4]. "Legal" does not necessarily equal "ethical". --Tgr (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

See my comment on the mailinglist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tgr, thanks for repeating the link to the Felix Friedrich post and fundraising campaign to pay the demanded money. I read through using Google translate, and it does seem worrying that images the public have taken from Wikipedia on the presumption they are free, especially as Wikipedia does not have license marks or attribution on the visible web page, are used for demands for damage payments based on the licenses here on Wikimedia Commons. The way our projects are set up for transclusions, without making any license attribution requirements (moral rights) explicitly clear is worrying. Essentially this is an accidental bear trap and may be exploited here as a money making scheme.
Photographers can and should be able to ensure their moral rights are protected, this may include claims of damages. However based on the complaints from those who have had demands of money, this does seem to be a flaw in our systems that make the chances of misunderstanding and mistakes being made by reusers highly likely. Systematic speculative demand letters or systematic legal action (which I have not read evidence of) which traps good-faith reusers is potentially a blight against our mission of sharing knowledge freely.
Now, does anyone have any ideas for what action should be proposed, if any? Though a possible problem of good-faith failing, this scenario does not seem to fit COM:BP, nor obviously not comply with COM:L. In his email Steinsplitter suggests this may be a terms of use failure, this may be worth exploring as it could provide a rationale to remove the uploaded images, no matter that they are within scope for this project (essentially, this could boil down to apparently misusing Commons to make money against the project's open values). -- (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have always felt that clear instructions for attribution requirements are missing from CC templates (and others). And I think we should indef this user and delete files: although he offers some high quality images all he intends to do with them is to make money (with the license/attribution trap). Otherwise he would warn re-users with wrong attribution first and only sue them if they still don't fix attribution in a reasonable amount of time. --Denniss (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with @Denniss: ^^. Sounds reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, souns like a good proposal. Natuur12 (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems to be more a Creative Commons issue than a Wikimedia Commons issue. Commons is just a hosting site for the images and the same thing could happen for files hosted on Flickr or anywhere else. Whenever somebody complains that files they upload to Commons are used without proper attribution elsewhere, the usual advice is that they can take action on their own using whatever means copyright law allows. However it seems like a problem if this user's interpretation of CC attribution is not compatible with Wikipedia standard practice. If they don't want their files attributed in that way, then perhaps Commons shouldn't be offering them to Wikipedia to be linked like that, i.e., the files should be deleted. Although of course Wikimedia will sometimes do what it thinks its allowed to do by its own interpretation of law and licenses and not what the copyright holder may wish. --ghouston (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I support deleting the current uploaded files per Denniss' proposal, as they are an immediate apparent hazard for reusers. If Haraldbischoff does not comment here and their account is blocked, I suggest we keep the door open and treat any appeal in a positive way. The images are valuable and could support the project, if there was a commitment to only upload CC0 licensed images and avoid the attribution problem, or that all Wikimedia Commons images would be shared in good faith, meaning that reusers would get a fair warning (i.e. without any demands for money) if they fail to attribute correctly and a reasonable time to correct problems before making any legal threat (I suggest 6 months), then this might be a reasonable best practice approach going forward. -- (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a wide variety of opinion, by photographers, on how to deal with copyright/licence-terms violations. Some take the view that they aren't actively funding their income through commercial photography so don't see the need to actively protect their creative works from misuse: it is sad when people don't give credit, but not worth losing sleep over. Others may give the re-user a chance to fix or remove the image and educate them on the fact that these images are still copyright and must be used under the terms of any licence. Others will demand a reasonable amount, and others will demand unreasonable amounts as punishment. Attitudes also vary where a non-commercial or an educational publication might be treated less harshly than a big corporation (e.g. Apple). If you follow PetaPixel then you'll see that many pro photographers (and amateurs with pretensions) seem to spend an inordinate (and surely uneconomic) amount of time suing people and giving themselves ulcers because their work is being stolen. There are companies who will help you find misusers and sue them. Commons file pages link to TinEye and Google Images which are tools that help locate re-users, and can be used to pursue misusers.
I think an immediate call to delete and indef block is hasty. This user has been here for five years, and not edited in the last 10 days (so may be on vacation). I don't at all excuse what they are doing: from what I read above, it doesn't fit my ethics. But the legal issues are entirely between the photographer and the re-user -- I don't see how WMF could get involved nor think it wise for Commons users to speculate in case they libel. Many on Commons, including some commenting here, have previously been adamant that off-Commons behaviour is irrelevant wrt blocks and bans. We do not currently require anyone to upload CC0, which is a relinquishment of copyright rights far more than just dropping the "BY" from CC BY-SA. Nor do we ask anyone to forgo revenue from licence offenders should they mend their ways. Think, for example, if a book or magazine was published with one of your images and no attribution. You could have got £100 for that, perhaps. Or if it appears in an advert for a major corporation -- you could buy a new camera with the the earnings from that. How would we actually police such a restriction, given that the correspondence between photographer and re-user is unlikely to be public. -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible that the matter is solved or settled in the meantime as the quoted link is dead? -- Maxxl² - talk 14:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the implication of some of the suggestions here that "must be freely licensed" at Commons is no more and the new requirement put forward is "CC0 or nothing"? Because if the reaction to a photographer using legal means to enforce a legit requirement of the CC-by-sa licence, then that's what we're saying.
There is a question as to how "-by-" is to be implemented and how breaches of it may be enforced. This is a matter of ethics more than legality. However if Commons is to say "No uploader may use legal process to remedy breach of CC-by a legal contract, on pain of banning" then that's Commons going directly against a key principle of CC (that CC is a real document with legal standing, not just nerds playing at lawyers) and it would make CC licences unworkable here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a polarized as you paint. The distinction to make is how a photographer with their images published on Wikimedia Commons, who is legitimately concerned for their moral rights, can or should act in good faith, and whether this means first asking for take-downs or corrections before setting no-win-no-fee lawyers after reusers. Good faith is a reasonable principle to apply in order to keep Wikimedia Commons a non-hostile environment, this should include being concerned for how reusers are treated off-wiki when they have acted in good faith in reusing the media we have freely shared. -- (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Legally, if the re-users are in breach of the licence terms then they are in breach of copyright. How the artist deals with such copyright breaches... I'm really not sure that is any of our business. There are many, many people who view this as theft. If photography is their livelihood, then they claim this is no different to someone stealing from a shop-owner or try to avoid paying for their train ticket. In those cases, the offender is not, typically, given a telling off and asked to put the goods back on the shelf, or simply to pay for the train journey they just took. We might find the aggressive pursuit of money for images to be distasteful, unethical, or against our values, but is it our role to judge someone's business ethics?
This guy has uploaded a relatively small number of images. How would you react , if some institution who released 30,000 images on Flickr with CC BY-SA 2.0, and which you spent a fortnight transferring to Commons, and countless volunteers then spend time categorising, sending to FP, QI, and inserting on WP articles, then started aggressively pursuing license offenders. Would you take a stand that the CC licence is worth the paper it is written on? Or would you remove this free content because you don't agree with the copyright owner's business practices. -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't like the way Haraldbischoff is handling licence problems and I certainly wouldn't do it that way myself, but there can't be any doubt, that he does have the right to take action, when his works are used in a way he did not give a permission for.

The free licences are the base of our project. And therefore it does not sound like a good idea, to kick somebody out of the project and delete all his pictures, just because he tried to reinforce the terms and conditions of such a free licence (the hard way).

Somebody mentioned above that Abmahnungen may be harmfull to Commons' reputation among the reusers of our content. On the other hand it definetly is harmfull to our reputation among authors and photographers, if we would kick a photographer out of the project, just because he tried to enforce his rights written down in the CC-license. Please have in mind, that photography isn't just a hobby but also a profession. And there are a quite a few current and future Commons-contributers (including me) who also make a living from their photographic work. And since, having the right to enforce given terms and conditions, is essential to a professional author, a headline like this would cost us a lot of highquality contributors: "Commons bans photographer for enforcing the Creative Commons terms and conditions". // Martin K. (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Martin K., I think you are absolutely right. I read a post on through Google translate (not a good translation) and I think he felt very attacked and defensive and didn't seem to respond to further prods with the pitchforks. I think a better approach would be to try (with native speakers) to talk to him about taking a different approach. Going all "free content project" fundamentalist on him is not likely to work. He may also be rubbed the wrong way by users who are not themselves photographers lecturing him on his property. The images on Commons belong to the photographers (well, except the PD stuff), not to you or I or WMF. It may surprise some people here, but this site would not exist without photographers, and many of them make a living doing that. Generally, such pros are extremely protectionist about their images because that's what they pay the mortgage with. Most people who fail to attribute a CC image properly are probably also taking "all rights reserved" images off the web too -- they just think everything on the web is free. Oh, and you may also be surprised that Creative Commons is more interested in helping artists enforce their licence terms than helping ignorant publishers get away with it. For example. It is hard enough to persuade a pro to donate images to Commons, but if the headline Martin suggested appeared on PetaPixel or DPReview, it would be terrible for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to put in those images a warning like "the uploader of this image is actively using legal means to enforce the licences and suing webs which fail to use a proper attribution line". That would warn reusers and, if this is not an schema to get money from reusers, the uploader will be satisfied with such a warning.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I like your idea. Something like the message below should attract most reusers' attention. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, should be placed on a subpage of this user and protected, then bot-placed on all his uploads. BTW not the first time this user became known for unethic actions,even revert-warred to get his images into german wiki in 2013. This sounds more and more like a money-generating backdoor against the principles of Wikipedia. I am not angainst legal actions vs misuse of copyrighted images but one has to assume good faith and warn/notice the reusers and not directly take them to court.--Denniss (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:KDS444 has his personal, advisory solution ready and in action. This way of informing reusers seems to be more appropriate to me. By the way, the fact that a user, whose copyright is violated through improper attribution, asks a lawyer to to react, is quite common in Germany. There was no court involved. The 900 Euros are simply the regular charges the lawyer invoiced to violator. The outcry of the blog "Die Freiheitsliebe", which was the starter of the trouble, is deleted in the meantime. The matter appears to be settled. There is really no need for further action beside tagging an informative notice - no warning - on uploads of User:Haraldbischoff. -- Maxxl² - talk 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Some more cases from the past:

The first is another case where someone was made to pay damages for using a few images in a non-profit personal project, and in the second case there was good-faith attempt at attribution: the author explains that he put "Foto: Harald B." in the image caption, and listed image licenses at the end of the article, but got hit for damages anyway, on the basis that clicking the images shows them in a lightbox with no attribution. Which is IMO a preposterous argument but this is how the copyright infringement racket works: you either pay up or you go to court, in which case even if you win you'll pay more on legal fees, and defending against copyright litigation is like russian roulette, with a legal landscape that has been shaped by lobbying by large media conglomerates and collecting societies and is extremely pro-copyright-owner, with regulation such as statutory damages. So of course everyone would pay up, even if the way they used the images is borderline but arguably within the scope of the license.

It also does not seem to be the case of an over-eager lawyer doing things without the copyright owner being aware of it, as the writer of the second article claims he reached out to Harald and explained the situation and got refused. --Tgr (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Attribution requirements of CC-BY licensed material still in question[edit]

Before taking a far-reaching action, we should keep in mind that it is still discussed controversially whether the image-attribution in most Wikipedias (credit on separate page) does legally comply with the terms of the CC license, as the courts read them. (This was also discussed in the Wikimedia-l thread.) The only known exception is :no which allows below-the-image-credits. A week ago I had started a discussion about this question on the :de-page for copyright-questions (de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Abmahnung / Urheber-Nennung / Wikipedia gibt schlechtes Beispiel). As you can see (if you read German), of two legal experts who replied, one thinks the Wikipedia-way is CC-compliant, one thinks it is not. For example, last year a 2nd-level court in Germany ruled that a mouse-over-credit is not sufficient. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between linking to an image which is attributed where it is stored and copying the image and storing it somewhere else, with a link for attribution. The practical difference is that if the image is deleted from the site which is linked for image and attribution, the re-used image is also gone. The copied image remains until someone notices and removes it, so a link is not a safe method for attribution of a copied image. Whether Wikipedia complies with CC-by is another issue. I would reasonably assume that the WMF legal department has considered this and found it is compliant. Whether a court of law would agree is another matter, but in that instance I would also assume that WMF is willing to operate on that assumption and bear the risk. In printed works it is common to provide attribution for photos on a different page to where they are printed. It is usually near the front or back and includes a title like "Photographic credits". My opinion is that this procedure is matched by having the credits for the image on a different virtual page in the same website, particularly on the same page where the image is "stored", and this is particularly practical and reasonable when the image may be changed without warning by anyone, and for this purpose, Commons could reasonably be considered the same website as the Wikipedias, but not the same site as Joe Bloggs' blogsite. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be interesting, and possibly useful, to know why the court ruled that a mouse-over is insufficient. I do not see any immediately obvious logic. How does this fundamentally differ from any other method of attribution in which the credits are not always visible at the same time as the image? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
My understanding (admittedly by way of Google Translate) is that a mouseover was judged not to be a "reasonable way" of presenting copyright information because it meant that the existence of the attribution statement was neither obvious nor available to all users viewing the work. In particular, the court objected to attribution that would only be discoverable if a user accidentally happened to move their mouse over the image and made note of the fact that not all web interfaces have mouse-like capacities (e.g. a tablet / phone may behave differently). Dragons flight (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. One could make similar arguments that attribution that is only shown after you click on an image is also not obvious, but the particular case didn't address the issue of click-through attribution. Dragons flight (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue of attributing CC-licensed images via a link to the image page has come up before, such as in this discussion. Among other things, if Joe Bloggs copies a CC-licensed image from Commons to his blog and then has a link from the image to the image file page on Commons to provide attribution, then it would seem that the responsibility would be on Joe if the link was to break in the future i.e. if the image was to be deleted from Commons. To be sure, if a user encounters an image on Joe's blog, it may not be totally obvious that clicking the image is what will lead the user to the attribution info-if, for example, Joe has a hyperlink next to the image with a note about attribution (i.e. "Credits for this image") and which leads to the page with the attribution info, then that might be easier for a user to discover. Creative Commons has a number of examples for attribution best practices, and there is an example where there is a link to the Flickr page for a CC-BY 2.0 image but with the image title omitted. It is noted that the title should be given, yet the example's being described as a "pretty good attribution" suggests that the attribution is compliant but definitely not ideal. From Creative Commons Australia there is a guide on attribution which among other examples talks about a site attributing Flickr images by including a link the image's Flickr page and the image author's Flickr page; Creative Commons Australia seems to be OK with the practice. --Gazebo (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
CC could do a lot better in this regard. Their track record, of offering advice that wasn't legally wise, is not good. For example, they and WMF used to promote the idea of licensing low-resolution images as CC and giving the impression the high-resolution images where still "all rights reserved" -- but it turns out that isn't true. But Commons/WP could also improve, such as giving examples of appropriate attribute for print and inclusion within video as well as for web/wiki. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for the argument that people can't CC license low-res versions and also retain all rights to high-res versions? Dragons flight (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It's somewhere on Commons. The related discussion was November/December 2013 or 2014. --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the link for the on-Commons discussion, but the relevant FAQs in CC'S own Wiki after their paradigmatic change are at: [5] and [6]. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
And that FAQ is utterly bullshit as only the copyright holder decides (and is permitted to do so) what he releases ander a free license and what not. It's not something an organization like CC is permitted to add after releasing a license. --Denniss (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
May be. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore that they alerted us about the fact that the permission in the CC licenses legal code is given for the "work" and that "work" may usually be interpreted as the photo as such and not as a file of a specific resolution/size. --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not up to them to define the "work", many legislation may apply "work" to the lowres version (and smaller) and not higher res versions. Plus a similarly looking higher res version may well be a copyvio - even the smallest difference to the lowres version is sufficient. For me it looks more and more that CC is even less suitable than GFDL.--Denniss (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the issue of applying a CC license specifically to a lower-resolution or lower-quality version of a work came up in February 2014. In the end, from what one can tell, it was decided that such restrictions should be honored, i.e., if a low-resolution version of an image is licensed under a CC license with a stipulation that the license only applies to that version, then it should not be assumed that higher-resolution versions are covered by the same CC license. At the same time, it was mentioned that it is legally unclear as to whether CC licenses (or, for that matter, other free content licenses) can be applied to a specific version of a specific work as opposed to being applied to all instances of a specific work. --Gazebo (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The impact of file deletion[edit]

In the email thread above, it was suggested that if we were to delete files from Commons we expose reusers to increased legal risk. The CC licence ask that you "say where you got it" which will typically be a hyperlink to a Commons page. And some re-users may rely on a hyperlink to supply all CC terms (attribution, where you got it, licence name and details) just as Wikipedia does. If readers follow this link and simply see a "Image delete by admin" page then that link no longer serves its purpose. If re-users are relying on this to provide attribution and licence proof, then we have made their use break the terms of the licence. Images that aren't uploaded by a Commons User (e.g. transferred from Flickr) may be even more problematic, as there is yet another level of proof indirection that is lost.

Should we reconsider how file deletion is performed, so that a stub of a page remains, with licence terms, author details, etc, retained? -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What if someone uploads a file with the filename, say, "X is a paedophile", where X is the name of a prominent person or active editor here, and the final word is munged to get past our filters? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: That would fall under policies for vandalism, so a different scenario. -- (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be deleted the moment it gets detected. I recently speedied 3 files, which had such a filename (only it was rape). --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to CC license templates[edit]

At Minimum we need additional text explaining the reusers have to state the author, source and license. In Online media an URI is required for Source and License. This info shall be merged into the Attribution bullet point in the license templates. --Denniss (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the template (and CC's own summary pages) could be better. However, there are "Use this file" links at the top of the page for both web use and wiki use (though, sadly, not print use, which is a serious omission). When I tried it with one of my images, it gave suitable text. The Media Viewer also gave the correct HTML for embedding. People just don't read instructions and think everything on the web or wikipedia is public domain. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have "Use this file" anywhere on the random images I picked. I remember this was shown in the Information template but only if some text was added into the permission field. That's actually something to begin with, have this important information always shown at the bottom of the information template and not tied to Permission text. Although the link is rather broad than specific to CC.--Denniss (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is probably best done on another forum, if it is to lead to any change. -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Corrupted or infected files[edit]

A local copy of File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_-_Nachtwacht_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg image have been reported has containing the following vulnerability : . Please check if the online one is also compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenage (talk • contribs)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim Morrison 1968.jpg[edit]

No new comment was made in the last seven days. Could someone close this? Regards, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 06:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As you may know, there is a significant backlog at present, I'm sure someone will get to it asap. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I only asked, because en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jim Morrison (2) can't be closed before that. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

move req[edit]

Please, move User:CinSaint/cologneblue.js one level up, no js, should have been user page. Thanks. --Achim (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Achim, sometimes users put random texts on their js pages so other regular users cannot edit them. It could be the case here. However if the user requests the move an admin can surely move it. Thanks. — T. 13:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Bet you didn't have a look at it. Seem to be an old ladies first steps here. --Achim (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't edit user js/css pages unless I have their permission or it's a necessity. This user has only 1 edit so far and no uploads. It's also a new username. If s/he requests, I would be glad to move it. I left a note on his/her talk page. — T. 15:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot without permission?[edit]

User:FileMove-Bot seems to run out of order (Special:Contributions/Tankist-777) generating pages like User:FileMove-Bot/png→svg/f1. --Achim (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User notified about this report. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It does not make the page. It replaces the file reference in connection with the necessity. He's still not working. It made more codes.--Tankist-777 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For example: for FileMovers: Replacing the file links ([[File:1.svg]] → [[File:Example.svg]]) after renaming on all wiki-projects.--Tankist-777 17:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad flag rename[edit]

I believe File:Pro-Independence Flag of New Caledonia.svg should be renamed back to File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg, but I can not do so myself. The file was renamed today but the reasoning appears not to be sound. Fry1989 eh? 15:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion here. Fry1989 eh? 16:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

trying to re-upload deleted picture[edit]

I am trying to move this file from Arabic Wikipedia, to commons, as I would like to use it in the Al-Sanamayn-article. However, when I try to to that (with upload wizard) it fails, as I get link to this:معبد_الآلهة_تيكة.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1: Copyright violation,

But from what I can see on the Arabic Wikipedia, it has a backward c: I thought we could upload those to commons? Sorry, if this is a newbie question; I´m really more at home in Middle East history than copyright issues...Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct place is Commons:Undeletion requests. Just for your notification, the deletion was because attempt to Flickrwashing it was already deleted also from flickr. -- Geagea (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I will try there. I checked tineye here, and they could not find it; cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I tried to report it there, but something apparently went wrong, and the page did not get made? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
For undeletion requests there are no extra pages like a deletion discussion, but your request got listed at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. De728631 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete old versions of file[edit]

In "File:Montagem Pau dos Ferros (RN).jpg", I propose that the first two versions (the first charged by Editorworld on 23 November 2010 and myself in October 2, 2011, specifically this and this) are deleted from the file history, keeping only the two latest versions only carried by me on October 24, 2011 and March 14, 2015, since the first two versions, the images are of doubtful authorship because the assembly was loaded directly by Editorworld user without photos had his own and permissions given in licensing, and therefore a likely "copyright", especially the city panoramic image at the bottom of the assembly, in the version carried by Editorworld, which was a copy of a website. As I'm not a very advanced level of English, this request was made from an automatic translator. Marcos Júnior talk 01:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please check if this is OK. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)