Commons:Help desk

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
Help desk Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:HDSkip to table of contents | Skip to bottom | 🌐 Help desks for other languages

This help desk is a forum for questions and help on

How to use Commons

Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. Please sign your question by typing four tildes (~~~~). In order to get quick answers consider the following points:

Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after four days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days.

For quicker help, join our live chat room.
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)

XML Error uploading an image[edit]

I saw an outdated map from my country, so I tried to update it using the original SVG file from wikimedia and the Inkscape, so I could upload and update the pages were it was used. But when I tried to upload it here, an error message, in portuguese "O XML no arquivo enviado não pôde ser analisado", something like "The XML in the archive could not be analized". What should I do in order to upload this file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladinum2 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Which is the problematic file? (The English error message for this is "The XML in the uploaded file could not be parsed.") Matma Rex (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Matma Rex. The outdated file is: File:RiodeJaneiro_RM_RiodeJaneiro.svg. It is missing 2 cities that were included in 2013 by the Law. The cities missing are those marked in the maps: File:RiodeJaneiro_Municip_CachoeirasdeMacacu.svg and File:RiodeJaneiro_Municip_RioBonito.svg. Paladinum2 (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Paladinum2: Thanks. The original file appears to be okay, and can be re-uploaded, so I'm guessing your file got corrupted somehow? Or some of the checks done by our software are too strict. Can you email me ( your modified version of the file? I'll look into what is happening.
Also, if there's a better translation of "The XML in the uploaded file could not be parsed." to Portuguese (Brazilian), you can update it here: (or write it here, and I can do it for you). The current translation is actually completely different from Portuguese (, which is a bit weird… Matma Rex (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: Thank you for your help, I will be sending the file to you then. About the portuguese translation, for me the Brazilian Portuguese one is better translated then the Portuguese one, but both give the same idea. For example, I understand both. I can't change the translation, but if I would change any of then, I would change de Portuguese one to something like "O XML no ficheiro carregado não pôde ser analisado." Paladinum2 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
(We've resolved the problem. The file contained Portuguese text incorrectly encoded in Windows-1252 rather than UTF-8, making the document invalid. A fixed version is now uploaded at File:Rio de Janeiro Regiao Metropolitana 2014 modified.svg. Matma Rex (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC))

Changing CC license to public domain[edit]

If I create a work and make it available on under a CC license, can I subsequently release it into the public domain? If so, what is the process for doing so?

In other words, how do I change my work on so that it shows it is now in the public domain? Is it as simple as editing the licensing terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr ian mitchell (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is as simple as that. Under Commons policies, you can change the terms on your work to make it more free. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • While the prior license should remain, because CC licenses are not revocable, you can dual license it with CC-0, which is effectively a release into the public domain. So, for example, where you have {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} you would change that to {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|cc-0}}
I disagree. Either the work is released or it's not. If the author willingly releases one of his works to the public domain, then that work is in the public domain. The author can't, at the same time, on the one hand, say that the work has no copyright and, on the other hand, continue to claim the copyright and offer an incompatible license to new reusers or demand application of past licenses. If a user states incompatible statuses, he contradicts himself. In such case of insoluble contradiction, the intention of the user and the status of the work are in doubt and Commons may have to delete the file. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Asclepias: How does that fit in with the concept of an irrevocable license? - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the nature of the irrevocability clause is that a licensor can't tell a licensee "you can't use my work anymore". I don't think that the nature of the clause is to force a licensor to claim copyright forever. He can renounce to his own right. That does not affect negatively the rights of the former licensees, who are released by the licensor of their obligations toward him. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable. I have no problem with it going either way. I suppose you are right that there would be no problem with removing the prior license, but for just the same reason there would be no ambiguity in leaving the prior license and adding CC-0. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's the point over which we disagree. There would be not only an ambiguity but an incompatibility. One of the two statements would be false. Releasing a work to the public domain is not the same as merely adding a licensing option. Stating that the work is now irrevocably in the public domain excludes the possibility of still claiming the right to offer a license on it. If a reuser has already reused the work somewhere before the change, or if a new reuser gets it from an intermediate reuse, and is unaware of the change of status of the work, and uses the work as if it were under CC by-sa, that's understandable and no harm is done. If someone checks the status at the source on Commons, they can see in the history that the work has legitimately been changed by the author from CC by-sa to public domain. However, the crucial point is that the author who himself, now, states, on the description page on Commons, the present status of the work, is necessarily aware of his own intention and decision. He can't state that the work is both "not under copyright" (i.e. irrevocably released with CC0 to the public domain or the closest equivalent depending on the country) and "under copyright" (i.e. still claiming copyright and offering to license the work under CC by-sa). Like someone can't eat their cake and still have it whole. If the author released the work to the PD, knowing what he was doing, then he can't offer a license. If he states contradictory statuses, then it's indicative that he may not have known what he was doing and we should consider null the declaration of public domain and remove it from the page because it risks misleading reusers and causing misunderstandings. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Edward Dorins.jpg[edit]

Good Morning,

I am trying to obtain permission to use the photo at: for a commemoration booklet, which I intend to publish for free in the future. How do I contact the copyright owner, as it will be published in hardcopy.

I hope you can assist me on this occasion and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Smith —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Unfortunately, the description page on Commons doesn't help much. This photograph from circa 1920 is unlikely to be the own work of the uploader as claimed on the description page. The uploader's claim to own the copyright may or may not be correct. You can try to contact the uploader on his/her talk page on en.wikipedia, where the last contribution of the user is from 2016, and ask him/her about the source of the photograph and the copyright. But you may have to do research outside of Wikimedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:Edward Dorins.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Images given for public use - Commons upload candidate?[edit]

Can we upload images such as a location map given at some sites for public convenience such as this one from nmnh. I uploaded at hi.wikipedia but was deleted for lack of license. What sort of license can be used for this sort of images? --Ashish Bhatnagar  Talk  01:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • It would appear that the copyright holder has not granted a license that is compatible with Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms, so we're out of luck. The fact that someone makes something public and "free" in the money sense does not mean it is available to reuse and modify. - Jmabel ! talk 02:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Using wgUseInstantCommons in non-Wikimedia-wiki broken[edit]

Since some minutes ago using images from Commons is broken in my wiki , e.g. . I am sure it works 40 minutes ago, but now it fails without any changes in configuration. wgUseInstantCommons is set to true. Any technical problems in Commons? Any MediaWiki software update? My wiki is on MediaWiki 1.28.0 since some weeks. --InkluPedia (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Main pictures in are working now after purge from server cache (tested this morning without success), but all other tested ones like are still not working. --InkluPedia (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Just the thumbs are working in but the picture pages are no longer existing. So the thumbs comes from the cache only, no link to common is working since today in hundreds of articles. --InkluPedia (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Try posting at about technical problems with MediaWiki – folks here just maintain the content of Commons, and probably no one will be able to help you. Matma Rex (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

uploding file[edit]

I can not tag license and information so my upload has delated ...what i can do please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by सुमन (talk • contribs) 01:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding recoloured photo to existing photo page[edit]

I have recoloured an existing photo of Elvis Presley. The original page from which it was extracted is here:

Could you please advise how I can add a recoloured version of this photo to its page as noted above - I selected "Upload a new version of this file" as I just wanted to upload a new version, but I did not want to replace the existing photo. There was no edit option under File History so that I could add it there.

I've spent some time going through the Help Desk archives but couldn't locate a similar question in the half hour or so I spent looking for an answer.

I have now uploaded the recoloured image:, and would appreciate it if someone could advise how to do this, particularly since I occasionally recolour old black and white photos.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzali (talk • contribs) 05:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tzali. Looks to me like the way to do it is by using Template:Other in the "other versions" field of the file description. Take a look at how, for example, File:George-W-Bush.jpeg does it. Howicus (Look at what I found!) (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A closer analogy might be File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait.jpg, which uses {{Retouched picture}} in the “Other versions“ field (as well as {{Image extracted}} for a cropped derivative).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where to find the "Other versions" field to which you're referring.

As I mentioned, there is no edit option under 'File History' so that I could add it there. It doesn't open up the section I need if I choose the 'Edit' or 'History' tabs at the top. So where and how do I add it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzali (talk • contribs) 06:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, BUT this just takes me to the summary section. There is nothing in the summary section about where to add the new image in "File History."

As I said previously, there is NO EDIT option that I can see. You advised "Go to File:Elvis Presley Publicity Photo for The Trouble with Girls 1968.jpg and click "edit"" - to WHICH edit are you referring? Where is it that I choose edit to ADD this new recoloured image? The ONLY edits available are under 'summary' and 'licensing,' NEITHER of which allows me to add the recoloured image in the 'File History' section.

As I also mentioned, I occasionally recolour black and white photos so would appreciate actually knowing how to add new images under 'File History' in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzali (talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I didn't look into this closely enough, on two counts. I was thrown by the fact that part of the process of uploading a variant of a photo is to edit the "other versions" section of the information template. You don't edit the file history, and I didn't note that misdirection. You do the upload just like any other upload (which you've done), but you link them by using the {{Derived from}} template in the "other versions" section of {{information}} for the new photo and adding {{Derivative versions}} similarly to the old one. Let me do it for you, and you can see how it is done to do it yourself next time. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding Fischer, Ludwig Wilhelm[edit]

Es betrifft zwei Bilder: Fotografie von Ludwig Wilhelm Fischer (1817-1890) Zeichnung vom Inneren Markt Marktoberdorf, angefertigt von Ludwig Wilhelm Fischer Von der Stadt Marktoberdorf bekam ich die Bilder für den Wikipediaeintrag mit folgender Mail. Sehr geehrter Herr Meßmer,

anbei erhalten Sie die gewünschte Fotografie. Die Bildrechte liegen bei der Stadt Marktoberdorf. Die Zeichnung vom Inneren Markt befindet sich auch im Besitz des Stadtarchivs Marktoberdorf. ...

Bei weiteren Fragen können Sie sich gerne jederzeit an mich wenden!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen J. Heddergott.


Josephine Heddergott

Archiv, Registratur, Museen Telefon: 08342 4008-81 Telefax: 08342 4008-65 | E-Mail: | Internet:

Stadt Marktoberdorf | Richard-Wengenmeier-Platz 1 | 87616 Marktoberdorf

--Tomessmer (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Can someone, preferably a German speaker, work out if any actual help is needed here? I gather this is about the two photos in de:Ludwig Wilhelm Fischer. It seems to be about a licensing of rights (presumably the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International these were uploaded with) from Stadtarchiv Marktoberdorf, but I would presume these images are public domain, so there are no rights to grant. Also, if a licensing of rights by the institution is needed, that should follow the formula at COM:OTRS or, more likely, COM:OTRS/de. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Highlighting a river on an old map; NASCAR diecast models[edit]

Hello, two questions. First, would it be acceptable to reupload an edited version of an 1867 Beers Map in the public domain (File:1867 Beers Map of Yonkers ( Bronx, Riverdale ), New York - Geographicus - Yonkers-beers-1867.jpg) with a river on the map highlighted in a separate color in order to convey its course? I'm also concerned how, if acceptable, I would credit the source and work sections.

The second question concerns uploading pictures of NASCAR diecasts, which are models of NASCAR cars (race cars) but also can be considered toys. Would that be acceptable, or would it fall under "toys are copyrighted"?

Thank you. Tdorante10 (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • First question: absolutely, I just did the same thing here a few days ago.
  • Second question: I'm guessing not OK; most models, even very faithful scale-model replicas in museums are copyrighted in their own right.
  • Suggestion for future: when you have two unrelated questions, start two separate sections here. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploads are extremely slow[edit]

I used to use Vicuna Uploader to upload a group of files, but in the last few days it has given up the ghost. Uploading a single photo with Upload Wizard or Commons Uploader takes around 4 minutes for a cropped file and about 7 minutes for an uncropped file. Is there something wrong? Bubba73 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding image[edit]

Hello, I would like to add an image of the Austin Powers: Oh, Behave! box art to further improve the article however I am wondering if that would be considered fair use and allowed to be uploaded?

Article it would be for:,_Behave! .

Thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Commons does not allow images on a fair use basis, ever (nor does Commons have articles) so with respect to Commons the answer is a definite no.
  • You indicate an article on the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki), but your link goes nowhere. I'm guessing you mean en:Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!. It looks like that article already has an illustration on a fair use basis (which is uploaded directly to en-wiki, and would not be acceptable on Commons), so it is unlikely that en-wiki's policies would allow another. However, that is a matter for en-wiki to decide, and you should ask this question there, not on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 06:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Map Legend[edit]

Hi, I created a map using some symbols from File:Maps template-en.svg. I'd like to create a legend for the map in the description field. Like this:

archaeological site  archaeological site

But I can't seem to find the symbols used in the template. Could these be uploaded as single files, so they can be used in this way?--Metropolcarte (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand: You’ve obviously found File:Archaeological site icon.svg. This is in category Map icons. Look there and in its subcategories, which icons you are missing. — Speravir – 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. You're right, some are there, but some aren't. For instance, I couldn't find the symbol for "lighthouse". As to the symbols for places in Category:City locators: they are there, but for use in the legend you would want the symbol for "village" (black dot) be smaller than the other ones. In my opinion it would be nice if all the symbols from the template were in one place or one category. --Metropolcarte (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the purpose of the template file is to download it, open it in your graphical editor, and copy the needed symbols. Also, a legend in the fiel should be added. But we can also ask the original creator Sting, whether he could upload the missing single icon files into this category. — Speravir – 19:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, I originally created this template and their symbols as a standalone file, where the Wikicartographers would import it in their new map and pick up what they need, having everything they need in one place without having to search for several individual symbols through Commons. After some time, other contributors added additional symbols in the template. When I created it, I didn’t think of uploading each symbol as an individual file, but if you think it can be useful for the project, you’re welcome to do so. Sting (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Metropolcarte: I would be happy to extract whatever symbols are missing as stand-alone elements, if you’re not in a big rush; I’m working on another map at the moment. Please post a list of the required items, either here or on my Talk page—but if you haven’t already done so, take a browse through the cats under Symbols on maps to verify they‘re not already available. (Note we have some different Lighthouse symbols as well.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Odysseuss1479, thank you for your offer, no i'm not in a hurry. I would upload the symbols myself if i knew what to put into the author and license field. I recently found I think i'll use these in the future. They seem to be well made and more comprehensive. On the other hand, I think it would be beneficial to have all of the symbols in the template available separately. --Metropolcarte (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How to post pictures or photograph in my wikipedia article (Chhatrabhog)[edit]

What's my fault ? Please detect me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhanlal mukherjee150 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • That makes no sense. Please write this (with some context and detail) in a language where you can say what is going on. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This is actually not related to Commons, but to basic MediaWiki syntax. I do not know, in which project you have published this article, but at least the big Wikipedias have help pages, and among them is a help for inserting files into articles. The English one is en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. — Speravir – 19:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Category names[edit]

I have created a in Category:Bar charts some sub categories to get bar charts a bit better organized, e.g. Category:Time series bar charts. When I named the subcategories I basically followed what I saw in other categories. However, as an uploader of a "time series bar chart", I might type in "bar chart" as a category, but that won't offer me "time series bar chart" as category name. So, I think instead of "Time series bar charts" a category name like "Bar charts for time series" or "Bar charts for comparisons over time" would be better. Would be "Barcharts, stacked" suitable? Is there any policy about this in Commons?

Additionally I'am not a native english speaker. Is there is any place where I can ask if a category name is suitable? --Sigbert (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, if we are going to go that way, "Bar charts for comparisons over time" would be better. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I disagree: If it's a en:time series, we should call it a time series and not invent something else (added to Category:Time series now). Also, if you are looking for a time series of something, you're probably not going to start typing bar charts of …. I'd say re-user convenience before uploader convenience and keep it like it is. --El Grafo (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Estates in the Kingdom of Jerusalem - Sakib (Seecip).png[edit]

Hello, I have uploaded this image from the book of J.Riley- Smith (Knights of St.John in Jerusalem and Cyprus). It can be found here and here. I appreciate it if you can help me regarding the copyright. Thank you --Historyfeelings (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • It is copyrighted work, apparently published in the UK in 1967, so I can think of no basis on which it would be in the public domain. Unless the author (or his heir, as applicable) is willing to release this under a free license, it does not belong on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs Wikimedia images[edit]

I notice that Wikimedia Commons images can generally be used by international Wikipedias. If an image is already in Wikipedia, is it a simple matter to upload it to Wikimedia? Or does this involve a completely independent upload. E.g., I would like to use the image G4G Official Logo ina foreign language Wikipedias.--Toploftical (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of methods for transferring images from Wikipedia to Commons; see en:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons for some examples. However, the file you've given cannot be uploaded to Commons, since it's used on the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Only freely licensed images are accepted on Commons. You could upload the file manually to other Wikipedias with a fair use claim as long as their policies allow it. clpo13(talk) 17:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking for Recommendations on Software to make Graphs, Animations, etc.[edit]

So, I'm very out-of-date when it comes to software for making graphics, and I'm in need of some recommendations.

Here are some examples of what I already know exists, but I haven't really used much:

But what I am especially clueless about, is how to make animations and gifs. I really want to make a bunch for mathematics and science articles, to make certain complex ideas a lot easier to understand =)

I have no idea how this was made, but I really want to know how o_O

If anybody has some insights into this, Please let me know =) Thanks, everyone! Popcrate (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I made that light dispersion animation. What I used for that (and my other works) was a custom drawing library that allows me to draw lines and shapes with code. That's what you're looking for. At some point, if you really want full flexibility and artistic freedom, you will have to move towards that kind of approach, as typical drawing and plotting software are extremely limited. With that in mind, I recommend you look into Processing as a starting point, as it's very accessible, free and can do many things out of the box. (I made my own library because I'm stubborn!) — LucasVB | LucasVBWikipedia | Talk 17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


I have screen prints that I need to use for my work page. Screenshot-18.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art Saucedo (talk • contribs)

  • I have no idea what help you are asking for, but assuming this is about File:Screenshot-18.png, there appear to be some copyrighted icons pretty prominently on menu bars. They don't seem to me to be relevant to what the image is about. As it stands, it should probably be deleted as a copyvio, but it could be cropped to be OK (assuming the image of the Moon is public domain). "Own work" seems kind of dubious for an image that mostly shows a picture of the Moon that appears to be taken from space! - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying to upload .svg file but the following message is displayed, "Files of the MIME type "text/html" are not allowed to be uploaded". How to fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amritpal Singh Mann (talk • contribs)

  • Sounds like it isn't a properly formed SVG then: it has a MIME type saying it's simple text, rather than an SVG. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Second thought: not sure on what basis MIME type is determined, issue might not be internal to the file. Anyone else have ideas here? - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Checking the SVG file with the W3 validator might at least give some hints … --El Grafo (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Monthly challenge[edit]

I think I saw a monthly challenge recently, but now I can't find it. Where is it (assuming I wasn't hallucinating)? Sardaka (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean Commons:Photo_challenge? Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Merci. Sardaka (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after four days. Poké95 08:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Name of image[edit]

I recently uploaded the official portrait of Congresswoman Jenniffer González (provided by her office to the U.S. Congress) to Wikipedia Commons, but unfortunately I did not rename the file to something descriptive (such as "Official Portrait of Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez.jpg") and the file thus has the name that my computer had assigned to it when I copied it from the U.S. Congress website ("G000582.jpg"). How can I change the name of the file to make it more user-friendly for uploading to Wikipedia articles? Thank you. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: Does Commons:File_renaming#How_to_rename_a_file.3F help or do you need further assistance with that? Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo:, that's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much! AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after four days. Poké95 08:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Natur & Kultur, logotype.svg

I tried, but it turned out to be far beyond my capabilities, to determine whether a logotype like this belongs on Commons or if it's considered too risky, with respect to perceived copyright infringements in foreign countries.

The intended usage is like this: wikipedia:en:Natur & Kultur.

I would be happy if someone else takes a look and, if needed, deletes the file.
/Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I would presume that would be copyrighted, has no free license, and should therefore be deleted. Is there any reason to think otherwise? - Jmabel ! talk 16:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If it’s been around since 1922 it’ll be PD in the USA. Its status WRT Swedish copyright is harder to ascertain—the publication date is critical in any case—but, assuming 1922, if it’s considered to be anonymous the copyright will have expired in 1992: 44 § För verk som har offentliggjorts utan att upphovsmannen har blivit angiven med sitt namn eller med sin allmänt kända pseudonym eller signatur gäller upphovsrätten intill utgången av sjuttionde året efter det år då verket offentliggjordes. However, if it was first published after 1925 it will be still be copyrighted in the USA under URAA; if after 1947, in Sweden as well. If not considered anonymous its status will also depend on when the artist died.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see no basis to presume that this has been their logo for 95 years. It's imaginable, and if you can find a 1922 usage, great, but it looks likely (I'm not saying certain, just likely) to be more recent than that. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploading videos[edit]

Can I upload videos from YouTube with CC-BY-3.0 to Commons? --Vladimirrizov20 (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • As long as you are sure that it was really posted by the copyright-holder, yes. But there is an awful lot of copyright whitewashing on YouTube. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes. Could I convert to format .webm from .mp4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimirrizov20 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 February 2017‎ (UTC)
See Commons:YouTube files#Conversion. LX (talk, contribs) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@LX: OK. Thanks! Vladimirrizov20 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The photo posted as Lucien Cornil is not Lucien Cornil[edit]

It was posted by Domenico Forastiere. It is easy to check on other supports including Wikipedia that the photo is Victor-André Cornil (1837-1908) and not Lucien Cornil (1888-1952). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please add a link to the image you are saying so that we may fix its description/filename? Thanks, Poké95 08:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a book.[edit]

I want to add a book to Wikibooks. It is freely downloadable from their own site and is in many formats for reading on any device. How do I get it uploaded here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogeraew (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 February 2017‎ (UTC)

I don't suppose you could let us in on the secret of which book and which site you're talking about? LX (talk, contribs) 20:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Good idea that. :). Book is called "The Master Key System" by Charles F. Haanel. Hope you allow it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogeraew (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 February 2017‎ (UTC)

The fact that something is available free of charge does not mean that it is free in the sense that Commons requires, namely that anyone is free to use, modify and redistribute it. Unfortunately, has an "All rights reserved" copyright notice on page two, which goes on to state that "No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing..." The text itself was first published in the United States before 1923, so it is in the public domain, but the publishers of this particular version may rightfully hold and reserve the rights to the front cover and other recent aspects. Extracting the text should be fine, but the files that they distribute cannot be hosted here. LX (talk, contribs) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)