Commons:Help desk/Archive/2011/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


How to modify upload page just like commons wikimedia?

Commons wikimedia upload page have Original source: Author(s): can add info easily (example:

I want to know how can I make my own mediawiki upload page get such useful option? --晒太阳的冰 (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please ask at the mediawiki helppages. This help desk helps you with using this project, Wikimedia Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

thank you! -- 02:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Permission for photos

If I were to obtain written consent from copywrited photos how would I provide that to someone. I have the right to use photos from the brand itself, but how would I be able to prove that.

You could use Commons:Email templates and send it to Commons:OTRS. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
is the permission you got, only for personal use, or is it transferable to third persons? Does it include commercial use by anyone downloading it from commons? --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Uploading photos whose license details are not available

If I want to upload a photo of a famous celebrity in order to upload it to wikipedia article and I do not have license information or it is unlikely that I get the license details for the photos found in internet, can I upload?

Unfortunately, no, because if it's not your own work, you have no right to give a licence which is not verifiable, sorry. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Uploading PNG

Hi, I'm new to Commons and having problems simply uploading a png file. (I uploaded a jpg without any problems so I don't think it's my computer that's having issues.) Any suggestions you can offer would be very much appreciated. Thank you Wikalias (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you please explain more. what kind of problem do you have?   ■ MMXX  talk  16:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
When I clicked "upload", it says it's uploading, but it went on way too long, so something was wrong. I tried that numerous times yesterday. Today, I tried it again (with the image as a png and again as a jpg) and when I click "upload", absolutely nothing happens, not even a message saying it's uploading. Your thoughts? Thanks Wikalias (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Would someone please provide suggestions? I could really use the help. The file is now a jpg 16kb. I am not able to upload. It says it's uploading but it's taking way too long, so something is wrong. Thank you very much Wikalias (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The new upload wizard seems to be a little temperamental on some days. Try the old process at Commons:Upload. LX (talk, contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The issue has been resolved.Wikalias (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Password problem

I signed into Wikipedia using usual name and pasword. I then wanted to upload image to commons and it asked me to sign in again but it would not accept my password. Eventually I asked it to email me a new password which it said it had done. However after 10 minutes it has still not arrived at my usual address or at the other 3 addresses I occasionally use. I cannot now sign on with my old password and it refuses to resend a new password for 24 hours. If I wait 24 hours the new password may still not arrive. What can I do? I am thinking of creating a new account and forgetting about the old one.

You are not telling the username, so here are some basic questions. First, are you really sure the Commons account is yours (not the Wikipedia account)? From what you say, it sounds like the Commons account may belong to someone else (perhaps with a username similar to your Wikipedia username). It is unlikely that the system forgot both your password and your address. It sent the new password to the address registered for the Commons account. You are not sure what address you had registered for that account? When was the last time you logged into that Commons account before this attempt? If you told the username of the Commons account you were trying to use, it would help to clarify at least some points, especially if a user was active with the account recently. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:301 & Sugar 3.jpg

I tried to remove the border. I uploaded it, but it did not show the new file. I did it again, but somehow the original always remains on top. I tried to revert, and it just made more copies with the original with border on top. I would appreciate if someone more knowledgeable could fix this mess. Sorry. KudzuVine (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You were successful the first time. Don't upload more copies :) It's just that sometimes the system still shows you the old version. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please purge your browser’s cache.

Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Mozilla: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Opera/Konqueror: press F5, Safari: hold down Shift + Alt while clicking Reload, Chrome: hold down Shift while clicking Reload

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillke (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Free image emailed to me... source?

A photographer has consented to release an image (cc-by-sa) and has emailed it to me (along with consent form, to be sent to OTRS). But the image is not available online. What do I put as "source" in the appropriate section of the image description? The "author" field will already link to his website. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Source:photographer's name, as you got the image from him personally. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Probably a stupid question, but I really wanted to get it right. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 19:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

how to ckeck

this photo was uploaded with Free art licence, but there is a copyright watermark on it. How it can be checked? Valugi (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I found the blog it came from, no sign of a Free Art License there (maybe I didn't look hard enough), added a link to the blog on the description page. A copyright notice doesn't necessarily mean all rights reserved, but in this case I expect it does. The uploader should provide evidence of the claimed license, without it the image must go. Ultimately the best way to check is email Julius and ask. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks Valugi (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

new lines at the end of a parameter

I thought that inserting spaces and new lines at the end of a template parameter had no effect. Yet when I try to put "|north= on a new line in Category:Pièce de la vaisselle d'or, it breaks the template. Any reason for that ?--Zolo (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems to put |N= in a new line. Usually spaces are ignored inside of templates. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I changed the template so I cannot replicate it, but I have a similar space/newline problem in Category:The Birth of Venus. A strange space appeared at the beginning of the second line of the title in this version but it seems to be fixed by a seemingly pointless edit--Zolo (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Public domain?

Hello. Can i upload the images from this web page? They date back from 1882 to 1925. Thanks! --Jys (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a problem with that webpage. I get error message (500 Internal server error. There is a problem with the page you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed. To start over, you can return to the Home Page.) mickit 16:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

fletcher6 widow's walk photo

I'm a self published author interested in using the widow's walk photo that appears on wikipedia under the definition of a widow's walk as the main element of a book cover. The photo would be modified by having the book's title and my name superimposed and I would like to add a grim reaper that appears to be standing in the widow's walk. Can I do that? Does fletcher6 have a full name and would he lke credit for the photo inside the book? Nancy

You may want to read over COM:REUSE for detailed information on how to reuse our files. You may also want to contact fletcher6 directly (either on his talk page or by e-mail. Powers (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP subject is upset about unflattering photo

Hi. In covering the Big Apple Con this past weekend for the Commons, I met Dawn Marie and her manager, who were very upset about an unflattering photo taken of Marie at Wondercon while she was pregnant, being used as the main Infobox photo in her article. I removed it for them, and replaced it with one of the other photos on her Commons category page, but they are still upset about that photo being on the Commons. I've never been to WonderCon, but if it operates at all like the New York City-based comic conventions, then fans are probably required to ask permission before photographing one of the guests, which I myself always do. They did not do this, and Ms. Marie (real name: Dawn Marie Psaltis) is highly upset about that photo, and when she learned I was a Wikipedian, she asked for my help. Can it be removed? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the current infobox image and it looks suspiciously like a copyvio image to me. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you just delete that image? That was not a copyright vio, that was the image her manager took. That was the one from her Commons page that I used to replace the lousy one she didn't like. THIS is the one she's upset about. You deleted the wrong one. Nightscream (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The image that was deleted (File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg) was claimed to both be the property of the manager and to be the own work of the uploader; that's why it was deleted as a suspected copyright violation. Powers (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Nightscream, File:Dawn_Marie_Psaltis_at_WonderCon_2009.JPG is properly licensed and won't be removed from Commons simply because Dawn doesn't like it. On the other hand, the other image was licensed improperly and was in violation of copyright law. The irony here is pretty thick, I know. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The right thing to do here is ask her to donate another photo to be used instead through OTRS, see Commons:OTRS. As soon as we have a freely-licensed image of higher quality, we will most likely use it. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I would think that once we have a better picture of her, we would delete the unflattering one as a courtesy. We do that pretty often, and I don't see any argument against doing it here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
My error, then, I didn't realize "LPs" could request images to be removed from Commons. If that's the case, I think that's kind of nice. Not to sound like a deletionist, but if it's not a great picture, I'm all for getting rid of it at any rate. Maybe Nightscream can obtain permission from the manager for the portrait image we deleted, it was quite a good picture. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a very common sort of request. I think we need to differenciate between two very different categories. One is private individuals who happen to have pictures taken while addressing a meeting etc, or randomly in public or private. These people can reasonably expect not to have unflattering pictures of them spread across the internet, and unless we have a legitimate need for the photo (and they can't or won't provide an alternative), we can agree to the deletion.
The second case is people who are public figures, or who are public performers or politicians who for commercial or political reasons want to control their image. In that case they really are fair game, wikipedia etc are not venues for them to promote themselves, and we should not be influenced on our choice of illustration by them or their manager/publicity-machine any more than we would let them write the article. By all means get them to send a better image (highly photoshoped no doubt), but on the understanding that individual wikis will choose to use any image that is appropriate, and without any undertaking that we will remove any other image. Any other path is fraught with problems of precedent and just makes wikipedia etc part of their publicity machine. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Tony Wills' distinction, though I'd note that there are people who are on the border between the two categories, and that's where we need to make individual judgments. Also, I for one nearly always oppose deletions requested by subjects of photos when those subjects either start out by threatening legal action or claim that we have no right to have a photo of them. At that point it becomes a matter of principle rather than a matter of courtesy. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Powers, the manager was the uploader. She was the one who took the photograph. Since I had already made the point that I was in contact with the subject and her representatives, the editor who deleted could've worked with me to determine this, and to fix any improperly written permission or licensing information on that photo's page. Instead, he jumped the gun and deleted a perfectly good image, one far better than any of the others in her Commons category, for no apparent reason other than pure spite, and the fact that he had the power to do so.

As far as Dcoetzee and Jmabel's comments about aquiring a better quality image of her, well, we already had a better picture of her, one taken by her manager, and one of you guys deleted it. And she hasn't threatened any legal action or made any claim about your right to use the unflattering photo. She simply made a request because she's upset, a concern that in spirit, Wikipedia addresses here.

Seriously, you people are unbelievable. Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, this could probably have been handled better. I've temporarily undeleted File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg, and sent an e-mail to User:MarkDBSkinsFan (whom I'd presume, given Nightscream's assertion above, to most likely be Michele Mupo) asking them to confirm their right to release it into the public domain via OTRS. Let's hope they'll respond promptly and we can get this all straightened up. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
So... You are saying that the uploader, MarkDBSkinsFan, who signs "Mark" and who is likely this man, is somehow the same person as the supposed copyright owner, who is named Michele and who is this woman? That is... an interesting theory. Still, if one wants a confirmation from the Michele incarnation, it would probably be better to contact her, for example at her company. For now, I think the file should remain deleted. The Michele incarnation might not appreciate that the Mark incarnation tagged her work public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I confess that I did not think to check the uploader's global contribs, which do cast doubt on my earlier assumption. Anyway, I've now e-mailed Ms. Mupo directly via the address you provided. I doubt there's any urgent need to delete the photo right now — we've already had it for almost a year, after all — but I do agree that it should be deleted if we can't confirm its licensing status within a week or so. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This copyvio was here during that time only because, unfortunately, it went unnoticed. (The fact that it was not used on any WM project until now partly explains that.) But from the moment it is noticed, yes there is a need to delete it, like any other copyvio. It even becomes urgent when people now display it on WP and the description page falsely advertise it as available in the public domain. It is not like the author had given any indication that she might agree to that, or like we could reasonably expect it. As far as I can tell, the author has asserted her copyright on this photo when she published it on the web and she has not offered it under a free license or to the public domain. (See for example the IMDb profile [1]. I also note that User:MUDAMultimedia removed the other photo from the WP article [2] but did not add this photo or give any indication that they would agree to its use.) Of course, I hope that your request can be met by some form of positive answer from the author. I am not ruling out the possibility of obtaining a free license. But, as we know, people are often reluctant to place their promotional photos under free licenses once they know what it means (modification and commercial use by anybody). However, the odds of obtaining a declaration of public domain seem very low, as that would seem to be in contradiction with the author's prior behaviour. The action of leaving this photo on Commons and offering it under a false claim of public domain is a mistake when, from the available information, it looks contrary to the author's will and as such is a copyvio. If this file made available on Commons without a free licensing from the author, the very least we should do is warn the unsuspecting visitors. To this effect, I am adding the "Disputed" tag to the description page. I still think the file should not be undeleted unless and until an authorization is obtained. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the pic. Yes, Michelle Mupo is Dawn Marie's manager, and is the one who took the photo. I don't know who MarkDBSkinsFan is, I'd imagine that he's the one who uploaded it because he knew how WP/Commons worked.

Can you tell me which permission/license template needs to be placed into the file's Summary? I can call Michelle and tell her if you'd like. Nightscream (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first you say MarkDBSkinsFan is Michele and uploaded the image (I quote: "the manager was the uploader"), and now you're saying you don't know who MarkDBSkinsFan is. I may have ticked off one or more people in this thread, but that image is a textbook case of copyright violation and should be re-deleted immediately. Adding a license without absolute proof from Michele isn't the correct way to handle this at all. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The way Michelle explained it to me at the convention, I thought she has uploaded it. I didn't know what her username was. Wikipedia Community Liaison Maggie Dennis has already contacted me to ask me to have Ms. Marie and Ms. Mupo fill out the form letter here and send it to OTRS, so there is no need to overreact again by re-deleting the photo. Nightscream (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The copyrighted image (until proven otherwise) was being used in the article. I've removed it, and it needs to remain off the article. It is a copyrighted image. This is why, Ilmari Karonen, it should not be undeleted, because now the image is popping back into usage—on a GA article, no less. We are now in the middle of an American three-day holiday, and I doubt we'll hear from the contacted manager for a while. If the image must remain undeleted (which makes zero sense to me), then it at the very least should not be used on any articles until OTRS has confirmed that it is released under the proper license. And Nightscream, this is not an over-reaction. I am reacting in accordance with Wikipedias policies. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 16:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, my edit was reverted and this is simply not a fight I'm going to win. I firmly believe this is an abuse of OTRS (Commons:OTRS specifically states "before" the image is uploaded) and a potential OTRS-tag language loophole—since the tag states that an email has to have been sent—, and the image will continue to be used, against policy, on a GA-class article. The latter is the current issue, imo, since an admin has deemed it okay to keep the image around otherwise. I do not think this image should be allowed to be used until it is given permission for use, and I don't care how many big names are dropped (Jimmy Wales, Maggie Dennis, Michele Mupo)... – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If we have good faith reasons to expect the OTRS to be forthcoming, we give some leeway for OTRS pending status. It's actually easier for the copyright holder if they can link directly to the image they are approving. If it is not resolved within about a week, it can be re-deleted. If you don't want to use it in the GA while it's still not proven, that's undertandable. I appreciate your vigilance, but it sounds like this is likely to be resolved, so can wait a bit. --99of9 (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
From the discussion, it can be seen that we have zero reason to expect a confirmation of the false pd status of that file. We have zero reason to believe that the author granted any form of free license. There is a difference between the confirmation of something that already exists and the mere wish that something non-existent might perhaps come to existence in the future with some luck. Confirmation implies that there's an actual pre-existing agreement to the license by the author. It is not the case here. Users have sent mails to the author asking if she might consider granting a free license and they wish to receive a positive answer. The OTRS-pending template is meant for the interval between an actual agreement and the confirmation of the agreement through OTRS. It is not meant to be used with an unfree file that the author has not agreed to freely license and just because someone has sent a release request to the author in the hope that the author might consider it. The file does not have a valid free license and the author has never indicated that she would grant one. A user decided to undelete this unfree file for, he said, one week or so. The week is over. Has the situation changed? No. The uploader has now plainly admitted that the status tag is bogus, that the author never agreed to a free license and, at best, he had a verbal simple-reproduction-on-Wikipedia-only permission. Now we would display that unfree file for one more week under the same pretenses? After that, what, another week, and then another? The situation is simple. The file is not free. Requests for release have been made but we have no indication if the author might accept and, if she ever does, under what terms she might choose to do it. If and when a release occurs, the file can be undeleted. This is not different from all other similar cases. Why would there be a sudden importance and urgency to publish that file, so imperious that it would justify disregarding the rights of the author and putting aside the policies of the Commons? If "this is likely to be resolved", why not wait until the author agrees and chooses the terms? Until then the file can be kept deleted, as is normal, ensuring that no harm of any kind is done. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Video removed on the basis of quality?

A video I uploaded was removed from an appropriate article on grounds of 'quality' citing 'it looked like it was shot on a mobile phone' - the video is DVD resolution and I have many others which occupy appropriate wiki articles elsewhere - how should I challenge this decision? Mark Kilby (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Video is here File:East_Park.ogg, it's of a public park and conveys substantial information about the park in its current form.

Are you in all seriousness dragging out a three-year-old issue from en:User talk:Keith D/Archive 6#East Park Video?? Sheesh. Go take it up at en:Talk:Kingston upon Hull, if you must. (Besides, you've placed the video in en:East Park, Hull, where it should be fine. Even if 320×240px isn't exactly "DVD resolution".) Lupo 20:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, no I do not wish to revive that issue and I should have been more specific...
I added that video back in 2008 and an admin removed it citing 'poor quality video not really suitable'. Now I come back in 2011 to add more video content and remember those comments. Before I invest more time uploading I wish to check what test of quality is to be applied. My experience is a quality bar is in force, either this is true or the basis of removing video content back then was somewhat ambiguous.
I could not care much for whether a video is included in an article or not but if there is a quality test I want to know what it is before I invest more time and effort. The original admin went on to say the content was 'as though it has been filmed with a mobile phone' so maybe mobile phone footage is the problem?
BTW the original video is DVD resolution but you are correct the uploaded version was downsized - my mistake. Mark Kilby (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

is this license correct?

Hello, I would like to use this imageé-kheops-photo.jpg on my website, editorial use. The image page says to verify the license is correct - I have no idea how do to this. Please help. I can see that the image is supposed to be from a book published in 1930 by a Belgian who died in 1947. Thank you for your help. Sincerely. 18:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're claiming editorial use (which is a type of fair use), you don't need to worry about the permissions. But you could probably only do that if your website was focused on the image itself, or on the publication from which it was taken, rather than on the pyramids it shows. Furthermore, the licensing of that particular image is pretty questionable anyway; you did the right thing by asking here. I've nominated it for deletion based on the questionableness. Thanks! Powers (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Powers for the answer. Together with the answer on Wikipedia, I decided not to use the image, since it seems I'd have to have a hard copy of the book to properly verify everything, including the image is in it. Thanks also for the extra explanation re editorial use. Glad I asked. Sincerely. 14:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New Upload wizard

Twice I used now for uploads the new Upload wizard. I selected categories, but it did not add them. -- Brücke-Osteuropa (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure, you clicked "add category" (not just filled in)? -- RE rillke questions? 21:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, be sure to click the "add" button. I made this mistake myself more than once. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Move image to appropriate domain?

Yes check.svg Resolved– Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Sardar_patel.jpg is tagged copyrighted in the US, but PD in India. Apparently the © tag doesn't sort the image in a category so I'm not sure if this is simply an image that's gone unnoticed. Should it be moved to an appropriate domain where it can be used freely by India Wikipedia but not US articles? I'm not too familiar with all the rules there. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is sorted to a hidden category, if you not see it: Special:Preferences#preftab-1 in the Advanced options. The usage on en.wp is not a Wikimedia Commons concern, as far as I know at this time the English Wikipedia not worry about this problem. --Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can this image be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? Biodiversities (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Although the photographic reproduction is licensed under cc-by it is a derivative work. The fact that the flickr user is the physical owner of an printed promo photo or printed video screenshots (or of biology books to refer to his other uploads) does not mean that you he is authorised to replicate the photos or books by uploading copies here. --Martin H. (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, I understand. Thank you for your help! Biodiversities (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem

During the process of uploading photos I was stopped by someone who asked me to double-check copyright licensing as the photos seemed to come from another source. That is indeed the case. I’m writing a series of Dutch articles on the Simba massacres in Congo d.d. 1964, when Belgian missionaries were tortured and executed in Wamba, Stanleyville, Mambassa, … I can complete this task with full cooperation of the Mission Procure in Brussels with which I’m in direct contact. They are the editors of brochures with the photos of the murdered fathers, photos which I am allowed to scan for use on Wikipedia. In fact, the editors encourage me to do so.

Could someone please tell me what I should do to stay out of trouble and convince the Wikipedia guardian angels that I’m not doing anything illegal? Thanks in advance! Vaneiles (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The most important step to stay out of trouble is simply making sure you are accurate and honest. Make sure whatever information you put on image pages is correct. For example, File:ConradJoseph.jpg -- Is that a photograph which you personally took? Did you take this photograph of this person on 6 June 2011? If the answer to either of those questions is no, your information is not accurate, and you need to correct it. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You might also find it useful to read COM:OTRS, which explains how to make things clear when you have permissions from third parties. - Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the helpful suggestions. I'll first ask the official permission from the brochure publisher/editor to copy and use the photographs of the murdered missionaries on Wikipedia and make the information going with the photographs more accurate by saying that I scanned the pictures on the given date, but that the photographs come from the SCJ-brochure.
Vaneiles (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but a "permission ... to use the photographs ... on Wikipedia" is not good enough. The copyright owner of the photos will need to release them under a free license. Note that the publisher/editor may or may not be the copyright owner (in other words: he or she may or may not have the rights to release the images under a free license). If he does both, follow the OTRS process. BTW, the original photographer, if known, must be attributed. Lupo 06:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First Truck?

Documentation I have on Chevrolet Truck built in Canada General Motors of Canada 1908 to 1973 shows Chevrolet truck in production in 1919. How did Ford rate first in 1925. I have found many flaws to compair Canadian built Cadillacs in 1923 too. - unsigned

You are unlikely to get a relevant response on this page. This is a page for technical help in using this site, Wikimedia Commons. You might want to try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous on the English Wikipedia, though I suspect you would do better somewhere on a site like - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I go about uploading a screenshot to this category without copyright infringements?

I would like to include one screenshot from a music video for an article on Wikipedia, but I don't want to make any mistakes by infringing copyrights. What are the steps I can take to meet the criteria, like these images did in this category? I haven't had any success in uploading screenshots and I don't want to make any errors again. Biodiversities (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're currently editing Wikimedia Commons, a distinct project from Wikipedia. At Commons we would not accept music video stills, however would be acceptable at Wikipedia under fair use rules. Specifically, you would need a reason why you needed a copyrighted image, and not just "illustrative purposes". Go to Wikipedia:Upload and click the link "It is a screenshot taken of a movie, TV program, computer game, web site, computer program, music video, or similar source" (4th from bottom). Then upload and make sure you have a valid fair use rationale. Good luck! -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale

I loaded a front cover of a Judge Magazine 1953. It is now displayed in wikipedia at Judge (magazine) Based on what I read, not thinking it's in the public domain because it's only 58 years old, I picked Fair Use, now I need a Rationale. Where exactly do I put that? Or change the category to public domain? It's just the front cover of a defunct magazine, that I can find no information on whatsoever after 1953. Please advise Thank you Proczach (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You put it on the image page - check out WP:FU for more info. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If a lower res image is released under CC, can the author retain copyright to a higher res version

A user asked me this. He has some nice photo's on pBase, which are around 1024x768, and is considering releasing them under the CC-BY-SA licence; however, he wants to know if, subsequently, he could publish the original higher-resolution versions under a copyright licence in a book.

I've searched the articles, and did find this;

However, as that doesn't give a definitive answer, I thought I'd ask again. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We generally assume that this is possible (for example we have many OTRS releases of low res images and we don't upload higher res versions over these even if they're available). However there is no legal precedent in this area and I frankly have no idea what a court would find. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Flickr#Lower_quality_images or see for example the Commons:Bundesarchiv cooperation which offers files in 800px size at the longer side while the original size of the scans at the BArch is ~3000-4000px at the longer side. This are examples that people can offer different sizes of their works under different licenses to retain certain rights on the full size version. --Martin H. (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Same opinion as Dcoetzee. We are not aware of any authoritative statement. I once asked that at the CC blog, but they also couldn't say anything definitive. If the pBase-user still is hesitant, you/we might consider adding an explanatory note to the description like "author released only the 1024x768 resolution under CC-BY-SA". --Túrelio (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
As an example my way to release a lower resolution for free use. -- Хрюша ?? 11:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the above comments, but this does seem to remain a grey area, which I think is unfortunate. If a photographer wishes to release some nice pictures at a certain resolution under CC-BY-SA, but is worried that, later, they would thus be unable to publish higher-res versions (e.g. in a book) under copyrighted terms...that is very unfortunate - and I can quite understand them wanting precise clarification.
Adding caveats to licences (such as the example given) never convinces me, because the licence terms are precise.  Chzz  ►  23:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing stops them from publishing higher-res versions in a book under whatever terms they want. The license only binds others. The unresolved question is whether someone could then use those pictures under a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That is, indeed, the question.  Chzz  ►  03:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
(Which I'm still kinda hoping someone might be able to answer, eventually)  Chzz  ►  21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to bump this; you have an answer. The fact is, there is no precedent here, and even a lawyer's opinion, which you'd have to pay for, could only be one opinion, albeit a knowledgeable one. There is no way to know how a court would rule on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd written to WMF via OTRS, asking if someone from legal could possibly help answer - that's why I 'bumped' it.  Chzz  ►  21:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
First. If I'm the author of an image. I can publish it under as many licenses I like. So I can sell it to someone and I can publish it on Commons under a cc-by-sa license. It becomes harder if I sell the high resolution image and I publish a lowres version under cc-by-sa. The question: Is it a different image? If the answer is no it means I also licensed the highres version under cc-by-sa (it's the same as the lowres and that one is cc-by-sa). It's a matter of debate what the answer is to the question. IANAL but it depends on who you ask and what jurisdiction you're talking about:
  • USA : Most lawyers will say lowres is the same as highres (so low/highres approach probably doesn't work)
  • Netherlands : Most lawyers will say that there is a difference (so low/highres approach probably works)
As far as I know this has never been tested in court. Multichill (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's unfortunate, 'coz it could put people off donating images. I wonder if it'd work if they e.g. trimmed off (cropped) the outer edge for the low-res version, sort of thing?  Chzz  ►  12:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think, Multichill, thats incorrect. Otherwise the business model of most image agencies are wrong, they make different payments for different usage and different file size, a websize file is priced lower than a full size version. If you can grant commercial, non-transferable license with restriction on a maximum filesize (and smaller) you can also grant free license on a reduced version - which is a derivative work of the original - without granting any permission for reuse of the original work. --Martin H. (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Do Creative Commons pics require a link?

Do Creative Commons pics require us to link to the site of the author in the attribution? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not easily answered by yes or no. It may depend on the context of what is requested by the author, in what terms, what is the connection, if any, between the picture or its attribution and the website, and on the interpretation of the license. If you have a specific picture in mind, it would be useful if you could link to it if possible, as that would help clarify at least the context. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--here is the link to the pic

There does not seem to be anything that would require a link to the author's personal site in this case. However, the "author" line in the Commons description page includes a link to the author's flickr account. But because this image has now disappeared from its original source at flickr, we cannot easily tell if this link was an integral part of the attribution line originally specified by the author or if it was only a addition on the initiative of the uploader here at Commons. If you want to be on the safe side, you may want to include that link in the same manner. But other users may be of the opinion that that would be overcautious. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding a newspaper front page to a newspaper's Wikipedia entry

What license do I need to use to add a newspaper front page to a newspaper's Wikipedia entry? The previous image was from 2005 and did not reflect the standards of design and content currently in practice at said newspaper. It was updated yesterday with a recent front page, but the image was red flagged and deleted.

Slagledesign (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This would not be a Commons issue at all, because it would be a "fair use" rather than a free license. You don't say what language Wikipedia is in question, and not all of them allow "fair use" images. If it is the English-language Wikipedia, it does. You would upload the image on the English-language Wikipedia, not on Commons, and would use en:Template:Non-free use rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

using a photograph from Commons

This si the first time I have used Wikimedia Commons. I found a photograph (Negba water tower, uploaded by user Bukvoed and he states that it is his own photograph) and I would like to use it in a book that I am designing. The book is to be published in Ireland and is a biography and will have a relatively short printrun (about 1000, I think). Is it alright to use the photograph, and how do I credit it?

Many thanks for any help you can give me. Janestark (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Janestark. The image is available under three licences: GFDL (rather long-winded), CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-2.5. I suggest you go by the last one as it's simplest. Essentially, you can use it as long as you credit the author (in a manner which does not imply they endorse you or your work) and state the licence. It's ok to attribute on another page, so just write something like "Photo by Bukvoed, licenced under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5". For more information see the CC webpage for BY 2.5 and BY-SA-3.0. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you answer in Russian?(by Google translate)

How can I change name of file?(Google translate)--Арман Гомкцян (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Если переименование не будет вызывать споров, то можно использовать {{rename}}. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Need a human speaking plain English (NOT geek) to help with categorizing a simple photo of a flower

I don't think I have ever, outside the most self-absorbed pretentious legalese, ran into more abstruse language than here. In your 'category' jargon you apparently NEVER use the simple, expressive, comprehensive term 'classification', which is just bizarre. And actually finding a 'category' to use, despite the utter simplicity of the image, appears to be impossible. Please someone tell me how to satisfy a stupid mindless email ROBOT (a bizarrely inhuman concept itself), but more importantly, get an image properly classified in a 'category'. Or, keeping in mind that no good deed goes unpunished, I'll just pull the photo I took and uploaded.

Oh, yeah a row of tildes . . . . Bluestem (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Added into Category:Manfreda maculosa - I assume that's what this is, the en.wp page with that title uses the image anyway.
I'm sorry that you found the uncategorised notification confusing, what exactly was problematic? The notification tells you how to add categories. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AH, crap. Don't you know the danger of assumptions? And, despite the content--do you READ? I ADDED the image into the Manfreda entry ("...anyway"?) AND I still see the notice that the image is STILL "uncategorized". Nothing appears to have changed. I ASKED for HELP--instructions--"Please someone tell me . . . ."--not someone to condescend and presume to do this one FOR me, ignoring my request. Thanks for nothing--seriously. Can I get some HELP? 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You can remove the "uncategorized" notice at the same time you put the image in a category. Which, in fact, Mattbuck did four days ago (coincidentally in the same minute you added your row of tildes), so the image is not still uncategorized. You added the image to English Wikipedia's article on Manfreda maculosa, but you didn't add it to a category here at Commons. And even if it were still uncategorized, it's nothing to get upset about. Images don't get deleted for being uncategorized. And if you don't want to get an e-mail every time someone (whether bot or human) drops a notice on your talk page, just log in, go to Special:Preferences and deselect "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed". —Angr 17:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Today, right from the page for the photo I uploaded:

" This media file is uncategorized.

Please help improve this media file by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related media files (how?), and so that it can be more easily found.

Please notify the uploader with

File:Red Sonja.jpg

Hi, I am unfamiliar with WikiCommons. Using Flinfo, I have just uploaded File:Red Sonja.jpg, a pic of a female Red Sonja cosplayer, and I want to use it in the Red Sonja Wikipedia article. Can the image be used directly, or must the face of the woman be made anonymous (=> insert black bar over eyes), or what is to be done? Help is appreciated. X2000 (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I answered you on the Village Pump. Please don't ask the same question in multiple locations unless you fail to get an answer in a reasonable period of time. Powers (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Centaur image

Copyright problem with the image of the Centaur skeleton in Wiki Commons, posted by Sklmsta as public domain and copyright free, attributed to Skulls Unlimited. This photograph and the Centaur skeleton belong to the artist William Willers, who hired Skulls Unlimited to make this art object according to his specifications. It is not in the public domain. William Willers holds the copyright, not Sklmsta or Skulls Unlimited. Please remove this photo from Wiki Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufiji (talk • contribs)

I believe he is talking about File:Centaur skeleton.jpg --Tony Wills (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As it is not an obvious copyvio to me, I have posted a deletion request where it can be discussed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Centaur skeleton.jpg. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Derivative work of CIA map


I have a query about an image I have made at File:RwandaGeoProvinces.png. The map is a derivative of File:Rw-map.png‎, to add colour and province boundaries/names. The original image was taken from the US federal government's CIA world fact book [3] so is public domain, and therefore presumably fair game for making derivative works, but I'm not sure if I have done the licensing correctly (e.g. am I the copyright holder of the derivative work?). If someone could check this or recommend the correct licensing I would be grateful. Thanks Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're the copyright holder of the changes you made. In this case, it's probably most straightforward to put two tags on the image, one for the original and one for your changes, something like this:
For the original image:

For the modifications:
Or whatever free license you want to release your own changes under. —Angr 17:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

World War II photos

I have an album of pictures taken by my grandfather during the World War II. He was not acting in an official role as a photographer when he took the pictures. The pictures have never been previously published. My grandfather died in 2005. Can they be uploaded here, and, if so, under what license would they fall?Dsmdgold (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They can be uploaded here if the person(s) who inherited the author's rights from your grandfather offer the pictures explicitely under a free license or donate them to the public domain. The choice of the license is up to them. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There was no explicit mention of intellectual property rights in the will. The estate was divided evenly between myself and my siblings. Do I need to get permission from each of them to upload them? Dsmdgold (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Normally, yes, if you have left the IP rights undivided and you intend to leave it that way, then you should get unanimous permission for the free licensing or the public domain donation. That would make things clear, undisputable and safe for everybody. Unless you all first agree to attribute to one of you the exclusive ownership of the IP rights, or of the IP rights on specific works, or you all mandate one of you with the power to manage or dispose of the IP rights in the name of all, or some other formula. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
If the other heirs agree that not just the physical copies of the photographs, but also any rights of reuse/intellectual property also were inherited by you, that should be fine. Thanks for asking and making sure you're getting things right. Infrogmation (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Could I please have File:RutlandHighSchool.JPG.jpg and File:RutlandHighSchool.JPG.jpg deleted, I accidentally uploaded them thinking I had to include "JPG" in the title, but apparently it gets included for you. Hopefully this is possible, I'll re-upload the same pictures later under a different title. Mr. Prez (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The files can be renamed to remove the duplicate extension. I tagged them accordingly assuming that this is what you are looking for. You won't need to re-upload them. --  Docu  at 22:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
How can I rename the file? Mr. Prez (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Add the {{rename}} to the file description page (as done here) and a filemover will do it. --  Docu  at 23:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Uploading cropped photo

I'm attempting to upload a cropped file which was taken from another image. Both images are "entirely my own work", and for some reason it says "This looks like a file you obtained from another imagehost. Please make the title more meaningful. " How do I make the title more meaningful? Mr. Prez (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently others were puzzled by that message too (Commons:Prototype_upload_wizard_feedback#Error message, Commons:Prototype_upload_wizard_feedback#Ridiculous error message, cannot upload.).
Somehow you need to vary your filename. --  Docu  at 00:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Or use the unwizardified upload form? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That seems to be a recurrent problem, indeed, and I have no idea about what leads the wizard into assuming such a thing. Curiously just the other day I uploaded a picture which was both a copyvio from the web and a duplicate of an image here in Commons, and I've not received a single warning (indeed it was the first time I used the wizard, and I was expecting at least some button like "upload image now", bit no, it was only a "next" and the disgrace was done. Glad that it was just a copyvio I was occasionally looking at and used for testing, and not one of my stags ;).--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I delete some files?

I've created a few near-similar versions of a file. I tried replacing the previous versions at their file page (as per instructions during upload), but couldn't figure out how to do it. So, there are some files such as "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Page-1.jpg", "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Page-2.jpg", and "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Page-3.pdf" that no longer serve a function and can be deleted. How do I do that?

If someone else needs to delete them, please don't delete "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Page-3.jpg" as it is being used in an article. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Airborne. I've deleted the ones not in use, and moved the File:Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Page-3.jpg to File:Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Page.jpg. For your future reference, you upload a new version via the file page, there's a link in the File History section. As for deleting content, you need to be an administrator to do that. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Manfreda inflorescence, flowers with petals intact.jpg

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Help desk/Archive/2011!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

Bluestem (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Alemannisch | Azərbaycanca | ‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Български | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Vèneto | 中文 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/− "

I see nothing that alters this. And I STILL don't KNOW HOW to DO THIS, WHICH IS WHAT I ASKED FOR. Bluestem (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The notice was removed from the description page several days ago (this can be seen in the history of the page or by clicking on the link provided by User:Angr above). If you still see it now, there may be a problem with the cache of your browser still showing you an old version of the page that it stored on your system. Try refreshing your browser's cache and that should fix it. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Upload Wizard does not add categories

Yes, the Upload Wizard does not add the categories you write into it. Using Chrome on Windows XP. -- 06:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a usability issue. You have to click the add button. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reporting licence abuse

Where do I report licence abuse eg if I see a newspaper using a Wikimedia image without the correct attribution? What steps does Wikimedia take in such cases? Magnusmagnussen (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is did the newspaper get it from us or not. What image was used, and how was it attributed? -mattbuck (Talk) 04:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want, you can notify the author (at his contact information, if available, and/or, if he is a direct Commons contributor, on his user discussion page). The author is the person who best knows if he did or did not make a private arrangement with the newspaper on terms different than those of the license he offers on Wikimedia and he is the person who can decide what he wants to do or not if there was a violation of his copyright. Your notifying the author that his work has been used, and giving details about the publication, is useful to him, because, if he didn't know about it, it allows him to be informed of it and take action about it if he wants. Wikimedia does not take any steps. Wikimedia is not the copyright owner and normally would not be informed of the arrangements between an author and a reuser. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You can also use the {{Published}} template on the File Talk page as a notice. Powers (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagging of pictures

First, I uploaded many of my pictures with a public domain license and me as the author. Then, I uploaded all of the chemical pictures found here. Then, user:raeky questioned whether I had permission to upload all of woelen's files. Then, he started tagging all of my public domain self-created files. Why the last step? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Have you tried asking User:raeky? Powers (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Files upload but appear blank

I have been trying to upload several files since yesterday using the upload wizard. The file as accepted, and I then get the message "The upload succeeded, but the server could not get a preview thumbnail". The process completes, but the file canot be found. I have tried with three different files with the same result each time.

I have uploaded files in the past without any problems.

Help much appreciated.Epzcaw (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the svgs, they are rendered like in firefox. Have a look at the transform attributes. There are extreme values in it. When removing them, I got a display. Hope this helps -- RE rillke questions? 10:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
When experiencing problems only with our UploadWitch, feel free to switch back to the old but wise upload-form. -- RE rillke questions? 10:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I've tried uploading using the old form but with the same result.
I am a self-taught not-very-competent user of Inkscape, and have no idea what the transform attributes are. I have created and uploaded several images I made with Inkscape without any problems, but have presumably changed something without knowing what. I would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.....
Thanks Epzcaw (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Opened it in Inkscape, selected all, and shrank the lot - it now uploads. So thanks again!
Will have to request having the other blank ones deleted. Epzcaw (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You can open SVGs with a conventional text-editor. The structure is valid XML (I recommend reading the article if you are not familiar with it). You can simply delete attributes. (like the transform attribute) -- RE rillke questions? 12:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. All sorted now. Will work on XML! Epzcaw (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How do we post a company's logo?

Hi, I'm making a Wikipedia article for a new company that just started up and I don't know if I need a license or what kind.

So do I need a license for it's logo if I just upload it from the company's own website? how would you suggest I display it's logo?

Is it fair use because it's like a news article describing what the company does?

Please let me know.



You can't upload it here unless it's just text or very simple graphics. You may be able to upload it to Wikipedia, depending on which language Wikipedia you mean, and assuming the article passes muster (most new companies are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia). Powers (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary editing trouble

Some my edits seem to make the summary section unusable for this file:


Could anybody help me, please? Maybe it is because I used the new upload form this time. Is this form lee hand-editable? Thanks in advance! --Esmu Igors (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, how can I make a link to the file instead of displaying the file itself?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmu Igors (talk • contribs)

I took care of it. BTW, use [[:File:Bindone-formation.svg|Bindone-formation.svg]] to get Bindone-formation.svg. mickit 21:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Esmu Igors (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome Face-wink.svg mickit 21:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Correcting file name

Can someone please correct the file name for this file:

Ole Imerslund Reistad.jpg

-to the following:

Ole Imerslun Reistad.jpg

-as that was his correct name. Any help in this would be highly appreciated. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Next time you can put {{rename|new name.jpg|reason for new name}} on file description page to ask renaming. mickit 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to upload the image file for the Norton Abrasives wiki page, which I have saved as a JPEG on my computer. I've run into some trouble with it as the uploader will not accept my image and displays an X post upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nortonabrasives (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Another file different from File:Norton CMJN.jpg or is it that one? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the one, it's not showing up on my screen post upload though. Just my stupidity? Or is there something wrong?

It displays fine in the original size or larger. However, in smaller sizes, it displays as a dark image. I don't know what causes that. Hopefully you will get a more useful answer from other users. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If it's not too much trouble - to take ther uploaded image and move it to the corporate logo? Is this possible through commons?

Roman Catholic Churches in Trieste Slovenia

I am working on my family genealogy and need to know the names of the Roman Catholic Churches in Trieste, Slovenia. Thank you.

This doesn't seem to be the right place for this question, please consult en:WP:Reference Desk --Atlan 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How to add the IETF's IPR rules to Wikimedia

Howdy. I'm a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) administrative oversight team, which includes responsibility for the IETF's handling of intellectual property. I'm looking for guidance about the right way to add information about its IPR rules to Wikimedia.

An IETF participant has already tried to add some information, but I'm not sure what he's done is the right way, plus he's gotten some IETF details wrong:


One of the classic issues is that copying things often invites errors.

I'm of course a fan of the IETF's model, templates and details, and do think it's a good idea to share them for others to use in activities that want a similar style. I'm simply not sure how to plug the information into Wikimedia properly.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.


Dave Crocker IETF IAOC/Trust

As Template:IETF-Contribution isn't currently in use, would you simply edit it to correct the details you think are wrong? --  Docu  at 05:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
One thing I note is the phrase "and distribute such derivative works, or portions thereof unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a Contribution" which is not compatible with Commons. Any contribution which has such a notice attached (to restrict distribution of a derivative work) would generally not be acceptable for use on Commons (must allow distribution of derivative works). --Tony Wills (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Luke Skywalker

I'm a bit confused. There's a file File:LukeSkywalkerROTJV2Wallpaper 1 .jpg on commons which is apparently under free licenses. Yet, this file seems to be copyrighted. Am I missing something, or is there something wrong with the licensing part? MikeLynch (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Image should not be here. Feel free to nominate it for deletion or speedy deletion. (It's from a personal website of modified images derived from various copyrighted materials. Probably should not even be on WP.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by me. If the uploader did in fact photograph Mark Hamill in that outfit wielding a lightsaber, it would probably not be a copyright violation (utilitarian items), but that image was obviously created by image editing a still from a film, so it is. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Image File Inquiry

If I would like to upload an image for use on Wikipedia as cover art for a musical release, how would I go about doing this? What kinds of images would I be able to use in relation to copyright restrictions? If said image is readily available on websites without any given copyright information, is it applicable for use to upload to Wikimedia Commons?

Thank you for your help. - unsigned

  • I'm confused. Do you mean 'download' rather than 'upload' (that is, download it to your computer rather than upload it to Wikipedia)? Also, this is the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia.
  • You don't say what country you are in.
  • The image being readily available on websites without any given copyright information means nothing. If, for example, someone else already made illegal use of an image, that doesn't mean your use of it would be legal.
  • If the image is in the public domain, you can use it freely.
  • If the image is licensed under a free license, you can use it as long as you conform to the terms of the license.
  • Similar to the caveat above about "If... someone else already made illegal use of an image..." we can't guarantee that images on the Commons are correctly licensed, and you should still do due diligence. If the particular image was incorrectly licensed by its uploader (or by the source used by the uploader), we are not liable for problems arising from your re-use.
  • However, if the image depicts an identifiable individual, you may need to consider personality rights.

I hope that all helps a bit. If you ask a more tangible question about a particular image, someone may be able to give you better answers. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

PD Photos from multiple sites

Hi, I've uploaded a lot of public domain photos of Bowman Gum Company cards, which are in the public domain because the copyright wasn't renewed. Here's an example. The thing is, ALL the Bowman photos that I can find on Commons come from This one site. If I were to find Bowman cards on a different website from before 1989, they would be public domain, right? The license tag says, "all baseball cards printed by Bowman before 1989 have lapsed into the public domain and are free for use." Delaywaves (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Screen shots of open source software still allowed?

Hi, I seem to recall in the past having uploaded screen shots of open source software, and this was one of the selections that could be made at the beginning of the upload wizard. But today as I tried to upload something I did not see this as an option. Are these types of images still accepted? If so is the license derived from the software (aka, software is GPL so the image is GPL?). Thanks. Thenub314 (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this. mickit 05:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Open source screens may contain non-free elements, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arduino Icon.jpg. NVO (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Creative Rights

Hi. If any of you is knowledgible of rights issues, would you please carefully check my two recent uploads: this and this, and inform me if everything is correct with that license-thing and if it's alright to use these two scans on Wikipedia, given that in both cases the person showing in the images has yielded all rights of use to us on Wiki. Thank you, /Orrling (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  • That doesn't look correct to me at all. Presumably the copyrights belong to the photographer and/or the newspaper, so you would need OTRS from them. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Mmmmm... that means, special procedure with the newspaper that is? /Orrling (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete file / add to category


I've just created 5 maps about "The Finnish War", I have problems on how to "attach" them to the article and also I need to find out how to delete files that I've uploaded (seems svg has been uploaded with problems and I have to rerender it and then re-upload it).

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopsis (talk • contribs)

You can insert the image into the article on Wikipedia in this way: [[File:Finnish war map 1 outbreak.svg|thumb|The outbreak of the "Finnish War"]]. And if you want an image that you sent to be deleted, use the following template on the image description page: {{speedydelete|reason for deletion}}. mickit 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
But there is typically no need to delete a bad version: you can simply upload a new version to the same page. - Jmabel ! talk 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
True, if it is the same map. mickit 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it, though I have still serious problems with the svg preview machine / png rendering machine, whatever I do (change fonts to wikimedia accepted, change svg types, reupload with plain svg/inkscape svg) the problem persists. Thus, I could be forced to upload many more test files > wouldn't it be better to have a "clean" contribution "inbox"?

I need some help.

How am I supposed to do about my "File:Cadmium_elec.jpg" ? How could I change my copyright state?

GOKLuLe (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cadmium_elec.jpg. I think you already found out what to do yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

technical issue

Good day,

I would like

to be linked or appear with

I am getting lost with the technical issue - could you guide? Thank you, Masha

Dummy timestamp: 12:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Image removal

Could you please delete this File:Gilberto de Carvalho.jpg? It's a duplicate. Thk you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertana (talk • contribs)

Dummy timestamp: 14:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Question About Uploading Non-Copywrited Images

Hi Wikimedia!

I am wondering if/how I can upload photos about specific topics that I have found and used on our sites. Usually I find these in the creative commons section of the internet, and only use images that are non-copywrited and open for anyone to use. No licenses on the images or anything. I have found quite a few Wikipedia pages without any images and know we have quite a lot that would help your users. I tried one earlier today and it got deleted, I think because our privacy policy does not allow usage of our content.

I can alter our privacy policy and sharing to allow Wikipedia to use our content (and any content uploaded to Wikipedia to be shared freely among the internet). Another possible issue was how I categorized the image... I was a bit confused on what license to put down for it. Please look into my previous image that was posted and let me know any other issues and how to fix them.

Thank you! Excited to be part of the community. Julian

Dummy timestamp: 20:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The old form forces me to pick a license from the list

Yes check.svg Resolved

I was uploading this file earlier today. I used the main upload form because I wanted to tag it with {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}. Now the problem was that it forced me to pick a license from the drop-down list. I did select 'ignore all warnings' but it just wouldn't let me click the upload button. I had to pick a random license first and then deleted it from the page. Was that my mistake at some part? Haven't uploaded any image for like a year. --Ben.MQ (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ben.MQ. I recommend using the basic upload form since it allows you to customize the file page prior to upload. It does not force you to choose a license unless the edit box is left unchanged. --ZooFari 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! The licensing menu looks the same and I thought they will be the same.--Ben.MQ (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance completing delete action

People are asking when the deletion will occur: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Burning_man_2.jpg#File:Burning_man_2.jpg.--Jarhed (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Appears now to have been deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Four-bar linkage with labeled vectors.svg changed during upload

I have tried uploading this file; however, it seems to get interpreted differently between what it looks like in Inkscape and what it looks like once uploaded. For example the arrow head near the point labeled "A" is oriented incorrectly. Any suggestions on what I may be doing wrong? Devinberg (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't explicitly know what there is wrong but Firefox's-rendering is the similar to Media-Wikis. (Arrow is orientated in the same way.) Fonts are replaced. Read Help:SVG#Fonts for more information. -- RE rillke questions? 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

permission with flickr images

Look, I got permission to use two pictures that are on flickr. I have frequently done this without hassel in the past, but I was disappointed that the permission was not accepted because now I have to have the owner of the photo change the copyright permission to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Is it okay if permission can be accepted for this? Truthsort (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The owner could email permission to OTRS instead. --  Docu  at 18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Downloading a map

I did go to the archives for advice and got a partial answer. It says to use the "export button" but since I am a new User I don't know where that is. I want to download the whole map. Then I want to use only a portion of the map enlarged in order to find specific towns [1866 Johnson Map of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware] I am interested in the division between Virginia and West Virginia. Specific towns were post offices that served both sides durng the American Civil War. I am doing research on the postal system. Miss Flora9769

I assume you are writing about at File:1866 Johnson Map of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware - Geographicus - Virginia-johnson-1866.jpg.
  1. There is a "download" link on the top of that page. Maybe this works for you.
  2. You could also simply click on the image itself on the image page linked above.
  3. This viewer simplifies zooming on specific parts.
Hope this answers the technical part of your question. --  Docu  at 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I create a SVG image?

Can I create a SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) image? How to create it? Mopper (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All necessary information should be here Help:SVG, if not ask again. ;) --Perhelion (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the Year:2011

The voting has been closed for a week or so, but I can't find the results or any mention of where/when they might. Can someone direct me to the appropriate page(s)? Bielle (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2010#Almost_done_tallying_results might help. --  Docu  at 17:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Max file size limit.


I've been working on transcribing films at and I want to host the film The Lost World (see The Lost World (1925 film). Using separate videos on a single page is not how we have been doing it, nor in the Index pages for the work. Also, we try to present works as they appear in original publication if possible. Can someone help me? I've seen file sizes bigger than 100MB, so I'm hoping I can get that too. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of completed transcluded work there: Daydreams or Bride and Gloom. I started working on the text without the video. The index helps organize the mainspace entry The Lost World. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The best way to get around this is to get a developer to upload the file directly onto the server for you, by filing a bugzilla request. See [4] for an example request. You can also try asking in #wikimedia-tech on IRC. Or do both simultaneously, which worked for me. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical documents from 1919 French Lafayette Escadrille

Hi I inherited 2 documents given in 1919 to my great-uncle, Herman Lincoln Chatkoff, by the French Minister of War, Bureau of Decorations to commemorate my great-uncle's participation in the Lafayette Escadrille during WW1. One of the documents is framed and hangs in my daughter's house and I will photograph or scan it the next time that I visit with her. I just found the second interesting document while cleaning out my old files. It is as described above, in very bad, crumbling condition. Therefore, for my daughter and grandson's sake, I have scanned it and sharpened it and it is ready to share with anyone else interested in the topic of the Lafayette Escadrille.

I read the wiki description of the Lafayette Escadrille and found that the information about my great-uncle is not correct, he was indeed a member of the Lafayette Escadrille, not the other groups who were involved at that time.

I want to edit that misinformation, and to contribute these two documents issued by the French, as they may be interesting to others who are researching that period of history.

I need a short, simple method for uploading the image to the correct place. The scanned image sits as a high quality jpeg on my desktop ready to go! I am a photographer and have read most of your information and still can't figure out how to upload it to the right place, which would be to attach it to the page that discusses the Lafayette Escadrille.

Please educate me.



Uploading is a completely separate process from attaching to a page. It sounds like the documents in question would be public domain (if I'm wrong, someone who knows French copyright law should feel free to correct me), so just upload to the Commons, using any reasonable, appropriate name for the file. If they are not highly legible, you might do well to transcribe their content as part of the document description.
It doesn't sound like the documents themselves belong in an article, but they can be cited for their content. For that purpose, once they are uploaded, you could cite them just like any other source. It is possible (likely even) that this correction would merit some discussion on the talk page of the relevant article. If the page to which you upload is File:Foo.jpg, you can link from Wikipedia to that page as [[:File:Foo.jpg|Text of the link]]; you can include a thumbnail by using [[File:Foo.jpg|thumb|Caption of thumbnail]]. If that is still unclear, please feel free to ask a more specific question. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stitch pics together request

Can someone stich these together for me:

File:Two Dot State Bank - A.jpg File:Two Dot State Bank - B.jpg

Thanks. BarkingMoon (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: File:Two Dot State Bank - Stitched.jpg. Some portions have been cloned to fill in areas missing from both files. As a result, the two files are not accurate. This is the best I can do. For future reference, you can submit requests to the Graphic Lab. --ZooFari 00:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Thanks!BarkingMoon (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyuna irony.tiff

It seems like screenshot image. I think it should be deleted. -- 09:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed, thankyou. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Logo upload

I am interning in a company named Kalingasoft.Although I do not have any written permission to use the company logo. But I have consent of Companies CEO that I can use the logo. Can i upload the Logo in common.What are the things I need to take care of? Thanks, Siddharth

Kalingasoft's logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright; it does not meet the threshold of originality necessary for a copyright. You can upload it here, making sure to add {{trademarked}} and {{PD-textlogo}} to the image description page. Powers (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions d'images

1-Si je trouve une image dans un article je l'uploader sur Wikipédia sur quelle licence? et merci--YacineDZ1 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

2-La deuxième question est de comment créer une image Logo au format .SVG--YacineDZ1 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Answered in french in his talk page. Loreleil (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Create a SVG image

Can I create a SVG image? Mopper (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to guess what you mean here.
  • Do you have the legal right to create a SVG image? Yes.
  • Do you have the software that will help you create a SVG image? I can't guess. But if you don't, you can probably acquire it. Inkscape works on most operating systems, and can be downloaded for free.
  • Do you have the skill needed to create an SVG image? Almost certainly, it's quite easy, using Inkscape, though you'll need to learn to use it first.
  • Do you have the right to upload such an image here? Yes, unless it is derived from something subject to copyright restrictions.
Maproom (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

threaten to delete for enhanced images and categories

I have uploaded numerous images which I created from my own photos. I often enhance the images with photoshop and other software so they appear to be paintings. I was formerly a professional graphic designer and illustrator so I enjoy the art side of this. I'm not sure why, but I'm receiving numerous threats to delete my images, but I have clearly labeled them my own work. I have gone to the image and they are clearly labeled as far as I can tell.

I also receive notices about not categorizing work. I have the obvious categories to me but don't see others that are appropriate. I have not used the common sense system yet. Please advise.

As an aside, I realize this is volunteer managed but I'm completely overwhelmed with all that I have done wrong and feel somewhat intimidated by the numerous threats to delete along with lists of links I'm to correct. I'm an English teacher in France and have entertained ideas to use Wikipedia to to help adult students introduce the local history to English speaking local travelers using iPhone guides, such as Wikihood, but I'm afraid I'm very discouraged at the moment. I have read everything, and I'm trying to follow the rules,but it is not evident. Is there an easier way to do this?Mlane 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Convenience link: Mlane78212 (talk · contribs). - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
"It is very discouraged" is extremely vague and passive. Are you saying the situation as a whole is discouraging this, or that someone in particular is urging you not to do it? - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You would do very well to explain on your user page that you are a graphic artist and probably also add a gallery there with several examples of images you've uploaded to the Commons (as well as possibly links to your work elsewhere). If people can see that there is a consistency to your work, they are less likely to challenge your uploads. (See on my user page where I give examples of my work; as a result, it is rare that anyone doubts my authorship of photos.) Also, as part of the description in individual uploads, you would do very well to say something like "photograph manipulate with PhotoShop." It would also be useful if you would upload the original photos as well as the manipulated photos, and link the two with templates {{Derivative versions}} and {{Derived from}}, but I can certainly understand if you simply do not want to release your raw photos. Hope that helps. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As for categories: just try your best. You'll get the hang of it over time. Do look at the categories others add to your photos after the fact, which should give you a good clue what to do in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and for what it's worth, lack of categories won't lead to deletion, but adding them will save other people a lot of work and will make it much more likely that people can find your images to use them. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
One further remark: you didn't originally tag these with source={{own}} so it is no surprise that someone tagged them for lack of source information. It is very important that you make a positive assertion of these being your own work. - Jmabel ! talk 21:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell photo.

The File:1876 Bell Speaking into Telephone.jpg is being disputed at the en page that the photo is not of Bell but an actor from a 1926 documentary. There is also a message to this respect at File talk:1876 Bell Speaking into Telephone.jpg. I reviewed the source for the original upload and the photo does not seem to be on that site any longer. If the image truly is from a 1926 film then it would most likely not be free use. Brad101 (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The source of the upload is there. I'm not sure I understand their own source information, but it looks like they may have taken it from the book The Telephone Book: Bell, Watson, Vail and American Life, 1876-1976, by H.M. Boettinger and Richard A. Steinberg, 1977. (There's an uncropped version of the image there, but without the source.) I may have missed it, but I do not see a frame looking like this in the 1926 film linked from the en.wp page. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those links. Another editor has now suggested the file be renamed. My main concern is the copyright of the file. I'm not so sure this can be solved easily. Brad101 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There isn't an identical image on the clip from AT&T, but it is obviously the same actor in the same film. He is dressed identically, has the same dubious looking beard, same hair-style. Either the makers of the film went to remarkable lengths to find an identical actor, and dressed him identically to the original photo, (attention to detail that would be unusual in a 1920s promotional film) or it is the same person.
You also might wonder how anyone maintained that frozen pose for the exposure time required in 1870s photography. --Escape Orbit (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Since the movie frame photo has been used in a few Wikipedia articles, one suggestion would be, since the photo has achieved an almost iconic status, is to ask the copyright owner to license the image under the dual CC3.0/GFDL license. Once obtained the caption would note the use of the actor's image. An alternate resolution would be to find a very similar photo of Bell talking into one of his early phones. Best: HarryZilber 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture with permission to use

I have received permission to use a logo from the owner for a Wikipedia article. Will I be able to upload this, and if so, how would it be classified? The logo is the Guernsey F.C. badge from - unsigned

Permission to use in a Wikipedia article is not enough for Commons. We need (at least) a 'free' license, so that the image may be reused by others. Please see COM:OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


I am currently trying to write an article about a company and I want to show the logo on the article. I have already gotten permission from the appropriate person and I was wondering what steps do I need to take now? I have to say I got a little lost in the uploading form questions.

Thank you in advance,


Follow the steps at Commons:OTRS to ensure we archive the necessary permission letter. In all likelihood, they will need to give more information before you're done. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes to pictures don't appear

I edit pictures on a regular basis. Generally pictures placed under the category: images for cleanup Category:Images_for_cleanup. But the changes I made to the pictures (after uploading them), don't appear on wikimedia commons. So, for instance, this picture: [5] I removed the copyright text in the picture and the template watermark. But the text still appears in the picture on the page. I have changed the picture 4 days ago. So, is there a malfunction in the servers of wikimedia commons or a serious time-lag? Or am I doing something wrong here? Citypeek (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Mozilla: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R). mickit 08:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that worked. Thank you for answering. Citypeek (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

SVG file creating

There is already a page for instructing creating SVG files with Inkscape, but is there any page instructing creating SVG files with Adobe Illustrator? --Mopper (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know but I do know a few things about creating SVG's. First of all, save your images in plain svg-extension. Secondly, don't use layers to create your images. For some reason this doesn't go well with wikimedia commons. You can use both programs to create svg-images. For information on how to work with Adobe Illustrator search the internet. Citypeek (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Choosing a right category/creating a new category ?

Hello !
I Have a few photos of external TerraTec G3 video/audio capture device. In what category those photos should be placed ? Or should I create new category ? If so, what should it be named ? Hoikka1 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Try Category:TerraTec to start with. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
All right. Thanks mate ! Hoikka1 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Uploading company logo

Dear all, I would like to upload the logo of the association I work for, as this task was given to me as PR employer. Yet the logo is not free of use by anyone. I would like to upload the logo like the Continental Airlines logo (see:, however I do not understand how to do this. Which license is this? Kind regards, Lnooteboom

If the logo is not free for use by everyone, you cannot upload it here. The Continental Airlines logo is uploaded at the English Wikipedia which is at this link. Powers (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I upload a photo in the public domain?

A blogger posted a photo he took. He has given me permission to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, but I cannot figure out how to upload a file in the public domain and that I have permission to upload. Please advise what to do in this circumstance.

The author must release it under a free license or release it to the public domain. Special:UploadWizard or Commons:Upload can be used for uploading and choose an appropriate license. If he allows 'use on Wikimedia projects' then we cannot accept it. Otherwise you can email to m:OTRS to verify permissions. --Ben.MQ (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Parsing oddity

A few weeks ago, I posted a question about strange new lines appearing in templates. Perhaps the code of Template:Italics/testcases will make my point clearer: if we add supposedly inncocuous new lines at the end of a template parameter, it also create a new line in the output, without any apparent reason.--Zolo (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

However, it does not add the line if you switch the order of your two parameters (language first, text second). -- Asclepias (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is easy to make it work, but it is strange that some cases do not work.--Zolo (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I vaguely recall looking into related stuff some time ago and finding some related stuff on Meta (not sure if it was newlines in table).
An easy solution could be to use HTML tags. It can simply be: <table><tr><td></table> --  Docu  at 05:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

re: images

Why are the images I've uploadet unacceptable? They were made by me. How can I proove it?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekrylova (talk • contribs) 09h44min de 23 de Junho de 2011 (UTC)

Answered in User_talk:Ekrylova#Re:Images. Béria Lima msg 09:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering it, but if, later, someone else has the same question, it could help if they could already see an answer here.
Thus it might be preferable, if people ask here, to answer questions here. --  Docu  at 04:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Page of licenses?

Hi, I was just wondering if there's some big page on Commons or on Wikipedia that lists all the little templates for Public Domain photos, like the Bowman Gum photos, or the Bain Collection from LOC. Is there a page like that, or do we just have to find them ourselves? Delaywaves talk contribs 18:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is Face-wink.svg mickit 20:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Bowman isn't there (Bain is). How many other submarine tags are there in the deep? NVO (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to see all...
... and you may use Special:PrefixIndex/Template:PD. Phew quite here and there... --Ben.MQ (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I did try to find the info...

I encountered a couple of nice shots of predatory katydids (Saginae) captioned and annotated in French (Well, why not? They were photographed in France!) I wanted to add notes in English, but did not want to mess things up. So please, what is the proper and courteous procedure for adding notes or translations in English to an existing photo in another language in wikimedia? JonRichfield (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Try this:

|description={{fr|Description in French}}{{en|Description in English}}

I suppose you know how to fill the other parameters (date, source, author etc), so I left it blank. mickit 08:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Large apologies Micki! I did, (really did!) Respond with thanks to you for your prompt (and helpful!) reply, but I must have forgotten to press "Save page". Just want you to know that your reply was appreciated and did achieve its objective. This time I will be very careful to save... All the best, JonRichfield (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Everything is OK Face-wink.svg I'm glad if I helped you. mickit 20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem editting

Dear reader, I received this message:

"File:Vision of the Seas.JPG

‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬ | Български | Česky | Deutsch | ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Svenska | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you."

But i cannot in anyway edit thsi file anymore! What heppened and/or what should i do?

Regards, Alf van Beem The NEtherlands.

You did edit the description page when you removed the bot's notice: [6]. You only need to edit it again by adding a license. Not sure why you say you can't edit it. Maybe there was only a temporary connection problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Go to File:Vision of the Seas.JPG, klick on edit, add a valid copyright tag to the file description. The copyright tag describes the license under that terms you allow others to reuse your photographic work, prefered copyright tag is {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. --Martin H. (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk redirect

A user had a redirect on his talk, because of that redirect within this edits I created a page (es:Usuario Discusión:Felipealvarez) that I cant visit, look in the history, delete. Im always redirected to Wikipedia. How can I remove this page? --Martin H. (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird situation Face-grin.svg Try this to see which pages you created and then try to delete this specific page. mickit 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't work... Face-confused.svg   ■ MMXX  talk  20:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, I can select it in Special:Nuke and order its deletion, but its still there (according to my contribs). --Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, the log says you patrolled it but it doesn't exist even if it was not deleted. Yet, it exists because it links to there. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Try with this. Can you delete it now? mickit 20:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, edit or delete, then? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it just shows the permanent version, but other link all redirect to es-wiki.   ■ MMXX  talk  21:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It is possible to see the delete command page Face-smile.svg but it redirect to es-wiki before processing the deletion.   ■ MMXX  talk  21:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
At least the page can be blanked, if nothing else: [7] -- Asclepias (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we could delete it if it was possible to disable the redirects to other projects temporary, but I'm not sure how does it works...   ■ MMXX  talk  21:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I reported this on #wikimedia-stewards and Krinkle responded. So, we'll wait, I guess :) mickit 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking into this software bug. Please don't delete it just yet (or try to).
@Martin: How did you create the page ? Because when visiting it normally it doesn't redirect but shows the redirect symbol with a link. –Krinkletalk 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I used the Nominate for deletion button of MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js, so nothing special. --Martin H. (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved here. --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New uploads from Flickr reviewed images

Do new uploads created from images already hosted on Commons but which were sourced from Flickr, also have to be 'Flickr reviewed', or does that review only need to be done for the source image? I've searched all over and can't find anything on this. Ultra7 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt, but as long as the original image remains hosted on Commons (and it's been properly reviewed), there shouldn't be a problem. Powers (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My account is "too new", but I uploaded a corrected version of an image

Hi, my account is "too new" (according to Wikipedia) to replace a file. Therefore I uploaded this corrected version under a new name (a diagaram of the political system in Germany) to replace that image. (The old image is faulty as the federal ministers in Germany are not elected by the Bundestag (parliament), but they are recommended by the Bundeskanzler and officially nominated by the Bundespräsident.)

Could someone please use my image to create a new version of the old picture (to replace the old one)? --TnPedia (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you could ask in the German Commons:Forum!? (I'm personally not sure)-- Perhelion (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ob das fachlich korrekt ist, wie du es machtest, diskutierst du am besten auf einer der Diskussionsseiten von Wikipediaartikeln, wo das Bild verwendet wird. Wenn Einigkeit darüber besteht, das deine Version korrekt ist, kann die jemand als neue Version des alten Bildes hochladen (in vier/fünf Tagen kannst du das auch). Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot. / Vielen Dank, dann frage ich auf der Diskussionsseite. --TnPedia (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Delete

Please delete File:Orrling of CentralHFA 14.jpg, I have created it from a screenshot of the high-res original File:Orrling of CentralHFA 09.jpg and it thus has a low resolution; it is 100% unnecessary to keep it as the newly cropped File:Orrling of CentralHFA 09.jpg preserves its original high resolution and is the only one of the two that should be used & seen. Thanx. /Orrling (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I marked it for speedy deletion. mickit 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, /Orrling (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate images on and Commons, but different copyrights

File:Seydlitz in port.jpg on Commons is licensed copyleft, but the image (same file name) states the image is PD in the US only. I'm not sure which one is correct. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is PD according to source --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, and even their statement is vague ("best of our knowledge") and I guess PD doesn't mean worldwide. I've contacted the uploader just for clarification. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Well some of our OTRS verification is also best of our knowledge :) --Ben.MQ (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Ha, good point. I'll dig into it a little more. : ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 14:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"You can not reupload the file"

I'm trying to upload an image under the filename of an image deleted yesterday. It is part of a series so that giving the image that specific name is important to me. I get a red text saying that since there was a file by this name and it was deleted, I "can not reupload the file". Please assist so I can upload a new picture under that title. Thanx. /Orrling (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to change the name. BTW, while it's ok to add your name to the filename, it's generally preferable to use a name that describes what is visible in an image. --  Docu  at 11:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't remove comments.
Just note that it was continued (repeated?) at User_talk:Saibo#.22You_can_not_reupload_the_file.22. --  Docu  at 12:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Which license to use for an old, unpublished photo

I need help with licensing a photo I want to upload. It is a photo of Joseph Merrick, taken in England about 1889 (certainly no later than 1890). The photographer is unknown and as far as I know, this photo was not published (possibly until 1980, when it appears in a book, although it may only be in later editions of that book, I don't know.) The photo is, I believe, owned by the Royal London Hospital archives.

Can this image be added to Commons, and if so, which license should I use? Or, is this something that is only public domain in the US or something and should be uploaded to Wikipedia (which is where I want to use it)? Thanks, --Belovedfreak (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume that your book is a book published in the UK. See the flowchart in Commons:Licensing#Ordinary_copyright. The conclusion in this flowchart based on your above information is: Copyright expires 70 years after creation or 70 years after the work was made available to the public if within 70 years of creation. Thats {{PD-UK-unknown}}, 1st point with dates calculated back to the first publication. Your above explanation, including a reference to the book, should be part of the source information of your file. --Martin H. (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, but I'm still a little confused. That tag seems to be for if the photo hadn't been published at all, or if it was published before 1941, neither of which apply to this photo (and sorry, my heading here probably confuses the issue...) Someone over at Wikipedia mentioned that it is public domain because it is more than 120 years since creation. Would that work? --Belovedfreak (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, apparently the wording of that template does not reflect what is explained in the licensing page and in the flowchart. If the author was never known, it seems you could use the photo but not with that template. If nothing else, there is the template PD-because. About the last question, no it would not work with someone saying a number of years without adding a rationale. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It is the first point of that template. You just have to explain that the first publication not happens right now but some decades back, e.g. in the 1980s. And that the image creation was not before 1941, which e.g. will not be enough, but at some date that demonstrably dates back 70 years from the publication. The template covers this case, its just too much focus on the unlikely case that something is first published on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The photo should additionally be marked {{PD-1923}} to reflect its copyright status in the US. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but it wasn't published before 1923 (as far as I know), so is that still ok? Also, what is the copyright status in the UK, which is the source country? And if I use PD-because, what do I put as the reason? The "120 years" comment refers to this which says "In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation". Sorry for all the questions, this all just blows my mind a little... --Belovedfreak (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You are correct again about the PD-1923 tag. I believe you could use the PD-1996 tag, but the "after 1978 without copyright notice" part may be somewhat troubling and we could use the advice of someone who knows the US law and how it applies to this situation. As for the Commons policy (i.e. taking into account the purely UK side of the situation), you don't absolutely need to use the PD-because tag. You can simply write the reason somewhere, like in the permission field of the information tag, and you tell the situation in your own words as clearly as possible. For example, you might say something along the lines of "This image was first published in the United Kingdom, in 1980 or later. It is in the public domain in the United Kingdom because it was created before 1891 and had not been published within 70 years of its creation." Or if you want, you can try to stuff the reason into the PD-because template with some suitable wording. Ok, I understand that the 120 years thing was suggested in the context of an upload on Wikipedia and for a work first published in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, another editor has uploaded it now here, and I have tweaked it based on what you said above. I hope this works. Thanks again for all the advice, this is very complicated! --Belovedfreak (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The upload not mentions a source of first publication but it argues with that publication... thats very incomplete. Also cards de visite are not unpublished and the photographer is almost never unknown but written on the bottom of the file, the frame of this card de visite was removed, but that doesnt make it an anonymous work. --Martin H. (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then I think I must have understood what is meant by "publication". How/where is a carte de visite published? As far as the photographer, the only versions of the image I have seen (in books and various websites) have been without any name. I see that I am still getting it wrong.--Belovedfreak (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The card is given to the subject, thats a publication. The subject uses photographs as a business card. The photographer is in almost all cases written at the bottom or the backside of the carte de visite. I think you should try to contact this Royal London Hospital archives, they store one of this cards apparently and they gave it to the book author. This means - by logic - they store a circulated card and this means it was published before it was printed in the book. --Martin H. (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. Nothing I can find written about the carte de visite says who the photographer was. I have taken your advice and contacted the Royal London Hospital Archives to ask them. If I receive a reply that they do not know who the photographer was, would {{PD-UK-unknown}} be the correct license to use? If so, will I also need to add another license to cover the US? --Belovedfreak (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Wikimedia Commons is published in the United States, and if a file is hosted under the reason that it is in the public domain (other than following a declaration of public domain by the author), the description page must include an explanation of why it is in the public domain in the United States. A standardized explanation can almost always be included by using one of the available status tags. If it turns out that the photo of Joseph Merrick was published before 1923, then the PD-1923 tag would be used. If it turns out that it was anonymous and first published in the UK more than 70 years after its creation, then the PD-1996 tag would be used. (It is basically the same situation as on Wikipedia. The peculiarity of Commons is that its internal policy requires the additional condition that the image be free also in the country where the image was first published.)
The facts look less certain than what we assumed from the initial question, which left the impression that an anonymous photo from circa 1890 was to be reproduced from a book where the photo was first published not earlier than 1980. My earlier comments were based on that. They do not hold if the facts are different. Now, it turns out that the source of the image uploaded to Commons is not the book but a website (which does not mention its own source), that the photo may have been published before 1980 and that the author may not be anonymous. It is unlikeky that a photo of the type carte de visite would have been produced and released anonymously by its author without any identification (name, studio, company, initials or mark). If the author was ever identified, the work cannot be considered anonymous. Hopefully the RLHA will identify the author. If not, I guess we could use their answer if they say, not only that they do not know who the photographer was, but that they have researched the matter and they can guarantee with certainty that the work was truly released anonymously and the author was never known.
It might be useful too if we could get more information to sort the chain of sources that led to the file uploaded here. Is it 1. the RLHA print --> 2. the book (btw, what book?) --> 3. the Sideshows website --> 4. Wikimedia Commons? Do you have access to the book you have not identified and does it give any information about this photo? From what source did the Sideshows contributor obtain the photo (directly from the RLHA print, from the book, from another source)? Do we even know if the Sideshows photo is the same as the RLHA photo? How do we know it was used in cartes de visite prints? Also, if after all the image is kept on Commons, it might as well be a large version like the one available on the Sideshows website, not only a small version. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree, IMO their answer is reasonable enquiry per Template:PD-UK-unknown. I also agree with the source criticism, given the initial question I expected some damn good upload with great information on the history of a photographic work including sophisticated explanation of previous publications and publishers. The result - a source to some wikia page... - is disapointing. --Martin H. (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, sorry to disappoint! :) And, again, thanks for the ongoing help. I have added more information to the file, but if you have any more specific pointers on how to make it a more "sophisticated explanation", that would be great. I am trying my hardest, but this is just not an area I am that familiar with. The image was uploaded by another Wikipedia editor who may not have been reading this discussion. I'm sorry that I misunderstood about cartes de visite being published, but I think we are now agreeing that the photograph (if it is a carte de visite) was published around the time it was taken. I have added the name of the book that is was published in. I am confident that the photograph in question was a carte de visite because it has been described as such in an article about a film made about the Royal London Hospital Archives (from the Leicester University website), as well as in a book (Spectacle of deformity: freak shows and modern British culture) which was provided the photograph by the RLHA.
If it is a problem that the photo was downloaded from the Wikia site, I can upload a copy that I have scanned in from The True History of the Elephant Man book—it is a lower quality image though, darker and grainier. If it is ok to have the copy from the Sideshow wiki site, I am happy to upload the larger version. The True History of the Elephant Man has no information about the image beyond the fact it was taken c. 1889 and that it is used courtesy of the RLHA. Spectacle of deformity: freak shows and modern British culture has the same, and additionally calls it a carte de visite. I have now switched the licenses to {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1923}}. I have added a note that I have emailed the RLHA. I received an automated reply from them saying that they aim to reply to all enquiries within 15 days, obviously I shall update when I get that answer.--Belovedfreak (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have had a reply from the Archivist at the Royal London Hospital Archives. He says that they do not know who the author of the photograph was, and he has gone through everything written on the back of it. The only other source information on the card is "Marion Imp Paris"—the name of the printer—but there is nothing about the photographer. I presume this will satisfy "author unknown"? He also told me that the photo was printed in a 1971 book, The Elephant Man: a study in human dignity by Ashley Montagu. So far, so good. However, he went on to say "Whilst the image was taken over 100 years ago it was not published until 1971 and is therefore, we believe, still in copyright." So—do we count this as published c. 1889? Or unpublished until 1971? --Belovedfreak (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
If you interpret the archivist's research as sufficient evidence that the work was anonymous, then, either way, the photo would be into the public domain in the UK since circa 1961. That is, either because it can be assumed that it was published anonymously as cartes de visite circa 1890, or because it can be considered that it remained unpublished more than 70 years after its creation. I suggest you explain all the relevant facts on the description page and then choose the status tags according to the interpretation you think is better. It is okay to copy the photo from the Wikia site and have the best available version, if you are confident that it is in the public domain. But because the Wikia site does not provide its source and an explanation of the status of the image, you should state, on the description page, the facts and the sources on which you base the determination of the free status. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Recently published works in the UK may be subject to a publication right, but these only last 25 years, so that is not a problem (also I think this only applies to works published since 1996). You will want to use PD-1996 instead of PD-1923 though. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe it is sorted now. I have used PD-1996 and PD-UK-unknown, going from the archivist's statement that it was unpublished until the 1970s, but I think PD-UK-unknown can still apply as it was available to the public as a carte de visite in the 1880s. Is this ok, or am I splitting hairs? Anyway, I have also added to the description. If someone could check it at File:Joseph Merrick carte de visite photo, c. 1889.jpg to see if it looks reasonable now, I would be grateful.--Belovedfreak (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have heard again from the archivist at the Royal London hospital Archives and apparently the image was published in The Elephant Man: a study in human dignity in 1971, both in the UK and the US. He asserts that the image was not published in any way c. 1889 that as a carte de visite, it was not exhibited or widely distributed. As far as I can tell, copyright will expire in 2041, and I can't see any way that we can host this image here. I think it's going to have to be deleted. Can someone confirm this for me? Thanks, --Belovedfreak (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
If the archive confirms and asserts both (1st, unknown author despite research and 2nd never published before 1971) the file will be public domain in the UK as an anonymous work per {{PD-UK-unknown}}: A photo created before 1901 not published before 1971 and research to find the author has been carried out. I however stay with my opinion that publication happened somewhere on the way from the photographer to the archive, publication (in legal terms) not equals scientific description of the file, maybe they mix this up. But the problem then is indeed the U.S., if the copyright not expired already before 1971 for whatever reason the file will be in copyright in the U.S. because of that publication (Entry: Google Books, Montagu,Ashley). --Martin H. (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated the image for deletion here, assuming that it is still under copyright in the US. I confess that I don't understand whether or not cartes de visite are automatically considered "published". One person (you) says yes, one person (the RLHA archivist) says no, so I don't really know what else to do. Thanks for your help though.--Belovedfreak (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't give up that easily after the efforts you made. Why exactly do you think the photo would be copyrighted? Under what section of law? The reason why Montagu could use the photo in his book in the first place is because he considered it was in the public domain, right? Is there a provision that would have given him an exclusive publication right on that photo after he used it? The 25-year UK publication right was added only in 1996. Is there one in the U.S.? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be copyrighted based on the assertion by the Royal London Hospital archivist that it had not been published up until 1971. So, if it was first published in the US in 1971, it would still be under copyright, right? That's with the assumption that the creation/distribution or whatever of a carte de visite does not count as publication. I want to make it clear, it's not that I don't believe Martin H. above, but I just hear one person saying one thing, and another person saying the opposite, so don't know what to think! However, another person, User:Pieter Kuiper, has commented at the deletion discussion that it was indeed published as a carte de visite. It seems to me that this is the important point. If it was published c. 1889, then I think that the licenses currently on the page work. As for Montagu, the archivist said that they provided Montagu a copy of the image (and permission to use it) for his book in 1971.--Belovedfreak (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
But a copyright would be claimed by who? And on what object of intellectual property? And on the basis of what article of law? What the archivist is saying is unclear. We can only speculate, but let's try to make sense of it. There may be a clue about his opinion in the last sentence you wrote above. It sounds like the archivist is claiming a copyright for his employer (or for himself or for whoever made the copy), over the particular copy they made for Montagu, based on a reasoning that new copies may be entitled to their own copyright protection under the UK law even when the original work is in the public domain. The RLHA would keep their old print of the public domain photo well hidden in their vaults and they would claim a copyright on every new copy they make of it. Is that it? Then, the position of Wikimedia is that such a claim does not apply to the situation in the U.S. That would be the sort of situation covered in Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag (or Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag). -- Asclepias (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
He said that in 1971, a negative was made in the Photographic Department of the hospital of the original Victorian image, and that a print of that negative would have been supplied to Montagu for his book (and later, other authors). He then mentioned the law that says that copyright in the UK expires 70 years after publication (ie 2041), that they do not believe that the carte de visite counts as being published or exhibited, or widely distributed, and that therefore it is still in copyright.
One thing I'm not sure on, and the archivist didn't seem to be either, is the exact date of publication of the Montagu book in the UK, or the US, other than that both were in 1971. If it was published in the UK more than 30 days before it was in the US, would that make a difference for {{PD-1996}}? I am happy to email the RLHA archivist again, if there is anything specific you think I should ask him.--Belovedfreak (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's clear now. Obviously the RLHA agrees that the original photo is in the public domain in the UK and in the US. Otherwise they could not have reproduced it for purposes of publication and Montagu could not have published the image in his book. However, they claim a copyright on the particular copy they made in 1971. That claim may sometimes work under the UK law and it may trouble someone who would want to republish the 1971 copy on the territory of the UK. But that claim does not work under the US law. Under the US law, as clarified by the US Supreme Court, a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work does not generate a distinct copyright for the copist. If the original work is in the public domain in the US, then a faithful copy of it is also in the public domain in the US. Montagu and the RLHA necessarily considered that the original work was in the public domain in the US if the image was to be validly published there. Whatever reasoning they used to come to that conclusion, it applies also to the copy. Wikimedia is published in the US under US law, and the policy of the Commons is explained in the page Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, with comments in the page Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. So do I keep the two tags I'm using now ({{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1996}})? The {{PD-Art}} tag mentions life of the author + 70 years, and we don't know that that applies here. Or is {{PD-scan}} just as good? And if so, do I use PD-scan in addition to PD-UK-unknown and PD-1996, with those two proving that it was public domain when it was copied?--Belovedfreak (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think the description page would have three tags. One stating the reason for the public domain status of the original work in the U.S. One stating the reason for the public status of the original work in the UK. And one stating that the reproduction does not have a copyright status different from the original work in the U.S. The life + 70 years text in the PD-Art template is only the default text. You wrap the applicable PD status tag for the original work as a parameter into the PD-Art template and it replaces the default text. For example, the description page coud have something like {{PD-Art|PD-1923}}{{PD-UK-Unknown}}. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I see that the section of the page "Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Copy of an old public domain photograph that you have scanned in from a recently published book" seems to recommend using only the tag(s) about the original work, without need to add the PD-Art tag in a case like this. Hmmm. Oh well, just do what you think is best. ;) Provided you are satisfied that the image is in the public domain and you explain why on the description page, then other users can adjust the exact combination of PD-tags if they want. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am much happier with this now, and will leave the tags as they are, until & unless told otherwise, or anyone has any other suggestions. Thanks for the help! --Belovedfreak (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Right permissions?

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] I don't sure that the permissions of all these photos are right. Please check them. Thanks, YHYH11 (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Photographs published in Argentina 25+ years ago are considered public domain there (we have a template {{PD-AR-Photo}} for that). I don't know it it fully applies, but I suspect it does (there doesn't seem to be enough text or graphic design in at least most of these to raise an issue. But someone more expert than I should probably weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Some of these photos weren't photographed in Argentina. YHYH11 (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about uploadinga picture

There is a picture in use on a Wikipedia page that is not in the wikimedia commons that I would like to upload so that I can use it on a article written on a different Wiki that needs a picture for clarification. Am I allowed to upload this to wikimedia commons for this purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxMcCloud (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use is not allowed on commons. Freely usable media-files are. Please provide a link to the image you want have transferred to commons. -- RE rillke questions? 16:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Broken thumbmail generation

NATO Research vessel Alliance.jpg - full size - without problems Bulwersator (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It was saved in CMYK JPEG. Only RGB JPEG is fully supported. Fixed (when my upload has finished). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks (it is in to-be-FA) Bulwersator (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Upload non licensed non copyrighted formula?

How do I upload a scientific formula that is neither licensed or copyrighted? MTSBoston (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That depends. If it is a mathematic formula, it doesn't need to be uploaded, as you can insert the formula directly into the page using special markup (see w:Help:Displaying_a_formula. For other formulas you can use {{PD-ineligible}}. --rimshottalk 18:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Kastell Eining

Kann mal jemand [[15]] hinschauen und mir sagen ob ich richtig liege. Ich habe einen Löschantrag für eine Umleitung gestellt (...denke ich). In der Löschdiskussion meldet sich leider keiner. Mich beschleicht das Gefühl, dass ich was nicht verstanden habe und möchte den Commonslink im Artikel auch nicht zu lange blockieren.--Dede2 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Das ist schon so richtig, es kann aber durchaus mal eine Weile dauern bis sich da jemand meldet. --rimshottalk 18:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Da fehlte doch noch einiges ..., ich habe das mal an die richtige Stelle verschoben. --rimshottalk 18:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

How to upload images in PDF books

Hi, I have some public domain PDF books and I want to upload some images extracted from them. Please guide me as to how I could extract images from them, and how to convert them to an acceptable/useful format. Thanks.-MangoWong (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd also be interested in a good way to do this. When I've done it in the past, I've done it by diligent use of screen grabs and piecing images back together with GIMP, then saving as a JPEG. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Inkscape can import PDF files. Once that's done, if the images are raster images, you should be able to just cut + paste into a graphics editor and save as JPG. If the images are vector, cut+paste into Inkscape and save as SVG. Powers (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi Jmabel, Hi LtPowers. Thanks for the interest, and the guidance. I have downloaded Inkscape and was able to get the relevant pages into inkscape and saved them as SVG images. But could get whole pages only. My problem is that the pages on which these images occur have some text on them. Some of the pages have multiple images. In order to isolate the images, I need to crop those pages so as to leave me with the desired image only. This seems childish, but I am unable to find a "crop" tool on Inkscape. If it is not too much of a bother, please give some indication as to how to crop the svg image of the whole page (which I have now).-MangoWong (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Convert midi sound file to OGG

I have a sound file up for Featured Sound at EN:WP. Director has requested an OGG version. Will someone convert it please?

File:Myrrha Gavotte 3.mid

TCO (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Asking at the Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop would be the better place. If you do so, please leave a note here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I asked there.TCO (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem


There is a copyright problem with this file, which is in fact coming from [16]. I have told the author of the file about this ([17]). He agreed that I should make a new picture myself and replace the current version with it. My new version is ready to be uploaded, I just don't know about the correct way of doing this. Should the current version be first deleted or can I upload the new version and then ask an admin to remove the first version?

Thanks for help! Perditax (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The simplest method is to click the Upload a new version of this file link and upload your image. The copyright violation version will still be in the version history, but it won't appear on any pages that use the image, since the latest version will display. The more complex method is to request deletion of the image and then re-create the image when you upload your version. See COM:D for instructions if you want to do that. --Teratornis (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Les deux méthodes sont possibles, du moins si vous tenez absolument à utiliser exactement le même nom fichier. Mais est-ce le meilleur choix ? Ne serait-ce pas une bonne occasion de téléverser votre image sous un titre plus précis. Je ne sais pas, je ne connais pas ce domaine, mais peut-être quelque chose qui mentionnerait crystal, crystal structure ou crystallization, selon ce qui est pertinent, enfin vous voyez l'idée. Il semble y avoir quelques exemples d'images du même type. Et par ailleurs, faire simplement supprimer l'ancienne image de toutes façons. Mais c'est vous qui voyez, selon ce que vous souhaitez faire. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
After all, yes, I think deletion and new upload would be best, to avoid keeping a copyright violation in the history. Maybe Gaano would like to tag the file himself, if not, I will.
Et oui, un autre titre serait plus approprié, je pense à "Gorceixite structure".
Merci :) Perditax (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

uploading data on an kml/kmz file

Hello. I'm editing pages in wikipedia about naval vessel home port deployments, for larger vessels, classes of vessels and naval units etc. I'm enhancing the existing articles by adding locational information about the home port/home berths of certain vessels of naval units. I have researched the information using Google Earth and created several '.kmz' place-marks files with it on. It was suggested by other editors that rather than use long lists of geoco-ordinate templated earth co-ordinates I should simply upload the files, or the file data, here and then 'embed' it in the articles concerned. Can this be done ? if so can you please advise.

I appreciate it's possible to use the co-ordinates framework protocol/code to make a single place-mark link to the 'Geo Hack' page which then has a further link to GEarth in its 'links-to' table . However, that link I've found is subject to some serious failings in addition to its being usable only for one place mark link at a time, re:

(a) if you use the 'open' link some species of a 'preferential' software 'glich' takes over, which instead of taking you to the co-ordinates you've been given, goes instead to the location of the nearest 'existing' Google Maps place mark location, which is typically miles away, even though you've just opened GEarth instead, but which in GMaps would then ask you 'did you mean this place instead ?' and ;

b) if instead you select the 'with meta data' option, a host of embedded additional materials (not however including the view date timeline preference and altitude of viewpoint data which the editor would like the reader to appreciate)is added when it opens.

Embedding the place mark data in the article itself, is surely preferable to linking to a external site where the files are held instead, but where the continued availability, reliability, accuracy of the data etc. couldn't be easily monitored by other wiki-editors. Can you advise ?

John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe KMZ files are within our scope. I'm also not aware of any way to "embed" raw data from Commons within an article. Perhaps you could ask these "other editors" for clarification? Powers (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Currently Commons mainly hosts geocoding for specific images (camera location, objection location): see commons:Geocoding.
If you can geocode several places on one image (e.g. map), there is a way to do that with kml files. Samples in Category:Geocoding overlays. Other than that, Commons doesn't currently host kml files as such. --  Docu  at 05:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Could not create link to Category

A newbie I am - uploaded my first image today, but failed to get it in to the category I selected. Tried several times without success (several obviously unnecessary edits!)to place the image Clematis Macropetala.jpg in the category Clematis Macropetala by using Category:Clematis Macropetala within double square brackets. A simple error maybe, but I am going round in circles - help please. Sorry, did not sign previous enquiry! John R. Winrow (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. The problem came from the typo you used: "Clematis Macropetala" instead of "Clematis macropetala". Perditax (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, still does not work. I can't spend any more time on this. Please remove my whole entry from Wikimedia Commons, including username and email. Thank you.

It works fine. The case was modified with this edit. The image is displayed in the category. If you want to delete the file, please add the template Speedydelete to its description page or use the link "nominate for deletion" from its description page. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page needing sorting

I seem to have got this page File:Swamp_Lily.jpg in a muddle. The last two revisions should be removed; the upload at 20:38, 29 June 2011 was correct; I thought it was wrong because the thumbnail and the main file seemed to be "out of sync". My efforts to correct it by reverting and reloading don't seem to have worked. Can someone sort it out? Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be in order now; is the correct file displaying on the description page? It appears to be identical to the revision you identified as "correct". Powers (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)



I need some help.

I would like to use the map on the following site: I have translated the explications on the map from German into English. Which are the conditions of reproduction (what exactly do I have to indicate) while reproducing it on a printed media?

Thank you very much in advance,

Lillia— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

I think you will find here all relevant information. mickit 15:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, You can look at the section "How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work" of the CC FAQ. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody delete?

Why nobody deletes this file despite of the deletion tag applied to it now 3 days or over?.. It shows up in my gallery and I'd like it out of there... :-) Thanx, /Orrling (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we need more admins. Greetings --  *«( P e r h e l i o n )»* 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hehehe why not you be the one. /Orrling (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagging Geolocation Data added by bot

I uploaded a photo recently which was taken on an iPhone. I forgot that it includes GPS data in the EXIF. It didn't look like the data was accessible at the bottom of the page where the EXIF data is listed. However, a bot has added the location with a clickable link to the photo information box. For privacy reasons, I would prefer this data not be published in easily accessible form. I reverted the bot's edit but it is still available in the history. Is there a way to remove this permanently from this history and prevent the bot from adding it again? Thank you. Warfieldian (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you need oversighter assistance read the instructions at the top of this page. And if you want to prevent DschwenBot to add same information again, you can use {{bots|deny=DschwenBot}} on the file description page. Maybe there are better solutions, but this should also work Face-wink.svg mickit 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:EXIF - how to edit the EXIF data of a JPEG image. Maybe you could remove the location data from the EXIF and re-upload the image. If you want to clean out the image page history you could request deletion and then upload it fresh. --Teratornis (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestions, thanks for your help. Warfieldian (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the old file version. --Martin H. (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Our Heaven Born Banner Update

Happy Flag Day! Would someone please rename File:Our Heaven Born Banner2.jpg to File:Our Heaven Born Banner.jpg as I was unable to upload the color corrections I did to the current wikimedia file. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulschou (talk • contribs)

Please use the {{rename}} template, and someone will get to it shortly. Thanks! Powers (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ill replace it. For editing existing files on Commons you must wait some days to become Commons:Autoconfirmed users. --Martin H. (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)