Commons:Help desk/Archive/2014/04

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.

Contents

Frame from "Amateur" footage of bombing

I would like to add the first frame of the explosion in the Aleppo University bombing video here: (and on many other news sites)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jan/15/footage-aleppo-university-bombing-unverified-video

Am I allowed to post something like this? There's no attribution, but I assume that the people who shared this video want its contents to be known. Can this video (or individual frames) be considered in the public domain? --Agamemnus (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Whether they "want it known" has nothing to do with the matter. Do you have some reason to think they would be public domain? I don't see any such reason. - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    The Guardian responded to me and they told me the video was taken from Youtube. The only source they have is "Youtube". I don't know which video would be the original one, and it was an anonymous source as the Guardian described in the article page, anyway.... what if the person is dead? What if they don't want their identity revealed? Does all this make the video invalid? See no evil, hear no evil? This is very frustrating. --Agamemnus (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The Guardian (and others) can use this on a fair-use basis, but Commons policy specifically states '…arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, run counter to Commons' aims:… 3. "The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work." 4. "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter."…' - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      My rationale would be this: for articles that can always be appended to in the future, where time isn't an issue, it isn't a problem. But in this case -- for the article I want to modify and add an image to -- there is a time aspect, in two dimensions. First, the video itself might get lost over time. I would bet that if you dug around a year ago you would be able to find the author of this video very easily. But now, not so much. Related: http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/12/20/0314239/scientific-data-disappears-at-alarming-rate-80-lost-in-two-decades. Second: someone querying this article right now would perhaps be able to form their opinion more carefully if they saw an image of the blast the moment it occurred. From the side of relevancy, the current Wikipedia article needs this image to be relevant as a starting point of discussion. --Agamemnus (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That might well make an acceptable en:WP:FUR, but it’s a non-starter here.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Correcting incorrect licenses

Hi,

As a non-administrator, is it possible (or rather, acceptable) for me to change the claimed license in cases where I know that the claimed license is certainly wrong (e.g. "own work" when it clearly isn't), but the file would still be acceptable on Commons under different terms (e.g. because it clearly falls under "Text" logo criteria).

I suspect not, but what's the process for having this fixed? I know that one can claim that something is "disputed", but in my experience those simply float around with the template attached and nothing done (possibly because it's not a particularly strong assertion).

Also, in cases where the uploader has used the wrong license (e.g. claimed "own work" on a very old-looking photo) and one suspects it *may* still be freely-usable (e.g. due to copyright having expired) but this wasn't the stated reason, how much- if any- onus is there on others to correct that information and retain the image rather than simply pushing for it to be deleted because the claimed reason for it being free is obviously incorrect and/or false?

Finally, what about this image which almost certainly isn't the uploader's "own work"- they've already uploaded (and had speedy-deleted) multiple copyvios- but this one is probably still "pd-textlogo". But is it up to us to correct the license if the uploader clearly can't be bothered?

Thanks for any feedback, Ubcule (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Add the correct PD-license if you are able to find the source. You can't change PD to CC! But you can change a wrong CC to PD-old e.g. I did some corrections myself before adminship. BTW: The textlogo is a (c)vio, shading around the ball/circle and the font is not standard (IMHO that is). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. So, I assume that changing the license, so long as it's quite clearly correct- and the uploader quite clearly wrong- is acceptable.
I do try to correct things (in general) that let us easily keep images that would otherwise possibly be deleted, e.g. brightening and sharpening otherwise bad images.
But I've seen images that- while quite obviously old and *probably* public domain due to age- haven't been marked as such, sometimes claimed as "own work". This isn't always entirely nonsense as- in some countries- one can claim copyright on certain reproductions, so the *reproduction* may be their "own work". But either way, the original work or image quite clearly isn't theirs, and we still need to know if *that* was legitimate.
Well, that's something the uploader could- and should- have done. I might- in theory, and with a lot of work- be able to figure out or track down the rationale that would let us keep it, but there has to be a limit to that.
Similarly, I've come across images that *might* potentially be useful given background or context- but the description doesn't provide any such context at all, and they're not in use. For example, even disregarding the fact that they might constitute copyvios, are these images useful in a general-purpose sense, or just something that's of no real in-scope use beyond the original specific purpose? Who knows, they're not in use here and they're not even categorised!
Some images may be totally pointless on their own, but in context and/or as part of a set may be a useful resource. But if the uploader hasn't provided sufficient info to let us determine this (with reasonable effort), should we feel bad about nominating them for deletion?
IMHO Commons' strength- and point- is as a *resource* of *free* educational images, and I'd rather we lost a few potentially useful images that the uploader didn't label correctly than have the integrity of the project as a whole watered down to the point that it became just a collection of uncertainly-licensed might-be-free-as-claimed-might-not images that one could find via Flickr or Google Images anyway. Ditto becoming a random grab-bag of unorganised snapshots with no background. (Not that I'm saying that's what's happened, just that it's not something I'd like to see!)
(*) For example, I recently nominated some images that were re-photographed from an exhibition in (IIRC) a public church. Aside from the fact that some of the images were irrecoverably blurred, dark and noisy (i.e. not usable), the criteria that would legitimise the use of the originals was unclear. They were probably old and they might- or might not- have been usable under Germany's "Freedom of Panorama" law. The uploader him/herself didn't seem too sure(!), and hadn't given even that putative rationale anyway, only their own (re-photographed) "own work" claim. The images were deleted after nomination by an admin.
Ubcule (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. 1: The images by Rogeriocoluchi (see above) are not very useful. They might be if someone wants to write a manual. I strongly doubt anybody would or even needed to. IMHO out of scope.
  2. 2: If I can't figure out (in a decent amount of time) what the image depicts, and I can't find any use for anything (not even for Category Bad Images) I tag for deletion per project scope. We have a lot of trash already, no need to keep more just for the sake of having more.
  3. 3: See (2)
  4. 4: If too blurry = not usable = out of scope. UNLESS(!) It is an image that can't be easily obtained again. I kept a few really lousy photos from a village in Botswana. A blurry Brooklyn Bridge image I wouldn't have kept. FOP Germany is 2D as well btw. For buildings only the outside is covered by FOP Germany. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The feedback on German FOP was useful- thanks.
However, ultimately it was meant primarily as an illustration of a more general principle. My point being that ultimately one can't be expected to understand all potential reasons (*) an image might be legitimate if the original uploader didn't bother stating the reason themselves.
Ultimately, it's the uploader's responsibility to both understand and state the reasoning. It should also be a lot easier for them since they ought to know the background of the image.
I could (say) see some image incorrectly claimed as "pd-self", and think "that's definitely not pd-self... but it *looks* like it's almost certainly pd-old". But I don't know that for sure, and probably couldn't prove it without researching the background extensively- so should I feel bad about not giving it the benefit of the doubt and nominating it for deletion? In that case (IMHO) no.
Anyway, those were my thoughts in the matter, I just wanted to guage whether they were reasonable or not.
(*) Part of the problem with the German images was that there were *two* different copyrights to be considered (the original, and the reproduction), and Commons isn't really set up to handle this. (I remember having a discussion about this before a while back). Still, I don't think this excuses not providing that information).
Ubcule (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
When does the fact that "the font is not standard" make something a copyvio? It's not true under US copyright law, at least; writing, in any font, including handwritten calligraphy, is not copyrightable. I don't really think that anything "IMHO" should be speedied; a DR would let other people give their two cents.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with template

Hi. ¿Can anyone fix this template and this one? They should work just like this and this one. Actually, I just copypaste the code, but it does not work. Thanks. Albertojuanse (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Check out what happens if you also copy {{20minutos.es/layout}} to {{Eldiario.es/layout}}. There is no {{20minutos.es/doc}}, and {{Autotranslate}} is tricky. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Be..anyone; I think I have fixed it, and I created the docs. Albertojuanse (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

/* Gloria De Souza */

Dear Team,

Please help me to creating a page for Gloria De Souza an educationist and a social reformer and founder of PARISAR ASHA.

Thanks PARISAR AHSA Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloria_de_Souza (talk • contribs)

This page Commons:Help desk is about Commons, a repository of free media files (images, videos, audio files). Presumably you want to start an article (text) in a Wikipedia, e.g., for the English Wikipedia there is an en:Wikipedia:Help desk. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

moving media from 1 category (1 crescent in heraldry) to another category (coats of arms)

Greetings, Am a newcomer, willing to help, asking for advice. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara_monajem (talk • contribs)

Scroll up to Posted under wrong category with two suggestions. If you're not sure please post a link [[:File:WhatIsItAbout.tif]] with square brackets, the important colon :, and the relevant name+extension here (.tif is only an example.) –Be..anyone (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

USDA Forestry Service Map

I would like to upload an crop from a USDA Forestry Service map. [1] May I do that?Ajm72 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That should be fine; US Government publications are in the public domain. Just be sure to credit the source and provide a link to the original.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

HOw to contact M Disdero Uploader??

I need to contact M Disdero, they have posted many images, I want to ask his/her permission to use an image in a global advert...

Please can someone let me know how to get in touch with him/her????

Huge appreciation

All you need to do is give attribution for the image and have your global advert under the CC-BY-SA license. That will allow you to use the image for any purpose, even commercial ones. No permission needed. That's one of the key points of Commons. --Jakob (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Jakob, How you know works of M Disdero licensed with CC BY-SA? I even failed to locate such a user here. Jee 13:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I just assumed that they were talking about reusing existing files uploaded by a Commons user, as they're asking this question on Commons. @OP: Since that isn't the case, please disregard my earlier comment. --Jakob (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention that using images in an advertisement often raises several additional rights issues, most notably:
  • Advertisers normally don't want to include or link free-license terms, so they usually need to arrange a special license, which may or may not be free.
  • Advertisements can raise strong personality rights issues, which would typically require the photographer's help to sort out.
Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
If this is about Disdero (talk · contribs), if you have an account yourself you can use Special:EmailUser/Disdero; otherwise you can leave a message at User talk:Disdero. I'd recommend the email, because it looks like lately this user is only on Commons a few times a year. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:RICHARD ZANUCK WITH HIS FATHER, SEVEN MONTHS 01.JPG

I just uploaded a photo from 1935 showing 20th Century Fox studio chiefs Darryl Zanuck with seven-month-old Richard Zanuck. A cautionary states that copyright info must be provided. There is NO copyright info. It's a photo sold on ebay, no copyright info, showing only a handwritten note "Dick -- 7 mos" on the reverse side. Copyright info is impossible to obtain, as there is none.

Source was already put into the file description: http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjQ4WDg0MQ==/z/RNAAAOxyNo9Sq1or/$_57.JPG

There was no option to insert source for a shot of the reverse of the photo, and lack of copyright info: http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjM0WDc5OQ==/z/sGIAAOxy4dNSq1ot/$_3.JPG

--Dan-i-shrabi (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The tag is because you provided no information on licensing status. To be honest, the status isn't clear to me, because the photo probably wasn't published when it was new. You might take this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright for more educated advice. If it had been published when it was taken, something like {{PD-US-no notice}} would be correct; it is never correct to have nothing. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Surat Airport photos

some of my photos which I uploaded yest were deleted due to copyright issue. I want to let you know that they are from web but me and my other friends went to airport to take those photos which we uploaded on social networking cite. I'm just using our taken photos for Wikipedia. Can I upload it back and not to get that violation again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsht12 (talk • contribs)

Convenience link for admins: one of the deleted photos was File:Air8f.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
A few things here:
  • You say "me and my other friends". If these photos were by several different people, you either need to each set up your own account and upload only your own images, or you need to use the process described at COM:OTRS to clarify that one of you has permission to upload on the others' behalf.
  • You gave a Facebook group as the source. If the real source is yourself, say so. The only time Facebook is an acceptable source is if either (1) the copyright holder provides permission as described in COM:OTRS or (2) the copyright holder certifies on FB in the caption that only the FB uploader can add that they are the copyright holder and that they release the image under a particular license or (3) the copyright holder certifies on FB that they a particular Wikimedia Foundation account is theirs; you can then link to that from your user page to show that you, on WMF are the same person as this FB account. But, to be honest, at this point this (after the fact) this would be a mess; I recommend the COM:OTRS approach instead.
Last, but not least: are you sure these are all you and your friends' work? Because they are in a variety of resolutions, at a variety of formats; some are montages of multiple photos; and none appear to be at full resolution. That is undoubtedly part of why someone found them suspicious. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

upload error

I'm trying to upload some photos and I got information: Internal error: Bad token. Its never happened before. What does it means? Glysiak (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No expert here, but that looks like either a server glitch interfering with database access, or an interruption somewhere else on the route between your system or ISP and the servers that prevented some necessary handshaking. I’d just try the upload again.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've tried many times with the same results and I gave up. I did it now (after 6 hours) and it went through. Thank you. Glysiak (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Lancaster University-Coat of Arms.jpg

1. Hi I just uploaded an image of the coat of arms of Lancaster university, the image was downloaded from the website of Lancaster University's law society, I wonder that what kind of licensing information should I provide for the purpose of keeping this image here in the wikipedia? As far as I know, a low-resolution image of an university's logo in wikipedia is not a violation of the privacy policy, so I assume that you can accept this image here? 2. My initial aim is to use this image to edit the article of Lancaster university in wikipedia, but I do not know how to show this image there, so if you can accept this image, could you please help me to paste this image to the article of Lancaster University?

THX and if you find that this image is not acceptable here, please do not hesitate to delete it. --龙焰燎原 (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT the image is a rendering of the official artwork, as found for example in the university’s identity guide, so is not eligible to be hosted here. If the purpose is to illustrate an article about the university on the English Wikipedia, a smaller version—perhaps half the size, if also cropped—may be acceptable there under a fair-use rationale. (Nothing to do with privacy: it’s about the artist’s or the university’s copyright on the depiction.) Here, however, an emblazonment of these arms would have to be an independent redrawing, comprising only newly created or freely reusable elements.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Blythe Spirit

Blythe Spirit (talk · contribs) has asked on my enwiki talk page for his three Commons uploads to be deleted. Can someone here review the request and take appropriate action? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed and  Not done Uploads are old (2012), correctly categorized, in scope, and have CC license which can't be revoked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that was the answer I was expecting. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: LX (talk, contribs) 08:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

New user, bonsaist

Soy un usuario nuevo, quiero saber como agregar a mis preferencia alguna categoría especial de la cual participo, Ej: yo soy bonsaista como lo agrego a mi perfil gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpesce (talk • contribs)

Quizás es my español de extranjero, pero su pregunta no me parece bastante claro. ¿Qué exactamente quiere hacer? La mayoría de categorías son para fichas (imágenes, etc.) pero me parece que Vd. intenta poner su página de usario en una categoría. ¿O no?
Vd. puede crear una categoría en Category:Users by interest (e.g.Category:Users interested in bonsai, análogo a algo como Category:Users interested in geology), y después poner su página de usario en esta categoría. Pero si no he entendido correctamente, quizás Vd. pueda ponerlo en otras palabras. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Double photo

Looking at my uploaded photos I found two MScience-DSCN1061.JPG. Can one of them be deleted? Thank you User:Pintopc (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Just shows up as an extra version in the file history. No point to "deleting" it: "deleting" an image just hides it in the history, doesn't save any disk space. But I have a question about this image. I don't know anything about Swiss laws on freedom of panorama, but this is essentially a photo of someone else's photo (the one on the poster). I would think that's a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Cezary-Podraza-7x-World-Kickboxing-Champion.jpg

How to use that file  ?

--Gk83 (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe you can't, at least not on Commons. World Kickboxing Network had it on their web site, and there is no indication there of it being either public domain or free-licensed. Am I missing anything? - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

toy eldon truck.

To Whom It May Concern, I own a toy Eldon truck I went to your web site to learn more about this toy & found a very short simple article on company. How ever there were no photos of any of the products of this company , so I would like permission to upload or have some one in commons upload for me a photo of this toy truck dating back to 1966. I feel this may help any others whom would have an interest in this company or this brand of toy. Thank you, LeRoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEROYAR (talk • contribs)

See COM:TOYS; assuming the truck was distributed in the USA, it would have to have been before 1923 to be automatically public-domain, or before 1964 and not renewed since for its copyright to have lapsed. Your photo is considered a derivative work of the original three-dimensional art, so both must be free for such a picture to be hosted here. Failing that, however, if used to illustrate the English Wikipedia article—note that this is a separate website, with different policies—you could probably upload a small scan of it there under a fair-use rationale.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I upload directly from Flickr?

Without having to search 10 more pages to find the answer.

Thanks! :-)

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/ or http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload. And for broader information about this, Commons:Flickr#Uploading images. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! :-)

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: LX (talk, contribs) 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

citing templates

I want to cite templates in a text without actually depicting them. For instance, if I use

a picture is depicted on screen, but I want the pure text. How to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wereldburger758 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 April 2014‎ (UTC)

See Commons:Link templates. LX (talk, contribs) 08:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
ty, Wereldburger758 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No subject

Hello, i'm the owner of 2 pictures that have been deleted for reasons i dont know. The page i created is: "Charles Dumont" aviator. French. I have the original pictures i've tried to post. What can i do to replace them? Thank you in advance. Alex

pictures deleted: Charlesdumont.gif Cdumontsalmson.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedgraphics (talk • contribs) 12:00, 6 April 2014‎ (UTC)

I assume you mean File:Cdumontsalmson.jpg and File:Chbaltet1.jpg. There has never been a file named File:Charlesdumont.gif on Commons. Based on the reason given in the deletion log shown if you click on the links to those files, I'm guessing Sven Manguard had some doubts about the copyright information you provided was correct. According to the upload log of Chbaltet1.jpg, you claimed that the source was "baltet family picture" but that it was also a screenshot of a GPL licensed computer program, which doesn't sound very likely. LX (talk, contribs) 13:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Piet Buskens Portrait2.jpg

The portrait right of the photographer ceased as this photo is over 70 years ago. I know since the person on the photo has passed away over 70 years ago. Portrait rights are shorter under Dutch law. How can I add this as the licensing information for [2] and [3]? Kind regards, --Timelezz (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author, not 70 years after creation of the photo, and the photographer may have lived longer than the subject of the photo. LX (talk, contribs) 16:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Mistaken description

On the page for File:Lake taupo landsat.jpg, the comment left by the uploader clearly doesn't match the image. I suspect the user copy/pasted the wrong info by mistake. I was hoping to find out a little more about the history of the photo. The other descriptions on the page did help me out, but I have no idea of how to fix the mistaken text. - Gorthian (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary of this edit, I'm assuming that the "comment" you refer to is the upload summary in the File history. That part of the page is part of the upload log, and can't be edited. The only way to change it would be to upload a new revision and have an administrator delete the old one. Since the upload summary incorrectly mentions GFDL and the wrong author, that might not be a bad idea. I've tried to make the real information on the page a little more visible and easier to read by pouring it into our standard {{information}} template. LX (talk, contribs) 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Fahadhfaasil.jpg

Please could you help me to check if I have required copyright license to upload this image...Pls help!!!!


--Paru6596 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

in the bottom of the page will be read Comments to: web.thehindu@thehindu.co.in Copyright© 2014, The Hindu OTRS-permission needed.--Motopark (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of author in file's title

Hi, Is it allowed that author can add their name in file's title? I am facing a little bit confusion while tagging files for rename. Thanks. ~ Nahid Talk 22:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Yes. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Cheers ~ Nahid Talk 23:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It is allowed but not necessarily encouraged. And there is no guarantee that the author name will be preserved in the title in any future renames of the file. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
We usually preserves real names, usernames and some short forms, users add part of file names. We have plenty of examples here. Jee 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup, That's why i was confused. I tagged some of them for renaming earlier & tag was declined. Now I got it all :) Thanks for your time guys. Have a good day. ~ Nahid Talk 12:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ApteEnglishSanskritDictionary.djvu

I am a very new user, so please be patient. I uploaded a file File:ApteEnglishSanskritDictionary.djvu, intending to use it as for the scanned images of a wikisource book. However, a brief examination of the scanned images showed two problems: 1. The images are not clear enough to serve as the basis for proofreading 2. The edition of the book is different than an existing digitization (from http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/) that I aim to use as the basis for the digitization on wikisource. I have access to better quality pdf images that may serve as the basis for wikisource. I'll try uploading them tomorrow.

I attempted to make a deletion request for the file, but am not sure that this was done properly. So, the question I am asking is: please help me delete the above file.

Thanks.

Jim Funderburk

The resolution of the scans in that file seems pretty good to me (8+ Mpx/page), and based on a few random spot-checks, it’s quite legible; were you perhaps looking at a thumbnail or preview version? So I don’t think (1) is really a problem, and as for (2), even if it’s not suitable for your immediate purposes, it might be of use to someone else. (And you never know: if the preferred edition contains misprints or is damaged in places, this one might be helpful in interpolating.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:PhotoSLKRussian revolutionaries.jpg

I copied a photo taken 1870 and published in a Russian book in 1934, as well on two Russian web-sites. Any copyright, if there was one, should have expired and the picture is already in public domain. Which license tag should I use ?


--PReiniger (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

change or delete EXIF metadata after upload

Hi There

I just uploaded my first pictures and after the whole process (took me 60min) I discovered, that the metadata still has my wife's information in there. We share our cameras and she is actually the one, which uses the camera more often. The pictures I uploaded are taken by me and I'm the copyright holder. How am I able to change this information or delete the whole metadata on wikimedia commons?

see example: File:JugendstilBikes_Miyata760SR01.jpg

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

To change the EXIF you'll have to change it externally, then re-upload. There should be a link near the bottom of the page -- in English it's "Upload a new version of this file" -- to let you easily upload a new version.
The reason you can't change it internally is that it's part of the file itself, and for pretty obvious reasons we don't have any way for people to edit files once they are uploaded.
There are quite a few EXIF editing tools out there. Several are discussed at Commons:Exif#Editing Exif fields. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that the old version of the file will still be in the file history, though the EXIF data will not be on display. If you want that old version of the file removed, you would need to ask an admin to do it for you. One good way of handling privacy issues is to ask for admin help on #wikimedia-commons and if one is about, you can explain what the privacy issue is in a private IRC channel (just double check that you really are talking to an admin though). If it is something very private, you can avoid drawing attention to it by emailing the oversight team, see Oversight, though they might ask you to use other processes if they don't think it is serious enough for oversight. -- (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Eraser

How to delete a photo on my account? Please answer me on discussion page on--Éber Donn (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Assuming what you want to delete is File:Moj grb.jpg, just tag it with {{speedy|Uploader requests delete}}. Since it's recently uploaded and not in use, that should be uncontroversial and it will be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to upload a photo of our organization's CEO for her Wikipedia entry but it was taken down - BUT I DO HAVE PERMISSION

Hello:

I am on the staff of TechSoup Global, and when I tried to upload a photo of our CEO to Wikicommons for her Wikipedia article, it was taken down (cur | prev) 08:32, 1 April 2014‎ Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,149 bytes) (-94)‎ . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:Rebecca Masisak, CEO, TechSoup Global.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Fastily (No permission since 24 March 2014).) (undo)

I do have permission to do this! When I tried to upload it again, this time carefully doing the correct links, it was again denied.

What can we do?

Thank you,

Glenn Hirsch TechSoup Global ghirsch@techsoupglobal.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennhirsch (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello Glenn. There are two possible routes you can take. The first involves Commons and the second involves Wikipedia; please note that they are treated as separate projects i.e. Commons works with free images and Wikipedia allows limited numbers of unfree images.
Firstly, what is the source of your photo? Is it on a website or is it solely on your company computers? IF you genuinely have permission to use the photo, then you should send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. IF the photo is on a website, then see if you can get a CC-BY-SA sticker on the page that hosts the photo, and when you upload the photo, make sure you provide a link to that page, rather than the direct link to the image.
Secondly, if you don't have permission, the image could be uploaded to Wikipedia directly on the basis that it would be used solely to identify her. However, bear in mind that it shouldn't be a gigantic file, but ideally somewhere around 100,000 pixels, although the rules rules are fairly flexible. It depends on what the photo is showing, i.e. is it a portrait-style photo (head and shoulders or is it full length), is she sat or stood, or doing cartwheels? The most crucial element of this route is the non-free use rationale which gives your justification for using the image.
I hope that helps, but feel free to ask for more help if you need it. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I JUST SENT THIS EMAIL PER YOUR SUGGESTION ABOVE THANK YOU!! WHAT DO I DO NEXT?


Hi Glenn! If you have the copyright holder's permission to publish the file under a license that allows anyone to use the photo in modified or unmodified form for any purpose, including commercial purposes? If so, did you follow the instructions on your user talk page to send in evidence of that? If you did, then you don't need to do anything else unless the volunteers processing your e-mail request additional information from you. The file will be restored once the permission has been confirmed. You should not attempt to re-upload previously deleted content yourself.
As for uploading non-free content under a fair use rationale over on the English Wikipedia project as recommended by Green Giant, please note that English Wikipedia generally does not accept non-free photos of living people for which a newly taken free photo could serve the same purpose, so they probably wouldn't appreciate you following that advice. LX (talk, contribs) 06:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing out the "living people" limitation on Wikipedia images, I should have mentioned that but I'm not as experienced in Commons as you are. However, I'm not sure what you mean by your edit summary, because I didn't actually recommend that Glenn should pursue the Wikipedia route. I pointed out that there are two routes, because I am not aware of any Commons rules which forbid mention of local uploads. The image is intended for use on a Wikipedia article, so it is perfectly reasonable to mention that there is an alternative route.
  • You are absolutely correct that images of living people are generally discouraged on Wikipedia but it is not a complete ban and therefore we shouldn't be shy in pointing out that there is a slim possibility for uploading such images, providing all the conditions are met (which is clearly highlighted at w:WP:FUR).
  • Another reason for mentioning the unfree route is that the subject of the photo works for a non-profit organization, so it is entirely possible that the copyright holder might want to give permission for non-commercial uses only e.g. CC-BY-NC-SA, which would mean it couldn't be uploaded on Commons, but could be uploaded to Wikipedia.
  • However, all of this may be mute, because I believe I have located a Flickr image of the lady in question (here) which appears to be licensed under CC-BY-NC 2.0, so it could be used in the Wikipedia article. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, this isn't really the place to discuss policies of other projects, but I'm fairly certain the photo in question would not be accepted for local upload on Wikipedia unless it is published under a free license. The CC-by-nc license is a non-free license, so that does not really make any difference. LX (talk, contribs) 12:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket:2014040910018977 has been received, so Glenn will be contacted shortly. I have taken the initiative to collapse the email details above. -- (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Image Upload Distorted

Hi -

Yesterday, I uploaded a series of images to Wikimedia Commons. Such as (File:Flag Gate, Artist unidentified.jpg) The colors looked great yesterday, but today they now are black and white/they are totally distorted. Any ideas what happened? How can I fix this?

The other distorted images include the following links:

I would really appreciate any advice/suggestions on how best to remedy the situtation

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyn Swan (talk • contribs)

I don't see any problem here. Yann (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Nor do I. I think the problem is most likely on your end, not WMF's. - 17:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The actual files look fine to me in my usual browser on this system, Safari v5, but their thumbnails & previews, including the gallery here, definitely not! I suspect that subtractive colour (CMYK) is being misinterpreted as additive (RGBL) somewhere. All are OK in Firefox v23. Wherever the fault originates, replacing the CMYK images with RGB versions will probably fix it. (Since they’re JPEGs, convert the ‘most original’ versions available or, even better, find an RGB predecessor.) P.S. I just opened one in Photoshop, inverted it, and got something that looks very like the version above, which I think tends to confirm my suspicion. Another thought: maybe try saving one as a TIFF without changing colour mode (I expect LZW compression would be fine, if bandwidth is a concern), to see if the previews render any differently.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It could be this bug: Category:Bug 24854. I think it's what Odysseus1479 explains. The images can be modified to fix the problem, Category:Bug 24854 fixed temporarily. If they're not modified, the images may display correctly or not for you depending on your system. I used to see the broken display with a previous version of Safari. Now they display correctly with my current version of Safari (7). I'm not sure if that's what fixed the problem, but I guess it may be. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Creating a file with translations

how i can create a file with translations in languages such as greek italian chinese german and more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikosgranturismogt (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 April 2014‎ (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving your question here, because
  • as stated right at the top of Commons talk:Help desk, it is for discussions about the help desk, not for help requests, and
  • your question does not seem to have anything to do with our IRC live chat, which was the topic of the section you posted in
If what you're asking is how to create multilingual file descriptions like
English: A very pretty picture
Svenska: En väldigt fin bild
then just wrap the descriptions in language templates. The wiki markup on the file description page should look something like this:
{{Information
|Description=
{{en|A very pretty picture}}
{{sv|En väldigt fin bild}}
|Source={{Own}}
...
If what you're asking is how to create translated versions of SVG files, see Commons:Translation possible/Learn more.
If what you're asking is how to create subtitles for audio and video files, see Commons:Timed Text. LX (talk, contribs) 17:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:National Dajia Senior High School.JPG

I want to put my school's badge on its own Wikipedia page but I do not know what to put under the copyright section. But I see that many school introduction pages have their own badge on it. I guess it is OK to upload one for the same purpose. I found this badge file on the school's official website: www.djsh.tc.edu.tw

Thanks.

--Chihkuochen (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It would depend on the date and design. If it is very simple, it is not eligible for copyright. If it is very old, it may no longer be in copyright. Otherwise, it is almost certainly copyrighted, so you would need the permission of the copyright-holder (probably the school) via the process described in COM:OTRS.
  • I'm not totally sure what you mean by "badge". Would that be this? Probably complex enough to be eligible for copyright. Do you have any evidence of when it was first used? - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, as the heading states, this is about File:National Dajia Senior High School.JPG, which is clearly the same as the logo you link to. If the Wikipedia project on which Chihkuochen wants to use the logo is the English Wikipedia project or another project that accepts non-free files under a fair use rationale, checking the rules on the Wikipedia project in question and uploading it locally to that site may be another option. LX (talk, contribs) 17:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

change of access code

Hi, how can I change my access code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelHermoso (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 April 2014‎ (UTC)

If you mean your password, you can change that at Special:ChangePassword. There is a link to that page in your preferences. LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Hi there. I'm confused about something and I hope you can help. I noticed that for the city of Hull, Quebec, there are pictures here [4] at "Hull, Quebec", and here [5] in the category "Hull, Quebec". There doesn't seem to be a connection between the two locations. Shouldn't they all be in the same place? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

They're all in the category. The other page is a gallery that a user created in the early years of Commons to display one file. That gallery page is not really useful as it is. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hull, Quebec is a gallery, ostensibly showcasing high-quality media representative of the topic (though galleries are often poorly maintained). Category:Hull, Quebec is a category, hierarchically organising all media related to the topic into relevant subcategories. They relate to the same geographical location, and the two photos in the gallery are also categorised in Category:Hull, Quebec. The only thing that wasn't in order was that the gallery Hull, Quebec should be placed in Category:Hull, Quebec, instead of both being placed in Category:Gatineau; I've fixed that. LX (talk, contribs) 16:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Please say you're not serious when you imply that File:Hull.jpg is "a high-quality media representative of the topic" and that the page is fine and useful? (Also, if one wants to work on a gallery, would it not be better to do it in a page about Gatineau?) -- Asclepias (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to speak ill of specific constructive contributions, but generally speaking, galleries rarely actually showcase high-quality media representative of the topic, but that's what they're supposed to do. Hence the word "ostensibly." :-) LX (talk, contribs) 17:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well okay, but I disagree that the only problem with that page is its category and I still remain with the impression that this page as it is would better not exist. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Radiolänkar

Det finns Radioprogram hos Lokalradion Jönköping, som handlar om mej och mitt namn, som jag skulle vilja ladda hit länkerna från... Finns det sådan hjälp att få? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usidom (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Om du menar att du vill ladda upp ljudklipp från P4 Jönköping Sveriges Radio så är det inte möjligt att göra det lagligt. Sveriges Radios program är upphovsrättsskyddade och omfattas inte av någon fri licens. LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Saint Lukes Episcopal.jpg

For some reason, Wikipedia had a not-good photo of my church (taken when all the paint was stripped off, just before it was repainted). My pastor asked me to replace that with one of my own, personal photos. I'm happy to do it.

So I registered with Wikipedia but seems Wiki won't confirm me until I make 10 edits and wait 4 days. But I don't need to make 10 edits! I just want to make this one change. Now, the good news is, I did manage to delete the old photo. All that's there now is a link named 250px. I click it and seem to be blocked from uploading a new one (and yes, that new photo is an appropriate size/format. I did read the guidelines). What's happening?!

Thanks for your help.

en:St. Luke's Episcopal Church (Asheville, North Carolina)

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

I undone your good faith edit there. All you need to do is to upload your file separately. Do not try to overwrite the existing file. Jee 02:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If you need help getting the new photo to appear in the WP article, once it’s been uploaded (please be sure to describe & license it appropriately), just post back here or on my Talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I see you already have uploaded the photo—I should have checked first—twice in fact. Will check them out.
@IamEditorious: I have now edited the WP article to link to your original upload of April 7, and nominated your second effort for deletion as a duplicate. We’ll see if there are any objections. Meantime, I’ll go see how US historic sites are categorized …—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

File Overwrite

I uploaded File:Theoretical_Search_Area_MH370.en.svg this morning, and have been trying to update it. The upload software page told me to upload it under a different name and ask for this at the Help Desk. So I want to update File:Theoretical_Search_Area_MH370.en.svg with File:Theoretical_Search_Area_MH370.v2.en.svg CommonMarks (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the procedure to update a file is a bit different than a normal upload. To do this, go to the file description page of the file you want to update (here: File:Theoretical_Search_Area_MH370.en.svg) and scroll down to the File history section. Below the table with the thumbnail(s) you'll find a link with the text Upload a new version of this file. Click on that and the rest should be pretty much self-explanatory. --El Grafo (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Their account is too new for that. Hence their asking here, I suppose. But yes, they could wait a couple days and do it. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ya, I was too new before, but I'll take care of it. Thanks. CommonMarks (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
What a usability disaster. I just unified my Wikipedia account, but apparently the fact that I'm a long time user isn't good enough for Wikimedia. (I can't say there's any reason unifying accounts accomplishes much other than reinforcing Wiki*edia's reputation as unfriendly and arcane, but that's another topic.) I think it's a bad usability problem to not give WP users credit if you actually want me to bother uploading things here instead of just over there. It would also be helpful to explain to new users the reason why they cannot overwrite a file they uploaded as opposed to simply forbidding it without explanation. -Sigeng (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:MUSSOLINI Alessandra.jpg

This is a free domain photograph, of a italian public figure. The the italian copyright laws indicate that the picture does not require permission to re-use as a representation of a public figure. The italian law is stated below:

Public domain. This is a photograph taken in Italy (or in Italian territory) and is now in the public domain because the copyright has expired [1] . According to the Law of 22 April 1941, no. 633, on the protection of copyright and other rights related to its operation, as amended by Law of 22 May 2004, no. 128, generic photographs devoid of artistic character and reproductions of works of figurative art become public domain, since the beginning of the calendar year following the completion of the twentieth year from the date of manufacture ( Article 92) . According to the text of the law, such " simple photographs " are defined as "images of persons , or of aspects , elements or events of natural and social life , obtained with photographic process or similar process , including reproductions of works of figurative art and frames of films . Not included are photographs of writings, documents , business papers , material objects , technical drawings and similar products "( Article 87) . The photographs considered works of art, however, become public domain 70 years after the author's death , in accordance with Article 2 paragraph 7 and Article 32-bis.}}

Please, help me. As the website requires a USA license, or it will be deleted. The photograph was taken in Italy and it is subject to its laws, and to my understanding, USA permission is not needed.

Sincerely,

Charlemagne77

--Charlemagne77 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think the problem here is the licence per se, but the lack of sourcing in the original from itWP. Without knowing where the image comes from, its age and origin are subject to doubt, undermining the rationale for its public-domain status.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as Odysseus said. Even if the source is not available now, there should be more information: when the photo was taken, who is the photographer. And there are 2 contradictory templates: either it is affected by the URAA, or it is not. I can't be both. Yann (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete old file?

I am computer stupid, so if someone could help me, I'd appreciate it. Back in 2009 under the name Amy Crow, I uploaded a file of a right breast with a skin tag for the skin tag article. To my knowledge this has never been used, so I would like to request its deletion. Please and thank you. Amy Crow-Hawes — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎12.107.60.50 (talk • contribs)

  • Since this is not a recent upload, I believe you would have to go through the standard Commons:Deletion review process. I assume that what you are asking for is a "courtesy deletion". You might be more likely to get what you want if you can demonstrate that you are the same person by logging in from the relevant account. - Jmabel ! talk 14:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Although the file is unused, I agree: it has been here too long for the ‘mulligan’ that’s usually given to inadvertent and other immediately-regretted uploads. If the password to the original account has been lost, I believe one can also establish one’s identity—in confidence—through OTRS.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
By "OTRS" he means COM:OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No subject

Please kindly delete this file.The attached image is not the correct image.It was wrongly attached. 20:21, 12 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+698)‎ . . N File:Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP).jpg ‎ (User created page with UploadWizard) (current) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osaretin (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Please post new questions in a new section rather than in existing unrelated discussions, and please sign your entries.
You can nominate File:Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP).jpg for deletion by going to the file description page, pressing "edit", and entering {{speedy|Uploader requesting deletion of a recently uploaded, unused file}}. LX (talk, contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Password lost after computer crash

Hi all,
I am User:DXR, but I cannot log in since my computer crashed and thus lost the password saved in the browser. It appears that I entered the password wrongly when I set it and it is not what I remembered it to be. Unfortunately, I have not entered my email address. Is it true that there is absolutely no way to reset the password given these conditions? I could certainly prove my identity if required since most of my photos carry my actual name in the exif. --2A01:E35:2EAF:81F0:D993:7411:9F54:82E6 12:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it --DXR (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: DXR (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File Overwrite

I uploaded File:Theoretical_Search_Area_MH370.en.svg this morning, and have been trying to update it. The upload software page told me to upload it under a different name and ask for this at the Help Desk. So I want to update File:Theoretical_Search_Area_MH370.en.svg with File:Theoretical_Search_Area_MH370.v2.en.svg CommonMarks (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the procedure to update a file is a bit different than a normal upload. To do this, go to the file description page of the file you want to update (here: File:Theoretical_Search_Area_MH370.en.svg) and scroll down to the File history section. Below the table with the thumbnail(s) you'll find a link with the text Upload a new version of this file. Click on that and the rest should be pretty much self-explanatory. --El Grafo (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Their account is too new for that. Hence their asking here, I suppose. But yes, they could wait a couple days and do it. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ya, I was too new before, but I'll take care of it. Thanks. CommonMarks (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
What a usability disaster. I just unified my Wikipedia account, but apparently the fact that I'm a long time user isn't good enough for Wikimedia. (I can't say there's any reason unifying accounts accomplishes much other than reinforcing Wiki*edia's reputation as unfriendly and arcane, but that's another topic.) I think it's a bad usability problem to not give WP users credit if you actually want me to bother uploading things here instead of just over there. It would also be helpful to explain to new users the reason why they cannot overwrite a file they uploaded as opposed to simply forbidding it without explanation. -Sigeng (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:MUSSOLINI Alessandra.jpg

This is a free domain photograph, of a italian public figure. The the italian copyright laws indicate that the picture does not require permission to re-use as a representation of a public figure. The italian law is stated below:

Public domain. This is a photograph taken in Italy (or in Italian territory) and is now in the public domain because the copyright has expired [1] . According to the Law of 22 April 1941, no. 633, on the protection of copyright and other rights related to its operation, as amended by Law of 22 May 2004, no. 128, generic photographs devoid of artistic character and reproductions of works of figurative art become public domain, since the beginning of the calendar year following the completion of the twentieth year from the date of manufacture ( Article 92) . According to the text of the law, such " simple photographs " are defined as "images of persons , or of aspects , elements or events of natural and social life , obtained with photographic process or similar process , including reproductions of works of figurative art and frames of films . Not included are photographs of writings, documents , business papers , material objects , technical drawings and similar products "( Article 87) . The photographs considered works of art, however, become public domain 70 years after the author's death , in accordance with Article 2 paragraph 7 and Article 32-bis.}}

Please, help me. As the website requires a USA license, or it will be deleted. The photograph was taken in Italy and it is subject to its laws, and to my understanding, USA permission is not needed.

Sincerely,

Charlemagne77

--Charlemagne77 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think the problem here is the licence per se, but the lack of sourcing in the original from itWP. Without knowing where the image comes from, its age and origin are subject to doubt, undermining the rationale for its public-domain status.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as Odysseus said. Even if the source is not available now, there should be more information: when the photo was taken, who is the photographer. And there are 2 contradictory templates: either it is affected by the URAA, or it is not. I can't be both. Yann (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete old file?

I am computer stupid, so if someone could help me, I'd appreciate it. Back in 2009 under the name Amy Crow, I uploaded a file of a right breast with a skin tag for the skin tag article. To my knowledge this has never been used, so I would like to request its deletion. Please and thank you. Amy Crow-Hawes — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎12.107.60.50 (talk • contribs)

  • Since this is not a recent upload, I believe you would have to go through the standard Commons:Deletion review process. I assume that what you are asking for is a "courtesy deletion". You might be more likely to get what you want if you can demonstrate that you are the same person by logging in from the relevant account. - Jmabel ! talk 14:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Although the file is unused, I agree: it has been here too long for the ‘mulligan’ that’s usually given to inadvertent and other immediately-regretted uploads. If the password to the original account has been lost, I believe one can also establish one’s identity—in confidence—through OTRS.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
By "OTRS" he means COM:OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No subject

Please kindly delete this file.The attached image is not the correct image.It was wrongly attached. 20:21, 12 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+698)‎ . . N File:Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP).jpg ‎ (User created page with UploadWizard) (current) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osaretin (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Please post new questions in a new section rather than in existing unrelated discussions, and please sign your entries.
You can nominate File:Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP).jpg for deletion by going to the file description page, pressing "edit", and entering {{speedy|Uploader requesting deletion of a recently uploaded, unused file}}. LX (talk, contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Help required - I've crapped over Category:Christophe Lemaire

I've spent the last two days using flickr2commons to upload fashion shots by Masaki-H. One of their sets is a Lacoste show by Christopher Lemaire (who is now creative director at Hermes). But Category:Christophe Lemaire is the category of a French jockey, which means there are now 100+ miscategorised images there. Recategorising them is not something I can do manually, I could recategorise the handful of jockey images somewhere else, but horse-geeks may freak out. - hahnchen 19:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • If someone wants to sort this out, it should be pretty straightforward with VisualFileChange.js or, I'm sure, other tools I don't use. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I could move them very easily with Cat-a-lot, but I don’t know where they should go. Into Hermès? Or should I create a Category:Christophe Lemaire (couturier) or something?—and if so, how should he be categorized?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd move them to Category:Christophe Lemaire (designer). - hahnchen 18:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please help

I want to write/open a page in wikipedia on my profile/writings/my developmental work/unique achievements etc. How can I do that and post it? regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charudutta Panigrahi (talk • contribs)

Hello Charudutta Panigrahi. You can create a userpage at User:Charudutta Panigrahi, but please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not really somewhere to write articles about yourself. If you are notable enough, then someone will probably create an article about you, but it all depends on whether there are verifiable secondary sources about you. Also please note Wikimedia Commons is a separate project from Wikipedia, so you could also have a Commons userpage. If you need more help, please feel free to ask. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo in Category:Jill Stuart file descriptions

The 231 files in Category:Jill Stuart have an erroneous link to en:Jill Stuarts when they should point to en:Jill Stuart. I'd be grateful if anyone could fix this en masse, but if there is no simple method, it's not so egregious a mistake that it has to be fixed. - hahnchen 01:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done with VisualFileChange. A small difference but better to point to the correct place. Also created a redirect at the original target, just in case. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Category name

Hi there. I was doing some cleanup of the images in the "Lake Ontario" category. I created the category "Satellite images of the Great Lakes", and then added a bunch of photos. However, all the other satellite gallerias are called "Satellite pictures of...". How can I change the category's name? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to move a category as such, but there are a bunch of ways to accomplish that effect. Putting in a {{move cat}} request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands is one of the simplest. Another alternative would be to create the new category, use cat-a-lot or VisualFileChange.js (the latter by substituting one category name for the other) to move the files, then request the deletion of the empty category. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Preposition in template "in London by borough"

The general template Template:London subdivisions categories gives the following problem, concerning the links in the header of the template to the supercategories "{{{1}}} in the United Kingdom", "{{{1}}} in England" and "{{{1}}} in London". For example, Category:Animals of London, Category:Animals of England and Category:Animals of the United Kingdom use the preposition of, whereas Category:Animals in London by borough uses in. On this last page, you can see the red links in the template. Changing it to of in the template doesn't fix the problem, as for example Category:Street signs in London by borough does have the right links to Category:Street signs in London, Category:Street signs in England and Category:Street signs in the United Kingdom.

What is the right solution for this inconsistency? Changing the names of the Animals-categories to "of", or rather making two different London-by-bourough-templates? Can someone do this, as I am not an experienced user, but willing to learn. BertSeghers (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It is possible to use 'ifexist' parser function to check whether an 'in' category exist and if not then to link to the corresponding 'of' category instead. Ruslik (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Help to rename

Hi there! I made a mistake when I created 8 six rays argent in heraldry instead of named Category:8 six rays argent in heraldry. Please, would you help me to rename it? Thanks in advance!--Duche de Cleves (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Renaming a page to a category might not be possible. Instead I've created the category and requested speedy deletion of the page. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Another QI question

Hi,

Just wondering, what improvements would need to be made to this file for it to become a Quality Image? Thanks for answering, --Jakob (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture with unknown copyright information?

There is a picture of a boat that I'd like to upload, because I created a page and would like to add a picture. However, I don't know who took the picture, or who holds the copyright. Additionally, on the page it's listed on (http://www.wrecksite.eu/imgBrowser.aspx?27855), its copyright information is listed as "unknown". Would I be allowed to upload it, or would I have to find the copyright holder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnd474747 (talk • contribs)

@Cnd474747: Hi. Wikimedia Commons only accepts files that are confirmed to be under a free licence. So, you are not allowed to upload the file. However, you may still do so if you contact the copyright holder for permission, and he agrees to license the image under a free licence. Hope that helps. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 05:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@Arctic Kangaroo: Unfortunately, that does not. The copyright holder cannot be located. Thanks, Cnd474747 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cnd474747: Then sorry, you can't upload it. The only thing you can do is to find out who the copyright holder is. You may want to contact the guy who uploaded the image to Wrecksite, and ask him for details such as copyright holder and the source where he got the image from. Sadly the picture is definitely not in the public domain yet. Cheers, (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Grondplan Fort Frederik-Hendrik in Berendrecht.jpg

Beste, ik heb een grondplan van een fort geüploaded. Deze tekening heft als referentie het Algemeen Rijksarchief in 's Gravenhage. Moet ik hier nu nog extra toestemming voor hebben om dit te gebruiken? Een archief is toch publiek eigendom? --Helcra (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding Glen Ridge High School color postcard.pdf

I want to upload a picture postcard of Glen Ridge High School, Glen Ridge, Essex County, New Jersey that I have from 1955. There is no copyright on the postcard, so I assume it is okay to publish it online.

Bonnie Bell Sauve --Bbsauve (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Lack of a copyright notice alone is not evidence of freedom, because works are generally supposed to accrue copyright at the moment of their creation, and according to the precautionary principle. That said, assuming this postcard was published in the USA before 1963, it will be considered to have entered the public domain (see COM:Copyright rules by territory#United States) and therefore should be OK to upload here. Just be sure to provide as much information as possible about the dating and provenance of the item, as backing for the public-domain licence.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If it was published in the U.S. at that date, then the default was no copyright unless specifically asserted. The U.S. was not a signatory to e the Berne convention at that time. It would help to scan both sides of the postcard to make it clear that there was no copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Joke picture

It is pretty obvious that File:Cappelli.jpg was created as a joke at the expense of a teacher. I have no idea how such images are treated here and am posting so someone experienced might take action if warranted. I noticed a link to en:Cappelli being added at en:OSI model. The former is a disambiguation page where an IP posted the image (see permalink). I reverted the edits at the two pages, and the image has no legitimate use—can it be deleted? Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, out of scope here at the minimum. DR created. Yann (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Exif Data

Please delete my name in these two files:

  • File:Mario Soares Carmo 2 1 1 1.jpg
  • File:Mario Soares Carmo 1 1.jpg

I have tried to do it by myself, but the Exif Pilot program did not work it out. I dont know why. Many thanks.FraLiss (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the OwnerName tag from File:Mario Soares Carmo 2 1 1 1.jpg and File:Mario Soares Carmo 1 1.jpg using exiftool. You may wish to ask an administrator to delete the earlier revisions of the files. LX (talk, contribs) 10:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done The files old files are now hidden from public view. -- Rillke(q?) 14:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rillke(q?) 14:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering what is needed to upload a logo and how to do so without any problems.--Zfigueroa (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing special about logotypes. The same requirements as for all other content apply. If a logotype is above the threshold of originality required for copyright protection, you need permission from the copyright holder to publish it under a free license. LX (talk, contribs) 10:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I Just wanted help uploading the logo from www.lapatilla.com for its info box on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to upload it since I think it is not above the threshold of originality. If anything, the watermelon used in the logo is protected but not the logos text--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded just the text logo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lapatillalogo.png to be safe.--Zfigueroa (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
That looks fine. I think it's a good idea not to include the watermelon part, because it's going to be very hard for anyone to say for sure that it isn't above the threshold of originality. LX (talk, contribs) 07:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: LX (talk, contribs) 07:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

format problem

I want to change in File:BJP-flag.svg, but in my PC this file saved in png format. When I reupload this file, this shows a message "The XML in the uploaded file could not be parsed". Please help!Prateek Malviyatalk 05:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You should download the SVG version instead of the PNG. Inkscape is the recommended tool to edit SVG files. --Maxxl2 - talk 07:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
But how can I download SVG version of this file?Prateek Malviyatalk 09:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Click the the flag image and you get to this page. Right click on the image and select Save page as .... This should work for you. --Maxxl2 - talk 09:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping, It's really work and now I uploaded new version of this file.--Prateek Malviyatalk 14:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Good job. Go ahead with more files. --Maxxl2 - talk 15:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleting a file that was uploaded by mistake.

Is it possible to delete a file that was uploaded in error?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSalleres (talk • contribs) 24 April 2014‎ (UTC)

If the file was uploaded recently, you can add {{speedydelete|uploaded in error}} and it will usually get deleted. --rimshottalk 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I download a music file

I have found the piece. I select download, full resolution, and the file plays and I download a (?) png. The open containing folder choice is dimmed. How do I download a music file?

Tnx,

Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesoh8 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 April 2014‎ (UTC)

To download an audio file, e.g. File:03 WXBach Sinfonia A min.ogg, go to the file description page, locate the link below the audio player widget, right click on it and select "Save link as..." (or whatever the equivalent may be on your system). LX (talk, contribs) 09:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

similar images

If two images are 99% the same what are the rules here on commons? One has to be deleted because it is too similar, I would think? (Lilic (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)).

If they're not identical copies, it's a case-by-case decision. It looks like you forgot to mention that your question is really about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Srbija - Udeo srpskog jezika po opstinama 2011 1.gif, which looks like a reasonable decision. LX (talk, contribs) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, they are 99.99% identical. They are basically the same exact thing, to the extent that it violates copyright.
The decision is not reasonable at all. It is a blatant violation of wikipedia rules on two grounds - a) Copyright, posting something almost identical to what was already posted, and b) Similarity/redundancy.
Is there another place to file for additional moderation? I feel that the decision taken is most inappropriate. If it is appropriate it means that 10 more people can post basically the same map and nobody will do anything about it. The decision, which as no explanation behind it, sets a terrible precedent. (Lilic (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)).

Uploading pictures of artwork/statues

Hi! Am I allowed to upload picture of statues under Creative Commons, such as a Google Android statue from Google HQ? I took the picture myself, but the statue is not mine. Ty, Bananasoldier (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not unless the artwork itself is in the public domain or otherwise free to adapt & publish. See COM:FOP#United States: in the USA only photos of buildings are exempt from being considered derivative works of their subject. The laws of other countries vary: in Canada, for example, publicly displayed statues are exempt, but not murals.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your answer. How does a statue relate to buildings? Please bear in mind that I'm a newbieBananasoldier (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned buildings in contrast to the kind of intellectual property in the subject line, not in parallel, because they’re the sole exception to the US copyright laws that protect publicly displayed creative works from reproduction. Photos of statues, paintings, murals, posters, and so on are basically treated as copies of the original and subject to the same restrictions (if any). Sorry to be unclear.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Strictly to the text of your question, the short answer was in the first sentence: no, unless the statue itself is free (or if the owner of the copyright of the statue gave his permission to publish your photograph under a free license). But, as your question was placed under a section title that hinted that you might also want information about other types of artworks, the above answer, for more complete information, provided a link to a help page and went on and added comparisons with other types of situations, for example if a user wanted to upload his photograph of a non-free building without permission, that would be possible in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons-Project: Media/Photos by time

Do we have a project, or a main-page for "Media by time"? And: Is there a 'bot' or function, to show uploaded photographs by date/EXIF-data or taken on one day? more ... --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

file with license deleted

Hi,

i uploaded the file File:Banksy the joy of not being sold anything.jpg. He was with the right license, but somehow he deleted.

where can i see who deleted it and why?

Tnx:) --TheRamtzi (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[6] says Licensed at the source as "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License", which is not a free license.--Motopark (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Download help

I am completely new to this site, which I find a little confusing (probably my age) I want to download an image/picture onto my desktop, but I am having some trouble; can you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.246.69 (talk • contribs)

On the image page, e.g. File:Brunnen Rinnen 1569.jpg, right-click the image and choose "Save linked content as ...". This should open a download dialog for the full-size image. There are also links below the image for different sizes and, depending on the browser, a big download link to the right of the image. --rimshottalk 16:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Cannot revert myself?

Hi, I accidently uploaded a different image under the same name, but I can't seem to revert that. Can someone help? [7]. Thanks, Tekstman (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What happens when you click "revert"? Nothing? -- Asclepias (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Reverted, but unsure whether the accidental image can be deleted. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it requires administrator. Evan Goering (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Correct, it is only admins that can delete files. What I mean't was that such intermediate images might not be deleted because I'm sure I've seen quite a few files with markedly different intermediate images in their histories. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictures needing deletion

I came across these pictures via the AfD for Arabicadoo. In a nutshell, the article was a blatant hoax and was likely the result of a personal joke by the article's creator. The pictures (File:Arabicadoo.jpg, File:Joe_Bob_1941.jpg) are therefore considered to be extremely suspect. The first one of the "arabicadoo" is basically a duck or deer call that the guy altered to look like it was something else. The second is likely taken from some other place and since the article as a whole is a hoax, this is likely something he copied from some book somewhere and is probably copyvio. The first one, the "arabicadoo", wouldn't be so bad except that it isn't labeled as a hoax/joke item and gives off the impression that it's an actual item sold by a real company, plus it was specifically created (the photo) to perpetuate a hoax article on Wikipedia. The second was pretty much created for the same end, so we should automatically assume that it's copyvio and/or isn't the actual photo of "Joey Robert Blackroot" since that person is very, very unlikely to actually exist outside of the uploader's imagination. Can anyone here delete these or nominate them for deletion? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Nominated one as possible hoax and the other as a copyvio. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am new around these parts

I would like to use the following photo on my Facebook Page and on my about.me page

File:Spoonbridge_Cherry.jpg

Since I am new around these parts, it looks like I am free:

       to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
       to remix – to adapt the work

But it also looks like I need to attribute the work

attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

How do I attribute this work? Where does it talk about the manner specified by the author?

Any help would be much appreciated. LOL Edward Jerome (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we'd best ask an experienced admin who deals with COM:FOP for art in the US to look at this image and give you guidance. To me it looks like perhaps the image may not be free. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeing that it is a sculpture from 1985-1988 by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje Van Bruggen, in the United States, the claim of entirely "own work" and the claim of copyright and free licensing by the uploader User:Wac-pr (is that be supposed to be understood as an abreviation for Walker Art Center - public relations?) might seem exaggerated. This file may have eluded attention until now because the artists were not credited on the description page. I don't think it can be assumed that the file is free unless a reliable statement is obtained from the artist, or from the owner of the art center, to the effect that the artists somehow ceded their rights to the uploader or allowed the free licensing of the photo. I suggest you be very cautious about that file and not use it until the matter is clarified.
To answer your question about attribution, the "manner specified" to attribute a photo is the name, pseudonym or other text, that the author has mentioned as "attribution" with the licensing, or if he did not specify something there, the requested attribution can generally be assumed to be the name, pseudonym or other text, that the uploader mentioned in the field "author" of the description of the file. If it is a photo of a work of art, the artist should also be mentioned. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)