Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help desk
uploading
Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons' core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

Contents


Oldies[edit]

Commons:Moving files to Wikipedia[edit]

There should be an easy way to move files that are ineligible for Commons onto the Wikipedia's they are used in - with the condition that the file is fair use. There is a tool for moving stuff from Wikipedia to Commons, why not the reverse?

As an example, see this list of images of Syrian banknotes that will most likely have to be deleted off Commons. There should be an easy way to move each file onto the Wikipedias that link to it (and allow fair-use). Brightgalrs (talk)

This seem like a brilliant idea to me but there is no doubt that such idea would create a lot of problems for the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) because fair use laws vary from country to country. Content deemed acceptable under, for instance, US fair use concepts is not usable in the majority of other countries. In fact, the Licensing resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) explicitly forbids Commons to host fair use materials. Wikicology (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Your objection seems irrelevant as this is about moving stuff out of Commons to wikipedias, not about hoisting fair use material here. Rmhermen (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
My argument is not solely based on hosting but the problem I foresee. I agree that instead of just deleting fair use files, it is better to move them to Wikipedia where such files are acceptable but this simply means that users will be permitted to upload fair use images to Common. The permission to move these files to Wikipedia would probably be given to administrators or a group of users who are familiar with file licenses. No doubt, there would be overwhelming backlogs of fair use files to be moved to Wikipedia. Prior to their moves to Wikipedia, a good number of them would have been used for commercial purpose with credit to Wikimedia Common. This will raise so many legal issues for allowing them here in the first instance. I believe the WMF would have considered so many factors before their firm decision not to allow it. Just my thought. Wikicology (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
there is User:Commons fair use upload bot. which requires some care and feeding, it would also require a change in culture, the anti-open, free only is quite happy to delete things even if it benefits the gettys and APs of the world. they selectively cite legal risk even while saying "bring it on" to the Prado. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This is exactly what I had in mind - it seems very inactive, and Fae himself is inactive at the moment. I'm not quite sure what the second part of your comment means. Brightgalrs (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
the second part means: step one is transfer file to english; and then you must write an article to incorporate the image within seven days or it will get deleted there. for images in use it is done, but for public art (for example) it will require some stub creation skills, and you will be limited to one fair use image per object. perhaps other wiki's EDP will be more inclusive. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The suggestion was rather obviously about files unacceptable for Commons that are already in use on other projects. Reventtalk 02:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging for an insight. Wikicology (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the bot could be massively expanded by using this summary table of Non-free content rules. At the very least it could do all the "similar to enwiki" and actively skip the "no non-free content" projects. Then again, that assumes the table is up to date. Brightgalrs (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm overstretched on real life stuff for this month, so on a wikibreak. Getting the FUUB working again is not that hard. It's not been a priority and I would like to take care to test it out step by step, get it working with pywikibot-core (currently written for compat), and ensure that host wikis have formally agreed that images should be transferred. By the way, it works in a slightly naff workflow, so I would also like to take time to think about that too. In practice there were only ever a few images a month that were marked for transfer, though if admins were more aware of the options we might find more files being marked for transfer before files are deleted as a result of successful deletion requests.
By the way, adjusting the list of wikis where files can be transferred it easy to tweak. We probably should ensure that files are flagged for review in some way on the local wikis that have opted-in for Fair Use copies, and leave them in an easy to understand category. -- (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Image change request from the Prado Museum - Request for community input[edit]

Dear all,

TLDR: WMF Legal would like to know your opinion about whether and in what quality we should host images from the Museo del Prado based on their concerns about really high quality versions on Commons (list of images at the end of the post).

Background[edit]

The Museo del Prado has contacted the WMF, asking for the removal of a number of images from Commons. Initially, they simply wanted the images taken down, but after discussion with them, they have suggested that they are only concerned with Commons hosting very high-quality gigapixel images and they are willing to accept Commons hosting lower quality images of the artwork under a public domain license.

We’ve asked the Prado to define what quality they would find acceptable and they suggested that 1000 pixels would be acceptable. They also noted more generally that they would be fine with something that was “very good quality to be used on a screen and make possible to appreciate and study all the details of the paintings.” They also noted, if we agree to make a change, that they would be happy to provide the new files to replace the current ones.

I’ve put a list of every image that the Prado brought to our attention at the end of this post.

As many of you might know from the limitations on reuse of PD-art works, Spain has a 25-year ancillary copyright that may cover these images and could be brought against the uploaders of the images and anyone using them in Spain. Further, in this case, the Prado has argued that their gigapixel images, due to their quality and the techniques in creating them, go beyond mere 2-D reproductions and should not be covered by the U.S. Bridgeman exception or the Commons policy on reproductions of 2-D art. They, along with Google Earth, have made a video showing off the elaborate process used to create the images.

We don’t agree with the museum’s interpretation of Bridgeman, but we can’t say for sure how a U.S. court would handle this case. Because of these issues, we want to hear from the community about whether high-quality photographs of 2-D Spanish works should be hosted on Commons. We particularly want to consider how we should balance the desire to keep these images with the potential rights of the museum under Spanish law and consideration to safeguard image uploaders and reusers worldwide.

Our question[edit]

So, with that explanation, we want to ask you what you’d like to do with these images. Given the differences between the rules in the U.S. and Spain, and the different interpretations of these rules that are possible, do you think the WMF should make every possible argument to keep the high resolution images, or replace the current images with lower resolution versions? We’ve thought of a few different options for how the community could approach this issue and are open to others. We’ve tried to outline what we think the results might be for each one.

  • WMF and community members work together with the Prado to change to lower quality images provided by the Prado and remove the gigapixel images.
  • We think this may make the most sense in this case because it heads off a potential lawsuit, allows the images to all remain on Commons and be accessible for free worldwide, and is likely to lower legal risk to uploaders and reusers of the images.
  • On the other hand, it would make it harder to do close-ups of the paintings or reuse them in other ways.
  • Keep the images in their current quality.
  • This would likely mean one or more lawsuits in Spain under their ancillary copyright, followed by an uncertain one in the U.S.
  • Reusers would likely face higher legal risk as compared to replacing the images with lower resolution versions.
  • Community members choose to remove the images from Commons entirely.
  • This would avoid any debate about what quality is appropriate for Commons and avoid misleading reusers of the images.
  • Other projects would still have the option to host the lower quality versions of the images acceptable to the Prado if they wish to do so under the Licensing Policy (Spanish Wikipedia perhaps).


List of images the Prado would like changed (Copied from list provided to us by the Prado, links added by us)[edit]

Portrait of Philip II by Sofonisba Anguissoña (Felipe II, Sofonisba Anguissola)
The Dead Christ Supported by an Angel by Antonello da Messina (Cristo muerto sostenido por un ángel, Antonello de Messina)
Fran Angelico: The Annunciatium (La Anunciación, Fra Angelico)
Lazaru’s resurrection by Juan de Flandes (Resurrección de Lázaro, Juan de Flandes)
Death of the Virgin by Andrea Mantegna (El Tránsito de la Virgen, Andrea Mantegna)
Artemis by Rembrandt (Judit en el banquete de Holofernes (antes Artemisa), Rembrandt)
Martyrdom of St Felipe by José de Ribera (Martirio de San Felipe, José de Ribera)
José de Ribera (San Andrés, José de Ribera)
Immaculate conception by Tiepolo (La Inmaculada Concepción, Gianbattista Tiepolo)
Self-portrait (Autorretrato, Alberto Durero)
Adam and Eve (Adán y Eva, Alberto Durero) (category link because we don't know which one they meant)
Las meninas (Las meninas, Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez)
La nevada o El invierno (La nevada o El Invierno, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes)
La maja desnuda (La maja desnuda, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes) (second category link because we don't know which image it is)
Peregrinación a la fuente de San Isidro (El Santo Oficio, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes)
Perro semihundido (Perro semihundido, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes) (third category link because we don't know which image it is)
Martirio de San Andrés (El martirio de san Andrés, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo)
Danae (Dánae recibiendo la lluvia de oro, Vecellio di Gregorio Tiziano) (4th category link)
Holy Family of the Lam (Sagrada Familia del Cordero, Rafael) (second version, also high-res)
Holy Family with Saints Raphael, Tobias e Jeronimo or the Virgin with a Fish (Sagrada Familia con Rafael, Tobías y San Jerónimo, o Virgen del pez, Rafael)
Christ Falls on the Way to Calvary (Caída en el camino del Calvario, Rafael (y taller))
The Garden of Earthly Delights (triptych) (El jardín de las Delicias, El Bosco) (second version, also high-res) 

-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment The Commons community has established that en:1080p or "full HD" is the lowest passable standard for images to pass community quality checks like Commons:Featured picture candidates. That standard is 1920 × 1080 or 2 megapixels. From the beginning of negotiations it seems that the museum is requesting that Wikimedia Commons reduce the level of quality to a level below the community's quality standard for viewing on contemporary devices. If they chose that level without knowing what resolution photo groups want then that seems strange, and if they chose that intentionally to be below current expected photo specs then I am not sure what that means. Can the matter be renegotiated to ask about beginning at Wikimedia Commons' minimal quality specs? If discussion begins below that standard of quality then I think the comments will go in a different way. I wonder if they made an arbitrary choice not knowing that full HD is a contemporary expectation, because there is still a huge distance between full HD and gigapixel. Images could be greatly lowered in resolution almost to the level they request and still pass quality review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the usual Commons policies handle it. If they are copyrighted in their source country and there's no free license, then Commons:Licensing says they shouldn't be hosted at Commons. However any images (e.g., lower resolution versions) that Museo del Prado want to put in the public domain, ideally using CC0, should be hosted. --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • No, that's not right. The usual Commons policy in this case is that "PD-Art" applies worldwide, regardless of local laws, and allows them to be hosted. In that case the usual thing would be to keep them unless there are uploaders facing potential legal risk in Spain who would like them deleted. A lawsuit in the USA would be useful for confirming Bridgeman (from the point of view of somebody who doesn't have to pay for legal defense). --ghouston (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of those images have relatively low resolution. The biggest is maybe File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg at 30000 * 17078, which is about half a gigapixel. --ghouston (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Couple replies. First to Bluerasberry's comment, I think they would probably be willing to go up to 1920 x 1080. 1000 was offered as an example, but their comment about making it appropriate for viewing online along with Commons existing standard makes me think that 1920 x 1080 is something that we could reach as an agreement with them. For the latter part, I don't guarantee that we got every picture correct. They sent us a big list of names that I copied verbatim, and we tried our best to find links to all of them, but a bunch have many copies on Commons. The concern that the museum raised to us in their emails was specifically about the gigapixel issue though. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jrogers (WMF), please do threading. -- Tuválkin 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, wait — they just sent «a big list of names»? Names of what? Titles of paintings, or filenames? Apparently the former, in a show of (unsurprising) incompetence. Why are we here, then? How can a takedown be demanded if they cannot even pinpoint what they want taken down? -- Tuválkin 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if they did not provide us with links to the exact files they want removed (or downsized), we can still discuss the general questions here: What resolution does an image on Commons need to be in order for it to be useful? What value is there in hosting gigapixel-scale images on Commons? To what extent is it worth hosting lower-resolution images (or removing images entirely) in order to avoid litigation and improve Wikimedia’s relationships with important cultural institutions? --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
My guess would be to have a look at thez pictures in Category:Prado in Google Earth. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Just at a quick glance (the first image listed) there are likely to be other issues with these images, anyhow. File:Portrait of Philip II of Spain by Sofonisba Anguissola - 002.jpg was originally uploaded as part of the Yorck Project donation, overwritten with a retouched version, and then much later overwritten with a version from some other (unidentified) source. None of these later changes are reflected in the file page, which still attributes the Yorck donation. It's unclear if the current version is actually derived from the Google photography, though I gather from the comments above that the museum only identified works, and not specific files. Reventtalk 01:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the 2nd version is possibly derived from the first, and the 3rd looks like a different scan. They should be split into separate files. A source would be nice, but since PD-Art applies regardless of source, it doesn't seem like a reason to delete anything. --ghouston (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
i know what user:Dcoetzee will say: "what is good for the national portrait gallery is good for the prado." if they want to sell their high resolution, then to be safe it should stay off-line, with the low resolution as bait. we need a major museum image metadata cleanup. i see User:Multichill is doing it with wikidata. maybe they should talk to User:Kippelboy about online strategy, and interacting with wikimedia. if the images are under 10 MB i would not sweat it, and the larger ones are out already, it is now closing the barn door. they might want to withhold future higher resolution, if they want to maintain their control issues. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That’s a fair position, but it’s also unlikely to help us make friends in the GLAM world. Creating these gigapixel images did require a significant amount of effort and resources. Other GLAM institutions may hesitate to make the same sort of investments in digitizing their collections or making those collections available online if it’s impossible for them to maintain any control over the digitized works (even for a short time). That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t take a staunch position when it comes to PD-art images like these—we just need to be aware of the possible consequences. --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@CRoslof (WMF): It strikes me that the effort here was not actually expended by the museum anyhow... it was done by Google, by their team, with their equipment. When this images were originally released this was described by director of the Prado as "this project of Google Earth", and the announcement included the statement by the General Manager of Google Earth that "this project is a continuation of our endeavours to democratise access to information and culture". Did they mean this? Or is the access to these works only sufficiently 'democratic' if they maintain control of it, if they can 'brand' it? The article from New Atlas linked above, that includes the video, describes Google as having "become by default the gatekeeper of global information for this generation." I don't think access to our cultural legacy needs a gatekeeper. These works of art are the common property of all mankind.
There are many other major institutions, such as the Rijksmuseum and the Getty, that have truly opened their collections digitally, without it being paid as part of an exercise in corporate brand building, and I don't see that it has hurt them at all. I suspect, strongly, that this is far more about Google's interests than those of the Prado. Reventtalk 23:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe it's really about this. Reventtalk 23:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Humm, two main things concerns me, and they are in the same paragraph:

"'very good quality to be used on a screen and make possible to appreciate and study1 all the details of the paintings.' They also noted, if we agree to make a change, that they would be happy to provide the new files to replace the current ones2."
  • 1. For study, bigger is better, that's it; and our scope is related to education.
For that reason, do not make any sense to downsize this images. Plus, this is a 2D representation, and maybe in the future, this resolutions would be considerate average, and for that reason we request the max resolution possible... we need to understand the real reason behind this arguments, because if they want that we provide material for study, as they alligate, a giant image could be away better.
  • 2. This is a blackmail posture.
Accept that will not bring any good for the Movement, if they want to provide some images, great, but we do not need to remove any image in their favour. And this could open a gate to hell... creating a precedent of bad attitude can be very harmful for the Movement. Actually, we do not encourage downsizes, and accept this move is say "yes" to downsize, and it would open another gate, that could be an even deeper hell, as we already have a gigantic number of images downsized by the photographers in order to protect the max quality, limiting the usability of the images...

So Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, and the worst scenario it's to resize the images, however we still not accepting the blackmail doubtful proposal, and we say that downsize is not for us. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I would not agree to anything less than 5 MP. This is the resolution of low end cameras now. Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, of course, and refuse to bow down to their blackmail. Even in those cases where actual pixels in our files come from the Prado site (and not merely depicting paintings that are hosted there with pixels from other sources), their photography work (the kind which is «mere sweat of the brow») is paid for by the government of Spain as part of their (Prado’s) mission to dissiminate culture; that photography work should not have its costs covered by the sale of pixels. On the contrary, inasmuch Wikimedia Commons does promote through its hosting and curation the collections held at the Prado, we are actively contributing to their ticketing revenue — if anything, Prado should instead thank Commons and offer to facilitate more uploadings.
Also, to a degree that’s maybe not much more, but surely not less, than the average for such national museums of powerful nations with a long history, a sizeable portion of Prado’s exhibits is war loot. I’m personally in favour of ignoring provenance and of keeping artworks and historical artifacts wherever they are safely in public display, but if the game is outlandish legal minutiæ, it can be played by all.
-- Tuválkin 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
We always defended {{PD-art}} so we should definitely do that now. Let's take the intro of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: " Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is |copyrightable under U.S. law is originality. "
That was back in 1999. In 15+ years the quality and resolution increased a lot, but still no originality in reproducing an image. Bring it on, Prado v. Wikimedia sounds like a good banner Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Multichill (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Multichill. Unless we're going to surrender our position on PD-art in all cases, permitting images under PD-art only once the reproduction itself (not just the original work) is in the public domain locally, we have no reason to do anything here. Bridgeman v. Corel is only a district court ruling, not something that reached the Supreme Court or even an appeals court, but it has a great deal of w:persuasive precedent, and the chance that another US court would disagree is minimal; unless WMF Legal believes that we need to abandon PD-art for the sake of the survival of the WMF, we have no reason to listen. Let's not be rude, of course, but it's time for us politely to say no. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Agree with "bring it on". The Prado would be profoundly stupid to take any of these high educational value public domain images into court with thin claims of copyright and unproven 'sweat of the brow' argumentation. Not only would they lose the case, it would set a legal precedent for all institutions ensuring that they can never make legal threats of this type in the future. Shame on the middle management wonks within the Prado that can find nothing better to do with their well paid for time. With regard to "Spain has a 25-year ancillary copyright", that can be shot down in the first minute of a legal hearing by pointing out where and when the same artworks were previously published before the Prado started making their reproductions, consequently there can be no first publication rights. Note for WMF Legal, it's better to avoid paraphrasing fear mongering legal threats. If the Prado want to make legal threats, please publish the legal threat fully in the Prado's own words and the community can then tease out more from the original words such as associated legal phrasing and intent. -- (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Addendum with respect to ancillary copyright, the rejection appears simpler than I presumed as I was interpreting this as similar to other European publication rights. A bit more reading shows me that the 2014 Spanish ancillary copyright makes a presumption that the original works are copyrightable in themselves, without this nature partial or other reproductions in ancillary publications do not create new copyrights. The Prado would have to provide a clear explanation of their argument, with links to legal acts and existing case studies, as this looks awfully like pseudo-legal chaff in order to spread enough fear and doubt that unpaid volunteers like us will not touch their stuff. Thanks -- (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I also agree with the bring it on proposal. Public domain is essential to our vision as a movement, and we have consistently and proudly defended it over the last 15 years. Our standing for what we believe to be right is what distinguishes us from other educational charities and organisations, and unless we change our opinion about {{PD-art}}, we ought to refuse this request, even if it means legal action. Incidentally, this should be a good sign that we should increase our lobbying in favour of the public domain in the European Union so as to avoid such situations from occurring in the future. We know we are in the right, we will have the public on our side—I wonder how the Spanish people feel about being charged for access to works they have already paid for—so if it comes to it, we should stand our ground. As @Multichill rightly points out, Prado v. Wikimedia is going to look great as a headline. Also, if there are any Spanish residents who might be in legal jeopardy because of their actions as community members, we should ensure they get all the legal help we can provide them through our Defense of Contributors policy. And as a last point, I would like to thank @Jacob and the legal team for starting this discussion here; I think we all appreciate being consulted before any action is taken on behalf of our projects, and it makes a nice and welcome change from the past. odder (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If we could not keep gigapixels images, we should not accept anything lower than high quality DSLR images, i.e. at least 24 Mpixels (6000 x 4000). This doesn't require stitching several images, and would therefore be acceptable under Bridgeman. Beside, would they accept volunteers with a high-end equipment to take pictures themselves? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Per odder's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep but we should do courtesy deletions if the uploaders prefer to have the files deleted. (Someone else can always re-upload the files under their own name after a courtesy deletion of course.) Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am neither, of course, a lawyer, nor your lawyer, but I think we should consider this from a slightly different perspective.
The position of the USCO, as stated in the Copyright Compendium (310.6 and 310.7), is that neither creative skill and experience; nor time, effort, and expense required, have any effect on the copyrightability of a work. This is not a new rule from Bridgeman, which the USCO does not even cite. Instead, they cite a 1976 case which states that 'physical skill' and 'special training' cannot create originality, and that case itself cites ruling going back to the 19th century, that 'slavish and mechanical reproduction cannot create an author'. They also cite Feist: Justice O'Connor said "copyright rewards originality, not effort" and that the idea that effort mattered was against the basic principles of copyright.
Bridgeman was not 'new law'.... that it why it is so persuasive. The very effort of reproduction that the Prado expects to be rewarded for, that they are so proud of, was an effort to slavishly and exactly reproduce every detail of these works, down to the last brushstroke. It was an attempt to avoid the very original expression that copyright is intended to encourage and protect, and instead to mechanically replicate the creativity embodied in these works to the highest degree that could possibly be managed. That attempt at 'slavish and mechanical reproduction' is exactly what copyright does not protect.
I truly believe that the Prado does not have a leg to stand on, under US law.
But what about Spanish law? The very section 128 mentioned in our policy, that grants a 25 year term, is about 'simple photographs', ones that 'do not have the nature of protected works' that grants the normal term. They can't have it both ways. If it's granted that their effort is so special and extraordinary that it somehow transcends a lack of originality and thus deserves copyright protection, then it's not simple. It seems as if it's hoped that we, and possibly some court, will miss this inherent contradiction, or that they can somehow pick and choose what they claim to be true depending on where they are standing.
I say no, emphatically, to removing any images of these works on the basis of what I believe are baseless legal threats. Neither the Prado, nor Google, created these masterpieces.... this art is the common property of all mankind. Copyright is intended to encourage human creativity by rewarding authors for their efforts, not to reward those who simply manage to later hoard away the only copy. We are required, sometimes, to remove works because of laws we think are stupid... we should not remove works simply on the basis of threats. Reventtalk 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for answer so late Slowking4. I am available in case talk to someone at the Museum is needed, so just tell me. --Rubén Ojeda (WMES) (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If it takes taking to the barricades and starting an all-out war to defend the public domain, then so be it. But yes, as a general principle we should try to exhaust all other possibilities before going to court. And just as a suggestion, please try to avoid overstating the issue; a single court case will cost nowhere near to spending the whole of the budget that the Legal team have been allocated. odder (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Museums and Wikimedians are natural allies, and it’s unfortunate when we wind up in an adversarial position. In such cases, the legal team doesn’t hesitate to defend the public domain, as we have in the German Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. In this case, though, there is the possibility of avoiding a lawsuit and earning goodwill with an important cultural institution if we make some concessions regarding image resolution. The question we’re trying to answer is whether that trade-off is worth it. (The consensus so far seems to be “no”.) --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@CRoslof (WMF): Make that a resounding no. Josve05a (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
What did the museum offer as trade-off for downscaling such images? So far they don't seem to have offered anything. Could they perhaps upload high-res images of a large number of their pictures (specially those not on exhibition) in exchange for such courtesy downscaling? Platonides (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Platonides: It seems apparent from the above that what they offered in exchange was "we won't sue you." Meh. Reventtalk 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
we also do not know the internal politics of the institution. we try to work with the outreach staff to get some wins, to argue against their legal staff, who tend to have bought the IP bar's practice. if we do not play nice with others, then commons gets a bad reputation, then they lock the door, as we saw with the Finnish photo museum. you can be as pure as you want about licenses, and you may become a walled garden. but hey, more wiki'splaining for me, thanks all. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I didn't consider “we won't sue you -based on a law apparently not tested in court- for storing some public domain images” to be "anything"… Specially not if we are consider this as a polite request by a natural ally requesting a courtesy downscaling. Platonides (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
"Museums and Wikimedians are natural allies" ehh... in a ideal word (not even wikimedias are allies...)... and for those saying that would accept 24 mpx, or 10... dudes, they are complaining about those, open up the list provided by them, there are some ~2'000 x ~2'000 pictures... probably they will provide a 2002 phone quality (1000 pixels) ... ¬¬

Anyway, Jacob, Charles, WMF talked directly with Google about it? As far we know, Google is who did the images, no? We can summary ignore Padro actually, because one of their allegation is violation of copyright based in the trouble to make giant pictures, and that the owner of those are images are the ones who took the pictures, and made all the process to deal with distortions... Google did it, based on the link that you provided.

The museum claimed that it contracted with Google and that, since Google worked with them under Spanish law, it agreed to display the images under a limited license that did not permit reuse. We have no reason to believe that's incorrect, and we're treating it assuming that if there is any kind of copyright applied to the pictures, it would be owned by the Prado. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Until now, I didn't understand why they are ...bi ... complaining about us have those images here, if anyone could access the same images in the Google Earth...

Talking about that, why we did not seat with Google and bring all this processes documented? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg is one of those files that I understand the request. That's incredible detail that took quite a bit of work to produce. Most of the other stuff, eight megapixels are barely starting to see the painting, and one megapixel is so low we can probably replace it with a scan from a book and come out ahead. As for internal politics, it's not worth folding on the merest hope that maybe we'll be able to do something in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to address the Prado's motivation in this discussion. In all the emails that I've had with them, they have been very reasonable. I think they are coming at this from the perspective that they have rights in these pictures and believe that they should protect those rights. I'm sure that's done in order to help them make money, but I think they plan to use that money to help preserve the art and disseminate information about it, and I don't ascribe bad motives to them in this whole matter at all. Rather than demand removal, they've tried to compromise and instead asked us just to lower the quality of the pictures. The list including images that aren't in super high quality was likely due to unfamiliarity with Wikipedia leading them to pull every link that came up with "Prado" rather than a bad motive to remove more content than they intended. The point of this discussion though, is that regardless of the Prado's position, we want to get community input about what to do in response to that offer. We weren't sure if the Commons community would even want to host the high quality images in a situation where the laws of different countries might come to different conclusions. Now, it does seem like the conversation is a pretty strong keep, but I do want to make sure it's because the people participating think it's the right thing to take a strong stand for placing these kind of gigapixel images in the public domain and not just because it might appear that the Prado may not have done things right in this particular case. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

few here collaborate with GLAMs, so it is easy for them to tell them to "bring it on". this community approves of w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, and w:Monkey selfie; and seeks to thrust bridgeman around the world. they have very little tolerance for the rear-guard revenue seeking (which is a delusion), or stewardship of the public domain. we need a wikimedian on the ground to collaborate, with some tactics to route around the adversive culture here. email is not good enough. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we do think that Bridgeman should be a principle world-round, and being stewards of the public domain ourselves, we're a little frustrated with groups who claim to be stewards of the public domain and who generally do so poorly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think if the issue is the gigapixel images, that the discussion has been miscentered, because the files pointed to were not generally gigapixel images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi all, this is Discasto. First of all some clarification:
    • Prado Museum possibly holds exploitation right over such pictures, but only for 25 years. That's so according to the article 128 of the Spanish Intellectual Property Act. It creates new exploitation rights over works (even if they're in the public domain) and therefore, according to the Spanish law, Prado Museum possibly holds such rights. Such statement is registered here but has been universally ignored until now.
    • On the other hand, I can't see any difference with regard to I wonder why the official position of the WMF in this case should be different from the w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute.
    • Finally, if the community agrees to fulfill Prado's requirements, the same rule should apply to every equivalent picture and therefore, any picture from public domain works in Spain not actually taken by a person must be removed. Or I'm missing anything...
    • My €0.02 --Discasto talk 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The problem is, that, as soon as we implement a special deal with the Prado, we acknowledge that there is a protection-right covering 2D-redroductions. And that opens the gate to any body else, to claim rights on the hundreds and thousands of Reproduktions here on Commons, without offering anything in reward.
    • And this in includes the cases, where the WMF has already taken legal action (namely Reiss-Engelhorn) as well as...
    • the reproductions done by private Persons, that have never been tagged with anything but the PD-tag (that may not be sufficient anymore).
I'm afraid that this case may have consequenses, that are going far beyond this small deal with the Prado. // Martin K. (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, as long the Prado don't allow us (and others) to take pictures there, we need to get images of old art in different ways. We can talk about it, when the Prado stops sitting on their by the mankind borrowed (not owned) art. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per others above. Keeping these images strengthens our position on treating two dimensional reproductions of public domain works as public domain. Additionally, lawsuits in Spain and possibly the US would be useful to remove legal uncertainties for uploaders and reusers. Our past GLAM cooperations have shown that increased exposure of institutional content (through Commons, Wikipedia, etc.) lead to more visitors to their websites, sales through their online shops and effect other metrics that matter to institutions. An increasing number of applications like retina displays, print/web/game design, etc. require high resolution content. Last but not least hosting and disseminating high resolution content is a sustainable approach for the future (think of destroyed archives or inaccessible online services). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Downsize until Reiss-Engelhorn Museum of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation appeal is complete - For those itching for a court case (ghouston, Multichill, , odder, Steinsplitter, Christoph Braun) there is already one in progress. Reiss-Engelhorn v. Wikimedia Foundation (which we lost the first round of) is basically identical to any court case that would come out of this situation. Both Spain and Germany have ancillary copyrights for sweat of the brow, so museums in those countries are free to claim copyright (25 years in Spain, 50 in Germany) over images they have digitized. It doesn't make sense for the WMF to waste money on 2 nearly identical court cases. Let's see what happens with the Reiss-Engelhorn appeal, and then go from there. We're playing a long game with limited resources and we need to choose our battles. Starting another court case on the exact same premise would be a waste of money, IMO. Also, there's a pretty good chance that Prado would win (at least within Spanish jurisdiction). Keep in mind this is a very different situation than the National Portrait Gallery threats. I would completely support entering into a court case within the UK, as the UK doesn't have ancillary copyrights, and we would actually be clearing up a grey area. Personally, I don't see any potential benefit for us entering into a case against Prado. Also, on the issue of clarifying Bridgeman, I strongly doubt Prado would be interested in suing within the US, as they would have very little chance of winning a case there (even if that means they can only enforce the decision within Spain). IANAL. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nemo: The German law is here. The Spanish law is here. The wording of the two is very similar. Output from Google Translate:
Spanish law: "Whoever takes a photograph or other reproduction produced by a process analogous to that, when neither having the character of protected works in Book I, enjoy the exclusive right to authorize reproduction, distribution and public communication, on the same terms recognized this Act to the authors of photographic works. This right will last twenty-five years counted from 1st January following the date of completion of the photograph or reproduction year."
German law: "Photographs and products which are manufactured similar to photographs, are protected in application of the rules applicable to photographic works provisions of part 1. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall belong to the light generator. The right referred to in paragraph 1 expires fifty years after the publication of the photograph or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, publicly after this, however, already fifty years after the manufacturing, where the photograph within that period not published or legally has been reproduced. The period shall be calculated in accordance with § 69th."
They are both ancillary copyrights (or "related rights") specifically for photographs not otherwise protected under copyright. Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Germany seems to agree with this. It mentions that "purely mechanical reproductions" such as photocopying are not covered, but explains that photography with a camera is. It's my understanding that this is why we lost Reiss-Engelhorn v. Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps Jrogers (WMF) could confirm. The situation with Prado seems identical as far as I can tell, except that their reproductions were even less mechanical (judging by the video). Kaldari (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Jane023 (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, especially Martin K., I wonder that after many years that many of those photos exist, they start their question. The number of files which might be inflicted too, is much bigger I guess.
And please and urgently read my new topic Commons:Village pump#Commons admin and oversighter @Rama: from France refusing Licensed-PD-Art-tag and insisting on her copyright for merely PD-Art photographs, dealing with the inverse case within commons--Oursana (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Deleting/downsizing a 7 megapixel PD-Art photo that anyone could take with a phone? Nonsense. Also, this is not a negotiation unless the Prado offers something. Other than keeping the photos as is, I only see two possibilities:
    • we organise an editathon/photathon inside the Prado to take our own photos of all the items, given photos are allowed (we could also use their own app for the 50 main ones: https://www.museodelprado.es/en/apps/photo-prado ), and upgrade the resolution for all photos;
    • Prado offers a content release of their own photos to increase our photo collection, e.g. offering at least 10 thousands images; Prado and Wikimedia (ideally WMES, if they're interested) decide together what resolution makes the effort worthwhile; the Commons community, convinced by the gain in coverage, allows such such photos to override existing ones even when there would be a resolution downgrade. outreach:GLAM/Case studies#Museums and galleries (in particular Tropenmuseum and Kelly 2013) can be used to convince them.
Hopefully Prado can show some commitment to the promotion of culture. If not, they'll need to be forced by the sovereign people. Nemo 07:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest the WMF allows WMES to take a lead, perhaps offering some extra funding to cover basic expenses of volunteers. Based on my work in other large national organizations, this is what I would do to help the Prado, I would:
  1. first understand their published goals as an institution, work inside to understand how much revenue they make from these images and the costs of digitization, and understand which parts of the organization believe that they should lock-down the high resolution versions. I would look to gain an insight from staff within the Prado that we know support open knowledge goals, which may well turn out to be most of them.
  2. present a plan back to all interested staff that confirms the financial and legal facts, then goes on to suggest projects to increase the Prado's public impact and revenue by opening up their collections.
  3. find supporters outside the Prado, including the potential for project funding for a Prado open gallery project from EU sources, Arts grant bodies and the WMF and its sponsors. This may be as simple as helping to fund a more innovative digitization project through to funding for an in-house Open Knowledge advocate who can support internal education events on copyright and open knowledge programmes, as well as the (now classic) public engagement with edit-a-thons and external media promoting the Prado's collection.
So, the question for Prado should be, how much money do you believe you would lose by leaving the high resolution images on Commons, and would you like us to help you make back that money and increase the Prado's international profile? -- (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Renegotiate terms with the museum as described above by Nemo, inside a GLAM framework. --Marcok (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Engage + negotiate but keep, as Fæ and Nemo describe. Use Prado's interest in this case to engage at a few levels: local community members and global GLAM enthusiasts who have organized collaborations at this scale elsewhere. Agreed that Prado and WMES together can work out what resolution would make such an effort worthwhile. We might also clarify Commons policy on acceptable minimums in such contexts: what counts as 'low resolution' definitely changes with time; 24MP seems reasonable today. --SJ+ 13:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Also, @CRoslof (WMF): wrote:

    Creating these gigapixel images did require a significant amount of effort and resources. Other GLAM institutions may hesitate to make the same sort of investments in digitizing their collections or making those collections available online if...

    Effective integration in WP almost always results in better visibility and publicity for the museums. We should make this clear in each interaction. (We should also have an estimate of how much it would cost to have our community generate such images, for friendlier collaborations. Many musuem digitization projects are supported entirely by grants; if we can do the digitization /and/ ensure PD availability to the whole world, our community would be an effective conduit for such work.) --SJ+ 13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

August 10[edit]

August 12[edit]

File moving, catching errors[edit]

Hello!

Is there any way to enforce the filling of the "reason" field in the "move & replace" dialogue? I just made a move where I actually forgot to name the reason (COM:FR#reasons 2, disambiguation). It would be nice to have a reminder here to fill out this field in case it got forgotten... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Preferences -> Editing -> "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that setting will catch the output of a script like we use for moves, unfortunately. Reventtalk 12:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I would actually prefer the way, it is done for non-filemovers: The script RenameRequest.js adds automatically reasons according to Commons:File renaming#Which files should be renamed?, cf. Special:Diff/201328778. For filemovers probably it should be possible to overwrite this or at least to add something. Unfortunately Rillke takes a rest for some months now (hopefully it’s just this). — Speravir_Talk – 18:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Mmh, maybe it’s actually RenameLink.js doing this job for non-filemovers, and this calls RenameRequest. @Grand-Duc: We would need someone with script knowledge (and at best admin rights). — Speravir_Talk – 20:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Images of threatened/destroyed cultural heritage in Syria[edit]

The Great Colonnade at Palmyra is one of the sites that have been damaged during the war.

Dear everybody,

Through a partnership between Wikimedia Sverige, Wikimedia Italia and Gruppo Archeologico Romano (GAR) a batch upload of 442 images of cultural heritage in Syria have recently been added to Wikimedia Commons. I am very happy that we can now share these images with the world as they depict objects and places that have been damaged or completely destroyed during the war in Syria.

To increase the value of this collection we hope that you can assist us with the following (it will help to encourage more image releases such as this in the future):

  1. Translations of two templates used on Wikimedia Commons into as many languages as possible: Template:Connected Open Heritage and Template:Gruppo Archeologico Romano cooperation project. This task only take a few minutes but is of great value.
  2. Identify if any of the images would be suitable VI candidates, as some of these objects can no longer be photographed.
  3. With adding the images in the category to different suitable Wikipedia articles. This is a new collection and many articles would benefit from images being added that show the object or a specific detail. The more views the images get, the happier the GLAM institutions usually are. It make it easier for staff members to convince their boards to release more media files later on.

Please help spread the word!

Best,

John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be better if you used the Translate extension for templates, see Template:BEIC for an example. Nemo 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
My fault. I hadn't seen the translation extension used for templates before. I just remember that it didn't work when the Translate extension was first introduced on Commons. I will try to migrate the templates (and any existing translations) but it will take some rearrangement to avoid puzzle style messages (which are not a problem in the autotranslate method). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nemo: I've prepared Template:Connected Open Heritage/i18n. Would you mind giving it a look? Is there an easy way of including a (discrete) list of languages and/or ideally some indication for readers that it can be translated (when it isn't already in their language). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Figured that one out. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Both templates now use the translation extension instead. That should make them easier to update. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Logs" and "Woodpiles"[edit]

Not a woodpile.

Category:Logs is a soft redirect to Category:Woodpiles, but clearly File:Timber for the construction of the Mechanics Pavilion at the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition, Seattle, Washington, ca 1893 (LAROCHE 166).jpeg or File:400 Y.O. Log - panoramio.jpg are logs, and not woodpiles. I see no "redirects for discussion" page; is this (Village pump) the best place to discuss this, or should I just be bold and make it a category in its own right with "woodpiles" as a child category, or is there some equivalent of "Categories for discussion" for redirects? - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

logs?
To me, a category redirect stays a category, so I think it would be OK to discuss it at the CFD. Incidentally, I wouldn't call these logs. --rimshottalk 07:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that a woodpile can be made up of things that are too small to be logs. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
We've had a good discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Logs and seem to have a basic consensus about what to do, but not about the best mechanism to achieve it (e.g. is it OK to have a category redirect to a category disambiguation page?). We could probably use participation by someone who is genuinely expert on policy around things like that. - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Using description as title: Is it OK?[edit]

Entering both a description AND a title can sound redundant. And indeed, sometimes we see that one of them is just random characters. The problem is especially important on small devices where typing and copy-pasting words is difficult.

Idea for the Android app: How about requiring a description, and using it as a title (filename)? We can shorten it and make it unique if needed.

Reducing to a single field would allow users to spend their typing effort for a more meaningful result.

Thanks in advance for the feedback! Syced (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Syced: Using the description as file title isn't a good idea at all, see Commons:File naming. Is this the same app which has created a lot of problems (copyvios) in the past? --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The proposed policy page you link to essentially says that a title should be "descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray" and "accurate, especially where scientific names, proper nouns, dates, etc. are used". Fortunately enough, descriptions fit this criteria. As for your question: No, not the same. The vast copyvio scandal you are thinking of was caused by the mobile web upload wizard. Our app's copyvio rate is currently less than 5%, and we have plans to completely make copyvios a thing of the past, for instance by blocking beginners from uploading images without EXIF, etc. Cheers! Syced (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I have seen, the vast majority of the images submitted by the app appear to be legitimate. Also, AFAIK the past copyvio issue was caused by the web app (as in, the mobile version of the web upload wizard), not the Android app. Feedback noted re: the desc though, thanks! Misaochan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Syced: Description != file title. Please follow standard practices. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand this is your point of view, but there is no policy backing your claim. And in practice, many veteran-uploaded files naturally have the same title and description, and that does not make them bad, if descriptive enough. You recently uploaded a file with the same title and description, and you did the right thing, because if you already explained everything in the description, then what else would you say in the title? Furthermore, we are talking about a mobile app here: Typing is painfully slow while walking outside taking pictures, so we won't get people to enter more than 200 characters anyway. Splitting that typing effort between two redundant fields would only have negative consequences in terms of quality. Cheers! Syced (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The upload app that I am using allows me to upload multiple files, and copy the description and/or title from one to the rest. I can see the utility of designing a mobile app that allows you to copy the title to the description if you wish, and to modify one from the other as well. In general though I would not expect the title to be the same as the description. Sometimes I cut and paste the title to start the description, but tend to spell things out more in the description, using "United States" in the description, but "US" in the title, for example. Right now though most of my files are ones that get updated with new data, so I do not want the date in the title, but have to put it in the description, in order to properly show context. Delphi234 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your input! Is there any drawback to using "United States" in the title as well, besides it being longer in wikicode? I agree that files that you update every once in a while (for instance yearly population charts) should have the year in the description but not in the title. In the special case of our mobile app, though, nobody has ever used it to upload such a chart: Only static pictures/videos/sounds have ever been uploaded. How about having by default a single "Description" field, plus the ability to add a shorter name if wanted? Cheers! Syced (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Another tool that always use the same title and description is the Panoramio upload bot, and nobody has ever complained about its titles being equal to its descriptions :-) Syced (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Pre-filling for mobile[edit]

The Android app's upload interface. It currently doesn't pre-fill the title with the original file name. How about having the title copied from the description initially (or perhaps the other way around)? The pre-filled field should remain editable before the user proceeds to upload.

In the Android app, title has been required while description is optional (phab:T47453). Developers (including me) of the app recently have seen that the way it asks for title and description may be confusing to the user - comments from the app users seem to indicate that. [3] We are trying to remove this confusion.

On mobile, there is less chance that the original file name is meaningful than on desktop - this is why the Android app, unlike UploadWizard, does not pre-fill the file name and ask the user to come up with a title when uploading. Both have to be entered from scratch, often with duplicated information, which does not seem like a use of the user's time. In fact, probably because of this, I have seen some do not bother to do that and end up entering a garbage text to the description, or a too short (highly ambiguous) title.

Seeing the problems above, I'm thinking of ways to pre-fill title/description, including:

  1. First ask the title and pre-fill the description with it. The description can then be enhanced.
  2. First ask the description and pre-fill the title with it. The title can then be edited.
  3. The user can choose to enter to one of the two fields first. The other will be pre-filled with the same text and can then be edited.

Either way, these manners of pre-filling seem like a sensible solution for mobile for not having the user to input the same thing twice. I don't believe encouraging to reuse texts will do harm, because our expectations on the two fields at least partially overlap. Consider the question "Please describe this picture. For example, what is depicted? What is it called? Where did you take this?". The answer would be acceptable as a Commons-style description. I believe in most cases it would be acceptable as a Commons-style file name, too, maybe after a slight modification. At least that is my reading of Commons:File naming and Commons:First steps/Quality and description.

I'm not saying it would ensure a perfect description and file name - although I believe it would would give the user a starting point better than what is currently provided. To be frank, getting a description in multiple languages, full of historical/scientific background, etc, from people on the go would be unrealistic, no matter what fancy graphical user interface we invent. We would have a better chance if we remind them saying "please add more descriptions to the file you uploaded yesterday" later, as suggested in phab:T47453. whym (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Showing the description field on top, and pre-filling the title field as they type, seems like a great compromise. Of course, this real-time automatic copying from description to title should cease whenever the user modifies the title field. Syced (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Pejorative categories[edit]

Raised this in February without a conclusive response, and have just chanced across the problem again: does placing a photo of a person into Category:Hipsters trigger COM:BLP#Defamation? "Hipster" is (at least according to Wikipedia's definition) often a pejorative term, and one which people typically don't self-identify as. --McGeddon (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That whole category seems totally subjective to me. As such, I'd vote to Symbol delete vote.svg Delete it. --Sebari (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It could potentially provide a useful selection of cartoons, related images, fictional characters, fancy-dress shots and people happy to self-identify with a pejorative for whatever reason, as seems to be the case for similar categories like Category:Chavs and Category:Rednecks. If there's consensus that there's a defamation issue here, perhaps a {{pejorative category}} reminder template across all such categories would be a good idea. --McGeddon (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Too subjective and problematic from a BLP point of view. Kaldari (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
With two delete !votes I've started an actual discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Hipsters. --McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Colourblindness template requesẗ[edit]

Some diagrams can be illegible to colourblind viewers (e.g., the red line might look just like the green line to someone with red-green colourblindness, and the key won't help). This article in Nature covers it pretty well[1]. I'd like some tools to help me make diagrams intelligible. I suggest templates that sayː

1. This image is unintelligible/problematic to a viewer with [form(s) of colourblindness] colourblindness. (tagged by a person)

2. This image is intelligible/unproblematic to a viewer with [form(s) of colourblindness] colourblindness. (tagged by a person)

3. This image has been tagged by a bot as probably being problematic to a viewer with [form(s) of colourblindness] colourblindness. (possible, for especially for SVGs)

4. A review of this image by a person with any of [form(s) of colourblindness] colourblindness is requested.

For further reading, this page has some good advice on making stuff intelligible to the colourblind, and a palette of distinct colours. [2] If you have ideas, please post them. HLHJ (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

̺
  1. (2007-03). "Seeing science in color". Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 14 (3): 173–173. DOI:10.1038/nsmb0307-173. ISSN 1545-9993. Retrieved on 2016-08-17.
  2. Color Universal Design (CUD): How to make figures and presentations that are friendly to Colorblind people. Retrieved on 2016-08-17.
@HLHJ:, we do have {{Colour blind}} template. MKFI (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I use this picture from 1870 on Wikipedia as found on the Canmore website[edit]

Hi, not sure if this the right place to post this, but I was wondering if I am allowed to use this picture of Loch Slin Castle that was drawn in 1870 on Wikipedia ? It is on the Canmore website here: [4]

The licencing on the Canmore website states:

Attribution: © RCAHMS

You may: copy, display, store and make derivative works [eg documents] solely for licensed personal use at home or solely for licensed educational institution use by staff and students on a secure intranet.

Under these conditions: Display Attribution, No Commercial Use or Sale, No Public Distribution [eg by hand, email, web]

Any advice appreciated.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's public domain, so yes. The copyright claims are meaningless. -- (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Technically, they're not "meaningless", but they clearly have no legal force in this case. Which is to say, this is not carte blanche to use everything on the site, but in the case of an obvious public domain photo, their claim of rights has no value. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
i would upload it, but such claims are not meaningless, and they have some value. they give them an opportunity to litigate in a British court, that might well hold for a "sweat of the brow" claim. the Prado would have a better case. until the court decides, you do not really know for sure; after all, we have "right to be forgotten" jurisprudence, and the Swedish case. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I hold that the claims are meaningless and morally repugnant. I respect any attribution requested both as a courtesy and so that appropriate metadata stays with the image.
It would be simply great if the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland were to attempt to take someone to court for ignoring the Canmore copyright claims for a poor reproduction of a work created 150 years ago for which they have no claim to represent the estate of the artist, nor have any claim as the original publisher. In terms of British or Scottish courts, there is no case law or existing legal acts that make the pseudo legal flimflam about "sweat of the brow" in the least bit meaningful. It is not morally defensible for public sites such as Canmore to claim that they cannot add more accurate licensing claims, it would be extremely easy (i.e. cheap in terms of resources) for Canmore to separate out documents published, say, before 1911 and apply a 'no copyright known' statement rather than the current vague way material is presented that leave academics and teachers so unsure about reusing material, that in fact it never does get used for educational purposes. -- (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
i tend to save my outrage for the gettys sending a dunning notice to Carol Highsmith. also here, for people who nominate works for hire with a CC by 4.0 license, that happen to have an AP notation in the exif, or "no known copyright" we have to hand-hold these institutions as they evolve towards a freemium model, getting sanctimonious is not helpful. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The case in point is not a declaration of no known copyright, or attribution, or even a mistake, but a major government agency deliberately choosing to falsely claim commercial rights over blatantly public domain works. The fact that the works are correctly dated on the website and therefore in their source metadata, and could be separated by a basic database query is a question of professionalism, and implementing the charter that the government funds them on.
Yes, holding hands with unpaid volunteers like us is very nice. However as a UK taxpayer, I expect my tax to be used to implement the promised charters, not do precisely the opposite and have to rely on unpaid volunteers to educate the professionals as to why copyfraud is a bad thing.
See my tweet to them at https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/767329248524832768. We'll see if they can give a sensible reply. -- (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The good news is that HistEnvScot has today passed my tweeted enquiry to their contact at the Canmore website. I always find it odd that tweets may get more timely replies than letters or emails. :-) -- (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinion from the UK Intellectual Property Office[edit]

For a credible expert opinion, any views expressed by the IPO would be central to a UK court's understanding of the copyright act. In Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet ref: 1/2014, the IPO made an extremely clear statement that effectively debunks claims to old UK public domain works on websites like Canmore's:

Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
... according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.”

I think it's worth keeping this IPO notice handy for future questions like this, and to help GLAMs understand UK IP law a little more accurately. Thanks -- (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems that IPO comment referred to the context of how the European Union affected the UK situation. That may not be the case anymore. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the UK has not left Europe, and will not until after 2018. At this time nobody is lobbying UK government to do anything other than comply with European copyright standard practices, I think it would be bizarre if the government started to drift away on a legal tangent due to the complexity and (financial) risks associated with corporations not believing that the UK was compliant with European intellectual property rights.
Anyway, Commons volunteers that make reasonable effort to understand and comply with current UK/European legislation now, are at no risk of later prosecution or civil claims after 2018 as that's an acceptable legal defence, and the law would not be retrospective if changed in bizarre ways. -- (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The New York Times archive has their pre 1923 articles stamped with a new copyright notice, I think it is just routine to all items they add to their archive and I do not think they are trying to reset the copyright clock. Whatever program they are using just stamps every item in the archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

August 19[edit]

Is there a way to search for files available under a certain license in a category tree?[edit]

Hi all

I want to prepare some social media messaging for Wiki Loves Monuments however sharing images on Facebook requires a CC0 license, is there any way to search for only CC0 license images in the category tree for Wiki Loves Monuments? It would be really help if I could also do this search within the winners of each national competition to make sure the images are high quality.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  • If a usable flat category exists for what you are looking for, for example Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2015, then you can simply use the usual search box directly on Commons. Example of search terms: incategory:"Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2015" incategory:"CC-Zero"
  • If you really need to search trees of categories, then you can use the tool PetScan at wmflabs. Use CC-Zero as one of the terms and the name of the main category you want to search as the other term. Don't forget to set the page properties to "file".
  • Not many files of Wiki Loves Monuments use CC-0. I guess that may be because new participants are prompted to use CC-by-sa or some other license. If you search a very specific category, you may get 0 results.
  • Sharing images on Facebook does not require a CC-0 license. IMHO, that's an exaggerated interpretation by some users. If the image has a free license and in your post you clearly identify that license and the other mentions required by that license, you're not claiming to be giving Facebook more rights than you have.
-- Asclepias (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks Asclepias, this incredibly helpful, thanks again. --John Cummings (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to embed an audio or video clip from Commons that would only play a section of the file?[edit]

Hi all

I'm working on importing a few 1000 audio files into Wikimedia Commons, however they are all quite long (between 5 - 60 minutes) and whilst small sections of the files would be very useful for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects it would not make sense to add the whole file to e.g a Wikipedia article. Currently the only process I am aware of to offer an shorter section of a file on Wikimedia Commons is to create a new file which is an excerpt, the process of doing this is quite long and I think it will discourage people from reusing the files:

  1. Download the audio file from Commmons
  2. Download software to crop it that works on your computer
  3. Learn how to use the software
  4. Crop the audio
  5. Save in a format that Commons will accept and that won't lose audio quality from the original
  6. Reupload to Commons, linking correctly to the original file and categorising correctly.

Is there any way to embed an audio or video clip from Commons onto another Wikimedia project that would only play a section of the file? I'm thinking about something similar to the cropping function on Template:Annotated images where you could specify which part of the file was played when the user clicked the play button?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You can set the start/end using this type of syntax: [[File:Accordion chords-01.ogg|300px|start=6|end=10]]
Starts at 6 seconds and ends playback at 10 seconds Offnfopt(talk) 15:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Amazing Offnfopt, thanks so much, are there any written instructions any where for this? --John Cummings (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The features are provided by the TimedMediaHandler Extension so you can find the information there. Offnfopt(talk) 23:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mini biographies[edit]

Category:Henry Justin Allen some categories have a few line mini biography, some do not. Which is proper? I find it helpful when the category gets disconnected from Wikipedia. Otherwise they are just photos of John Smith, they may not have the same name at Wikipedia and may be difficult to connect again. We had two problems last month because there were several people with the same name born close together, and the wrong photos were linked to the Wikipedia biography. They may not even have a Wikipedia entry. For people with no Wikipedia entry is ok to add a full paragraph mini biography to give the image context? After all, if we upload an image of a public domain book page, we add the full page of text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories can be used to give information of the type in your example. Any text should be kept to a minimum, because this is a file repository, not an encyclopedia. If there is not a Wikipedia article, maybe one can be written. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
You are the one that either deleted outright, or nominated for deletion, my last 5 entries at Simple English Wikipedia here despite their having extensive obituaries in the New York Times. Your behavior stopped me from contributing there. I do not put a lot of faith in your opinions based on that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I would also say mini biographies are the way to go. A Commons user should see what person a category is about without having to click category or wp links. Categories are not guaranteed to give any clear picture about which namesake (or similarly named person) the category is about. Also, there are many persons who are in scope on Commons but do not have, and in some cases should not have, biographies at Wikipedia. The mini biography I'd write for Commons would hardly survive on en-wp, and if I am writing a proper biography I am not likely to write it in English.
The same with other categories. A description of a few sentences is important especially when the name itself is not clear enough. Often the name is an English word that I do not understand, at least not fully. Sometimes the words used to name separate categories have overlapping meaning. What images should go in the Sleighs category and what images to the Sleds‎ category? Is the structure a hut, shelter or cottage? Do log homes include homes the logs of which are covered with planks?
Even when the category is not ambiguous, an explanation is very valuable. E.g. national parks have names that say little to people not knowing the region, The description may give a hint about whether the feature I am looking for is likely to be found in the category. I might be creating a category about the feature, or the feature may be one often not used in categorization.
--LPfi (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamma problem[edit]

I just reinstalled GIMP so that must be the problem. Look at the full photo and the thumbnail. See how washed out the thumbnail is? Is this the GAMMA problem? It use to cause the full image to look washed out if I did not check the "save GAMMA" box. Is it worth re-saving the image with GIMP and check off the "save GAMMA" box and re-upload it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do suspect that gamma settings are the problem. The uploaded image has a colortype "grayscale with alpha" but the thumbnail is just plain grayscale. Imagemagick does not seem to be able to handle this correctly. MKFI (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
More precise: The outdated ImageMagick version used in the Ubuntu build (very probable one with Longtime support), which is installed on the WMF servers. According to Phabricator Task T106516 version 6.9.0 is used. If you’d go on the ImageMagick website, download a recent build and look into the Changelog file, you would find lots and lots of bug fixes (not only for PNG by the way). I had some dispute with André Klapper from WMF (in German, see here: Commons:Forum/Archiv/2016/February#Fehlerhafte Vorschaubilder bei PNG-Dateien), who told me someone had to convince a Ubuntu developer to produce an updated install package. :-/ — Speravir_Talk – 18:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I actually got corrected by bawolff in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106516#2076015 ... :) --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this update, André. — Speravir_Talk – 17:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
And alas, here we all still are... Bawolff (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

August 20[edit]

Annotating pictures[edit]

Could I get some advice on annotating pictures? I have been working on the following three images (one is a crop of one of the others):

What I would like to do is:

  • (a) Crop out some of the detail for various purposes, but before doing so it would help to have a much larger file size to work with - is anyone able to upload a much larger version of this image from the source given there (Library of Congress) or from elsewhere (possibly other sources have the same image in a better condition)?
  • (b) Annotate the picture with various level of details, starting with adding mouse-overs for each individual. I can't remember whether this is encouraged or not, and whether having a precise identification key (as we do here) makes a difference. I'd ideally like to add several levels of annotation as well as the tags identifying the individuals. Is it possible to add group annotations, such as "children", "spouses", "grandchildren" and so on? Ideally it would be possible to hover and have those groups highlighted. Is that level of image annotation possible on Commons or not? I am reading through Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator and I'm not sure if that would be suitable or not or if something better might exist?

Thanks for any advice on this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't help with the uploading higher resolutions, etc., but you add the mouse-hover annotations with "Add a note" and standards are pretty much the same as for image descriptions in general. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank-you. The 'add note' function is useful but I am wondering if something could be done to combine the two images here? What I was thinking is that File:Queen Victoria & Royal Family (identification key) (cropped).jpg provides ready-made shapes. If the two images could be overlaid in some way, that would work really well. Imagine 39 different versions of the identification key, with a high-quality crop of each person 'area' from the original appearing as you mouse-over... Failing that, is there any way to annotate an image with links without the rectangle appearing? Could I use very small rectangles as a 'point' to which to attach the 39 notes? That might work. I will do it first with the two versions of the identification key, and then see if that can be copied over to a high-quality version of the main image if someone can do that (I may be able to do this on a different connection, the hi-res image is 205 Mb). Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
      • You can use an image as part of a note. Include it just like on any other wiki page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
      • If you will give the URL of the full-res image you want uploaded, I'm sure someone with a high-speed connection can do that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
        • The link to download the full-res image is here (the .tif marked 205 Mb, though see COM:TIFF). Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Do we know that the 205.7mb TIFF actually carries significantly more visible detail than the 189kb JPEG? - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
            • I would hope so. When I said above "Crop out some of the detail for various purposes", I meant crop down to obtain individual images of the various people in the image. See here for an example of the detail visible in a good quality version of this antique print. Some of the articles already have good photographs of the grandchildren when they were children, so any images cropped from this will likely just go in the relevant Commons category (where it exists), but some don't, such as en:Albert, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. There is a Commons category for him, at Category:Albert, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, but only one image there (so far). I have just now, on a search, found File:Vitória, Imperatriz-viúva da Alemanha e família.jpg, which has been annotated extensively. I just added that image to the person category. I intend to do the same for the group portrait from 1877 at some point. You are right that it may be possible to use the existing image to crop down to details. See this example which illustrates three royal cousins and grandchildren of Queen Victoria (all children of her daughters). I've just added this to the article on Albert. Am going to try a few other things now, as they can always be redone if a better image comes along. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
              • I tried to download the TIFF to my PC so I could upload to Commons & it failed out after about 20 minutes. Could someone else please take this on? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
                • @Carcharoth, Jmabel: I have uploaded a 5% compression JPG version to File:Her majesty Queen Victoria and the members of the royal family.jpg. It is virtually impossible to see any difference between it and the TIFF, but if an upload of the TIFF is also desired, I can take care of that as well. If it is also desired to replace the lower resolution crop at File:Queen Victoria & Royal Family.jpg, I can do so pretty exactly. Carcharoth, I know editing giant images can sometimes be a pain, so if you want high res crops of any particular members, just leave a message on my talk page any time with whatever you're wanting, and I'll take care of it. Huntster (t @ c) 07:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to ask. Is it possible to have a note that highlights multiple points within the same image? In this case, to highlight the grandchildren and children of Victoria separately, and to highlight other relationships, e.g. the grandchildren and their parents form 5 groups. I am guessing that grouped notes like that aren't possible, but I could use local notes to do that locally, right? I may do that, or I may play around with editing the image to highlight the groups and upload the images separately. Is that generally the best approach if doing complex image annotation, to do it in a new copy of the image? Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

August 21[edit]

Category for reparations[edit]

Marienbourg 1980 I.jpg
Do we have a category for reparations? As the roof of this railway coach.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There are several files in Category:Repairs, though it doesn't seem to formally exist. Category:Restoration is quite large, though it seems to be for more formal, pompous acts then fixing up a roof so it doesn't leak. The word wikt:reparation means something different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There is Category:Repairing, which has various subcategories. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Restoration of buildings ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Vehicle repair is the most usefull one.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

statue of?[edit]

Mutters Kreith firestation statue.jpg
I am not strong on religious figures. What is the patron saint for fireman? And what is this flagwaving figure? (
Mutters Kreith firestation.jpg
)Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The patron saint for fireman and flagwaving figure is en:Saint Florian. Not sure about the sculpture. --Sitacuisses (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The female figure is probably Saint Cecilia en:Saint_Cecilia who is sometimes depicted with a harp. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Train stations in Washington, D.C.[edit]

I suspect that all of the train stations in Category:Former train stations in Washington, D.C. really belong in something more like a Category:Demolished train stations in Washington, D.C., but I don't know the city well enough to be sure. If someone knows D.C. better, could you please take this on? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Process Nazis[edit]

Gemini Giant on 66.jpg

Commons is obviously a useful resource for providing free media content for the various wikisites. But I'm concerned that valid material is being deleted because it hasn't jumped through the site process hoops. If a public domain image doesn't have the "correct" tag, does that mean that it must be deleted? This seems like both a good way to deny valid media to the wikisites fed by Commons, and to make it more difficult for contributors.

We don't need our contributors to be copyright experts, but it seems to me that if an image is genuinely in the public domain, but for whatever reason the contributor hasn't ticked all the boxes, it should not be removed. If we don't require contributors to have a full grounding of copyright law, then why require them to have a complete knowledge of this site's bureaucratic requirements?

What sparks my inquiry is a recent notice for deletion of an image I contributed some time ago. This well-known figure was installed in its current location at the Launching Pad restaurant on Route 66 in 1965, has no copyright notice displayed, and photography has always been encouraged by the owners. There must be millions of similar images taken over the years, and vast numbers are on the internet. According to the wording at Freedom of Panorama, there is a specific reference to artworks which reads

…any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978).

What's more important, I ask? Actual real-world copyright law, or site-specific procedure? --Skyring (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It seems pretty strong to call someone a "Nazi" for nominating an image for possible deletion where nothing on the file page gave any indication of why the artwork shown would be in the public domain. Nothing on the file page indicated the date of the sculpture, and clearly if such a sculpture had been made post-1978 and erected in the same spot it would not be public domain. You've now provided the relevant information, and presumably the image won't be deleted. What exactly else would you expect? - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't about any one image. It's about the wider question. Why delete public domain images simply because the uploaders didn't jump through all the bureaucratic hoops? We must be losing vast numbers of valid images through this process. --Skyring (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably so. And would be keeping vast numbers of invalid images by people not challenging things when in doubt. The precautionary principle says that between the two alternatives this is the way we go. One major reason is to minimize the chance that someone reuses a Commons image in good faith and ends up getting sued by someone who actually owns a copyright of which we were unaware. That really doesn't seem to me like it merits being called the activity of "Nazis". - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
No, the Precautionary principle says - and I quote directly - "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." I think that to have a significant doubt about some of the images that are nominated for deletion you'd have to have so much doubt that just getting out of bed in the morning would be an existential crisis. This isn't about having significant doubt. This is about seeing an image that doesn't have a tag and just nominating it the f*uck for deletion. And before you know it, six million innocent images are nothing but bitdust. Significant doubt is something stronger than "well, maybe, I dunno", wouldn't you say? --Skyring (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
skyring, Commons is a small project with relatively small number of active users, and we just do not have the manpower to do the homework for all the files that people upload a file without proper license info. I agree that ideally anytime there is a file with problematic license info a team of experts will swoop in and fix it. I rescue many such files with simple issues, but there is too many of them that needs fixing and some of them might need a lot of work. So that task falls on the uploader. --Jarekt (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, why not modify the wording to reflect this? I've been referred a couple of times now to policy that I find doesn't reflect practice. From my point of view, it's people sending good files to the gas chambers without a real lot of thought. --Skyring (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop referring to things and people as "Nazis" and "gas chambers". That is really disrespectful. Josve05a (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You know what's disrespectful? It's thousands of well-meaning contributors uploading media files, thinking they are helping a good project, and then seeing their perfectly valid files deleted because we don't follow our own policies. --Skyring (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Skyring: It would be great if you would help identifying the copyright status of all these 3D objects in our backlog, so they don't get deleted because their copyright status is unknown. We don't have enough manpower, but you can help to increase it. (And please note that some admins may consider argumentum ad Hitlerum as a blockable offence) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me, Zhuyifei1999. I'm watching, as indicated by my response times here. Ok. Lack of manpower a problem. Identifying status of "unknown" files a priority. I can see that. But that's exactly my complaint. Some users have chosen sending such files on their path to doom as a priority. So which is the priority, in your opinion? Saving files, or killing them? --Skyring (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If we have images with unknown copyright status tagged as public domain, that makes our repository of PD images much less usable (every reuser would have to research the real copyright status). We should be clear about us needing information to be able to keep the images, and an admin should not delete a potentially valuable image that probably can be proved to be PD, or a file for which other admins are likely better equipped to make the judgement call. But if proving the PD status is difficult and the file not obviously especially valuable (and unlikely to be so for somebody else), then deleting is often the best thing to do. [And the ad Hitlerum thing could very well have caused me to ignore this thread.] --LPfi (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That doesn't apply to the files that caught my eye and brought me here. None of them were tagged as PD. Nor was there any great difficulty in demonstrating the copyright status of the artworks shown in the images, all used in multiple wikiplaces, and thus presumably of some value. If there is "significant doubt" or it is "difficult" (to use your wording), LPfi, then fair enough, start the deletion discussion. But my problem is with users deleting images without much in the way of investigation. Some of the files I've uploaded represent difficult and expensive effort or a rare opportunity and I'm sure this applies to many uploaders. Just how many useful and valid files are we losing because some users are taking the easy way out? --Skyring (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll put it briefly... you are more than welcome (in fact, we would be grateful) if you were to decide to work on cleaning up some of the more than 120,000 files in Category:PD files for review, which is probably a small part of what should be in there. To keep up with what was 'actually' deleted so far this month, just between the 20 most active admins, would be over 28 hours a day for each of them if they spent a minute per file, and the vast majority would still be deleted as copyvios or useless crap. It is quite obvious exactly why COM:EVID is a Commons policy... if uploaders supply the needed information, the files won't need to go to DR. Most uploaders, it seems, even when they become aware through a deletion notice of a problem with their uploads, do not go back and fix the same problem on their others. (The Green Giant, for instance, now has an 'explanation', but is actually still not really properly tagged). Reventtalk 17:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
If it makes any difference, there is (and I could point at examples) a lot of 'potentially valuable and useful' material deleted from Commons because the uploader either never said where they obtained it or did not provide a license, and failed to respond when asked. There is also such material deleted as 'useless' simply because the uploader never told us what the hell it was, and failed to respond when asked. We accumulate massive amounts of material every day, we have to have processes in order to maintain some degree of sanity. Calling people Nazis does not help. Reventtalk 17:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Mmmm, I think you may have missed the point. Cheers. --Skyring (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
deleting images is a really poor way to get people to work your backlogs. yes Skyring commons is a morally bankrupt place, where people delete before collaborating. it is a snake-pit of individuals who place their solitary mastery of scripts, over the community health of an image repository. institutions upload to flickr rather than commons, and stop uploading using GLAMwiki toolset after being bitten. admins sock to delete images. language wikis keep images local only, because they do not trust commons to keep images. so it goes. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Rouge admins. I like it. --Skyring (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Then get lost. Seriously. Instead of posting shit like this, walk away. Shit like this makes it more stressful to work on Commons, it poisons the community. Why should I stress about community health when you're going to call me a snake for it, and support someone who is calling me a Nazi for it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
You set a fine example, friend. --Skyring (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"Shit like this makes it more stressful to work on Commons," absolutely not. your incompetent "adversive leadership" creates the Shit like this; you want to act like betacommand and russavia, you will be treated like betacommand and russavia. the reasonable people you may be able to drive off, but the unreasonable people will remain, and you will have a hell of your own creation, if you don't like it, stomp off like fastily. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, people who hang a website just to complain about how bad it is do make it more stressful. I am not an incompetent adversive leader for the simple and easily checked fact that I'm not a leader on Commons, I'm just an average regular non-admin. The fact that you spread personal abuse to random people who aren't even here is grossly inappropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the statue has no copyright notice is not verifiable from the image. There's no way to check that without physically checking the statue, which is way more than can be expected from anyone who doesn't live there. Have you actually done a 360 degree examination of the statue?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
if you think "soup nazi" is actionable, go for it. i might even support some civility enforcement, but we both know you will be laughed at. it is not personal abuse, it is an accurate assessment of the toxic culture here. venting on VP about backlogs is a waste of time. rather, you must build a team elsewhere i.e. m:File_metadata_cleanup_drive it is perverse to delete three years after upload, with minimal collaboration. it drives away editors that might will have donated more content.
i tend to rely on SIRIS for "no notice" i.e. File:Kiepenkerl - Jeff Koons.JPG but even a physical examination may not be enough. deleting sculpture pics in use harms the wiki, and the legal risk is minimal - you have a greater chance of a DMCA takedown for FoP germany than a "no notice" less than 10% of sculpture in database have one. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You could start civility enforcement by being civil. Yes, "your incompetent "adversive leadership"" is personal abuse. If you want to be a thief, shamelessly ripping off people's works because you don't think they'll respond legally and then adorning Wikipedia with stolen jewels, well, I stand against such criminal activity. I stand for Wikimedia being an example of legality in the copyright-infringing wastelands of the Internet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 22[edit]

Images with future "taken on" dates[edit]

There are a lot of images in categories indicating that they were taken on future dates. One has been created but most have not. An example is Category:Photographs taken on 2020-08-18. You can see more here. What should be done with these? Is there a parent category for categories with bad dates like this? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Invalid EXIF date and/or Template:Wrong date should fit here, and the images should be removed from the wrong categories. The templates will add the images to Category:Incorrect EXIF date or Category:Incorrect date. --Sitacuisses (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Upload tools which produced these should probably warn the user about future dates. (For example, UploadWizard does it.) Matma Rex (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Picture requests and Category:Requested free media[edit]

Category:Picture requests and Category:Requested free media have some issues. It is clearly a little bit "abandoned"...

Local requested images categories (on enwiki, frwiki...) are quite often not very organized, I've looked inside, so it is a general problem. Now, we can't solve the dispersion at the local level, I just hope their cat system work for them and indirectly for us since image updates are often global. I believe that on commons we should be more concerned as a cross/meta-wiki platform to work in synergy, and avoid at least here the creation of other partial and semi-abandoned requested image categories for many specific classes of media.

Here are some aspects:

  • Is anyone really using this template and this one? Not talking about theory, but practice. Do you really expect to use the way it is now organized and make a difference?
  • Links to local cats are partial and often broken (look at the table with English wikiquote, wikisource...), we could list them but just what about using d:Q5324355, and that's it?
  • Over the past few months, I've summarized all the missing images tools for locations/places and studied wikidata image properties, I am quite convinced that for these missing images there are good tools (we can discuss about it later but you know WDFIST, Wikishootme... ), we don't have to be concerned to point out any requests of such kind on our local commons cats as well, IMHO. We can just list all the useful tools in a specific page without creating any new category for "missing pictures of places/monuments/locations" at all. Local platforms have already a lot of categories for missing images of places/monuments/locations... and they can be obsolete and very partial, I wouldn't encourage to do another one here.
  • For other items we can do better using the expertise from wikidata. I am not asking for the moon but for example, let's consider one topic at the time. Category:Species needing images: this would be useful to organize some photo competition for undocumented species. The way it is now, with a bunch of empty cats is de facto useless, am I right? Creating a bunch of empty cats from wikidata is a possibility but it is very invasive, what do you think if we make a Listeria-based list of "wikidata items of species without P18 (image) [and P373 (Commonscat)]" ? It is as effective but less invasive. Wikidata species items are not perfect but 99% of the time is going to work...

Comments?--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Subject by century and its surrogates[edit]

I would be like to know the opinion of the Commons community about the template {{Subject by century}} and its clones. At the moment, this universal template has a lot of questionable clones: {{High-rises in Canada by century}}, {{High-rises in Russia by century}}, {{High-rises in Germany by century}}, {{High-rises in the United Kingdom by century}}, {{High-rises in the United States by century}}, etc. Is there really a reason to create a separate template for 2-3 categories? Perhaps, it should be determined when it is accepted to create a version of the template {{Subject by century}}.--Russian Rocky (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no clear standards. You are, however, free to nominate some of them for deletion. Ruslik (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
They are redundant, certainly, since they simply transclude something like {{Subject by century|high-rises in the United States|nobc=y}}. But, they don't really hurt anything or diminish usability, and they do categorise usefully alongside similar templates in categories like "Category:Category navigational templates for Architecture in the United States", so I'm not seeing any real harm. Huntster (t @ c) 19:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-34[edit]

21:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

August 23[edit]

Crop Tool[edit]

I can't get it to work for me (It has always been very good in the past). Now when I click Preview it comes up with this:

[Error] Command "/data/project/croptool/jpeg-9a/jpegtran -copy all -crop '1212x1833+1611+903' '/data/project/croptool/public_html/files/404851b935ceea1fd87b9d836360e40d6385a49e.jpg' > '/data/project/croptool/public_html/files/404851b935ceea1fd87b9d836360e40d6385a49e_cropped.jpg' 2>&1" exited with code 1: 1

and stops dead in its tracks. Its been like that for 24 hours now. I can't seem to get "Report issues here" to respond to what I put into it, either! Eddaido (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

you know? yesterday it did not work for me as well (on Google Chrome). Not a error message, just no final upload.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Reported on Github --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"C" - Private Collection[edit]

I sometime come across old photos with a warning that they are under copyright because they are part of a "private collection". In this particular case they are a few photographs taken in Somalia in 1885 by a named foreign traveler, and it is said they were added to his photo collection that same year.

Here the problem is compounded by the fact that Somalia doesn't have a recognizabled copyright legislation due to the civil war. Should I consider those photos off-limit for Commons? Thanks. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lubiesque: It really depends on where they were published, and if ever previously published. Old unpublished works, published posthumously, can have copyright protection in some cases (see, for example, publication right). Reventtalk 16:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Somali works are protected by the copyright Law No. 66 of 7 September 1977. Since the photos were taken by a foreign traveler, the copyright status of the photos will depend on where they were originally published, the date of publication and registration under the copyright Law No. 66 of 7 September 1977 (if originally published in Somali). If they were published in Somali prior to September 1977, the works must be registered under copyright Law No. 66 of 7 September 1977 within 12 months starting from 7 September 1977 to be copyright protected. If the works were not originally published in Somali, the copyright of these works will depend on the copyright law of that country and the publication date. For Somali persons, regardless of whether his work was created or published in the country or abroad, it is under Somali copyright law. In this case, if a Somali person published a work in the U.S for example, it means the works will be under the U.S copyright law and Somali copyright law. Wikicology (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal related to metacategories that don't specify a criterion in the metacat template[edit]

I've made a suggestion to track metacategories that don't have a criterion coded in the metacat template. Your comments are invited at Template talk:MetaCat#Metacats that don't include a criterion parameter. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Larger thumbnails[edit]

Hi, is there a way to get larger thumbnails in the category and search pages? My eyes have a natural unsharpness for which glasses don't help. I am involved in a project that involves visual scanning many thousands of thumbnails, so it's quite urgent.

I would like my thumbnails at least one and a half time larger, preferably with twice as many pixels (1.5 × 1.5 = 2.25). I can't find a way to achieve this. Using the browser zoom (Ctrl-mousewheel) helps a little bit, but gives just larger thumbnails with larger unsharpness. It's also cumbersome. Suggestions anyone? Thx a lot! — bertux 19:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That feature request is only a little over 10 years old. I guess we'll have to be patient... LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Category slide show gadget may be of some help, but you need to click on it for every category. MKFI (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Add the following to Special:MyPage/common.js

$( function() {
 $( ".searchResultImage a.image img" ).each( function() { if ( this.width*3 < $(this).data( 'file-width' )) {this.srcset = ''; this.src = this.src.replace( /\d+(px-[^\/]*$)/, (this.width*3) +"$1" );this.width = this.width*1.5; this.height = this.height*1.5} } );
 $( '.mw-gallery-traditional li' ).each( function() { var $this = $(this), child = $this.children( 'div' ), child2 = child.children( 'div' ), img = child2.find( 'img' ); if ( img[0].width*3 < img.data( 'file-width' ) ) { $this.width( $this.width() * 1.5 ); child.width( child.width()*1.5 ); child2.width( child2.width()*1.5); img[0].srcset = ''; img[0].src = img[0].src.replace( /\d+(px-[^\/]*$)/, (img[0].width*3) + '$1' ); img[0].width *= 1.5; img[0].height *= 1.5;  } } );
});

This will increase the gallery and search thumb size on the page by 1.5 times. It will also switch the thumbns to high-dpi mode, which should make the browser zoom feature not make the thumbs blurry [Assuming you don't actually have a high-dpi display. if you have a high-dpi display, we'd want to increase the resolution even further to compensate for the larger number of real pixels even before zooming]. (Note: This may cause galleries on categories not to line up vertically, and also might not work on images that are very small). Hope that helps. Bawolff (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Bawolff, that does the trick! It need not work perfectly or all of the time, so I will be very happy with the result. Anyway I did not encounter the issues you mentioned. — bertux 09:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Forensic Art as "Work For Hire"[edit]

I uploaded some w:Forensic artwork from artist w:Karen T. Taylor after she gave her blessing to use the files. I requested that she would send an OTRS email and she informed me that the work she did was under the authority of the law enforcement department (as w:Work for Hire that she worked at in Texas at the time. She stated "With law enforcement agencies, the artwork enters the public domain."

She has also had work uploaded and cleared through OTRS in the past, such as File:Age progression sculpture by Karen T. Taylor of fugitive William Bradford Bishop at about age 77.jpg and several other images.

I hope that we can still keep the images that I added, which have been flagged for "missing permission" as Ms. Taylor has not sent the email yet. Thank you, Gourami Watcher (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Karen T. Taylor wasn't an employee of the law enforcement department. It seems she worked under a contract for services, which means, she is still the copyright holder of any works she produced in the course of her service, unless there is a contractual agreement to the contrary. Karen T. Taylor needs to send permission to our support team. Wikicology (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
When she published a book on forensic art, she had to credit the departments for the images that she created under their jurisdiction. Does this affect anything?Gourami Watcher (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ownership of copyright can be transferred and the original copyright holder must agree in writing. In that case, I suspect there was a signed contract or written agreement between her and the department for the transfer. Wikicology (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

August 24[edit]

Europabus[edit]

Europabushalte Oostende 1981.jpg

Looking at this image I remember that there used to be a Europabus network. I dont find a lot of information accept that this is mixed upp with Eurolines. I have updated en:Eurolines a bit with wat I found, but its confusing: Was Europabus rebranded into Eurolines? Could someone with bushistory knowledge clarify?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Danish railway magazine Jernbanen actually has a short article about Europabus in no. 3/2016. According to the article 11 West European railway companies founded a tourist bus co-operation named "Union Internationale des services routiers des Chemins de fer européens" (URF) in 1950. The name Europabus was used for marketing together with a common timetable, logo, and standards for the buses. The concept became quite succesfull with 119 lines in 1962, including 77 to popular tourist spots, 22 roundtrips and 20 to special resorts. In the following years the tourists however begun using travel company trains, private bus companies or their own cars. According to the article it ended after the oil crisis in 1973. How the later fit with your picture from 1981 I don't know, but perhaps it was just the Danish part which ended then. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Unknown source[edit]

Hi! I noticed that within {{Information}} sometimes the field "source" contains only the word "unknown" (or synonyms). If the field is empty the page is categorized in Category:Images without source, but in this case the automatic categorization does not work. The questions are:

  1. Is there a legitimate use for "unknown" as source?
  2. How should be fixed? Should be blanked? Should be replaced with {{source}} or something else?
  3. What about the same problem with author or date fields?

Basilicofresco (msg) 12:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • To the first question: It's not legitimate when uploading a file. But when a file has in fact been uploaded without a source and the uploader didn't fix it and a serious research by other users could not find the source but they concluded that the file is undoubtably free and in scope and should be kept as useful, then that can be an exception when it can be legitimate, to replace the yellow box that reads "please edit this file description" with something, without marking the file for deletion.
  • To the second question: There are some suggestions at the top of the category:Images without source. If, without the actual source, it's not possible to be certain that the file can be kept, the file can be nominated for deletion with "Subst:Nsd" or nominated for a deletion discussion for closer examination. If the file seems useful, a good first step, as always, is serious research to find relevant information. In the exceptional situation explained in question 1, the template "Unknown|source" can be used. If the page already contains relevant and credible information about why a precise source is not mentioned, of course this information should remain somewhere.
  • To the third question: It can be legitimate more often than unknown source. In some cases, it's possible to conclude that the author or the date are indeed unknown. Unfortunately, such mentions are too often used abusively just because the uploader didn't look well enough to find the information. As always, research is the key. If you conclude that the file should not be kept without more information about its authorship or about its date, you can nominate it for deletion. Or you can start a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or here. If you conclude that the file can be kept and after research you are quite convinced that the author is actually unknown, not only to the uploader and to you, but to the world, you can use the template "Unknow|author". The mention unknown date can be used more liberally.
-- Asclepias (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of old postcard pictures without a known photografer. In the source I put as much detail about the postcard: publishing house etc. In the EU countries the EU anonymous license template is used. Most of the research work is done to determine the date. (It is nearly never mentioned in postcards) In practice most of these postcards editing houses used local photografers an did not keep any records. Some uploaders mistakenly upload this under own work.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Although the date of a photograph might not be mentioned on the postcard, many postcards are in fact franked and this allows the contributor to write "Before xxxx" and hence conclude that certain postcards are out of copyright. Similarly, photographs of Queen Victoria are out of copyright (she died in 1901). Again it is legitimate to record the photographer as "unknown" if that is the case. To put things into context, before the Second World War it was common not to name contributors. This was the case on BBC news reports until the BBC realised that one fo their best defences against Nazi broadcasts purporting to be from the BBC was to name their announcers. Martinvl (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 25[edit]

Commons admin and oversighter @Rama: from France refusing Licensed-PD-Art-tag and insisting on her copyright for merely PD-Art photographs[edit]

When I find a PD-art -photo tagged with a cc-by license I change it to {{Licensed-PD-art}}. But now User:Rama reverted with the comment (You have no right to add or remove licences. Image taken and published in France, which grants copyrights for photographs of paintings.) I am deeply upset about the tone and missing knowledge of this Admin and Oversighter, which really endangers our PD-Art Policy. Everything was explained in my license tagging, especially see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#When should the PD-Art tag not be used?--Oursana (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you consider Rama's reversion disruptive and decided to report them here or you actually want to know the correct license? Wikicology (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The image in question was taken and published in France. France grants copyrights for reproductions of 2D artwork, I am thus entitled to claim copyright and release the image under a licence of my choosing. I find Oursana's unilateral editing of licences applied by other people reckless in the absolute (this is a legally binding matter; you should be really, really sure of what you are doing, possibly ask people before, and certainly listen to them afterward), and I am uncertain that they are even aware of the French legal situation. Rama (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: I'll explain the entire reasoning plainly:
  • the WMF etc. consider that such claims are moot and refuses to honour them. I am aware of that fact.
  • the statement in question entails that when a museum publishes a 2D reproduction and claims copyright on it, we basically tell them something rude, take the image and publish it as Public Domain.
  • this is completely different from the case of a Commonist publishing the image under a Free licence on the project: in this case, we have the image, it is freely usable under a Free licence. I would understand reservations if the licences in question were in practical terms limiting usage (such as when you publish under GFDL only), but this is not the case here, I use a Cc-by-sa.
  • There are in fact excellent reasons we would like to do so: if you consider copyright as moot, you can simply disregard the licence; if you do not, you use the Cc-by-sa with minimal hassle; if you are one of these museums claiming copyright on things and using the image, you are confronted by the consequences of your own actions. This is a militant stance.
  • There are no reasons why we would enforce Licensed-PD-art in these cases:
    • it does not improve usability over a Free licence
    • it changes nothing to the PD status of the image
    • it can be badly done, coming out as dickish, or removing some of the Free licences while keeping others for no discernable reason (like Oursana did, replacing the Cc-by-sa with the PD tag but keeping the CeCILL: what does that mean?)
TL;DR: we should not force PD tags on our own 2D reproductions because they are implicit, and doing so makes use weaker against copyright-claiming institutions. Rama (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think these two cases are completely different; on the contrary, I think they are quite similar. By placing a CC BY-SA tag on the picture, as visible in this diff, you are effectively claming copyright over a picture of a two-dimensional work of art, with little or no creativity on your part, falling under Bridgeman. This is exactly the same thing that the Prado museum are doing, only in your case you agree to release your work under a free culture licence, in this case the CC BY-SA, requiring that your authorship of the photograph be acknowledged, a link to CC BY-SA be provided and any derivative works be licenced under CC BY-SA — none of which is required if the work is in the public domain. That French law allows copyright on faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art is a mistake that severely restricts the public domain, and we should be lobbying against it — but then who are we to tell others what to do when we're doing the exact same thing? P.S. Please kindly avoid bringing @Rama's oversight-ship on this project in this discussion, as it has absolutely nothing to do with his decisions on how to licence his works. odder (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
One aspect of the issue is indeed that it is the same thing; but from this perspective, absence of PD templates is no hindrance. In fact not only do we import files from outside that lack this template, but we disregard and treat with contempt notices that explicitly forbid us to do so.
In my idea, this is lobbying against the law: we are telling others that they are free to use our images in any case, but that if they do so without abiding with Free licences they are de facto supporting our argument. Since they very hardly ever do this forces them to confront the hypocrisy of their position. It is basically trolling them.
Incidentally, I will not oppose PD templates put on images in such cases if somebody feels they absolutely have to, but please do that properly: one should do not touch the licences of authors, ever. Rama (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Rama for those not aware (like me), which french law are you referencing that grants these rights? Offnfopt(talk) 17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The law is the "Code de la propriété intellectuelle" [13], but the question is one of jurisprudance: what constitutes an original work (sufficient input to generate copyright); on this, the reference is Guide pratique du droit d'auteur by Anne-Laure Stérin. Rama (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Commons policy is Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Why do we allow the PD-Art tag to be used for photographs from any country?, and that is the same where Commons:Village pump#Image change request from the Prado Museum - Request for community input is about--Oursana (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
lol, edit warring over metadata. waiting for User:Rama to sue somebody for not abiding by SA. (i can imagine the wiki'splaining before the judge. but "as it has absolutely nothing to do with his decisions on how to licence his works." - it has everything to do with it, ideology run amuck in one area tends to undermine credibility in another. only a functionary could edit war to prove a point without getting taken to User problems. here's a compromise - how about PD-art-CC-by-SA ? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour Rama, Ça va être un peu long. Si c'est TL, tu peux lire seulement l'introduction, où se trouve déjà l'idée essentielle, puis sauter directement à la fin.
I don't see a major problem. The template Licensed-PD-Art is made exactly to respect the copyright claim and the licenses of the photographer, while at the same time also respecting the policy of Wikimedia and of Commons and providing the relevant information about the copyright status of the original artwork. This clarification is also to the advantage of the photographer, because it explains and justifies why the photographer could make and publish his/her own reproduction. I will address separately your paragraphs in order:
  • 1. You say "the WMF etc. consider that such claims are moot and refuses to honour them." -- Commons can't speak for the WMF (whose recent moves and switches from one declaration to the other may have been a bit hard to follow), but that is not how Commons understands and presents the position of the WMF, that is not what Commons says, and that is not what the template says. Commons informs its readers that the WMF's understanding of the legal situation in the United States is that reproductions of PD artworks are in the public domain in the United States. And that people in other countries must instead check what the legal situation is in the countries in question about this subject.
  • 2. "the statement in question entails that when a museum publishes a 2D reproduction and claims copyright on it, we basically tell them something rude, take the image and publish it as Public Domain." -- If "we" means Commons, it's not what Commons does. That is what some individual users occasionally do, on Commons or on other projects, just as users occasionally do many other things that are not in line with the policies of Commons. For example, individual users on de.wikipedia made provocations there by claiming that reproductions were PD in Germany, whereas Commons warns its users that photographic reproductions are likely under copyright in Germany. I agree that the WMF's replies to REM-Mannheim were unnecessarily "rude", in that the WMF's replies were mostly beside the point and they sounded closed-minded compared with the limited expectations of REM, who basically complained that some of their files were presented on de.wikipedia as being PD in Germany without caveat. Expectations of REM which, interestingly, could have been partly met by ensuring that the tag Licensed-PD-Art was actually used prominently with their files on Commons and maybe made even more obvious. The attitude of the WMF with REM can be discussed, but it is not Commons and it is not a reason against the use of the template. Quite the opposite actually.
  • 3. "this is completely different from the case of a Commonist publishing the image under a Free licence on the project" -- The basic situation is identical, be it a reproduction made by an external source or made by a Commons contributor. There is a reproduction on which the photographer claims a copyright. There was a discussion a few years ago, where the question was if Commons should forbid its users from claiming a copyright on such reproductions. The rationale was that users are free to do what they want outside Commons, but when they contribute to Commons, they are expected to accept the principles of Wikimedia. For example, outside Commons users can publish their own works with non-free licenses, but those works are not accepted on Commons. They would not meet the mission and principles of Wikimedia. Given that the WMF advocates that copyrights on reproductions of PD works should not exist, some users believe that allowing Commons users to upload their files with such claims might look inconsistent and would make more difficult to convince outside sources to not make such claims when Commons allows its own users to make them. That discussion did not decide anything, and the situation remains that the practice, by some contributors, of claiming copyrights on their reproductions of PD works is allowed, although it is frowned upon by some other users.
  • 4. "There are in fact excellent reasons [...]". -- All the goals you mention in this paragraph are reached by the use of the template. They are only made explicit, and there are links to other resources, instead of being implicit and of being reserved to a few people.
  • 5-a. "it does not improve usability over a Free licence" -- It makes usability clear. For example, in the case of the file linked in the question, people in the United States can know that they can make a derivative work without necessarily offering their own additional work under the same license.
  • 5-b. "it changes nothing to the PD status of the image" -- It makes clear that the artwork is in the PD and for what reason it is, and it makes clear that the reproduction is not in the PD in some countries.
  • 5-c. "[...] removing some of the Free licences while keeping others for no discernable reason (like Oursana did [...]" -- Oursana left both licenses, although not at the same place on the page. The reason would be that they did not use the best syntax in this particular case. IMO, a better syntax in this case would be {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923|rawphotolicense={{self|CeCILL|Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr}}}} (By the way, is there a reason why you prefer to copy separately the wording of the template "Self" instead of transcluding that template?).
The template Licensed-PD-Art does this:
  • I) It provides a place to insert the information about why (and if and where) the original artwork is considered to be in the public domain. This is information that Commons normally requires for all uploads that claim to be using something from the PD. Be it a PD photograph, a derivative of a PD image, a free-licensed photo of a PD 3-D work, or, as in this case, a free-licensed photo of a PD 2-D work. It justifies that the file is not a copyright violation. It allows readers and potential reusers to better know what they are dealing with, and to evaluate if they can use it or not. It would not be prudent to rely on the notion that "it is implicit". It may seem obvious to an uploader that a particular work he used is in the PD, but it's not obvious for all works on Commons and not to everybody. Depending on each case, the PD reason may not necessarily need to be stated with templates. I suppose it could be stated differently. Still, when templates exist, they can be useful. For photographs of 3-D works, the templates Art Photo or Licensed-PD can be useful to help the reader distinguish the status of the PD artwork from the status of the photograph. For photographs of 2-D works, one of the advantages of the template Licensed-PD-Art is similar.
  • II) It provides a place to insert the licensing information by the photographer about the image.
  • III) It warns potential reusers that although the reproduction is believed to be in the public domain in the United States, it is not so in some other countries (which means that in those cases it should be used with the license). It also provides links to resources for reusers who want to find more information.
  • IV) It formats all the above information in a box and orders it in logical order so it is more easily readable and understandable. The standardized format also allows readers to compare more easily the statuses of different files since thing are presented the same way, instead of having to find what is where in the different pages.
It is a matter of clarity. There's no reason to leave ambiguity or conceal information. Clarity is good for everybody. However, I could see two reasons why a user might refuse to use the template. One is if the user thinks that there is something too poorly written in the template. Then the user should still try to convey the information in other words. The other reason is if the user disagrees with the notion that reproductions of PD works are in the public domain in the United States. I think it can be useful to format the information into the template. I agree that if a user really refuses the template after explanation, templates like this are not an obligation. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmmm; I've to agree with Odder and Asclepias. Further there is a lot of mistakes in Rama's arguments. 1. "this is completely different from the case of a Commonist publishing the image under a Free licence on the project." I had seen similar arguments earlier in many places like talks about attribution etc. No; Commons treats Wikimedians and other copyright holders in equal weights. There is no special preferences. We don't expect more credits when our works are used off-wiki than how they are used in wiki. I know many people disagree with me; but this is a mere fact. 2. "Licensed-PD-art does not improve usability over a Free licence." The licenses Rama used (CC BY SA- 2.0-fr, CeCILL) are much stricter license compared to PD/CC 0. So there is indeed a limitation. (There may not be a difference if the re-user is from France.) The edit by Oursana was not perfect as Asclepias. But it looks to me just because he don't know how to mention two licenses (CC BY SA- 2.0-fr and CeCILL) in Licensed-PD-Art. Jee 06:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Which one was first[edit]

Which was first, this or this one. --Jos1950 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Exif data on http://www.puntacana-information-guide.com/images/Punta-Cana-Resorts-location-thumb.jpg says April 17, 2006, but it was only uploaded to wikipedia in 2007, so probably the external image was first. Bawolff (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The older revision even has a copyright notice: 2006 Playa Coco (possibly 2008, it's hard to read). Looks like an obvious copyright violation to me. --rimshottalk 18:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed something but do not have the knowledge. Someone with knowledge will detect this and take action. Thanks --Jos1950 (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Train coach body in harbour - upload ok?[edit]

Hi. I happened to take a picture of some train coaches (all the same type) in Barcelona which were ready to be shipped (or were shipped to Barcelona?) - I can't tell you what type of train coach this is (searched now for about an hour through the images here without success). The image was taken by me from a tourist boat (Golondrina). Is it ok to upload the image? (Would it be ok to upload a part of the image temporarily for finding out the type and legal belongings?) Greetings, -- 217.224.215.50 07:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

after some more image viewing: the images could show possibly the coach bodies of the Talgo AVRIL -- 217.224.215.50 08:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of any problem with uploading such a picture. What do you see as a possible issue? - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

En-us-aristocracy.ogg[edit]

I uploaded a new version of "File:En-us-aristocracy.ogg" as the original pronunciation was incorrect (the stress should be on the third, not the second, syllable). However, despite reloading the page several times, only the old recording can be played. What's wrong? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Sounded right to me. Caching problem? - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you hear a woman or a man? If you hear a woman, then it's the old recording. That's what I'm still hearing. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Definitely a male voice; I'm pretty sure you have a caching issue on your end. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, it's been a day and I'm still hearing the old file. Any idea what I can do to clear the cache? Ctrl-F5 and adding "?purge=true" to the URL don't seem to have an effect. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
          • No, but you can probably verify that it is a caching issue by accessing with a different browser or a different machine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW it seems to me, it would have been sufficient to revert to the first file version. — Speravir_Talk – 22:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 26[edit]

Creator red text[edit]

At Creator:Osborne Theomun Olsen the occupation appears in red text because the occupation does not appear in Template:Occupation/en, can someone add it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Wikicology (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikicology, you actually didn’t – or did not solve it the way Richard intended. By the way: “decorator” already existed in the occupation list, cf. in Special:Diff/204889749/204899332 the line below the deleted one. Richard, if you are still keen on using china decorator, you should request this (and perhaps also porcelain decorator) in Template talk:Occupation/en, and do not forget the magic string {{editrequest}}. — Speravir_Talk – 22:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright reviewers needed for 991 British military medical and wartime photographs up for deletion[edit]

Example - Portrait in chalks of General George James Guthrie, founder of the Royal Westminster Ophthalmic Hospital; dated 1863.

I have raised Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC on behalf of the Wellcome Library against 991 images I uploaded in 2014. The copyright stated at the source has been corrected to CC-BY-NC-ND, but many of these photographs could be kept on Commons, so long as we have a stated copyright rationale based on age or subject, which confirms it to be copyright ineligible or public domain by age.

Help would be appreciated in chipping away at these historical value images, by volunteers with an understanding of UK copyright so we can make a determination of which must be deleted from Commons. It would be a mammoth task for one pair of eyes!

Keep in mind that the original project was a release of 100,000 interesting historical medical images from the Wellcome Library. With such large public releases with our most friendly GLAM partners, some later corrections are almost inevitable; so nice comments in the DR please as the Wellcome remain an important future partner for Commons and open knowledge. :-) -- (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 27[edit]