Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Filemovers without the essential "suppress-redirect"-right

Some time ago, i got filemover-rights for commons. However, when using the "move-and-substitute"-function, the option "leave a redirect" is checked and I cannot change that. The consequence: I have to add a speedy-deletion-request to the wrong named file to get the redirect deleted and a commons-admin has to carry out this action. Now I learned, that the so called "suppress-redirect"-right is excluded of the filemover-rights. But: Being a filemover without the "suppress-redirect"-right is not only senseless, it is kind of ridiculous because with that restriction, a filemover has the same rights as a user without the filemover-rights.

Is there any reasonable background, why a filemover cannot move a file without leaving a redirect? I strongly recommend to include the "suppress-redirect"-right for filemovers. cheers --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, redirects should almost never be deleted. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. I am talking of a erroneous filename that - according to the commons rules - should be renamed to an appropriate name. If no article is linked to the wrong filename, why should there be a redirect? The more: If removing such a redirect is not desirable, why the heck is there a "suppress-redirect"-Button that is reserved to users with higher rights? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:File redirects and the discussions linked in the notes. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell that there is no page linking to the old name? For example, the usage list doesn't include projects which use the image using mw:InstantCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the old file name was abusive or highly misleading, the redirect should be deleted (meaning e.g. DSC… should not be deleted). Everything else just causes confusion and is a waste of time. Krinkle also wrote an essay about redirects. Well Brion can't desysop you but you could follow his advice anyway :-) -- Rillke(q?) 19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small correction: Brion can desysop you. ;) --Nemo 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this proposal: people would probably use it recklessly. There are very few situations in which deletion of the old title would be good, and these can be handled with the {{Delete}} template. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose, as there are other web sites that use images from commons and use the name as an attribution link. If you remove the old name then attribution for the used image will be lost and you the file mover will have cause a copyright infringement. So it should only be deleted if the name used by the redirect is very new and no one would have copied it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I upload pages from books for Wikisource, with file-names with 1,2,3,4 etc. When I make mistakes, it would have been helpful with the possibility to move without redirect. On svsource, most of our contributors are able to move without redirect. (It's included in the rights of the Autopatrol-group.) But I realise, it would to often be wrong to easily do here. -- Lavallen 09:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be a good idea when the link for supressing a redirect is active if the upload-time isn't older than let's say 10 or 15 minutes? That would give the chance to make corrections immediatly after upload. It's more than unlikely that in that very short period after upload the image will be used from other websites. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits secretly removed?

See here. Only my move is visible. I'll explain what I did.

  1. I deleted Rothkoff as I thought the page was out of scope.
  2. Then I noticed the page was meant as a user page, so I restored it.
  3. I moved Rothkoff to User:Zev Rothkoff, but...
  4. User:Zev Rothkoff already existed so I had to delete it to make the way free to move.
  5. After then I restored the edits and everything was okay. I thought.

And now the edits are gone for some strange reason. Is it a bug? I frequently clicked on the purge button, but it's not working. :( Trijnsteltalk 18:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bug: Rothkoff nor User:Zev Rothkoff can be restored. Try maybe a bit later as I noticed lately many strange system delays. --Foroa (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've forwarded this to bugzilla:41606 so the developers can see it. Feel free to CC yourself on that bug report. --Malyacko (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
bugzilla:41606 is a duplicate of bugzilla:41615. The fix for this has been deployed. See below. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new un-deletion bug

After the deletion bug, that plagued us for weeks, now there seems to be a new, really nasty un-deletion bug, see description at COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the section just above this one? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so. However, now it's at Bugzilla top level. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, the patch has been reverted and two developers are working on a fix. --Malyacko (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our short-term fix for this problem was reverting this wiki (and most others) from 1.21wmf3 to 1.21wmf2. Daniel Kinzler developed the proper fix a few hours ago, and we've now just deployed the fixed version of 1.21wmf3 everywhere it was previously deployed. We should be able to clean up any instances where this caused problems, and we'll work out a plan for that shortly (see bugzilla:41649). -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

How to remove my name from picture files?

I hope someone can help me with this. I would like to know how to remove my name from certain picture files that were uploaded. I have no trouble with the pictures being uploaded, but I'd like to have my name removed from the title of the pictures. Can anyone help me or suggest where I should go? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Parodi (talk • contribs) 1. November 2012, 01:24 Uhr (UTC)

You can list them for speedy renaming by going to "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" and following the instructions there. — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that your name will still be available in the redirects and in the Author data of the images, and possibly also EXIF metadata, so if you want to completely eliminate your name, more steps will be needed. If you just don't want it in the title, renaming should be fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batch upload with web page

Commonist = download a program, set its settings and let it process the files. Is there any way to make mass upload without downloading and setting the program? Something like Upload page for several images? The reason is, I'm speaking to a human with series of images, and he says, it's a mess to upload the images one by one.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Use Special:UploadWizard, click upload file, and then use multiple selection (on Windows, click drag a box around them, or hold CTRL or SHIFT to do toggle or ranges, respectively) to select all the files you want to upload. It will require you to specify a title and description for each one, but it will at least upload them all together without further intervention. Even if Upload Wizard doesn't fully support the scenario in question (e.g. doesn't have right license tags), you can edit file description pages afterwards quite easily. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
… e.g. using one of our Batch editing tools. -- Rillke(q?) 00:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary upload

The photographer has a good collection of useful images (town houses) and agrees to publish them on Commons. The person understands his photographs are quite poor, as they are done with a non-digital automatic camera. Is it possible for him to remove his images from Commons somewhen later, if someone else uploads any better images of that very houses? Or these non-perfect images will be an endless curse of Commons storage?--Переславская неделя (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images are never actually permanently deleted, so it is futile to seek to delete images to save storage space on Commons. We can't guarantee we would delete the images once superiour ones become available, particularly if the new images illustrate the subject differently and are not direct replacements. However we do sometimes delete low-quality images as out of scope if they are completely superseded in purpose by other images. My recommendation is to please upload the images, because better images, desirable as they may be, have a way of taking many years to show up, and in the meantime almost anything is better than nothing. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling suppression statistics

If you're interested in such things, then you might want to have a look at suppression statistics from the past six months that have just been published at Commons:Oversighters/Statistics. They are based on the statistics published by the English Wikipedia Audit Subcommittee, and use the same methodology, but I hope you will find them interesting nevertheless. Regards, odder (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

UK laws and treaties

Are UK laws and treaties copyright restricted or do we just miss a copyright tag? Cause i'd like to upload the Montreal Convetion which writes that it's under a Crown Copyright but is free of charge as long as you don't use it in a missleading way. The Royal Arms seem to have only a Trade Mark restricion and so i think this document seems to be accepted on commons.--Sanandros (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is discussed, somewhat, at w:en:Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom, but in short, for published documents, unless it is a document on which a waiver has been given, it has protection for 50 years from date of publication. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The UK claims Crown Copyright on the text of their laws and treaties (although they would be considered uncopyrightable in the United States). However, the UK has been putting a lot of material under a license similar to CC-BY. As you can see on that website's terms, the material should be allowable here under the {{OGL}} tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But why would the text of an international treaty, of which the UK is merely one adhering country among dozens, become specially the intellectual property of the government of the UK? That sounds much like a 19th-century notion. It seem to me that the only thing, if anything, to which the boilerplate copyright notice of the government of the UK could possibly be applicable in relation to that document is the formatting of the pages where this copy is printed. But not to the text. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See COM:L#Typographical copyright: it's at least protected for 25 years. The legal disclaimer on page 2 presumably gets a full crown copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If members of the UK government did not write the text, then no, they really cannot claim copyright ownership. If they were at least a co-author though, they probably can. And realistically, inside the borders of the UK they can do whatever they want, since they write the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm going to upload it under OGL license. Thank you--Sanandros (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego and North Island Naval Aviation Collection

They are now uploading a lot of photo's on Flickr. I have requested them to upload on Wikicommons as well, since they have a lot (>100.000) of very old photo's (<1930) of aviation. They are considering this but one of there problems is the larege amount to upload. Can someone with a lot of knowledge contact them about this (if there is an easier way). On Flickr they are there under the above name and the responsible person is Alan Renga from the San Diego Air and Space Museum. Thanks, Alf -- 10:40, 2 November 2012‎ User:Alfvanbeem

You can request Commons:Batch uploading the files if the museum accepts it. This is how several large museum collections have been previously uploaded, eg. Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives or Commons:Batch uploading/Tropenmuseum. MKFI (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with image representration

There is a grey band on the 800 × 600 pixels representation of File:Eglise Saint-Jean-Baptiste -Hierges.JPG. I tried a reupload of the highest resolution, but without succes. Canb someone do better? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From here, all three versions of the image look fine, including the 800x600 pixels thumbnail. Maybe there's a bad thumbnail copy that is temporarily stuck in the Amsterdam cache server? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the derivative of the Wikipedia logo have a Wikimedia Foundation copyright: mk:Податотека:Браво!.png - I want to put this image on the commons Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see File:Commons-logo.svg. Just copy that copyright/trademark template onto the new file. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty! WhisperToMe (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

Sorry to trouble you again

I am the only son and heir of Johann Schediwy and and his wife Rosa, née Grünbaum and I have scanned some interesting photos from my father's albums. When uploading them I did not want to pretend thata they were my "own work", but, of course I am the copyright owner, so I created an account in my father's name and probably made a mistake about the license. Some of these pictures have been eliminated becauss of "no license", e.g. I have found the following notices in the article "History of the Jews in Hungary":

(Removing "Part_of_the_store-owners_family.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Fastily because: No license since 22 August 2012.) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:45, 30 August 2012‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (136,792 bytes) (-138)‎ . . (Removing "In_frot_of_the_Grünbaum_grocery_shop.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Fastily because: No license since 22 August 2012.) (undo)

This is a formal issue, I have all the rights needed. Could somebody help me to "resurrect" those pictures? --Robert Schediwy (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A short answer: COM:OTRS provides a way for you to clarify things. Using that, you can e-mail details to assert your right to the files. It also provides a tag you can put on the files, with the ticket number you get from OTRS, so that administrators can look up the ticket and see the details you e-mailed that you don't want in the description. Someone else may have a better explanation of this. (I have not looked up the individual files because I'm not an administrator.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that you made the same mistake as for this other file, where you forgot to mention a license or another status tag and which still has no license as I'm writing this. Since you decided to use multiple different accounts, make sure that you follow and pay attention to the notices that are left on the talk pages of all your accounts. When after a week you do not react to the notices that inform your uploading accounts of the absence of license, the result is that those files are deleted. But that's not irreversible. You can just make a request for undeletion on the page Commons:Undeletion requests (same venue where you made an undeletion request for a page in August). For the rest, I don't think anything changed since the discussion when you uploaded those photos in August. Just make sure that the situation is clearly explained for each photo (your multiple accounts can be confusing to the reusers) and that you do not forget to indicate at least one license tag or PD tag with each photo of which you are the copyright holder. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. It all looks so complicated. I have contacted COM:OTRS and I'll copy your counsel (and the one I got in August) on the Johann Schediwy discussion page. --Robert Schediwy (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Art photos

Hi, what's the merit of artistic photos like File:VidGajsek - Krizanke s staroljubljanskih mestnotrskih streh.jpg or File:VidGajsek_-_Marijin_krizevniski_oltar.jpg. Are these considered to be in the scope of the project? --Eleassar (t/p) 09:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Compressed version

For attention Commons_talk:Media_for_cleanup#Template:_Compressed_version -- Perhelion (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

Text on images

Is text allowed in images like File:Andrew Merola.jpg, the user uploaded another with his name on the image. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timed Text: Difference between closed captions and subtitles

Hi. In some countries (US, Canada) and communities (deaf), there is a difference between closed captions and subtitles. See w:Closed_captions#Terminology. Others don't make a difference. Arguing on whom is right is irrelevant. However, it is important to define how we wish to use these terms. Currently, both words "subtitles" and "closed captions" are used in commons, without any apparent distinction. See for example Commons:Video#Subtitles_and_closed_captioning, Category:Files_with_closed_captioning, the media player indicates "subtitles"...

We should be able to make "closed captions for the deaf", or at the very least this functionality could be added easily. In this case, how are we going to distinguish between "subtitles"/"closed captions"/"closed captions for the deaf" in regards to the function they have? Might someone be confused with the word "closed captions", and expect a description of all significant audio content designed for the deaf?

Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please note bug 41694 We will take a look at making this distinction more clear in subsequent timed media handler versions Mdale (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A guide to Polish copyright

I am not sure where else to announce it, and where to link it from, but some editors may find the guide to Polish copyright I recently created useful. Feel free to edit it, and comment on it (I recommend copying any comments here to its talk, as I may not monitor replies here too much). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I guess the best place to link it would be from the general copyright page.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batch import files

Is there a way to batch import large numbers (2000+) of new files without doing a bot upload via api? Smallman12q (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I all I know are Server-side uploads. In the near future (there are tests for Flickr-Uploads) it should be possible to let the WMF servers fetch files directly from other servers ($wgAllowCopyUploads, upload-by-url). Perhaps someone at #wikimedia-tech can help here. -- Rillke(q?) 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For such small numbers of files, people often use Commonist or other tools at Commons:Tools#Upload_media. --Nemo 08:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black list

I tried to upload an image from Flickr which was licensed as CC BY 2.9, using the Flickr upload bot, but was told that the title "File:Monocular Telescope at Eiffel Tower In Paris" matches the following line in the black list for page titles: File:[\w\d\s]+ <reupload>

It would be nice to know why it was blacklisted. Maybe the error page could be made to give an explanation or link to the black list? --Jonund (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the RegExp, there must be (invisible?) Junk between File: and the following part. Set the cursor behind "M" and then press backspace until the ":" is deleted. Then enter the two characters you deleted using your keyboard. The title is also missing a file extension. -- Rillke(q?) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might have something to do with the fact that this title has no file type extension. The relevant line in the page Titleblacklist has the explanation: "Very basic rule to prevent some file pages without media. See the fate of File:A or File:Audio". Those two examples are titles without an extension. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was the missing file extension. Thanks! --Jonund (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible religion related goals for 2013

This is probably more than a bit presumptuous on my part, but I have started a discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Goals for 2013? in the English wikipedia asking what if any sort of goals we might be able to reasonably set for the next year, in wikipedia and other WF sites as well. I figured the wikipedia probably gets more attention, which is why I started the discussion there. But I would be very interested in seeing any input regarding what the editors here think might be the areas here most in need or meriting additional attention. Maybe, and at this point it is just a maybe, maybe we might be able to get some input on such topics if we have some idea what it is we really need to work on. Anyway, I would welcome any input anyone here might have. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

Wikivoyage/Wikitravel images mass imports

As you know, Wikivoyage (which contains some forks from Wikitravel) is joining the Wikimedia projects family: launch is scheduled for tomorrow and their file repositories will not be migrated, see also mw:Wikivoyage migration. Some of their wikis used Commons in part but they have about 14 thousands images which need to be moved to Commons or replaced; some files have already been imported. Commons:Wikivoyage Shared transfer task force contains a rough list of what needs to be or is being done; I think they need help organising an "edit drive"/quality festival, because currently the review of images is proceeding at very high pace but dispersedly. --Nemo 08:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merges of categories Category:Microchips and Category:Integrated circuits - Want feedback


I'm looking for feedback on the merge proposal for these two categories, to get some sort of consensus. The discussion is at Category talk:Microchips. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

I have asked at User talk:Inductiveload#Another bot request for bot runs; may be the user is absent for a while, or somebot else wants do this. sarang사랑 07:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on it -FASTILY (TALK) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stadiums rooms

It is fine or category stadium areas (where to also put Category:seating areas of stadiums) sounds better? thanks a lot. Regards--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good English ("Stadium rooms" would be better). AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or "Rooms in stadiums" - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jmabel - the subject should be followed by the qualifier. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 20:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

odd disappearance of photos.

We are running a photo contest related to the Mexican holiday of Day of the Dead. The category for the pictures is Category:Día de Muertos estilo Wiki. However, although there are over 400 pics in the category, only the first three uploaded photos appear if I havent signed into my account.Hitting refresh does not help. After I sign in and return to the page, all of the photos appear. Any ideas why? Thelmadatter (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use shift-refresh to force refresh (on Firefox and Chrome at least.) ghouston (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech related Valued Image candidates

  1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Free-speech-flag.svg
  2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Streisand Estate.jpg

Comments and input would be most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low vs High


I'm having troubles with low performance in articles using high resolution images uploaded from Flickr. When I upload a Flickr image, I select the medium resolution, because it will just help making the text more informative and visually attractive, and it is not a photo quality contest. But there is a Robot which uploads the higher resolution available in Flickr. This action causes three problems: increases the amount of storage required on the servers, increases the internet traffic from a few Kb to some Mb and the file disappears from "My uploads" list.

Well, I have tried to revert it, but appears I have infringed some kind of rule with this action. So, I would like to know if there is a way I can use the lower resolution image instead of the "current" version.

I have an example with a revert and a revert of the revert, here:

Sounding Rocket Sample Payload

I just want to use the 285 Kb image, that is all.

One of the articles currently using it is this one.


--Marcric (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We always want the highest resolution version available. Please read Commons:First steps/Quality and description. Storage at Wikimedia servers is not an issue (and since previous revisions are still kept, uploading a low-resolution version on top of it only uses more storage). Images used in articles with the thumb option or a specified pixel size are scaled server-side, as are previews shown on file description pages, so no bandwidth is not an issue either. LX (talk, contribs) 18:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read {{No scaled down dupes}} -- Rillke(q?) 19:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was doing it wrong, will upload the highest possible resolution from now on, thanks. And about the "side effect" ? Is there any chance to put my user name back as the images up loader to get the images back to "My uploads" list? And a suggestion: if possible, it would be nice to change the robot to keep the original up loader name. Regards --Marcric (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to have it keep the original uploader's name when reuploading a new version (the bot would require the password to your account), but I agree that "My uploads" should list images you originally uploaded even after they are overwritten by someone else. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible unfree soundtrack

Does anybody know if the soundtrack of that movie is unfree? Thx--Sanandros (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the file itself is not helpful; we need to see the description page. File:Humorous Phases of Funny Faces.ogg links to the Library of Congress page which says that the music is by Philip Carli, who is almost certainly this Philip Carli. Since there's no explicit copyright license, we can't assume that's it's free. It might be worth communicating with him about this; I also wonder if there's any way we could get a higher quality copy from the Library. Unfortunately, this was done 10 years ago, and they worried about bandwidth limits at the time, not producing the highest quality video.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtrack has already been removed from the video, issue resolved. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

Question on when educational scope ends

I'm writing an article on the Seattle Union Record and there's a number of PD images of the paper. Would it be appropriate for me to upload every image I can find of issues and covers of the paper? I might see if Wikisource has a use for them as well. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be in favor of this. Does anyone think otherwise? - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When uploading complete issues, I strongly recommend using either PDF or djvu, to keep the pages together in a single file and easy to read in order. You can separately upload any pages you wish to display in an article. Covers can also be uploaded by themselves. Let me know if you need help assembling the images into single files like this. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think it's good to upload all images, striving for complete issues using either PDF or djvu as described by Dcoetzee. cmadler (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

Request for information about tourist guide

Seeking information about a story by tourist guide in Hoorn, Netherlands pertaining to 2 women who apparently helped Jews and others during WWII hiding them in their home in Hoorn. Members of the Gastapo were also using the same home and they all shared the same kitchen. There is a plaque on the outside wall of the house with a picture of the 2 women. I am trying to confirm this information to incorporate into a slide presentation. Amy help with this would be appreciated. Jim Heins, living in Kensington, Maryland, USA -- 03:13, 8 November 2012‎

This isn't the right site - please see en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There is an important issue about {{PD-Art}} raised at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#template:PD-Art. Please leave any comments there. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Welles images

Could recent uploads including a 1938 image of Orson Welles and a promotional still from The Third Man be checked? The uploader claims to be the source and owner of the images, and that's not likely. Thanks. — WFinch (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly these at least have a licensing problem. I have no idea whether they are public domain or not. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical indexings

Hi, there's recently been sporadic attempts to key this hybrid rose with a "?", which of course appears out very irritating on the public list as being of virtually no meaning. I do not know of an earlier acceptance of such use of a question mark for a sorting purpose here on Wiki, and obviously would prefer forwarding a substitution that better caters for that mis-key's pure intent. To start, we may want to comment at Category talk:Hybrid Tea - Jadis. Regardz, Orrlingtalk 17:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit what you're talking about? Foroa using a ? sortkey to indicate a possible problem with the classification of the category? Rd232 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What point is there in presenting the above text as "hard to understand"? The link given by me is the correct link Orrlingtalk 18:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link isn't the issue, it's the explanation. Is there some reason you don't want me to help clarify? Rd232 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. as said above, it's about what seems to be a mis-keying of Category:Hybrid Tea - Jadis with a "?"-sign, being a dash uncommon; I was inviting the collective to participate in agreeing on a more aesthetic & communicative channel to refer to questioned plant species. Orrlingtalk 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

Deprecated / discourage usage of Template:PD-MacaoGov

After previous mass clean up of Template:PD-MacaoGov in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD MacaoGov, I wonder if we should discourage or even deprecated the usage of the template over commons since mainly one would upload images over here while the template DOES NOT cover any images at all. Chanueting (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It covers scans of texts; it's possible someone will want to load scans of texts to transcribe on a Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but how about putting up a warning like Template:PD-US? I cannot find an image in Category:PD MacaoGov fulfil the license policy right now. Chanueting (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename the template {{PD-MacaoGov-text}}, and change {{PD-MacaoGov}} to a template like {{PD-UK}}. It needs to be really clear that the template is nothing whatsoever like USGov. That's best done explicitly in the template name - it's as close as we can get to slapping people and saying "did you read the template? DID YOU?" :) Rd232 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template rewritten in {{PD-MacaoGov-text}} and delete nomination in Commons:Deletion requests/Clean up of PD-MacaoGov, please kindly share your idea. Thanks. Chanueting (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhatIsThat? tool not working (well)

I've been noticing issues with the WhatIsThat? tool available in the Toolbox (if activated in Preferences). For some images it returns results, for some less than the original Magnus' WhatIsThat? and for some none at all. Take for example File:Cities of Sumer (en).svg. If you look at en:Summer and pt:Suméria articles which use the image, there are descriptions there. Yet the tool doesn't find them. Anyone knows more on this topic? I found it a very useful tool to add multilingual descriptions to images, if it works... Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to ask DieBuche -- Rillke(q?) 18:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TimedMediaHandler just enabled on this wiki

Hi everyone, we just enabled TimedMediaHandler on this wiki. This should mean big improvements in video playback, but of course, with all new technology, there may very well be new bugs that get introduced. Please let us know either by commenting here or by filing a bug at Thanks! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victory! Awesomeness! Magical ponies!
Been waiting for that for years! \o/
  • I guess TMH is responsible for the new “Transcode status” info on file description pages (eg File:Poulpevolant.ogv). I could not find documentation about it, could you elaborate on its meaning?
  • It was my understanding that TMH enabled server-side transcoding of videos, so that they are served at the format and bitrate requested. How is it requested, through thumbs? (Trying to play from video galleries loads a pop up with the full resolution).
Thanks *a lot* for enabling this!
Jean-Fred (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, poking around, I understand that the generation of the various versions (WebM & Ogg versions at different bitrates) is queued in MediaWiki job queue. What triggers the scheduling, the first request of the video or is it planned to “touch” each Commons video to get it generated? I suppose generated versions are kept/cached − like scaled images − are they automatically purged? For curiosity, is it possible to consult the queue?
TMH was also supposed to allow transcoding at upload time, from eg WebM, is it active as well?
Jean-Fred (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transcodes get inserted into the queue for all active videos, as the backlog is catching up we can also poke other videos. Right now its not possible to inspect the queue, this will hopefully change soon. Transcoded videos are not purged like thumbnails, its possible to reset failed transcodes though.
UploadWizzard supports WebM uploads now. Transcoding from unsupported formats is possible with Firefogg but its currently not enabled on commons.
--JanGerber (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answers. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Introducing Wikipedia’s new HTML5 video player on Wikimedia Foundation blog. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fullscreen in new video player doesn't work

I noticed that we now have a nifty new video player embedded; seems to be named Kaltura and looks nice. However, if I try the fullscreen button e.g. at File:Maschine-stadt-luzern.ogv, I don't get fullscreen video - quite the opposite, the video just disappears from the page (the sound is still there, but no picture). SeaMonkey 2.13.2 on Windows Vista. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The developer console shows: "Warning: Request for full-screen was denied because full-screen API is disabled by user preference." I'll open a bug ticket to handle this. TheDJ (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! About the description language selectio in the Upload Wizard

I found that the description language selection changed in the Upload Wizard. Before, if you would like to select English, you will select "English", now, I need to select "英文" - the chinese word. It is hard to find the correct language. Could I changed it in the preference? ----- 化学是,化学是 04:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All gigapixel images uploaded as tile sets

All public domain gigapixel artwork from Google Art Project and Prado in Google Earth produced so far, a total of 48 works, are now available at Category:Tile sets at full original resolution. The largest (155267 × 89344 or 13.9 gigapixels) is The Garden of Earthly Delights, shown below (the small image below the grid shows the single JPEG non-tiled version, to scale). No work I've seen could be more deserving of a high-resolution treatment, considering its enormous physical size (2.2 × 3.9 m) and detailed intricacy.

Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x0-y0.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x1-y0.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x2-y0.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x3-y0.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x4-y0.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x5-y0.jpg
Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x0-y1.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x1-y1.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x2-y1.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x3-y1.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x4-y1.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x5-y1.jpg
Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x0-y2.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x1-y2.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x2-y2.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x3-y2.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x4-y2.jpg Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Prado in Google Earth-x5-y2.jpg

The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg

The smallest is an extremely long and thin image of one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (127488 × 5013 or 639 megapixels, see Category:Tile set of The Great Isaiah Scroll MS A (1QIsa)) shown below:

The Great Isaiah Scroll MS A (1QIsa) - Google Art Project-x0-y0.jpg The Great Isaiah Scroll MS A (1QIsa) - Google Art Project-x1-y0.jpg The Great Isaiah Scroll MS A (1QIsa) - Google Art Project-x2-y0.jpg The Great Isaiah Scroll MS A (1QIsa) - Google Art Project-x3-y0.jpg The Great Isaiah Scroll MS A (1QIsa) - Google Art Project-x4-y0.jpg

The Great Isaiah Scroll MS A (1QIsa) - Google Art Project.jpg

I'd appreciate any feedback on this upload project. (The rest of the Google Art Project works fit in a single JPEG file just fine, and a lot are still pending review.) Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I am lost at words to congratulate you for these wonderful works. Yann (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that Bosch scan is nothing short of spectacular. As you said, no work could be more deserving of this hi-res treatment! Thank you for your work on this. cmadler (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture based shapes


I have created a cylindrical shape of the MR-12 Russian rocket based on a picture which could be seen here (the second one), credited to Mark Wade. How should I upload and classify it ? {{PD-shape}} ? And the Author ? Is it My own work or Mark Wade's ?

Thanks --Marcric (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The drawing is definitely yours, but it makes sense to include in the file description a link (with proper attribution) to the "original" photograph. Also, the author of the rocket itself (and its shape) is, of course, not Mark. :-)
By the way, please use SVG for such drawings. If for some reason you prefer raster images (why?), please use PNG instead of JPEG. Wikipedia guidelines have more details. You can take a look at recommended software and SVG use here and find more help in Commons:Graphic Lab.
Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

Which do you think is the better category?

Hi to all. In my categorization activity concerning the church categories, better categorization of images of churches with a method IMHo that would allow the easy detection of a particular sector, I created Category:Our Lady of Miracles churches in Italy not realizing that Category:Churches of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Miracles in Italy there already (the usual problems due to rigid categorization tree unbranched). Now I ask you what, you think, of the two the most correct? Thanks for your patience :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat shortcuts

It's been suggested to formalise some standard shortcuts for HotCat, to make categorisation with certain maintenance categories easier. This would mean creating certain redirect categories just for the purpose, so for example Category:tpp would redirect to Category:Template:painting possible. Please see Help:Gadget-HotCat/shortcuts and proposals at Help talk:Gadget-HotCat/shortcuts. PS background discussion is Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#HotCat_shortcuts. Rd232 (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Europe countries.svg

Hi, could someone please help with listing all the files affected by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europe countries.svg? It seems these are plenty, so it would be best done with a bot. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is unnecessary worry about this file. Yann (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Can someone undelete the old versions of my User page? Considering coming back, now that some of the issues that meant I felt it unethical to continue editing here have begun being dealt with.


Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

Community care

From Swedish village pump: I think we came to a conclusion about the name for day actives for mentally challenged (I'm sorry if I use wrong term, English is not my main language, and I don't meen to harm anyone), elderly and other groups (category:Adult day centers), but to my next question: I came across the term social services. But is that term only for poverty and crime, or could it refer to other "social" services like elderlycare or care and/or activities for mentally challenged? I have used the term community care for many forms of care that isn't purely health care, but is that right? V-wolf (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Social services," in the US at least, is by no means restricted to issues of poverty. As for crime, it might include some programs that might fall under crime prevention, but would not include police. It certainly would include services for the disabled or elderly. It tends not to be applied to entitlement programs (e.g. Social in the U.S.) nor to explicitly medical services. "Adult day centers" is a perfectly good term, but it does have slightly tricky borders. For example, it would never be applied to a drop-in center for physically and mentally competent seniors, and while that exact same phrase just might be used to refer to a drop-in center for homeless adults, I think most people would consider that a different meaning of the phrase. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearifying, although it seems a bit tricky. But we might sort it out as the situations arise. Another question in the same field: In Sweden we have "Gruppboenden" (literally translation: group livings), houses with apartments but with collective kitchen and living room, where mentally challenged or demented people live together in a somewhat normal way, assisted by care personnel. Is there a proper English name for that kind of house? V-wolf (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beliese en:Assisted living is the english term for this. MKFI (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would a category with such houses be called? V-wolf (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the scale (size/number of residents) Gruppboenden might be en:Group home. cmadler (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also "halfway house," though those can be larger and the term also applies to homes for people transitioning from incarceration. There's also (not the same thing) "transitional housing," usually limited to two years, for people who were formerly homeless and often also were drug addicted or are considering to be emerging from mental problems, either because they are simply getting better or have gotten onto a better medication regime. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

Remove category from page

Hi, I want to remove the category Category:Internationalization templates with incorrect translations from the page Template:Nationality/sv since I have updated the translation, but I can't find out how to do it. Please help me! // WikiPhoenix [Talk] 17:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to come from {{Please Translate}}. Even the English subpage is categorized. Perhaps asking the creator of the template what the intention exactly was? -- Rillke(q?) 19:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A street lamp in Singapore showing the characteristic spangle

I added the following image to Hot-dip galvanizing on English Wikipedia but the image doesn't show up even though the image is on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. [1] gave this error:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/eventlet/", line 382, in handle_one_response
    result = self.application(self.environ, start_response)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/wmf/", line 368, in __call__
    resp = self.handle404(reqorig, url, container, obj)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/wmf/", line 197, in handle404
    upcopy =
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/", line 400, in open
    response = self._open(req, data)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/", line 418, in _open
    '_open', req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/", line 378, in _call_chain
    result = func(*args)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/", line 1207, in http_open
    return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/", line 1177, in do_open
    raise URLError(err)
URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 111] ECONNREFUSED>

though [2] works. What's wrong? cmglee (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting! Cannot reproduce the problem anymore, but sounds similar to some thumbnail problems we've seen in the last two weeks after a server upgrade. I've added your comment to the bugtracker at --Malyacko (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I trace a moved image?

I uploaded a file under a wrong name, File:Syrian National Council recognition.svg, so I moved it to a correct name, File:Syrian National Coalition recognition.svg. However, after the move it no longer displays which WP articles link to it, and the WP articles no longer display it, as evidently Commons redirects do not work outside of Commons. How do I trace which WP articles link to the redirect, so that I can fix them manually? (The two I fixed in WP-en might be the only ones there, but I've seen other WPs which use it.)

Or rather, some WP's do not follow the rd. Polish, German, and Chinese WP have no problem, but English, Arabic, Spanish, and Turkish WP do. Still, even though Polish, German, and Chinese WP display the img properly, there is no indication here on Commons that they link to it.

Kwamikagami (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:GlobalUsage/Syrian_National_Council_recognition.svg. But yes, redirects do work outside Commons, the usage of the file with its old redirected name is on display in de.wp (see source code of the article: council, not coaltion is the filename). Maybe you need to purge the page, but thats all. --Martin H. (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't display on WP's I don't remember visiting, so I didn't think it was a purge problem. But maybe I had been there. Thanks for the link; looks like I got them all but for the one protected article. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that when using the "Move & replace" feature provided by AjaxQuickDelete gadget, the old name is automatically universally replaced by the new one (by virtue of the Commons Delinker), preventing that sort of issues. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a good category name for videos of animated/moving signs

There are quite a few videos of commercial signs: mechanically rotating, blinking neon signs (e.g. this), and digital outdoor screens, but there is no category to hold them together. One category is Category:Moving signs in Stockholm, but it has no good parent categories. Is "moving signs" the right term, or should it be "animated signs" or would "videos of signs" automatically imply that the sign is somehow moving/animated/blinking in order for a video to be used? --LA2 (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add images from Flickr button in UploadWizard

If anyone reports seeing an "Add images from Flickr" button in UploadWizard, it was just a temporary glitch from the deployment today. Nothing to see here. Move along ;) Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Section 13(2) repealed

Before it was employers who obtained rights to works of photographers who they hired, absent a contract to the contrary, whereas now it is the photographers. Took effect very recently. This will affect how we seek permission for Canadian photographs. See [3]. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I assume the status of photos created before the law have not changed? -- King of ♠ 03:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The transitional provisions are at sections 59-62 of the amending law, S.C. 2012, c. 20 (initially introduced as bill C-11). Commissioned photos that were ordered before the coming into force of the change are treated under s. 13 (2) of the old version of the act [s. 60 of the amending law], which means the rights are still owned by the client. Photos that were already in the public domain remain in the public domain [s. 59(1) of the amending law]. For photos that were not yet in the public domain, the duration of the copyright does not change in general, except an extension in some cases. One change is an extension of the duration of the copyright on the photos whose original negative (or equivalent material) at the time of creation was owned by a corporation who was also the employer of a photographer. In the old version of the law, that corporation's copyright on the photo ended 50 years after the creation of the photo. In the new version of the law, the copyright owned by the corporate employer is extended and will now end 50 years after the death of its employee [effect of s. 59(2) of the amending law, combined with the abrogation of s. 13(2) of the old version of the act, with the unchanged s. 13(3) of the act and with te unchanged s. 6 of the act]. For photos whose original negative (or equivalent material) at the time of creation was owned by a corporation who was not the employer of the photographer (for example in a non-profit organization who provided the photographic material to the photographer without being its employer), the amending law strips the copyright from that non-employer corporation and transfers it to the photographer or, if the photographer was employed by someone else, to the employer and the duration of the copyright of this new copyright owner is extended to 50 years after the death of the photographer [same combination of sections]. However, for photos whose original negative (or equivalent material) at the time of creation was owned by an individual other than a corporation and other than the photographer (ex. your friend took a photo with your material), the copyright remains to this individual owner and its duration continues to be computed on the basis of 50 years after the death of this individual, not of the death of the photographer [s. 59(3) of the amending law]. I think that's about it. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With some of the changes to the law, *employers* actually get more rights. The part of the changes I think you want to refer to affects *commissioned* works (more exactly, "an engraving, photograph or portrait ordered by some other person and made for valuable consideration"), which is a different matter. For example, when a client paid a studio for a portrait, unless agreement to the contrary, the client had the rights on that portrait and he could make copies of his portrait without having to go back and renogotiate with the studio owner every time. After the changes to the law, the rights belong to the photographer in theory, which may be beneficial to self-employed photographers, but remember that the changes to the law changed nothing to the fact that employers still own the rights to the photos created by the photographers they employ, and therefore in practice the changes to the law benefit not to employed photographers, but to their employers: studio owners, owners of media, owners of companies, etc. (See section the unchanged s. 13(3) of the act: "[...] in the employment [...] under a contract of service [...] and the work was made in the course of his employment") The propaganda by some politicians that the changes would supposedly favor photographers hides the fact that it basically benefits their employers. Actually, there is some sad irony in the conjunction of some changes to the law. In the old version of the act, photographs whose rights were owned by a corporate entity, for example a media, entered the public domain 50 years after their creation. After those 50 years, the employed photographer who took it could at least, like any other citizen, hope to be able to use his own photograph before his death without having to obtain the permission from his employer. Now after the changes, the photographer still doesn't own the rights, the employer still owns the rights. But the duration of the copyright is now computed on the basis of 50 years after the death of the photographer. The result is that the copyright duration is extended to the benefit of the employer, not of the photographer, and the employer owns the rights until 50 years after the death of the photographer. Not only the photographer cannot hope anymore to freely use his photographs before his death, but even his children will not have the right to use them for 50 years after his death without the permission of the employer. As for how Commons users seek permission, I don't think it will change much, but it might in some cases (details in the other paragraph above). -- Asclepias (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

File update: theora ->vp8

Is it allowed to update existing theora coded videos with new vp8 coded files in a higher resolution/bitrate? In the past I preferred to upload my videos in smaller filesizes to reduce the download time. But since the new timemediahandler is enabled I think hd-files would be a much better source for server-sided transcoding/streaming. --Pristurus (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Import from Simple English Wiki

Hello, I am creating a book from English Wikipedia articles, but there is an article in Simple Wikipedia that I would like to include. Is there a way to import or copy it into my book? I don't want to use Simple Wiki for my book because Eng Wiki has more articles relating to my subject matter.

Thanks, KC

This is really a question for the English Wikipedia - Commons mainly deals with files, not articles. I'm sure the people at en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) will be able to help you, though. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President of Albania pics

Is someone able to contact USAID (may be also under a FOIA request) to find out the copyright situation of this pic of the back then Justice Minister of Albanian and right now President of Albania Bujar Nishani. I tried to contact theme but the webpage for contacts is right now down. BTW i found also some pics on the embassy in Tirana (here, here and here) but i couldn't find any way to contact somone.--Sanandros (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No ideas?--Sanandros (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the first picture is annotated as "Photo Credit: USAID" - just use {{PD-USGov-USAID}}.
the mail address of the Embassy's spokesperson Elizabeth (Betsy) Lewis is (or simply call her: +355 6820 29830)
Rbrausse (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreton Wave Animation


I'm hoping someone can help with this matter.

On Wikipedia is the entry Moreton wave which features an animation File:MoretonWaveAnimation200612.gif with a copyright licensing to NSO stating that the images from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) were assembled into an animated GIF by Wikipedia user Huygens 25. None of the links to the National Solar Observatory listed with the gif are active, but I will try to find one that is. On is Measuring the Speed of a Solar Tsunami! which contains apparently all the NSO images and claims "You can watch the entire movie and see it more clearly ( ave.mpeg)." This link is also not active. This same section with images is also in Solar Math from the same Neither of these contains any notice of copyright. NASA publications are Public Domain (PD) unless otherwise stated.

Are these images and thereby the videos also PD? Marshallsumter (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be tempted to assume that this is actually a mislabelling problem on NASA's part; the original NSO press release can be found in PDF form here. This is dated the day after the images were made, and has a credit line to "NSO/AURA/NSF and USAF Research Laboratory.". The telescope in question seems to be a joint NSO/Air Force Research Lab program, but as NSO is a private body I suspect this means that NSO are still able to hold copyright in it, as with the various NASA joint programs. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting. I sent an email to Jackie Diehl ( and received this reply: "Following discussions with the scientist that was involved with the images you've discussed, I can grant you usage permissions for the images. However, in doing so - I must stipulate that a secondary copyright is not allowed with these permissions. While the images were released from the NSO, the NSO and more specifically the Air Force maintain the original and only copyright to these images. Should you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me." In my email I asked about Public Domain status regarding the images. The NSO pdf site you mentioned doesn't state any copyright. Work performed by the US Air Force is also PD as a branch of the US government, unless otherwise stated, and of course they and NSO retain the original copyright. I believe the other copyright Diehl is referring to is the one on Wikipedia. The question I specifically asked was "Can you confirm that these images are now PD?" Should I upload the video here and see what happens? I have located one possible scientist involved to email so that may help also. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no copyright notice on the press release, there is one on their general press page - here.
Electronic products such as images and captions created and/or prepared by NSO are copyrighted in content, presentation, and intellectual origin. These electronically available materials are considered intellectual property and are intended for use for educational, academic, and research purposes and are not intended for commercial use. Electronic versions of images are protected by copyright as intellectual property unless noted otherwise.
They go on to give a general educational use permission (including news media stories, which may be why there's no statement on the press release) but explicitly prohibit commercial use. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that notice on their website. Except for Diehl's comment I would say this is another situation like SOHO images where NASA puts them on one of its web sites while the apparent originator site like NSO retains certain copyright over the images in their files but not those that NASA puts on its web sites or in its files. I don't believe NASA has made a mislabeling. Believe it or not, they really do know what their doing, and it's not throwing their weight around. I will see if I can track down that NASA video. Thank you again for commenting. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to NASA regarding their movie and received as part of the reply, this url=, which appears similar to the Wikipedia movie, but may have been imaged by a different detector(?). I cannot download this apparently and would like to know if this is in someway uploadable to commons. NASA also mentioned they would check on the copyright issue. No response as yet to that. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The additional NASA source mentions the NSO's OSPAN images and movie, url= The NASA movie also has "OSPAN" at the bottom left. The NASA movie is from their educational web sites although so far no copyright info. This is appearing more and more like conformance to explicitly forbidding commercial use. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

UploadWizard broken

Whenever I try to upload a file using the UploadWizard, it stalls on the uploading part, saying "Getting file information and previews...". This just started today; it was working a few days ago. I tried blanking my common.js and turning off gadgets, but it didn't work. Any suggestions? I'm using Safari 5.1.7 on a MacBook Air running OS X 10.6.8. David1217 (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. We'll look into it.--Eloquence (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. Thanks for the report! Kaldari (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's working now. David1217 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do usage rights continue?

Please see

Do the rights granted by this email continue - can we use this permission to upload photos from the GCIS website today or does this only apply to that point in time? Gbawden (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a valid permission. Who is "you" and for what exactly can "you" use the photos? Can he only reuse them - i.e. a typical permission for use in press publications - or can he use them for any purpose? This heavily depends on the request email and that email is not documented. Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms is not fulfilled. And another unclear point - refering to the headline of this posting - does the permission allow him to use photos published after the request? The email speaks of "photos on GCIS website", not photos that will be on the website or not yet created photos. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The permission is currently used by 3 files. See User_talk:Duesentrieb/Archive_05-12#unannounced_image_deletion for background, where it's noted that the website at the time restricted use to non-commercial purposes. Rd232 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Should be protected; it is used on an eN system message. 03:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Denniss. -- Rillke(q?) 09:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move category

We have a category Category:Towers in Belgrad, could someone please move it to Category:Towers in Belgrade ?. Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New html5 player issues

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask questions about the new html5 media player used at Wikimedia Projects, so please let me know if I should report this elsewhere. I'm having an issue opening pages with high numbers of audio files (which is often the case with categories like Category:Ogg files of music by Frederic Chopin): browser window (Firefox) or tab (Chromium) becomes unresponsible for about 20—30 seconds until that page can be successfully viewed/scrolled. It seems that the loading of the player is the bottleneck. A possible solution would be to load and render the player conditionally, only when the user decides to play a media file. Also, is there a way to temporarily disable the player, and use the native browser html5 media element UI instead? --YurB (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I´d here (Win 7, SeaMonkey) a similar issue with video pages. Disabling the prefetch function of the browser catch solved this problem for me. --Pristurus (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting this! I can confirm the problem and I've forwarded it to the issue tracker at so the developers can investigate. --Malyacko (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

Correct naming of a category I'd like to create

This afternoon I've taken around 8 pictures at 2 rest areas along Interstate 75. I'd like to make a category that had the cateogies Category:Rest areas in the United States and Category:Interstate 75. Should the correct category name be something like "Rest areas along Interstate 75", "Interstate 75 rest areas" or what? --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably name it "Interstate 75 rest areas", though either would be OK. You may also want to do rest areas by state; I see that other countries have the organized this way (see, for example, the subcategories of Category:Rest areas in Germany and Category:Michinoeki in Japan‎). cmadler (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get an acceptable picture

The Rijksmuseum museum had a piece of petrified wood from the Drees estate that was mistaken as a "moon rock" and looked like this. <--- How could I use this picture in the English Wikipedia "Netherlands lunar sample displays" article? Screenshot? Any ideas here where Wikipedia will accept the picture as or how it is a copyright free image? U.S. government image?----Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions specifically about a Wikipedia should preferably be asked on that Wikipedia. But since you're asking if there are any ideas here, my impression is that the answer might be that such an unfree photo should not be used there. Because you want to illustrate the subject, not comment about the photographic work. Normally, the possible solutions should be to ask permission from the author, or look for a free photo, or find someone who can go to the museum and take a free photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although, if the mistake in labeling has been corrected a free photo can not be created, and we'd be reliant on what's out there, which does open up a possible fair use claim. Either way, you want Wikipedia, not Commons. cmadler (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering of SVG text

The SVG thumbnailer is currently producing erroneous output on File:Asterisk.svg: the top quarter of the image is empty and the asterisk is cut off at the bottom. Viewing the native SVG gives no such problem. Has a font suddenly been lost on the server? Or is poor old librsvg having a bad day? This, that and the other (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been reverted, but the problem still stands with the old versions. They worked up until very recently! This, that and the other (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're using to view the native SVG, but I've used three different programs (Inkscape, Firefox, Image Viewer) and they all show a similar result to the thumbnail shown here. I don't know what's changed, but I've tweaked the old (2007) version so it works fine here now. --Avenue (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IN case you're sure that there's really an issue in the SVG renderer (and not in the file), please file a bug report with the testcase and good comparisons under after checking for existing tickets under . Thanks for your help! --Malyacko (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a cat to a protected file

I regularly want to add categories to protected files and I'm wondering why some are protected... Anyway, can anyone add Category:LG Group to File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg ? Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files used on the front page are protected for a day. I assume the file will not be protected tomorrow. --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with image thumbs

I started again scanning and uploading Journal de Bruxelles images. The server seems to have problems with rendering images of File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (362 363).png. Wat is the problem? PS: I will have to rename to keep the same standard: It should be: Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (362, 363).png (with comma)Smiley.toerist (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a typical COM:MAXTHUMB case - see the link for templates to use to link a jpeg version which can be thumbnailed. NB you have the printer fr:Jean-Louis de Boubers as the author; I'm not sure that's correct. Rd232 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
808 kB is not oversize. I suspect it is because it is scanned in png format and then cropped. Cropping png files can probably lead to technicaly incorrectly coded files. I chose the png formaat because due to the bad quality of the printing I have to edit image extensively to remove ink stains, double images from other pages, etc. jpeg images are not stable by extensive editing due to the re-rendering of the image after every edit. Jean-Louis de Boubers seems to be the correct editor. He lived in Brussels at the time (1800). The adres given is: rue de la Montagne.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I try the gif format but it doesnt work. File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (362, 363).gif Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have another scanner than in the past and I am trying out different parameters. File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (361).jpg. Is this better than File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (361).png? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnails are not made for PNG and GIF images larger than 12 Mpx (3000 x 4000). Yann (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I scaled down the PNG to 3,963 × 3,000 and the problem is fixed. File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (362 363).png. The GIF can be deleted. Yann (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The limit moved up to 25MPx recently. See COM:MAXTHUMB. --99of9 (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion. As these images are predominantly text, I suggest to scan in high resolution in TIFF and convert them to PDF with Acrobat Pro including OCR. A part will be not recognized by the OCR, but the quality of the image remains with the right settings. A big advantage is that the text can be searched. Moreover more images can be combined in one PDF. Wouter (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I though PDF is not uploadable on the commons. I tried an OCR program but it wasnt a bigg success. The lettertype is ancient and there where to many errors. Even after I removed a lot of noise (ink blots etc). At least halve the words got mangled. I havent got Acrobat Pro anyway. But anyone can try and I can deliver an TIFF file. Typing it out by hand is to much work. We could enter a lot of key words to help the search engines. By the other journals I have added a lot of categories. For example on the first page of nr 136, there is the mention of finding of a feral child in Aveyron. (but first I have to move the "Feral Childern" category. One thing leads to an other)Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PDF's are allowed. There are several on commons. But if you are scanning as TIFF why not upload as TIFF (A tiff file can contain more than one page too)? Bawolff (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A note on 808kb comment above - compressed file size doesn't matter (It's uncompressed file size that we care about). For certain types of images PNG compression can be very effective (In this case it looks like the image consists of only two colours, which is probably why the file size is so small). What does matter is the resolution of the image. The original version exceeded the resolution. Bawolff (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried with Acrobat Pro and OCR. The OCR did not give a useful result. Wouter (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of ABBYY which is much better OCR, if you want to send the images to me. However with ancient fonts and languages normally some kind of extension package is required. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is our policy on which kinds of templates must be substituted?

There is a pending bot request which, if approved, will result in all templates listed in Category:Templates which must be substituted actually being substituted. This seems obvious enough, but there is some question about whether those templates actually all need substitution. Please could the community point me to any policy/guidelines on substitution, or at least weigh in on which types of template must/should/shouldn't/mustn't be substituted. For the details people amongst you, please can you check the actual list, and remove {{Must be substituted}} from any templates you don't want substituted. --99of9 (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

USAP photo deletion

I noted the deletion of a large number of photos from the US Antarctic program: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:US_Antarctic_Program_photo_library_images. I don't contest the deletion, but I feel fairly sure that many of the photographers and copyright holders would be willing to license their work on suitable terms. Do we have a list of links to the original USAP pages for the photos that were deleted? Also, it would be handy to have a list of articles that were previously using the now-deleted photos. I can provide similar (but probably lower-quality) photos to replace at least a few. --Amble (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started putting a list of source links together on the DR's talk page. It will take a while though. You can get a list of the articles each photo was in by clicking on its redlink and then on the "delinker log" link, but I don't know an easy way to get a full list covering all of these photos. --Avenue (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you do contact people to request a license, keep in mind that you may need to establish whether each photo was taken in their spare time, or as part of their employment duties. If it was part of their job, the photo is probably a work for hire and we would need permission from the employer, not the photographer. And it wouldn't hurt to mention we've deleted the file, and apologise for our previous mistake in infringing on their copyright. --Avenue (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that list is quite useful. --Amble (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're right that an apology wouldn't go astray, I'm not sure that Commons has infringed their copyright. We unintentionally misstated the licensing terms, but inclusion on Commons and in Wikipedia articles is in line with the explicitly allowed uses. --Amble (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, our error was more in mistakenly labelling them as PD (so perhaps leading others to infringe their copyright) than in infringing it ourselves. --Avenue (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- still an error, of course. --Amble (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what's the proper procedure if one of the photographers does want to relicense their photos in a compatible way? --Amble (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the instructions at Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_not_the_copyright_holder. In point 2, you could upload the photo afresh, but it might often be better to undelete it (to restore its history here, translated descriptions, FP status etc). To do so, list it at COM:UNDEL, or just drop a note on my talk page. --Avenue (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll follow the instructions there if I get a positive response. --Amble (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed one more photo that is similarly questionable and isn't on the list: File:A majestic line of Emperor penguins, Antarctica.jpg. --Amble (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but the image is credited to "Glenn Grant, National Science Foundation". Isn't the NSF marker sufficient enough for PD? Rbrausse (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the comma should really be read as "and", not "who works for". The NSF should be credited as being the holding institution for the photograph, not its creator (or their employer). See the deletion request for details. That misunderstanding was the root of this whole problem. --Avenue (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the photographer is apparently not a federal employee,[4] so I've put the photo up for speedy deletion. --Avenue (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification! Rbrausse (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

Planned semi-automatic tagging of copyrighted sculptures with {{Not-free-US-FOP}}

Following no objections to the new tag {{Not-free-US-FOP}} at Commons:Requests_for_comment/Non-US_Freedom_of_Panorama_under_US_copyright_law#Tag_files_potentially_affected_by_US_FOP_clashing_with_source_country_FOP, I'm planning a semi-automatic high volume tagging job using User:DcoetzeeBot. I would use a semiautomatic tool which would briefly show me, for every file bearing an FoP tag, the image and its description. If the image prominently depicts a sculpture and the sculpture is either copyrighted, or no evidence is provided to show that the sculpture is in the public domain, the file would be tagged with {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. The new tag would directly follow the existing FoP tag. An example of what this might look like is shown at File:Houseball detail.jpg. Techniques like preloading, background editing, and hotkeys would permit this to be done at a very high rate (up to maybe 20/minute for files where only brief inspection is required).

The primary goal of this task is to help warn content reusers in the United States that the image may not be safe to use without a license from the sculptor, contrary to other statements on the file description page (such as the license statement and FoP tag). A secondary benefit is that it will help identify how many files would be affected by policy changes regarding photographs of copyrighted sculptures. I'd like to get a quick straw poll to see if there is consensus to run this task. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is only going to be for sculptures outside the U.S.? Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy at all where this is going. Looks like a rushed panic reaction. I don't support this at all. Multichill (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is simply a statement of the facts as regards US FOP for foreign works. Tagging is a sensible measure to warn US reusers and to track the scale of the issue. It's entirely separate from the question of what to do with such works. Rd232 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I presume. Sculptures in the US should either be deleted or not require FoP at all due to being out of copyright. -- King of ♠ 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible to me. However before going off and doing thousands, I'd suggest doing maybe 100 and letting people have a look at the results. The tag should be changed to categorise into its own tracking category. Rd232 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this needs a test run first. And the usual recommended maximum bot speed limit of 10/minute (especially since each needs some limited human review). --99of9 (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I modified it to cat into Category:Freedom of panorama works possibly copyrighted in the U.S. and I'll do a test run on the order of 100. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've finished the coding and the trial run of 100 images, see the category linked above. Feedback welcome. (Note that a few of them were tagged by others.) Dcoetzee (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the statue is out of US copyright, and there is modern architecture in the picture, the tag should not be applied, because the FoP is about the architecture. --99of9 (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that's a good point. This tag expands on the claims in the existing FOP tag, so it shouldn't be applied to elements that tag doesn't apply to. --Avenue (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's why it's semiautomatic - I would not apply it to files where the sculpture is in the public domain, unless it was missing evidence of such. More to the point, I don't trust people not to use FoP tags indiscriminately on PD works. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that it would need to be under U.S. copyright, not necessarily under copyright where the statue is located. In other words, a pre-1923 statue should not get the tag even if the statue is still copyrighted in its source country. And conversely, a URAA-restored statue might still have U.S. copyright even its foreign copyright has expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup I'm following US copyright on the sculpture when applying the tag. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template seemed too definitive to me for widespread semi-automatic tagging. I've changed it so it doesn't claim as much certainty about the particulars of each image. I also added the common requirement that the underlying works be permanently located in a public place, which was missing before. --Avenue (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings about this template were well summarized by Multichill. It looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. I also think that despite of the template being clear and well written, I had a hard time figuring out what it is about. On my first read I was under impression that I should contact Sue Gardner if I would rather have my upload deleted, than being tagged with strange templates like that. Of course that is not what it says, but it took another read or two to properly parse it. --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem? We've had files deleted by the Office under a legal theory we haven't been following, and just tagging files that may need to be deleted is a solution in search of a problem?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The form of the template is based directly on {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, which has been in use for years, including the bit you're referring to. Nevertheless it might confuse some new users if their files are tagged with it. Could you suggest an alternate wording that might be more effective? I also indicated very clearly above the problems that this tag addresses. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a solution for a problem that is just a potential problem, still not an actual problem. Anyway, I think this template doesn't cause any new problem, and it even adds useful information. Then I see Dcoetzee's proposal as an improvement for Commons. In fact, other existing tags could be labelled as "solutions in search of a problem" but we keep and use them, for example {{Personality}}.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on the trial run

UN and Taiwan

Odder protected, I'm collapsing so it will be discussed at File talk:United Nations Members.svg, not here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a dispute around File:United Nations Members.svg, with another user continuously making the change of Taiwan to grey instead of blue. Arguments can be seen in the file summaries, but in essence they say that as Taiwan isn't under the control of China, it shouldn't be coloured in. My argument is that the UN recognises the One-China policy (like every country in the world, including China and Taiwan) and recognises the PRC as that China. This is the situation for all similar areas on the map as well, each state is coloured in as much as the UN recognises them to cover, with Somalia including Somliland, Serbia including Kosovo, and Morocco not including the Western Sahara. It's anomalous to just change Taiwan. I took this to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, and was informed it belonged here. Any opinions would be appreciated. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info As a third party, I reverted the picture to the version supported by Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) due to the amount of arguments being brought up for having Taiwan marked in blue — the other party in this edit war seems to be sticking to its mind for emotional reasons only. I have also protected the image against re-uploads, and am awaiting a peaceful ending to this discussion. odder (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, there should be 3 colors in this map: members, non-members, territories considered as part of a member state, but non controlled by it (i.e. Taiwan, Kosovo?). I think 2 different shades of blue would appropriately show the distinction. This seems fair to me. Yann (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is WebM the recommended video format for Commons and Wikipedia?

Now that webM is supported on Commons and Wikipedia, is it safe to say WebM is the recommended video format to encode to and upload in? Most tests I've seen show webM with better quality at the same filesize as Ogg Theora. Additionally, there seems to be more support for WebM. It's also an open format and appears to have more development activity than Theora. Mahanga (Talk) 20:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added webm as "preferred" format to COM:VID. --McZusatz (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica

Keeping in mind that the articles published in this journal are distributed under the terms of CC BY, I have a question: would this be alright to upload the figures used an APP article to Wikimedia Commons (obviously crediting the original author)?--Macrochelys (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreton Wave Animation

Although the NSO movie does appear to have an appropriate restriction against commercial use, Dr. Sten Odenwald from SpaceMath@NASA has suggested url= as an alternative. I've been looking through the various websites of the involved parties and this movie does appear to be okay for commericial use so that a license here can be used. I would like comments first before uploading it and guessing at an appropriate license. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Flickr uploading turned on for admins (briefly)

If you're a Commons administrator, please help test out the new experimental Flickr uploading. If you go to Special:UploadWizard and click on "Add images from Flickr", you should be able to put in a URL for an image on Flickr or for an entire photoset. If you use a photoset URL you will then get an interface to choose which freely-licensed images from the photoset you want to upload. UploadWizard should then handle verifying the licenses and importing the images and metadata. If you notice any bugs, please file them in Bugzilla. You can also leave feedback on this feature by clicking the 'Leave Feedback' link in UploadWizard. Once all the bugs are worked out, we will invite the Commons community to discuss whether or not they would want to turn on this feature for a wider set of users. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some known issues:
  • No 'select all' button in photoset interface
  • Doesn't create a link to the author's Flickr user page
  • The Source is set to the farm server URL for the raw image rather than the Flickr photo page
Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already ran a test. See COM:AN#Admins can now upload whole Flickr sets with the Upload Wizard. --Rosenzweig τ 22:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work for videos on Flickr? Can it be modified so it does? 22:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is at least one very serious bug: If the Flickr user's real name isn't recorded in Flickr, no author is set. I'm going to disable the Flickr uploading for now until we have that fixed at least. Sorry! Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New upload on watchlist

WTF? How is it possible that this new upload appears on my watchlist? If I remember correctly this file has been deleted some time ago. -- Smial (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted files do not disappear from a user's watchlist unless (s)he unwatches them. --Leyo 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the history of the once deleted file? -- Smial (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page logs are here. More detailed info is only available to admins. NB more active users will usually find plenty of deleted files if they go to Special:EditWatchlist.Rd232 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gut. Es muß doch einmal eine (möglicheweise andere?) Datei gegeben haben unter diesem Namen, die gelöscht wurde. Wie sonst kommt der Eintrag auf meine Beobachtungsliste. Zu dieser früheren Datei gab es doch sicher eine Löschdiskussion. Die suche ich. Ich will in einem ersten Schritt wissen, ob dammalZ dasselbe Bild gelöscht wurde oder ob das ein anderes war. -- Smial (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
War ein anderes Bild eines FKK-Strandes bei dem Du ein paar Gesichter verpixelt hast. --Denniss (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, danke. Das muß ja ewig her sein. -- Smial (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Von meinem Link oben zu den "page logs" ist die entsprechende Diskussion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:FKK-Strand.jpg) nicht schwer zu finden. Rd232 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six strikes - The Copyright Alert System

I hadn't seen any information before on the Copyright Alert System and I'd guess this could affect most of our US editors. It's about a private contractual copyright monitoring system operated by 5 large ISPs and 2 "Content Providers", AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). I have no problems with private parties monitoring copyright violations, but the players here are so big, that I'm afraid it might de facto set the rules for all the US. I did just check this out on, where else, Wikipedia. Our article en:Copyright alert system has the same basic info without some of the interpretation as in the Wharton article. Any more info appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google image search

The Google image search gadget does not work. Also, Google itself seems not to have that tool anymore where you normally may upload a picture and scan the web after same or similar ones. Does anybody know what's up? - A.Savin 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. LX (talk, contribs) 12:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad, as I work very often with this tool. Would appreciate if somebody gave me an idea what I could have done wrong... A.Savin 13:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC) FF update does it. - A.Savin 14:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail problem

See Category:Dravlje. The image File:Cerkev Svetega Roka pri Ljubljani.jpg displays an unusable thumbnail. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? --Denniss (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's ok now. Thank you. I see that one has to purge the image page, but what is the cause of the problem actually? --Eleassar (t/p) 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May be another example of Category:Bug 24854? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. --McZusatz (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Approaching a museum about releasing low-resolution images of copyrighted work into the public domain

Has anyone had experience approaching a museum about releasing low-resolution images of copyrighted work of 20th Century artists into the public domain? I would like to get some images for the en:Ray Yoshida & nl:Ray Yoshida articles, & then eventually for de:John Marin, en:John Marin, es:John Marin, it:John Marin, ja:ジョン・マリン, & ecetera.

If folks have already have discussed this, please just point me to the link(s).

Mahalo! Peaceray (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's Commons:Guide to content partnerships... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think that was exactly what I needed. Peaceray (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful; there was a recent court case where people paid an archive for copies of copyright work and permission to use them, and the artist sued them and the institution. Museums often don't have the copyright to the works they display.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should generally assume if a work is still in copyright, that the copyright belongs to the original artist, not the museum. It is very rare to transfer copyright to a museum. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Now I need some legal advice on licensing from the Wikimedia Foundation.

The institution, Hawai`i State Art Museum / Hawaii State Foundation on Culture and the Arts (the latter runs the former) just sent me a "Photographic Material Request" form. I am wise enough to know that it is out of the scope of my knowledge on how to proceed with this, as I am one individual editor & cannot be a knowledgeable Wikicommons representative in this matter. Please point me to someone who can look at this document & figure out if & how we can proceed.

I am sure others working with GLAM must have run into this situation, but this is new territory for me.

Peaceray (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't of coarse give legal advice. Is this the form? Photographic Material Request My gut reaction is that using such a form is the wrong approach ( it has non-acceptable restrictions). More than likely, before your request could be granted, it requires this institution to make a official policy amendment so that their staff are given permission and guidelines about cooperating in partnership with the WMF. This form they sent you will just be received by a member of their staff who will not have it in their remit to give the sort of permissions that Wikimedia Commons requires. Just a thought: If you can contact other Wikipedians ( here and on Wikipedia) who live in Hawaii, maybe you can be granted a face to face meeting with a trustee member of said institution. Trustees tend to take more notice of a group of people than individual members of the public. --P.g.champion (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

File with double extensions

I've put together a report with more than one extension. Here's a small sampling:

A bot could fix the easier ones (hint: (.*\.(\w{3}))\.\2$), but we need manual review of edge cases. Also, we should consider adding double extensions to the file blacklist. I'd assume this is caused by Windows users helpfully adding an extension, while Windows hides the correct one. —Dispenser (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double extensions often come from Flickr, Flickr does not seem to have a problem handling them and they pass right through the upload bot. I would suggest doing something other than adding them to the blacklist as the resulting error message is not informative and does nothing to identify when a structural problem in the filename has triggered the ban. Dankarl (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FROM pagelinks
JOIN page ON page_namespace=pl_namespace AND page_title=pl_title
JOIN externallinks ON el_from=page_id
WHERE pl_from=22353869 /*User:Dispenser/sandbox*/
AND el_index LIKE "";
Shows only 2,416 of 7,835 files (31%) link to and only 491 (6%) make use of the Flickrreview template. Also, the blacklist can display custom messages that are informative (e.g. MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-SVG-thumbnail). —Dispenser (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so read "can also" for "often". The fact that the blacklist can display custom messages does not mean that it does. We had a query a month or two ago due to an absent extension triggering the blacklist without identifying the problem and when I was starting out I spent hours trying different filenames for this and (I think) other structural issues. Dankarl (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not get a bot to fix them, because this kind of thing makes me suspicious that the uploader is not the author. I think your report is probably a great hunting ground for copyvio. --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note the last one is a false positive; it's a Tiffany decal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them seem to need a totally new name... File:1.jpg.png and File:1357000710 small.jpg1.jpg for example. (The second one seems a copyvio probably) --McZusatz (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA Take-Down

A group of 59 photographs (see list below) have been removed based on the receipt of a DMCA takedown notice made pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512 (the “DMCA”). The Wikimedia Foundation (“WMF”) takes alleged copyright infringement very seriously and carefully examines each takedown notice received and the image in question for compliance with U.S. copyright law. This images were of various publicly-installed sculptures around the world created by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen

Some of these sculptures are located in countries that recognize “freedom of panorama”, while others are not. Currently, U.S. copyright law does not recognize freedom of panorama for works of art, such as sculptures, and thus the copyright holder of a sculpture has the right to exclude others from publishing images of that sculpture, so long as it still enjoys copyright protection. While it is true that some of the sculptures in question here are located in countries whose copyright regime conflicts with the U.S’s regime, current U.S. conflict of law principles indicate that U.S. copyright law would apply in evaluating the scope of a copyright holder’s rights.

WMF strongly supports a change in U.S. copyright law that would extend freedom of panorama to artwork so that more people can experience beautiful and thought-provoking works of art that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy. However, WMF is a U.S.-based organization that must comply with U.S. laws as they presently exist, including U.S. copyright law, conflict of law principles, and the DMCA.

What Can I Do?

If you want to express your support for the extension of freedom of panorama to works of art (and you are a resident of the United States), you can write your U.S. senators and/or representative.

If you feel that a particular image does not infringe the alleged copyright holder’s rights, you can contest the takedown notice by submitting a “counter-notice” to us. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you submit a counter-notice, the alleged copyright holder can stop us from restoring the content by suing you. Please note that WMF will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter-notice, and that WMF is unable to provide you with legal advice.

More information on DMCA compliance may also be found at:

Filing a Counter-Notice

If you choose to submit a counter-notice, you must send a letter to asking WMF to restore this image. The letter must comply with DMCA standards and must contain the following:

  • A link to where the content was before we took it down;
  • A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you believe the content was taken down mistakenly;
  • Your name, address, and phone number;
  • If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; or if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where I can be found”; and finally,
  • Your physical or electronic signature.

Pursuant to the DMCA, WMF must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter-notice and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter-notice. We will restore this image within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days, provided that the alleged copyright holder does not give notice of suit to restrain re-posting of the material.

Involved images

Expand to view list

Thank you. --Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that reminder from the Foundation: "WMF strongly supports a change in U.S. copyright law that would extend freedom of panorama to artwork [...]. However, WMF is a U.S.-based organization that must comply with U.S. laws as they presently exist [....]." indeed, we may wish that the U.S. changes that point of the law, but as it is now, Commons should not tolerate those copyvios and wait for the trouble of receiving formal takedown notices forcing the Foundation to take action. Commons should automatically enforce its policy that works must be free in the U.S. to be hosted. Instead of hosting copyvios of sculptures, we should make better efforts to keep the legal photos of buildings that some users nominate for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are these files considered copyvios because the authors of the works are American citizens, or would it be the same regardless of their citizenship?
(Meaning, if the latter, that we would have to consider as copyvios eg sculptures by German artists installed in Germany and still enjoying copyright protection) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that their citizenship makes any difference as to their rights under the Copyright Act. However, their living in the U.S. may have made them more attentive to the images published in the U.S. and made it somewhat easier for them to know how to take action. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict of law principles that arguably apply here do not base the applicability of U.S. law on the nationality of the authors of the work, but on the idea that the law of the nation where the alleged infringement has occurred is the proper law to apply. -- Michelle Paulson, Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation
See also Commons:Lex loci protectionis. Rd232 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so, but I rather wanted to make sure. Thanks for clarifying. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not like we weren't aware of the situation. It's brought up from time to time. But people seem to be stuck into some sort of wishful thinking with arguments like maybe the Foundation will find a legal loophole, maybe the Foundation will change its policy, maybe a miracle will occur. Well, it doesn't happen. Not only the Foundation did not change its policy but it has reaffirmed it a few times, at least in theory. However, the Foundation sometimes appears to display some passivity. It does tells that such images cannot be hosted but it does not seem to take actual enforcement very seriously. It deletes files once in a while when it gets a takedown notice. This attitude causes that the message from the Foundation to the community is not understood clearly and may be seen as ambiguous by some users. This ambiguity is not healthy. The Foundation should state very clearly what it expects the community to actually do. It should state that the policy must be enforced and that it expects the community to actually delete the infringing files without waiting for takedown notices and suits, or it should state that infringing files may be tolerated as long as the copyright owners don't send takedown notice or sue. And if the latter, to what point such tolerance may extend. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you were, but as for me, although I was aware of such a school of thought on FoP & the concept of Lex loci protectionis (though I did not know it was called as such), I certainly did not know the case was as clear cut as you make it sound. I have the weakness of believing that Commons policies on copyright matters are based on a bit more than merely wishful thinking − and more than that, the weakness to believe the Wikimedia Foundation would never let the Wikimedia Commons community go astray and implement policies allowing blatantly illegal files. I guess these are two things I should not have much faith in from now on (well, then again, it was Wikimedia Foundation “legal advice” that led us to the infamous COSTUME mess with its Kept per Mike Godwin deletion requests…).
I could not agree more with you on wishing a clear statement from the Wikimedia Foundation on such issues.
Jean-Fred (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you say. Some years ago, I saw that Commons had photos of sculptures, and that left me with the same first impression as yours, to the effect that they seemed to be allowed, and so until 2010 I have uploaded a few photos of Canadian sculptures. Then I realized that the files were tolerated in wait of a general cleanup that might come eventually. I stopped uploading photos of sculptures. A discussion from circa early 2007 went somewhat like this: "-Something should be done about that problem with derivatives of so-called FoP sculptures. -Can we find a trick to keep them? -The law and our policy do not allow them. -Right. But wait, the Foundation is drafting a licensing policy. Let's postpone the cleanup for a few months and see if it comes up with some unexpected idea that might change something. -Okay, let's postpone for some time." In March, 2007, the Foundation affirmed its policy. In the meantime, the cleanup discussion on Commons seems to have been forgotten in limbo. Forward to 2012 discussions: "-We still have that problem with those derivatives and the licensing policy of the Foundation did not allow them. -Right. But wait, can we postpone until the new legal team of the Foundation looks at it again? Maybe they will come up with some unexpected new idea. -Okay, let's postpone the discussion." November 2012: "-We still have that problem with those derivatives and the legal team of the Foundation confirms again that such files can't be kept. -Right. But wait, maybe the Foundation, and its legal team and the whole legal community were all wrong when they believed for centuries that U.S. laws apply in the U.S. Maybe one day a U.S. judge will miraculously decide, against all established principles, to rebel and ignore the U.S. laws. Let's postpone the cleanup." Forward to 2038: "-Guys... derivatives... And now we've lost all the 371 suits that we fought over this issue and we're seriously in debt. We owe 3879056098 yuans. Will we finally do something about it? -Right. But wait, maybe they're all wrong! Can we postpone the cleanup until the president of the Galactic Court comes personally knock at my door and tell me that the files really, really, really can't be kept?"  ;-)
Don't get me wrong. If I wrote the laws, I would provide a FoP clause. I believe there should be one. But we should accept the fact that we are not the U.S. Congress. If the case sounds clear cut, it is because the law, as it exists, is clear cut: sculptures are protected by copyright and there is no FoP exception for images of them, and the advice of the legal team, whose job it is to advise the Foundation on such things, tells so. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the historic perspective, but I am unsure about the purpose of your conclusion: I do not really question the law, nor your/the WMF interpretation of it, nor your secret wishes on copyright law. I was merely stating my disagreement with your “Come on folks, everybody in the community knew these were copyvios!”. I for one did not (even though I have been serving as a sysop for nearly 3 years) and I can assure you it was not out of a blinkered attitude: I simply saw no reason to question our policies on this specific subject (no, I do not really wish I took part in every FoP discussion which may have occured during the last 5 years). Jean-Fred (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, we should talk about an Revolution and bring down this WMF dictatorship. Unbeleavable, what happens here. And thanks, that we should write so our Senator. This will help us Germans. And once again the WMF ignore the fact, that it's alowed in Germany to take these pictures! This is called Panoramafreiheit. But once more, the Foundation only thinks in an US-american. Way. And I'm at the beginning: talking 'bout a Revolution! Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcus, mind your language and refrain from cheap WMF-bashing, please! Despite of your WP-age you still seem not to have realized that 1) the WMF is an U.S.-located organization and thereby clearly bound to US law, and 2) the WMF mains servers are located in the US. If you had actually read Philippe's third sentence, you would know that he and the WMF are well aware of the fact that some of the original works are installed in FOP-countries. The DMCA procedure per U.S.-law has advantages for the infringing hoster as well as for the rights holder, but has also the disadvantage that it does not allow for a thorough discussion as the infringer has to act swiftly to remain exempt from liabilities. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have long established that media must not violate the copyright law of either the source country or the USA. Everyone agrees that some of these pics would be fine if published in Germany, but that's not where the server is. --99of9 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, the WMF is a US organisation, and doesn't get to pick and choose which US laws to apply. Oddly enough, this is not any different than if the WMF was a German organisation - it wouldn't get to pick and choose which German laws to apply either... This has been discussed before, and the attempt to come up with solutions (Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas) hasn't gone anywhere. Rd232 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't foreign works obtain copyright protection in the US only through international treaty that causes the foreign coypright to be recognised? If there is no foreign right, e.g., because it's waived through FoP, then there's no reason to expect that right to be created when the work is imported to the US. Hoever the situation may be different with a scultpure that is first "published" in the US, and then exported elsewhere. ghouston (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FoP isn't a waiving of copyright, it's a limitation on what constitutes infringement of it. A better question would be: if something is not copyrightable in country X but is copyrightable in country Y, can the copyright be enforced in Y (assuming copyright relations exist, which they usually do now)? Per en:lex loci protectionis, probably yes, because under international law Y normally can't give foreign works fewer rights than domestic ones. The only doubt is because this choice of law rule is not entirely consistently applied. Rd232 (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see after reading Commons:Lex_loci_protectionis that it's not so simple - copyright law is just a mess. ghouston (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copyright law is just a mess - quite (at least when there are international dimensions to an issue). I find that "it's probably worse (more complicated) than you think" covers most situations! :( Rd232 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.oO( A copyright holder, who does not want his works be published in wikipedia possibly is also no more interested to have any other related images or an article of himself. No more relevance...) -- Smial (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken."


It is nice that the rules in commons say something other than the WMF and we encourage people to upload pictures at the WLM-contest to commons where they will be deleted because the WMF is not able to repel a wrong DCMA-notice. --DaB. (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the existing Commons guidelines. In view of WMF response to this DMCA, we might want to change them. Rd232 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or start hosting servers in other countries? I'm curious to know if the reverse situation would apply. If I took a photo of a sculpture in the USA, then published it on a server in Germany, does German FoP prevent any claims of infringement? ghouston (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hosting elsewhere is a can of worms, but it's been discussed (eg Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas). To your hypothetical: the Hundertwasser decision (first example in the Examples section at Commons:Lex loci protectionis) suggests the answer is yes. But it's hard to be sure. Rd232 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the plus side, the US gives FoP of buildings, so perhaps all those deletions of photos of buildings in France, Russia, etc., can stop? ghouston (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Actually, that should be a priority. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're confusing US law with Commons policy. Maybe those photos of buildings outside the US are not copyright violations when published in the US (it's not certain, but there's a logic there), but they are copyright violations when published in the source country, and COM:L requires media to be free in both the US and the source country. Rd232 (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These works can be uploaded to projects like English Wikipedia right now that accept any work that is public domain in the US. If other projects wish to do the same, and develop a consensus to do so, they may do so as well, all they have to do is enable local uploading. They don't even need an exemption doctrine for this type of work, just a policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's going in a weird direction. COM:L has the "free in source country" idea fundamentally, AFAIK, to ensure that Wikimedia projects using the file can be freely distributed in the country most likely to be using the file (or some logic in this direction). If we're going to encourage projects to circumvent that, we might be better off re-assessing the Commons policy. Rd232 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're free to publish your photo in Germany if it complies with the copyright law of Germany. That's exactly the point of the internationally agreed principle of the lex loci protectionis. You may have to check if there's not some little-known bilateral treaty that forbids it, but if not, then you can legally publish that photo in a newspaper in Frankfurt and on a web server in Berlin. The only thing is, you can't distribute that Frankfurter newspaper in some countries, where that photo of that U.S. sculpture is not free, for example in France. When it comes to applying that principle to websites, it may still be a bit fuzzy, but the current judicial trend in the recent years, in some countries, is that, for example, you might get into some trouble in France with the sculptor (assuming the sculptor of the U.S. scuplture decides to sue you in France) if the content of your Berliner website is mostly written in French and if that website targets specially and obviously the audience of the citizens who live in France. If your German website does not target specifically the audience of France, the scupltor might just ask that the service providers in France block the access of their subscribers in France to your webpage containing the photo. But we digress. The fact is that the Wikimedia servers (the content-hosting servers, at least) are situated in the U.S., and images of copyrighted sculptures can't be freely published in the U.S.. Having Wikimedia servers in another country instead of in the U.S. would only displace the problem, as you would have to live with other types of peculiarities and inconvenients of the copyright law of that other country. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another joke is that the WMF spared pictures of the english wikipedia (example: w:File:Typewriter-eraser.JPG because they claim to be fairUse – a great service in the idea of "free content": just mark it a "unfree" and you can keep it. --DaB. (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a joke - "fair use" is an important part of US copyright law and English Wikipedia makes use of it (generally, much more strictly than the law requires). German Wikipedia chooses not to allow fair use, but could if they wanted (see wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy). (I think German WP doesn't use "fair use" because Germany doesn't have "fair use". I've suggested it could use "fair use" to allow it to host files that are free in Germany but copyrighted in the US, but no-one seemed to like the idea.) Rd232 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is interesting that they challenged "PD no notice" image, but not the "fair use" image of the same work, i.e. w:Clothespin (Oldenburg). the clothespin was a mistake on my part, but the eraser is after 1978, so requires "fair use" in the u.s. the WMF is merely responding to the "joke" copyright law. this will require a culture change: the FUD copyfraud can not continue forever. Slowking4 †@1₭ 22:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Argh, horrible! This is one of those cases where I feel that it would have been better to try to have this thing settled in a court once and for all so that we can tell if Commons policy is wrong or not. If the policy is wrong, then this is going to lead to the deletion of lots of images... --Stefan4 (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if the policy is right and if we apply it. The policy is still that one necessary condition for files to be hosted is that they must be free in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the question is whether these photos are free in the United States or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This can still be done. A counter-notice needs to be filled. I did this for files deleted on French Wikisource after a DMCA from the French publisher Gallimard. Actually I expected Gallimard to sue me, but nothing happened. The files are still in Wikisource. Yann (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody knows for sure, since as far as I'm aware, there's really no U.S. precedent for it. The U.S. will use foreign law to determine the copyright owner, but U.S. law to determine infringement and penalties, per a couple cases (one of them involving TASS if memory serves). The FoP situation is an additional wrinkle which hasn't been tested. It's entirely possible that courts would rule along the lines of that one Germany cross-border FoP case -- the sculptor owns the copyright of the statue, and while the photograph is not deemed a derivative work in the country where the statue is located, it is in the U.S., and thus there is possible infringement based on how the photograph is used. Or, it may be judges take into account that the photographer expected to fully own the photograph in the source country, using foreign law to determine that the copyright owner of the photograph is entirely the photographers, or that the FoP situation alters the fair use calculation, or other possibilities. It sounds like the WMF has decided not to risk that -- which is entirely reasonable. The question is whether we should delete all such works... that could be a community decision. For several years, we allowed URAA-restored works here while the case was pending before the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the only challenged portion of the URAA wouldn't have affected Commons anyways, so there was next to no chance that those works would be considered "free". We kept them based on that very small uncertainty, while noting the issue and allowing authors to file DMCA notices, and being aware we'd probably have to delete if such notices were filed. The uncertainty here is much greater than the URAA status was while we were keeping all those files, but in reality we'll still probably have to be more circumspect if DMCA notices are filed -- there is no clear-cut ruling to base a defense on. But there is also no clear-cut ruling to base deletions on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fantastic summary of the issues thanks Carl, it's great to have you here! --99of9 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it cannot be known for sure before an actual court case take place. Yann (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question It is my understanding that the artists are US citizens and/or residents (one of them deceased). This means that COM:URAA doesn't apply at all to these works. Essentially, this means, according to another Commons policy, that artworks erected before 1978 have to have a visible copyright notice in order to be copyrighted in the United States, regardless of whether the works are located in the United States or not. Some of these works were erected before 1978. Do all of the pre-1978 artworks in Europe carry a visible copyright notice? I've never seen a public artwork with a copyright notice anywhere in Europe. Are they also disputing the policy on how we define publication? --Stefan4 (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (i) nationality is irrelevant for URAA - see Commons:URAA#Tests. (ii) the URAA means a copyright notice wasn't necessary for foreign works, as long as they were still in copyright in the source country on the URAA date. Rd232 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know, if a work was:
        1. First published in country X, or
        2. Made by a citizen of country X,
then country X regards country X as the source country of the work (but other countries may define other source countries). This is at least true within the European Union (meaning e.g. that the rule of the shorter term doesn't apply to a work by a British citizen which was first published in Japan), and I thought that this was the case also in the United States. COM:HIRTLE is silent on the matter: it says that the rules for US works apply to "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." and that the rules for non-US works apply to "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad". In this case, we are talking about works first published abroad by US citizens living in the US. That's not covered by any of the sections as it is written now. Probably an error, but we need to figure out if we should use the US table or the non-US table for such works. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general definition for Berne Convention countries is described at en:Berne_Convention#Country_of_origin, and it relies on nationality for unpublished works and works first published in a non-Berne country - otherwise it's country of first publication. So I'm not sure nationality ever matters for URAA issues, but if it does, it must be quite rare. Rd232 (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nationality is not irrelevant for the URAA; as the US Copyright Office puts it, in s:Highlights_of_Copyright_Amendments_Contained_in_the_URAA, "To be eligible, the work must meet all the following requirements: (1) At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible country. An eligible country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), or is subject to a presidential proclamation that extends restored copyright protection to that country on the basis of reciprocal treatment to the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries;" (emphasis mine). So if we can establish that they did not follow US copyright rules, and that all of the authors were nationals and domicilaries of the US, then we can argue the underlying works didn't have their copyrights restored by the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the WMF's legal interpretation is valid, and as such will not seek to issue a counter-notification. Moreover, I believe this implies that all images of sculptures that are not in the public domain must be removed from Commons, and reuploaded to a foreign repository such as Wikilivres, and COM:FOP must be updated accordingly. User:Commons fair use upload bot can also help reupload them to local projects which allow fair use. Needless to say, this would be an enormous and highly controversial undertaking. If anyone does wish to seriously contest the WMF's legal opinion, please do file a DMCA counter-notification with them using Chilling Effects' counter-notification generator. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the community will support mass-deletion without a clear legal precedent. WMF's opinion in this DMCA case is significant, but probably not enough, for most people, to justify pre-emptive mass deletion. One thing we could do, at least, would be to create an explanatory/warning template to tag affected files with. Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is like the URAA before the Supreme Court ruling - only delete following takedowns, but ensure affected works are tagged with the appropriate FoP templates. We suspect that the courts will find against what we want, but have no proof that they will. In this case its a US sculptor claiming US copyright over a work, would a non-US sculptor be able to claim US copyright in the same way?

        With regards to moving content to another site, we should be doing that anyway and pre-emptively. eg Move to Wikilivres, or wherever, all FoP-tagged works ASAP instead of waiting for takedowns. One thing we should not do is wait until after the DMCA takedown is processed and file deleted. If we then use admin rights to access the deleted file, then WMF hasn't prevented us from accessing the file, and so might be failing to comply with the Safe Harbor rules. Such behaviour from admins might compel WMF to oversight, not just delete, the files.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • would a non-US sculptor be able to claim US copyright in the same way? - yes. Does WMF need to oversight DMCA-affected files? Interesting question. Deletion does remove from general public access, but it leaves the file available to several hundred admins. Rd232 (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, the DMCA notice not only claims that the two sculptors hold copyright over these photos, but also that their use here is not authorised by the law. If anyone has a good faith belief that the use here of these photos represents a fair use under US law, they would be able to file a counter-notice. It isn't necessary that it meets the requirements of any Wikimedia project's Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), only that US law allows it. If any of the photos was used in a Wikipedia article, it seems to me that their hosting here could well qualify legally as fair use. But IANAL. --Avenue (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • the two sculptors hold copyright over these photos - technically no, it's that the photos violate the sculptors' copyright in the objects photographed. As to fair use - I see what you're getting at, but since Commons doesn't allow fair use, I don't see that happening. Rd232 (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that "the two sculptors hold copyright over these photos". I said that I think the DMCA notice claims this. If I'm right (that they've claimed this), and you're right (that this claim is incorrect), this may constitute a mistake in the notice that would provide even further ground for filing a counter-notice.
I'll go through my logic about what they seem to have claimed. In the first sentence of their notice, they define the "copyrighted work at issue" as "the text [sic] that appears on the Wikimedia Commons website (". I presume that by "the text" they mean the photos.
The next sentence begins "The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include" followed by a list of sculptures and the URLs on Commons where photos of them were available.
In the penultimate sentence of their notice, they assert a good faith belief that "use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, [...]".
From their wording, I understand they are claiming at least a good faith belief that the sculptors own a copyright over the photos at the listed URLs. I think you're right (that technically this belief is incorrect), but IANAL. --Avenue (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. Well having now read the DMCA takedown notice - no, even with the English a bit mangled by squeezing it into a standard letter, they're not saying that. The "copyrighted materials described above" refers to the sculptures listed, which are "used" in the photographs. This use is not authorised and is claimed to be an infringement. Rd232 (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd agree that's what they should have said. I guess we disagree about what they actually did say. --Avenue (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if the use of the files by WMF qualifies for fair use under United States copyright law, then that would help as a defence in a US court. What we want is to have a court ruling on international FOP so that we know the correct legal situation, and fair use could help as a way to protect the uploader if FOP arguments fail, although we would of course not want to keep the images if fair use is the only thing making such use legal in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "doesn't allow fair use" thing is policy, but if it comes to an actual court case, that would be one line of defense (and not the only one). It's a lot less clear-cut than say a use on Wikipedia, since the possible uses here are broader and we have tags that say "hey anybody can use this file" but yes our actual use is primarily educational (and the photo is certainly free to use in many countries around the world). It may more easily qualify for fair use if we note on a tag the uncertainty of the U.S. situation, thus warning potential U.S. users -- maybe the FoP tags should distinguish between sculpture or buildings so we can put up a better U.S. warning. But it's still a pretty muddy situation. Everyone would like a clear-cut ruling, but usually not at their own expense :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to say that WMF didn't have a choice here. And I'd like to thank Philippe for the information sent here, and Michelle for her detailed explanation regarding sending a counter-notice. That's much better than the Gallimard case I was involved. So communication is improving, at least. ;o)
I would not hesitate to send a counter-notice if there is a fair possibility to gain something vs. the risk of a court case: either the stake is huge, and even a little chance of winning and a lot of publicity make it worth the try; or risk is low whatever the potential gain. In the Gallimard case, it would have create a lot of bad PR for them even if Gallimard would have won, as their claim was more FUD than anything else. I don't know this artist, so I can't say what is at stake. Yann (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, Yann. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yann about the WMF's actions here. However, without wanting to seem unkind, I think the notifications to uploaders could be improved in one significant respect. I understand (e.g. from point 7 here) that the WMF is legally required under the DMCA to ban "repeat infringers" from their site, and that failing to file a counter-notice means that an incident counts against you regardless of the real legal merits (or otherwise) of the case. If this is correct, I think the notification to uploaders should mention this potential consequence of not contesting the notice. --Avenue (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, Avenue, I'll bring it up with the team. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DMCA "requires that service providers 'adopt and reasonably implement' a repeat infringer policy that provides for termination of users' accounts 'in appropriate circumstances.' Definition of "repeat infringer" is not established in law. See and Perhaps more worrying is that if a court found WMF didn't have/follow such a policy, they'd then be liable for users' infringements... Rd232 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment an email exchange between a German WP user and the WMF was posted to German WP here (surely with their permission, I assume). Although the diff includes German, the email exchange itself is in English. Rd232 (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do dispel any doubt, that conversation was absolutely okay to post - she asked permission first and it was granted. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality

There doesn't seem to have been any consideration of whether all of these sculptures are actually copyrightable under U.S. law, which excludes simple geometric shapes. The "Pool Balls" installation, for example, seems to be just spheres. Postdlf (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the concept of a threshold of originality (I guess that is what you mean) extends to fine art. --Rosenzweig τ 07:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concept of "fine art" or extra protection gievn to it in U.S. copyright law. Either a work is creative or it isn't, regardless of whether it's a hobbyist's birdhouse or a world-renowned sculptor's public installation. Basic geometric forms fail that threshold of creativity. Postdlf (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is some precedent for this. Consider Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-12#File:Untitled_by_Daniel_Buren.png and again at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Untitled_by_Daniel_Buren.png in which a painting consisting of some green and white rectangles was undeleted (twice!) on the basis that threshold of originality applies in the US. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure about the US, but I still don't think the corresponding German concept of de:Schöpfungshöhe is really applicable to fine art. At least the threshold is very very low in such cases (as opposed to applied art like logos, where the threshold is considerably higher). Since the pool balls image cited is of a sculpture/installation on display in Germany, that may be relevant here. --Rosenzweig τ 08:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard all sort of conflicting information about ToO in the US, so I would be interested in any kind of analysis on the subject. FWIW, French copyright is granted regardless of form and merit, the only citerion being originality. This has led to faucets and boxer briefs being copyrighted. Conversely, most legal writings doubt that copyright can be granted to conceptual art, monochromes or readymades for instance. There's little case law in the matter though. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a thorough treatment, but if you haven't, read over Threshold_of_originality#United_States and see examples at Commons:TOO#United_States. If FOP protects use of the photo in the source country, and TOO makes the original work PD in the US, I think together those satisfy the necessary conditions to retain it. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's my thinking too. Postdlf (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has been previous cases before as described in Commons:TOO#Architecture. Other defense that could be used is COM:DM, in this case File:Neumark Köln - Ausgang Schildergasse 1.jpg) was cropped as File:Neumark Köln - Ausgang Schildergasse 1 cropped.jpg. Bennylin (yes?) 16:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Threshold issues could apply... the pool balls one in particular seems quite dubious. For the U.S., it is indeed only the creative expression actually present which is judged. For example, the Copyright Office denied the copyright registration of the orange cloth-colored Reichstag by Christo and Jean-Claude (while that *was* granted copyright protection in Germany I believe, and was not a permanent work). Aesthetic merit does not matter -- a child's scribble can be copyrightable, but neither should it matter if something is on display in a museum, if it does not have the requisite amount of expression (which is low, but there is a threshold). Also, utilitarian objects are generally not copyrightable (elements of them can be, if they can be conceptually separated from the utilitarian purpose, like a drawing on the surface). The pool balls... are three spheres from the looks of it. While the U.S. does have a "selection and arrangement" aspect to copyright. i.e. the arrangement of uncopyrightable items may itself be creative enough to support a copyright, it seems unlikely it can be achieved with just arranging three items. I'm sure a lot of the works would be copyrightable, though. One way to see is to look if any of the works have been registered in the U.S. -- if they have, then obviously the Copyright Office thinks there is enough expression. However, in looking on, I only see a single cardboard sculpture (NYC Pretzel) which has been registered. It's possible that Oldenburg simply hasn't submitted the others. Submitting them for registration would be a prerequisite for Oldenburg to actually file suit however. Of course if they are... then that defense won't work so well ;-) A couple of other ones in the deleted list were from the U.S., where it appears they may have been published without a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wider view

Maybe a stupid question, but Google street view has most of this pop-art (an ironical example) available online. They are also California-based. How do they deal with FoP, DMCA and all that crap? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google is big business, that alone is enough difference to the WMF, and in doubt will also claim hoster privilege per DMCA and take images down if they receive enough DMCA requests. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, the law for a "big business" and a non-profit organization is the same... In principle, they might have more resources for court actions, but they still must do something about it. And I was talking about their own street view imagery, which has "© Google" marks on it. Will they eventually censor all copyrightable stuff from the street views (as they do with faces and license plates now) or lobby a more sane law? ;-) Nevertheless, what do they do now? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google will act with any DMCA claim they receive, but it's a little hard for Google to see what is copyrighted and what isn't, no way can they use the same algorithm which blurs faces and rego/number/license plates, before being put online for Google Streetview. Also Google blurs faces and license plates for privacy and not "copyright" issues. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably qualifies as fair use. At least "probably" enough that it's reasonable for Google not to worry about specific cases until someone complains. Rd232 (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike YouTube, DMCA takedowns don't actually protect Google on Google Street View, because that is not material submitted by a third party, and they are not merely a service provider but the author. They handle this the same way they handle copyright on Google Books, which is to say, if somebody sues them, they'll have a big settlement and work out some kind of deal. So far, that hasn't occurred. Recognising copyrighted art automatically is not only a very hard problem, but removing it would affect the quality of the service, so if they can get away with it, they will. (When they added the interior of the Prado Museum to Google Earth, of course, they had to work out a deal there.) Dcoetzee (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Claes Oldenburg sculptures deleted from Commons due to DMCA takedown… and nothing of value was lost. Seriously, if these modern artists prefer to be such d***s about their artworks of highly questionable merit, I say let them! I for one would rather have one high-res Bosch than 10 Oldenburgs on Commons and rather one Tchaikovsky than 10 John Cages. DMCA notices can be a blessing in disguise. Consider them content quality control. I see no reason at all to fight the takedown notices in this particular case. --Morn (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blech, I bet those grapes were sour anyway. :) Rd232 (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those infamous Oldenburg sculptures are uglyfying virtually every major German city, which is admittedly quite an achievement in and of itself. So those overvalued grapes have very much been tasted before discarding them. I guess with a little luck, we'll get takedown notices from Christo, Yves Klein, and Yoko Ono too and the world will be a happier place for it. :-) --Morn (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really committed to your position, get to work and find reliable sources which agree with you, and expand the articles on the artists or the artworks. Because, if you're right, and the art sucks, shouldn't people be warned, and shouldn't they see it here before they waste their tourism dollars to go see it in person? --Lexein (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to come across as someone who is against all modern art. In fact I even like Klein's blue squares somewhat, at least they are not as pretentious as some other artworks. But 90% of modern art is crap, because 90% of everything is crap, at every given time. The difference to me is that e.g. a mediocre Baroque composition or a so-so fresco in a church usually at least have a certain level of solid craftsmanship behind them which tends to be absent in many incongruously slapped-together pieces of modern art. I have no doubt that in a 100 years or so, wide swathes of 20th-century music, art, architecture, and pop culture will be widely seen as a mostly failed experiment, a race to the bottom in terms of quality and effort. In fact that realization is already slowly dawning on a few people I think… --Morn (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup DR

Some Oldenburg files appear to have been missed by the DMCA notice; I thought it best to nominate those for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/works by Claes Oldenburg. Note that there may be other files like those, not categorised or described properly. Rd232 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed, there. These DR should be reverted immediately. By the so-far-I've-seen-applied-everywhere rule of "we deal with it as it comes up", please note that these images are not listed in any DMCA notice. Wikipedia/Wikimedia is not obligated to guess what will be listed next by, or to do the work of, an alleged copyright holder. Let's not be driven by fear. Let's not encourage deletionism, either. I suggest another solution, for example: moving to Wikipedia with appropriate fair-use rationale if and only if needed. In fact, are there tools for moving images from Commons to Wikipedia, or what's the correct template to add? --Lexein (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um no - valid DRs don't get reverted. And it's not like I'm nominating everything on Commons vulnerable to the same logic, which WMF seems to agree with. Only those things which Oldenburg's lawyers seem to have missed. Rd232 (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If these images are valid under FoP they would need another DMCA takedown notice to get them removed. Currently there's no legal reason to remove them as they were not mentioned in the original notice. --Denniss (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite extraordinary that people so happily invite another DMCA takedown from the same copyright holder. I wonder too whether people realise

  1. the potential consequences for uploaders: see en:Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#.C2.A7_512.28h.29_Identify_infringers.
  2. the "red flag" test, with unknown consequences for WMF liability en:Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Red_Flags. Rd232 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution is to write to the DMCA author, and ask if these were omissions or not. No need to delete unless they answer. Yann (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted images can be uploaded to Wikilivres. Yann (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German discussion

For those who read German, there is also an interesting and already quite extensive discussion about this over in the German-language Wikipediat, at de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Oldenburg_Office_action. Pavel Richter of Wikimedia Germany has stated there that on Monday, they will consult with their lawyers regarding possible actions. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(What can I do?) Tag the gaps proposal

Commons image replacement for DMCA - proposal

How this could actually be a good thing


Not an FOP issue

2 of my photos were part of the takedown notice, one of CO's Clothespin (1976) and his 3-way-plug (1970), both in Philadelphia. Neither has a visible copyright notice, and from websites it seems clear that they were actually published (standing in open space without copy restrictions) before 1978. For Clothespin, I closely checked while I was taking the photos, that there is no visible copyright notice, and I went back Saturday and my wife and I checked again - there is no visible copyright notice. For 3-way-plug, I haven't gone back yet, but I did carefully check while I was taking the photo. The SIRIS database also has entries on these. They usually (I won't guarantee always) record all inscriptions - and they didn't record any copyright notice. Thus it seems pretty clear that these aren't copyrighted since they were published before 1978 without a visible copyright notice.

So I am quite reluctant to let COs lawyers dictate how I can use my property (my photos) when CO doesn't seem to have any property rights in them. I'd also be reluctant to expose myself to $1,000s in damages and court costs. I've thought about just writing to his lawyers and asking why they think he has copyright. Any other suggestions? Smallbones (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Also, it seems that if you can prove that a sculpture is a work of Claes Oldenburg alone (that is, without involving Coosje van Bruggen), and made in 1954 or later and erected before 1978, then the United States copyright notice requirement also applies for works in Europe and elsewhere, so some older European works may be in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody have a general estimate of the $ amount of damages I might face if I did file a counter-notice? Of course I'd check with a lawyer before proceeding, but for now an order of magnitude estimate would be ok. $100? $1,000? $10,000? $100,000 $1,000,000 ???? Smallbones (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, the korean war memorial potential damages was for percentage of sales [5]; but the main exposure would seem to be legal fees. perhaps the eff would take the case. the siris appears clearcut [6]; no registration at copyright office [7] i only uploaded sarah's flickr as "fair use" in earlier days, in an excess of caution, before i knew to look there. i take it they feel no risk of copyfraud by DCMA, but will have to decide about their risk at trial. Slowking4 †@1₭ 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan4 is partially right. His argument holds for works erected in the US, but for works outside the US, their copyright was renewed by the URAA agreement, regardless of formalities. Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
URAA doesn't apply to works created by Claes Oldenburg alone (i.e. without involvement by his wife) in 1954 or later because those works were created by a US citizen residing in the United States. However, works by his wife, and works made before Oldenburg became a US citizen in 1953, are subject to URAA restoration. See COM:URAA#Exceptions 1.3. If URAA doesn't apply, then you need to look for copyright notices instead when determining the USA copyright status, and this also applies to works outside the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Both Derrick and I have successfully filed counter-notices in the past with no problems. It is unlikely that Oldenburg's lawyers would challenge the counter-notice, as:
  1. They would have to agree to U.S. jurisdiction for the case (I believe)
  2. They would have to start spending real money
  3. They don't have much of a leg to stand on in your case specifically
Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to estimate. In theory, it could be any number you mentioned, or above or below. It is already difficult to estimate the end result even when a plaintiff has filed a suit and he has actually detailed what he is asking, although at that point that tells at least the possible maximum. But it's just impossible to estimate before, when you don't even know what the plaintiff will ask, on grounds of material and moral damages, etc. Your lawyer might give you some idea of the sums that were awarded in cases in your jurisdiction. (It may become further complicated by reuses that may have been made of the photo, if someone used it to sell cans of soup or whatever. At least, you had the good sense not to offer the version 1.0 of the CC license, under which the photographer explicitely warrants that he has secured all rights and that he does not infringe any copyright, and therefore may be at more risk to incur liability for damages caused by the reuses). Make sure to obtain advice from a good lawyer. As the Copyright Office says, a sculpture was not necessarily published just because it was erected [8]. It might be useful to see if you can find something about the clauses in the contracts between the artists and the commissioners of the sculptures. They may even contain an explicit clause forbidding the making of copies, which may give more weight to the notion of non-publication. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, at least some of the objects (including that Clothespin) were commissioned [9], possibly constituting work for hire. It means that: (1) Hallie McNeill, who claims to be the copyright owner, actually might not have exclusive rights; (2) these rights might belong to many different people and institutions, leading to weaker or stronger restrictions for different works. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and the the support. I won't impose on anybody for financial support, there are more important "charities" than me. I did notice that an image search on Google returns over 3,000 pix on the internet (probably only about 1,000 actually of the Clothespin) so it's hard to imagine what any damages would be. I'll just assume good faith by CO and his lawyers, send them an e-mail and ask if I'm overlooking anything. If they don't come up with something reasonable, I'd feel that I'm on safe ground. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good approach. Keep us posted, there are lots of us interested in this case. --99of9 (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted them and given them the facts of the case and asked if they had any corrections or additional material that they thought I should consider. I've waited a week but haven't gotten a response. Smallbones (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping us informed. It was a good idea worth a try. So, what do you do? Are you going to your lawyer? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK law blog mention

I pinged the story to the IP Kat, one of the top law blogs in the UK, much read by all sorts of practitioners.

The blog owner's quick take is that "while s.62 applies in the United Kingdom, the United States courts, when asked to enforce a United States copyright against a local infringer, wouldn't give tuppence for any number of s.62s."[10] -- though he confesses to being "not the world's greatest expert on the bits and pieces of copyright law that stray from one country to another", so would be happy to be corrected.

A commenter, himself a noted lawyer, notes also that one authoritative legal text suggests that the UK CDPA s62 "relates only to copyright in such structure itself, and does not provide an exception to infringement as to any underlying architect's design drawings" -- which frankly IMO would be truly miserable, if correct, and defeat the whole point of the exception. Jheald (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the prominent Canadian lawyer Howard Knopf has posted a comment, suggesting WMF may be wrong, and a photograph of a sculpture should not be considered a derivative work under U.S. law. He cites Bill Patry at §3:18. Any thoughts? Jheald (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Knopf, in his ultra-short comment, seems to have misunderstood Patry's argument and he is pulling it out of its context. If you want to read what Patry thinks, in his own words, you can read this entry, from 2008, on his blog. The reader's comments section below it is instructive too for more details (although I din't have the patience to read all comments to the end - maybe another day). Note that Patry makes a theoretical point about how to qualify a photograph: should it be qualified a "derivative" or a "depiction" (reproduction) of the 3-D work. Patry is not saying that the photographer does not need the permission of the author of the 3-D work, or that photographs of sculptures can be freely published as if there was a FoP for sculptures. He simply says that the photograph should be defined as a depiction, and not as a derivative of the 3-D work. He specifies (more clearly in the comments section) that the photographer needs the permission of the author of the 3-D work. The labelling distinction between derivative and depiction may have some practical consequence in somes cases about other issues, but it does not change the fact that an unauthorized photograph (whether people want to label it a depiction, a reproduction or a derivative) of a sculpture is still unauthorized anyway. Aside of the fact that Patry's opinion didn't address our problem, I think that it is an interesting opinion, but you can also note that he's quoting court cases that went in both directions about it, so it's not exactly established either. (And some reader's comments remarked that it is not obvious that he can exclude photographic reproductions of artistic 3-D works from the definition of "derivative work" in the Copyright Act.) You can read a 2009 update about one of the cases he criticized, in the blog of another attorney (I'll have to explore more of that blog too, when I get time). If you want to read that case, we have it here. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. See here for my take in 2008 on this. The upshot being that "derivative or not" doesn't really matter for us; if it's not a derivative, it's still a reproduction. Lupo 07:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Can I suggest that discussion of practical ways forward (like the new template, for example) moves to Commons:Requests for comment/non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law? Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch FOP

In the Netherlands we have Freedom of Panorama. This means that photo's of objects placed permanently in the public space may be published. Please restore the pictures taken in the Netherlands: the DMCA and US law do not apply to photo's taken in the netherlands. Zanaq (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DMCA applies to US organisations serving works from the US: like the Wikimedia Foundation. See discussion above. Rd232 (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no issue around people in the Netherlands taking and distributing such images to other people in the Netherlands. The question is whether a US person or organization (like WMF) can distribute such images, or whether this activity is limited by the US copyright that is automatically granted to foreign artists on foreign works. The WMF must comply with any valid DMCA takedown request or risk losing their safe harbor. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to that (as I said elsewhere recently): "valid DMCA takedown request" means formally valid: the copyright claim itself may be completely and even quite obviously bogus. The WMF has very limited grounds to reject a request, and those grounds amount to basically "you haven't given us enough info to act on" - the accuracy of the info is almost irrelevant, and challenging a dodgy notice is not something they can do, it's something Commons users have to do (see en:DMCA_takedown_notice#Notice_from_Copyright_Owner). Rd232 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF can challenge a DMCA takedown notification, as well as the user. The difference is in the manner to express that challenge.
A decision to comply with a takedown notification is the exercise of an option that is available to a service provider who receives a takedown notification and who chooses to use that option to shield itsef from the risk of civil liability (injunctions and money for damages), a risk that would otherwise be incurred if the notificator decided to file a suit and if a tribunal decided to award such relief. By itself, a refusal to comply with a DMCA notification does not expose the service provider to an additional category of penalty. A refusal to comply with a takedown notification is a refusal by the service provider to hide itself behind the optional shield made available by the DMCA. It replaces the parties in the situation into which they would be if the DMCA shield option did not exist, that is to say, a situation where the complaining author may file a civil suit and ask for relief against the parties he claims are responsible, and said parties may challenge the suit, and a tribunal decides the case, if it ever gets to this point.
Thus, the service provider who wants to challenge a takedown notification just has to not comply with it. This opportunity of the service provider to challenge the notification comes before that of the user. If the service provider decides to comply with the takedown notification, then an opportunity to challenge it becomes available to the user, through a counter-notification to the service provider. By sending the counter-notification, the user is accepting that the service provider can use the DMCA shield and the user is accepting to take upon his shoulders the risk corresponding to the part of the liability that the service provider might otherwise have incurred for keeping or replacing the material online.
The challenge is similar. The obvious differences are in the manner to formally express that challenge and the party who takes the risk of that part of the liability should the notificator decide to sue and is awarded relief. It could be conceptualized by imagining that a refusal by a service provider to comply with a takedown notification is virtually the equivalent of the service provider sending an immediate counter-notification to itself. But, of course, it doesn't need to actually send a counter-notification to itself. It simply expresses the challenge to the takedown notification by refusing to comply with it. Whereas the user, being a person distinct from the service provider, must send a counter-notification if he wants to counter-notify the service provider. If the service provider has opted to use the shield available through the DMCA, and if the user has opted, through sending a counter-notification, to take the burden, then the risk that would have normally been taken by the service provider is transferred from the service provider to the user, by the addition of the voluntary decisions of those two parties. (Then again, the service provider is under no obligation to comply with the user's counter-notification, no more than it was under an obligation to comply with the takedown notification. If the service provider chooses to comply with the user's counter-notification, then it uses another option made available by the DMCA to shield itself against the civil liability that it might otherwise have incurred if the user had some possibility to file and to win a suit against the service provider for having removed the material.)
We may suppose that, in practice, many service providers who are primarily commercial businesses will easily jump on the possibility of using the DMCA shield option, that is to comply with a DMCA takedown notification, whenever they have no particular incentive to challenge it, or even to spend time and money to examine its merits. But this attitude should not be generalized. In particular to the WMF. The WMF is not primarily a commercial business. It is basically dedicated to promoting free material and free use. The WMF has expressed its willingness to support challenges in cases where it thought there was a reason to. Understandably, the WMF, and I think we can agree with that, will not risk wasting all its money through risking challenges without being reasonably certain to be on very safe ground. However, I would think that when the WMF receives a takedown notice they would first analyze it, and if it comes to the conclusion that it is abusive, or that it is unfounded on an important legal point of principle worth fighting for with a good certainty of winning, it would challenge it. In the recent case of the scupltures, the WMF has clearly expressed that it has submitted it to the analysis and advice of its attorneys and they came to the very clear conclusion that the notification was well founded. If they did not challenge it, it is not because there is anything in the DMCA that would specially forbid a challenge, it is because they concluded that the notification was well founded and there was no reason to challenge it. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to agree with your conclusion regarding the WMF refusing to comply with abusive takedown requests, but their compliance at en:Texas Instruments signing key controversy suggests otherwise. That was a case where the request had no merit whatsoever under any section of the DMCA, as explained in detail in the EFF's letter to Texas Instruments. I can only hope that was a different time when the WMF was not so careful in their analysis. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of your theory that the WMF could choose not to comply with a takedown (because they think the material isn't infringing) without affecting their "safe harbor" status for other (infringing) materials. Do you have any sources (or at least quotes from the law)? Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Wikilivres hosting company refused to comply with a request from Gallimard. It may not have been a formal DMCA notice, I don't know the details, but I know that Gallimard's lawyer complained to them. They agreed that the documents were in the public domain in Canada, and that was sufficient for them to refuse the take-down request. That was in Canada, not in USA. Yann (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither Wikilivres nor Gallimard are US organizations, it's unlikely that it was a DMCA notice. cmadler (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a good-faith person, today, chooses to not use one of the optional rights available to him in case A, for which he thinks that this option is not useful or appropriate, that person is not forbidden to use his right tomorrow in case B, for which he thinks that it is useful and appropriate. The contrary would be shocking to legal logic. Every law does not need to restate that common principle. It applies by default, unless a particular prohibition is specified. The safe harbor provision of the DMCA is an optional right available to hosts. It is a very advantageous option, sure, so advantageous that most hosts will probably almost always choose to use it. But still, it is an option, not an obligation. There is nothing in the DMCA that says or implies that if you choose to not use your right in one case you can't use your right in the future in other cases. I think perhaps you may have in mind some other aspects of the DMCA, through which bad-faith hosts or hosts who fail other types of requirements may be denied the benefit of safe harbor. My previous comment did not address that level of discussion about how the safe harbor may be affected by those other elements of the context, such as bad faith or failure to enforce a copyright policy. My comment, in reply to your previous comment, was simply adressing a straightforward case, where the host is of good faith, carefully examines the situation, sincerely concludes that the notification is unfounded, has a reason to want to challenge that particular notification, and exercises his right to host the material that he sincerely considers to be non-infringing.
Quotes would be really long, but for the essential overview of the general structure of this aspect of section 512 of the Copyright Act, one can focus in particular on:
  • subsection (c):
    • paragraph (1) - its introduction and its subparagraph (C)
  • subsection (g):
    • paragraph (1)
    • paragraph (2) - its introduction and its subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C)
    • paragraph (3) - its introduction and its subparagraph (D)
    • paragraph (4)
  • subsection (l).
And to examine some of the actual reasons why a host might be denied the possibility of using the safe harbor, one can focus in particular on:
  • subsection (c):
    • paragraph (1) - yes, we've already read part of it, but this time focus on its subparagraph (A), clauses (i), (ii) and (iii)
  • subsection (i):
    • paragraph (1) - its subparagraph (A)
To make sure that we are speaking about the same things, it may be useful to review some details. Let's start with this. Some users have recently suggested that Commons and the WMF should simply host copyvios (or if we must use an euphemism, we can call them "files whose legality is notoriously under very serious doubt"), put their heads in the sand, and that such behaviour would be safe until the concerned authors send DMCA takedown notifications for each file, and as long as those files are removed upon reception of such notifications. Now, such attitude just can't work, because one essential condition, for a host to be able to claim the protection of the DMCA when he complies with a DCMA takedown notification, is that the host must be of good faith, that is to say, that he genuinely was not previously aware that the (real) problem existed (or if he became aware of it, through any means, he took action). That might go without saying, but it's even better when said, so the Act does spell it out, as we have seen, in 512(c)(1)(A). The fact of being aware of the problem, putting one's head in the sand, claiming not to be aware of the problem when the context shows otherwise, is the opposite of good faith. It is even a perfect example of the definition of bad faith. If Commons were to take such a path of feigned ignorance, it would be easy for an author to find and show evidence that WMF agents had "actual knowledge" of the situation or at the very least were "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent". It is not possible to claim good faith, and thus it is not possible to use the safe harbor option, when evidence, or obvious inference, shows that the host was, or should have been, aware of the infringing situation. Another reason why safe harbor can be denied is mentioned in 512(i)(1)(A): if it is shown that the host has failed to reasonably implement a policy to terminate accounts of repeat infringers.
It can be noted in passing that a formal paragraph-C takedown notification is merely one of several ways mentioned at 512(c)(1) and through which a host can be made aware of an potentially infringing situation. A paragraph-C notification has sowewhat of a special character because such a notification, when validly formatted, would, if a case were to go before a tribunal, be considered almost indisputable proof of the fact that the host was informed of the situation. But three things must be remembered: 1) The notification is not proof that the host was wrong. If a host thinks he did not infringe anything and decides to challenge the notification and if the complainant decides to sue, the judge will still decide with the ordinary standards who is right and who is wrong under the law. 2) There are many other ways by which it can be proven that a host was aware of a situation, although, depending on the available evidence, it may be more or less easy or difficult to prove. 3) There's not necessarily a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in the story. Both parties may be sincerely convinced of being in their right and may deem it worth to have their difference settled by a tribunal.
In short:
  • If a host reasonably enforces an anti-infringing policy and takes reasonable actions when he knows of a problem, there is no reason why this good-faith and diligent host should lose his safe harbor for future cases for the sole reason that he did not use it in specific cases where he challenged formal DCMA notifications that he considered and found to be unfounded.
  • Even if a bad-faith or otherwise grossly irresponsible host complies with all the formal DCMA notifications he receives, he will not benefit of the safe harbor if his bad faith or gross irresponsibility is evidenced by the fact that he is aware of and deliberately tolerates infringements that were not the object of formal DCMA notifications. Therefore, the safe harbor is not a candy that a host would receive for blindly complying, without thinking, with all formal notifications. However, if for example it is shown that a host systematically ignores or automatically rejects most apparently serious notices or signals, formal or not, that could be a symptom of bad faith or carelessness.
Lastly, it should not be forgotten that the Wikimedia projects do not necessarily fit easily into the frame of the DMCA. The general logic of 512(c) and (g) is made for passive hosts who offer server space to subscribers who are in decisional control of storing and deleting their material. This is not exactly the situation of Commons, for example. But let's keep that for another time. Face-smile.svg -- Asclepias (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation. It raises some interesting possibilities about how much scope WMF has to publicly discuss infringement alleged by DMCA takedown with the community, or at least privately with uploaders, rather than just deciding internally. Of course the final decision to comply or not is theirs, but in this particular case, for example, could the information that's come to light about some of the files probably not being infringements have been used by WMF to decide to take down some files but not others? Rd232 (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a complainant groups into a single letter the deletion demands of ten files and then the notified host deletes nine of those files and keeps one which is non-infringing, does the host enjoy safe harbor about the nine files he actually deleted? IMO, yes, the notified party can do that, because the opposite would be unfair and would not serve any legitimate purpose. It would mean that a complainant, just by arbitrarily bundling together a number of apparently founded demands with a number of clearly abusive demands, could have free rein to bully the host and place him in a situation where the host should choose between A) complying to all demands, including the clearly abusive ones, or B) challenging only the abusive demands and still lose his safe harbor for the files he did actually delete. That would hurt fairness.
That said, just because someone can do something, doesn't mean that he will want to do it or that he will see any interest in doing it. An organization (or an individual) who receives any sort of formal notice will evaluate its options in function of several factors and of its priorities. If the WMF receives a formal notice to delete a file from Commons, I suppose it will consider a combination of factors including what is the level of certainty of being correct, how serious does the complainant seem to be, is the file worth it, what principle is at play, how many other files are in a comparable situation? In some cases, even if there's almost a 100% chance of being correct in keeping a file, it may not be worth the effort of a challenge. And we probably would not want the WMF to spend its efforts and its money challenging comlaints for only a small chance of success just to test an unimportant detail in the Copyright Act. However, if, for example, a museum seriously demanded the deletion of PD-Art files, that would more likely be worth a challenge, as the WMF would feel on solid ground with judicial precedents and it's an important principle for the WMF.
In your comment, I suppose you were thinking of the sculptures erected before 1978. On Commons, in deletion discussions, this argument seemed reasonable, but I don't know what's the degree of confidence in it. We don't know if the legal team of the WMF considered that argument and, if they did, what they thought of it. Maybe they didn't consider it. Maybe they considered it unfounded. Maybe they thought keeping those particular files was not worth a specific challenge anyway. The answer of the complainants to one uploader's request for information could be enlightening. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

Flickr images without EXIF

How common is it that Flickr images without EXIF are provable or probable Flickr-washing? If this is common enough, maybe User:FlickreviewR could reject such files (flag them for review instead of passing them as OK). Rd232 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a database query could see how many files edited (approved) bu FlickreviewR have later been deleted. --Nemo 13:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO any low-res or pics without EXIF should be double-checked by a human, unless the account is on a whitelist. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, yes; but then we need to agree a definition of "low-res". I've emailed bot operator User:Bryan, as without his help this idea is unlikely to go anywhere. Rd232 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be practical to check if the account is free or paid? I have a suspicion that copyvios are much, much more common in free accounts than paid ones. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attrribution vs site source

If a newspaper or website publishes a photo and credits the photo to the Imperial War Museum can we upload the photo under the terms of of the IWM usage rights? or do we need to specifically link it to a photo on the IWM website before we can use it?

The IWM standard copyright notice states:
Material identified as copyright of IWM and copyright of other parties including the Crown, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium under the terms of the IWM Non-Commercial Licence unless otherwise indicated.
- are there other conditions other than the non-commercial permission? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons only allows images free for all purposes, including commercial use. The IWM license is not free in this sense, in two points: it disallows commercial use and it disallows modifications to the images. Therefore images under this license may not be uploaded here. --rimshottalk 20:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colony licences

Wich licence law applies for pictures taken in the colonial period of countries such as Congo/Belgium, Indonesia, Surinam/Netherlands etc? At the time of the pictures the laws of the colonial power applied. For Belgian Congo a lot of pictures where taken back to Belgium and I suppose only apply Belgian law applies. If however a phografer remains in the ex-colony, does he has the apply to the Congolese courts for the protection of his work or does he have to go to the Belgian courts? A strange difference. For the Congo this a pure theoretical question as i doubt that there is functioning legal system in this problematic country.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied the anonymous-EU license to the File:Mayumbe spoorweg halte in het bos.jpg. Is there a more applicable licence?Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What normally matters is the country of first publication. Disappearing countries can make this very messy, but photos taken in Congo and published in Belgium ought to be straightforward. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same principles apply as with any other works. When you want to publish, reproduce or otherwise use a photograph today, you must refer to the law of the today-existing country where you want to use the photograph. For example, if you want to publish a photograph in the United States, you look at the the law of the United States.
  • If you want to apply the self-imposed requirement of Commons about also adding the law of the source country, you guess why this requirement exists on Commons (good luck) and you choose that country accordingly. In most cases, the less-bad consistency would probably be to choose the today-existing country that includes the location where the first authorized publication of the photograph occurred.
  • About File:Mayumbe spoorweg halte in het bos.jpg, the source information should be more explicit. If your source is a printed publication, please add much more details about that printed publication. If your source is a webpage, please provide a link to that webpage. Also, in this particular case, it could be useful if you specified what the dates represent: creation of the photograph, first publication of the photograph, publication of the printed work where the photograph was included?
  • Your question about the judicial jurisdictions where remedies can be sought could be very long to answer and at first sight it does not seem to be directly related to Commons, so unless you really want to go into that in detail here, maybe you can simply get a general idea of the applicable principles by reading some examples in court decisions in other countries such as for example (I think you can read French) SAIF c. Google (first instance, 2008) and SAIF c. Google (appeal decision, 2011 - you can jump to the end of page 5). It's not about colonies and not about Congo but it offers an example of the distinction between the applicable law about the merits and the applicable law about the judicial jurisdiction. Note that the court of appeal reversed the first instance decision about the law applicable to this particular case about the merits, but that does not affect the principle of the distinction between the law for the merits and the law for the judicial jurisdiction. Of course, the situation can vary depending on the laws and court decisions of each country.
-- Asclepias (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, the question of the source country can be of importance for the URAA. In other countries, the question can come in interpreting the rule of the shorter term. It is actually an important question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your source is a printed publication.....I wil create a category for scans of this publication where I wiil put the full details of the Touringclub de Belgique publication. The indicated year is the year of publication. Example: Journal de Bruxelles. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

Our CC license tags

E. g. Template:CC-BY-3.0. Our text omits a very crucial part of the CC licenses, namely For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.. For example, our local newspapers has used some images of mine with just attributing them with my name, but according to the license they'd have to add at least "CC-BY-3.0" or something like this to the attribution line. Now I really don't see how to make that clear to them as long as our very own license display doesn't even mention that. I know that the tags should be as short as possible, but this is actually misleading. --FA2010 (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight, I would say that the part you cited is a crucial part of CC-BY-SA licenses, not of CC-BY licenses. CC-BY only requires reusers to attribute the image to you.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I get it: No. The SA-part is important for people, who want to publish derivative works of a file, because with a SA the derivative work has to be published under CC-BY-SA as well. If you publish a derivative work of a CC-BY-file, you have to mention that the original file is licensed CC-BY, but your derivative does not have to be CC-BY. The mentioning of the license ist a crucial part of all CC-licenses, not only the SA ones and the fact that our license tags don't make that clear imo really sucks (because nobody reads the full license). --El Grafo (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, the templates are more-or-less just a transformation of the user-friendly license deed on, where the requirement is buried down below as:

"Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page."

--Mormegil (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Actually, nobody (or few) actually reads the boilerplate part of the license that we add. In my opinion we could just as well add just a linked "CC BY-SA 3.0" to the files and we probably would be equally successful in receiving attribution. No our boilerplate texts are much more about advocacy then they are about getting people to actually follow the rules. Besides, with any boilerplate you create, there will always be someone who can find something that they think is really important and really should be mentioned in the boilerplate. But that's not what a boilerplate is about in my opinion. So I agree with Morgemil in that sense and like to see a bit stronger argumentation about why and how we should change this. TheDJ (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone should rewrite/revise Gadget-Stockphoto and the gadget should hide all license templates it detects and instead adds a big fat reuse button where the user gets the text (s)he needs to mention. -- Rillke(q?) 16:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to write to my local newspaper and tell them how to do it right. But with our license tag, I cannot really argue, since if nothing about this crucial part of the license is mentioned, my point is very weak and I am kind of ashamed to have to admit that. I think our tag is simply misleading and lulls users into a false sense of security. I'd rather have no explanation at all on our pages and just a link than this wrong and misleading explanation. Our tag is wrong and makes users commit license violations. Sorry, I don't think that an argumentation can have any stronger points. --FA2010 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you should hesitate to ask your newspaper to do it right. If you made your photo available under a CC-BY-3.0 license, then legally what matters is the license text, not our short summary of it. They have no legal right to use your photo unless they follow the license terms. You may want to outline the key ones in your letter to them.
Having said that, I agree that our summary is misleading. Making the license conditions clear is an important requirement the license places on re-users, and our template should mention it. --Avenue (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - don't hesitate to ask them to fix the problem. Commons' lack of clarity might affect your tone, but not your ability to ask for them to do what they legally need to do. Rd232 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing CC tags

So how do we fix the tags? Should we add "statement of license used" (or similar) as a bullet point heading? If so, we have the additional issue of what to add as the body for that heading.

  • CC's "human-readable summary" says [11]

    "Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page."

  • By contrast CC's actual license says [12]

    "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform."

The "summary" would suggest that just saying "cc-by-3.0" would be enough; the license itself makes it clear a URL to the legal code is required. I gather that version 4.0 of the CC licenses may well remove the URL requirement, but that doesn't help us here. I suggest then adding under conditions (for CC-by-3.0 as example)

Rd232 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. For print, it may sometimes be more appropriate to include the license terms than the URI. In any case, I would also like to see this clarified much better somewhere I can easily point to. I've found that people who want to reuse my photos often find our current statement of licensing very confusing. - Jmabel ! talk 17:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization of categories for universities and colleges

I am working on a draft of Commons:Category scheme universities and colleges, a project to devise a standard subcategory structure that can be used across all universities and colleges. If interested, please add your name to the members list, and feel free to edit the page or bring up discussion points on the talk page. Thanks! King of ♠ 07:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

500px Creative Commons license

Hi, just want you to know that from today users of can upload their photos under the Creative Commons license (source: Maybe we can upload them here just like we do for Flickr. That's all. Bye! --Viscontino (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was coming here for the same good news. Indeed, there are not so much CC photos for now, but there are some very qualitative ones! Quick links : CC-BY photos & CC-BY-SA. Also we can now easily ask 500px photographs to use a CC license if they want on a photo that interests us for an article, like with Flickr photographs before. Nclm (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed something, those photos are with only a CC type symbol but no more indication nor link to a specific license version. Not sure what we can do with that. Looks like they need to work on how they present the licensing. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CC-BY-SA is clearly indicated below the image (see [13]). Yann (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which version? Do we just assume 3.0? LX (talk, contribs) 11:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could ask for this information. In the meantime, I would use the most restrictive one. Yann (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't appear to be aware of the need to give a version. (In fact, they don't seem to link back to the CC license texts anywhere). So I sent them an e-mail. This, that and the other (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, my wording was not clear. By "type", I did mean the "type of license" (by, by-sa). But no specific license version. On other websites, in situations where a specific license is not immediately apparent, it is often possible to find the exact information by looking around and finding a link to the specific license on the CC website, or by exploring the website and finding the specific license information on another page of the website that answers the question. Even where there is no such link or information page, if at least the version number is mentioned, it's probably okay to assume the corresponding generic or unported license (but not necessarily okay to assume a corresponding localized or ported version). But if the version number is not specified, making an assumption about a version number would be an additional step, more problematic. Maybe it would not be unreasonable to assume something like "this image is offered under the most recent version of this type of license at the time when the image was offered on this website or any later version of the same type of license", but the absence of mention leaves a doubt about if the photographer really expressed a valid consent to such an implicit license. It would be much better if that would be clarified on the 500px website (or made more obvious if it's already there somewhere). -- Asclepias (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can assume they intend to use the 3.0 (current) versions of the licenses. BTW, can someone License Review this photo from 500px for me: File:New River Gorge Bridge by Donnie Nunley.jpg? Kaldari (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to 500px about this, let's see what they say... in the meanwhile, can someone do a license review of the last photos I uploaded? There are some great pictures, help me uploading them all! :) --Viscontino (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from 500px: "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have forwarded it to our founders, as they're much better versed in how CC works. We'll do our best to address these concerns." --Viscontino (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got a reply from them saying they are using CC 3.0 licenses. So there we have it. This, that and the other (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these photos are of great quality. Can you post this on the Wikipedia Village Pump to let others know, as well? Mahanga (Talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And also, should we create a "500pxreview" template like the Flickr one? My uploaded pictures hasn't still been reviewed by anyone. --Viscontino (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for downloading full-resolution images. -- King of ♠ 07:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should spread the word, there are many great pictures there! --Viscontino (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Contradictory licence and description

The description on File:Obamas' hands.jpg suggests ND and NC restrictions; the licence is PD as a US Govt image. Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's US government. The White house likes to have them under their control a bit, but they can't. They make vague claims in the hopes that the most unknowledgable will adhere to them, even if there is no legal basis for them deriving from copyright. TheDJ (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail failure caused by + in the file name

I found several jpg images without thumbnails here. All these files had plus ("+") at the bottom of file name (File:Kasárna jednoduchá (Josefov), Okružní 241+.JPG). When I tried to reupload the images, the fault continued. However, the moment I moved the files to another name without "+", all is OK. Would be somebody able to:

  • block new filenames containing "+"
  • report this bug to bugzilla?

Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bug report already exists: bugzilla:42302. A correction is pending review. Lupo 22:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

"Login required"

It should be possible to have on the page (you probably have to be logged out to see it) a direct log-in form instead just a link to a log-in form. I suggest it is easy and should take management no time to do so. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on all pages requiring being logged-in. (Watchlist, Preferences etc.)
In JS this is a one-liner (for most skins):
if ($('#bodyContent a[title="Special:UserLogin"]').length && $('#pt-login').length) $('#bodyContent').load('// #bodyContent');
// there could be also a hook for the login submit that sets a cookie so you are automatically redirected after log in
// back to the page where you were before
But this will completely bypass all the stuff the developers thought about when they disabled any site JavaScript at those pages. :P -- Rillke(q?) 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No replacements of files since 18.11.2012

Hello, Delinker don't replace Files after moving[14].

3 days ago I wrote to User:Siebrand on his talk page, and yesterday I got an email envoy to User:Siebrand. He does not react.

Who can fix it otherwise? --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  07:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mailed him as well because cats are not moved either. I just mailed Bryan, maybe he is available to fix the image replacement issue. --Denniss (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, after nine days, the machine has a lot of work to catch up. No solution? --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Docu if he can use Category-bot to try and clear the backlog. No response from him so far, though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siebrand has fixed --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  21:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done[reply]

Upload Wizard

I know it is probably irrelevant and obvious, but i still feel the need to post a thank you note for the Upload Wizard. The are two things I really find moving: 1. the date is detected automatically and 2. I can set a number at the top and when i copy details it counts form there. There are surely other things i didn't noticed jet, but what I noticed - and i wanted to say - is that there is so much behind it and i really feel the people who made it also thought of me while there were doing it. Since i'm so concerned (and i am definitely not the only one), I really wanted to say thank you. It was so much different without it. A fantastic tool. --Iopensa (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Note that there is also --Malyacko (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant drive-throughs vs. Restaurant drive-through food menus‎ ?

Two similar categories (Restaurant drive-throughs / Restaurant drive-through food menus). I can't see the big difference. It's confusing. Maybe one of them should be deleted?--Ezzex (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the name suggests, "Category:Restaurant drive-through food menus" focuses more on the menus, but maybe it isn't a good idea to have this category because it provides a temptation for editors to upload photographs that contain unlicensed derivative works (logos and photographs of food and drink on the menus). I think some of the photographs in that category are problematic on that score, and probably need to be nominated for deletion. I would suggest upmerging the "menus" sub-category into "Category:Restaurant drive-throughs". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Restaurant drive-through food menus-category is a bad idea and should be deleted.--Ezzex (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated it for deletion.--Ezzex (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide a reason and state the date as well. See the instructions on the template. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

Graphiques exploitant une base de données protégée

À propos de Commons:Deletion requests/Graphiques SpritMonitor de Vi..Cult...
Je ne suis pas sûr des droits de propriété intellectuelle concernant les bases de données en France ou en Allemagne ou en Europe ou dans le monde en général. Mais je trouve un peu bizarres les explications de Jim. Apparemment, il estime que les données d'une base de données étant de nature factuelle, elles ne sont pas protégées. Mais les données des Pages Jaunes, ou des emplacements des stations Vélib à Paris, ou des emplacements des stations de métro à Paris, etc., sont toutes factuelles ! Mais les bases de données sont cependant bien protégées ! Il me semble bien que des entreprises qui offraient des services exploitant ces données ont dû faire marche arrière, après avoir été attaquées par la RATP (le métro parisien) ou JC Decaux (exploitant du service Vélib à Paris). Je me demande si Jim n'est pas passé à côté des lois spécifiques aux bases de données 13:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German political party CDU election posters under free license

Dear all,

you can now download a collection of election posters of the German political party CDU under a free license (CC-BY-SA 3.0 DE):

on go to "Plakat- und Filmarchiv"


--ALE! ¿…? 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Helvar appears to be promotional. Is this permissible and within the scope of Commons? Lambtron (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We want to have the files, but promotional language can be removed from the descriptions. I changed the description of the category (factually probably correct, but I don't like us making claims about market shares or the like, except in sourced diagrams). Descriptions of the files may also need rewriting. No big problem, though - I think rewriting is a favour to them, mostly. --LPfi (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

Bug file search

Is the Bug known that (exactly) filenames are not found?!? Example (what appear if click on the search button): Can someone confirm this? PS: Strangely, the link works but not the button (top right). -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 12:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats weired. I get (randomly chosen?) one of two different result pages for the same input ( )
First Result:
 There is a page named "File:Stadtwappen Stadthagen.png" on this wiki
 # File:Stadtwappen Stadthagen.png
 # File:Stadtwappen Stadthagen.jpg
Second Result:
 There were no results matching the query.
 There is a page named "File:Stadtwappen Stadthagen.png" on this wiki
--McZusatz (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than half of the searches I tried today are returning "no results". But if I hit search 3 or 4 times for the same search term eventually it returns results, usually. Seems something is badly wrong with the search function. Rmhermen (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem has been reported already several times, bot nobody seems to care. Sometimes, it takes more than a week before the search database is updated. --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a pretty fine solution to this. It is called "Google".
More precisely, you can google with one of your terms being ""; it's often a much better search of our site than our own. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foroa: Where has it been reported several times so that developers see it? I am aware of one bug report, which is and several developers have been investigating reasons. --Malyacko (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try Commons:Bugs and Commons:Requests for comment/improving search. --Foroa (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing one's own user talk page

I know that people are given a lot of latitude about editing their own user talk page, but I ran across something recently that seemed quite out of line: someone removing part of someone else's remark, including removing sentences like "Anyway, I'm just trying to be helpful here, so this matter doesn't become more acrimonious." I'm omitting the name, because I don't really want this to be about an individual. I just wondered, are there any criteria at all limiting people doing this sort of thing on their own user talk page? At a certain point, it seems to me to be in danger of seriously misrepresenting what someone else said. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no great need for a community standard, as this is usually a matter of ignorance. When investigating a questionable edit by a stranger, I check the editor record for other edits that have been undone, and look at the user talk page. If no discussions show that such things have been questioned, or if the questions seem unreasonable or intemperate, I check the talk page's edit history. A history of the kind you mention calls for entering a suggestion that such behavior will be unprofitable, since a history of attempting to hide or distort dissent will speak for itself more eloquently than any dissenter can. If such a comment were similarly treated, it would hint at willful, thoughtless abuse, but what I've seen thus far is mere failures of understanding. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The leeway given to users to edit their own talk page does not extend to editing others' comments except in minor formatting ways - and in fact only to removal of others' comments in ways that don't distort the flow and meaning of a thread (eg you couldn't remove an apology for an emotional outburst, leaving the outburst). But as Jim.henderson said above, we should be careful to look at the edit history to consider accidental editing. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no accident here. The rather long edit summary included "Your advice is REJECTED." And, no, I'm not the person whose comments were edited. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232, is there somewhere I can find that in a standard or guideline? - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At en:Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable (not sure if there's a Commons counterpart)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Talk page guidelines is the equivalent. It's not as clear as the English Wikipedia guidelines (I think it's based on a very old version of them), so if anyone wants to try and improve it... Rd232 (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications on Copyright

Hi, I am not sure whether the screenshots of the Malwares like Winwebsec or some Ransomwares protected by Copyright. I have some some screenshots of Virus infections which are really usefull as educational tools. It can be used in wikipedia articles related to Computer Security. --Jayabharat (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus used to be that any work created via illegal means is permitted because the copyright holder would not be able to enforce it in a court of law; this was used most prominently to justify the inclusion of graffiti. However, consensus has changed so that such works are no longer permitted. -- King of ♠ 06:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK we still allow graffiti, but we don't allow murals. I think this is wrong, as it goes against our policy of respecting all copyright, rather than just repecting copyright we think we'd get caught out with. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories contested for possible misunderstanding of Descent-scheme's meaning

"People of Black African descent" as a parent of "People of Ethiopian descent": yes or no? Your contributions to this debate are appreciated. Orrlingtalk 19:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical videos


Is there a template/category to flag evil vertical videos? Clin

Gonioul (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nearest thing is {{Rotate}}, mentioned at COM:Video. But that's really for images. Maybe we should have a separate tag/maintenance category for videos that need rotating, and a section in COM:Video on the easiest way to do it. Rd232 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Rotate}} would not apply for vertical videos as they are already in the right standing. Though {{Crop}} could be used to crop them down into a 5:4 format maybe. --McZusatz (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken page styling

The page heading of MonoBook appears a bit broken in Google Chrome. The words "Personal tools" are at the left margin and the links "discussion", "history" etc. are hidden. In Firefox it seems to be OK. --ŠJů (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Monobook, Vector too. Symptoms are slightly different, but formatting is clearly wrong, with "Namespaces" massive bold just above the "project page" tab (on this Village Pump page), and other stuff big and bold and covering up the top right personal links. NB This is in Chrome as well. Rd232 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1, Chrome + Vector [15]. Yarl 22:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try relaunching Chrome - I just did and the problem went away (minor update within version 23, as far as I can tell). Rd232 (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it's suddenly back. So that wasn't the answer... :( Nor has anybody recently edited MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Common.js... Rd232 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its broken in FF too. :-( --K@rl (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, then it's almost certainly (at least partly) a MediaWiki update issue. Rd232 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vector looks OK in FireFox, but I prefer to use MonoBook. Are the developers aware of the problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me on Chrome Version 23.0.1271.91 m under Windows Vista, all skins show picture pages with the tabs on top reduced to a couple dots high, with the words on the tabs visible ony by mouseover. I've switched to using MSIE on Commons. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! No, I was testing wrong. Simple, Vector and Monobook were not showing the tabs correctly. Nostalgia does. I hate the look of the Nostalgia skin, but it works. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be fixed. (worksforme) --McZusatz (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At bedtime I thought I had found the best way out with Modern, but more likely the problem was merely repaired just then, as this morning all (or anyway four different) skins work okay. Modern is more pleasant than Vector anyway in its treatment of tabs for the geography of categories. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still showing here, with Firefox. MPF (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons problem.png

Oh, good, this is a known issue. I was wondering why my Mozilla Firefox 17.0 view of certain Commons pages had suddenly gone haywire, with extra-large, misplaced text. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With FF doesn't work with me too. --K@rl (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a Sample of screen with a file

--K@rl (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still broken here.--Ezzex (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And still. Very annoying as it makes editing really difficult, the 'Edit' (and other) tabs are only one pixel high, tricky to hit. - MPF (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should hopefully be fixed now - See Bawolff (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been fixed, you just need to reload the page from the server (ctrl+f5). -mattbuck (Talk) 23:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, working now, thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

PNGs and gross incompetence.

5 years. It's been 5 years that Commons has been unable to show PNGs. To my memory, this bug was actually brought in with a revision to MediaWiki - before that, large PNGs did thumbnail. 5 years. Five years in which we've made it so that uploading lossless files - the basic archival standard - cannot be done without massive extra work. 5 years. Five years in which we've lost who knows how much archival-quality material, since it won't display, so everyone uploads in JPEG. 5 years. During this time,t here have been three or four fixes all but finished, but they couldn't be bothered to do the final debugging and testing. 5 years. And that's a minimum; I'm pretty sure that's not the original bug report. This is grossly incompetent. What the hell is Wikipedia doing? I can upload a large PNG to deviantArt, and it'll show up fine. But I can't do it to the site that wants to be the archive of the world's historical imagery. It's time for Wikipedia to get its act together. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 7 years since the announcement at , but the limit has been raised since then. It's semi-annoying, but also somewhat understandable, and there have always been ways around it. Frankly, I regard the whole GIF resizing failure fiasco of several years ago (when a problem that should have taken a few weeks to handle dragged out for several years) to be far more evidence of "incompetence" (or actually of having no one on staff knowledgeable in this particular area, and those who are on staff not feeling motivated to take the initiative to procure necessary outside help)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one seems to have tackled the challenges stated in the tickets. There is no magic. If you have good contacts for an outside contractor that can properly fix this with his knowledge, then I'm sure the Foundation is willing to consider it. As a volunteer, any motivation I would have had just went down the drain. TheDJ (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that MediaWiki is maintained mostly by volunteers. In 5 years you could have learned enough informatics to fix the problem. You can blame the whole mankind for not fixing the problem, but just blaming others isn't useful nor fair.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that MediaWiki is maintained mostly by volunteers. - I think that's part of the problem. More money should be spent on paid development in a way that makes better use of what volunteers do (eg to review and assess their contributions in a timely way, so they don't hang around for ages as half-done possible solutions). (And yes, I think the money is there to do substantially more.) Rd232 (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember. There are >>100 people mentioned at wmf:Staff and contractors who are employees in Global Development and Engineering and Product Development. Without having hard numbers, I guess that >60% of the commits are made by paid devs and the number for approval and merging are much higher, respectively, my gut tells me. Of course I can see a lot of progress made in the API area and I enjoy this. Thanks Roan, Reedy and other people who often helped me IRC. Unlike certain people they were often available and don't tend to ignore you. Whether the "job-carrousel" the WMF recently drove makes sense, is also questionable. This way it's really hard to find people in whom you could trust.
Volunteer work is nice but in a world that is more and more commercialised, who has any time or interest in helping for free? -- Rillke(q?) 12:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[