Commons:Help desk

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

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

This help desk is a forum for questions and help on

How to use Commons

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

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

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

New version of File:Li2CO3.svg[edit]

Can someone help me with this file? It doesn't seem to look the same as this. Vs6507 22:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's chemically incorrect. Either it is covalent to lithium, with there are Li–O bonds and no atomic charges or it is ionic with charges but no actual bonds to lithium. And if there are charges, there "+" on Li are balanced by "–" on adjacent O (a en:carbonate ion). Check the relevant articles to decide which approach is correct. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the note. I've removed the covalent bonds and added negative charges. Is it okay now? [1] Vs6507 19:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Chemically valid now, yes. The +/– signs should all be equally superscripted, and better to use an en-dash (or is there a special numerical minus sign?) than hyphen? The geometry is off (the three C–O bonds should be 120° from each other). It's not really true that there are two O single-bonded anions and one O double-bonded neutral, but it's a pretty common way to represent it. DMacks (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
How about File:Lithium carbonate.svg, which I made by hand-tweaking the analogous File:Sodium carbonate.svg? DMacks (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@VS6507: any further thoughts here? If not, I'll replace yours (nonstandard geometry and typography) with mine and send yours to COM:DR. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to, you should've updated the original final instead of making a duplicate one. Vs6507 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I intentionally did not since I thought this discussion would continue, and benefit from seeing both for comparison. Is the new version you uploaded at File:Li2CO3.svg actually mine from File:Sodium carbonate.svg, or did you recreate one that just looks about the same? DMacks (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to create the exact same picture or maybe the upside down version two weeks ago, but I wasn't notified about your further comments. If I was, I would've definitely done this earlier. I just downloaded your image and edited in Photoshop so I could upload it here. No special changes were made since this was the version I wanted to make. Vs6507 10:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Automatic uploading of images from public domain stock photography sites[edit]

Hello, I would like to make the following request:

I've recently noticed that there are a number of websites hosting free images licenced with CC0. I've just found a list a of such sites. The biggest such site is probably Pixabay. So I think those images should be uploaded automatically and periodically (for example, upload the new images, once in a month) on Wikimedia Commons. If and when those websites will go down (and some of them will, for sure, because they belong to a single photographer), the images will not be lost. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Not everything will be useful within our scope, and like everything else, such content needs to be license reviewed. To be useful, it needs to be properly described and categorized. I don't think more rushed bulk uploads with sloppy file descriptions and without evaluation of usefulness are what we need right now. LX (talk, contribs) 16:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Still, it looks like there is a lot of nice stuff on some of those sites. For at least some sites, it might be worth someone assaying what's there, seeing if it's likely that a very high percentage of it is legitimate, and uploading periodically into a category specific to the site, from which people can review. But, to a large extent I agree with LX: the main value of Commons is that most of our content is (1) pretty well vetted and (2) pretty well described and categorized. The bulk of the work involved in making Commons what it is comes from those two things, not just obtaining photos. I often spend up to 10 minutes categorizing someone else's poorly described image because it looks like it might be an image of something important. That time may be free in that I'm a volunteer, but it's not free in that I could be doing something else, thank you. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have time to check them all, but at least for Pixabay, many of the images are simply breathtaking - they can easily enter in the "Picture of the year" contest. The average quality of images at Pixabay is greatly higher than the average on Wikimedia Commons images. They are all CC0 and the majority of them are useful for educational purposes without any doubt, and also well categorized with tags. A robot can upload them, add them in a special, temporary "Pixabay" category, and also auto-fill categories using tags - and the author name. And then, let the community check the category "Pixabay" and review each image (reviewing means checking/adjusting the categories and maybe add descriptions sometimes). When a user finishes reviewing an image, they should mark it as such, and remove it from the "Pixabay" category. The new articles on Wikipedia (many of them poorly categorized) can be kept until the community reviews them and decides to keep or delete. Many times, I've also spent 5-10 minutes for categorizing new Wikipedia articles made by others - that's how this system works. The images can have the same treatment. I notice that images on Pixabay have no description - so we can ask them nicely if they would agree to add a description field. In any case, Wikimedia Commons has plenty of images without description or with useless descriptions so that shouldn't be a big deal anyway.
It really looks like a huge percent of the images are worth uploading, and then it might be a good idea to ask someone to evaluate them - even to pay someone - I think the WMF can easily afford that. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I just noticed that the next thread talks about a "Panoramio bot" which seems to be doing just that: automatically adding images, without description. Panoramio upload botPanoramio Review BotCategory:Panoramio images reviewed by trusted usersCategory:Media lacking a description (299,841 files) - the kind of things that I was talking about. The same thing can be done for Pixabay - automatic or semi-automatic. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how common it is, but some of the images on Pixabay are digitally enhanced versions of images that can be found elsewhere, including Commons. E.g., [2] is derived from File:Greens-Beach-rocks-20070419-026.jpg. --ghouston (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe there are some programs capable to detect such duplicates or enhanced versions? —  Ark25  (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Panoramio upload bot overwrites images?[edit]

File:- panoramio (6803).jpg - Panoramio upload bot instantly overwrote this image with a completely different one. Is this a mistake or was this supposed to happen? Thanks, Kalbbes (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the overwritten image: File:- panoramio (6816).jpg. I guess the bot was fixing itself. Kalbbes (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not the same image. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Some strange but apparently isolated mistake. Like the bot duplicated the number 6803 before continuing with 6804. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Asclepias, thanks for taking a look at it. Kalbbes (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Panoramio upload bot overwrites images again. Overwritten image not found. Can it be retrieved?

File:- panoramio (7596).jpg was over written but I found one yesterday also. I don't know how often this happens. Does this bot have a flaw? Can overwritten images be retrieved? Thanks, Kalbbes (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You can contact the bot operator, User:Shizhao, to report the problem. If there are only two cases, they could be fixed individually, I suppose. One method could be: 1. Revert to the first image (the link in the description refers to the first image). 2. Copy the second image and upload it under a different name. 3. Find the second image on panoramio (its panoramio number is in the Commons upload log) and copy its source link (and eventually other information) in the new description page. Another method is to do the opposite: adjust the description page to describe the second photo, and copy and upload the first photo under a different name. But before doing anything, I think it would better to get advice from the bot operator. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Request a split, either with {{Split}} or, if you want to write a bit more like pointing to the very similar file (for a later addition as other version), see COM:SPLIT and sections below. — Speravir – 19:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thx, this a unknown bug, I try fix it--shizhao (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
shizhao, Happened to notice another. File:Notitle - panoramio (12).jpg I don't know enough about the importance of the pictures overwritten to request anything. Thanks, Kalbbes (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

De minimis of Copyrightable is applied or not !?[edit]

Picture is Copyrightable, but shot is made in macro mode, so its around "less than 1% of all banknote", where No.1 rule might be applied for de minimis. I also tried if Google will find the result, he couldnt. Is de minimis legal here ? Picture is not croped, but macro zoomed. Could someone help here. --Mile (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion Commons:De minimis applies and the image can be kept. Only a small part of the banknote is visible, and more importantly the subject of the image is the printing process pattern. MKFI (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If banknotes are copyrightable in your country then this image here is certainly displaying enough artistic expression to be copyrightable itself. I also think that someone familiar with the banknotes could identify which one, so it fails the test. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That part of Commons:De minimis is more about a work appearing as a very small detail in a larger context (e.g. a photo of a market where someone happens to hold a banknote) – not about the portion of the work being included. There are cases where extreme crops may be unaffected by the copyright of the work they are taken from, but it would depend on the cropped part on its own being ineligible for copyright (e.g. a single dot from a dithered pop art poster). That's clearly not the case here. The cropped portion is above the threshold of originality for copyright protection on its own. Comparing with literary copyright, while you can copy a word or two from a copyrighted text, you can't copy longer passages, but it's the originality of the copied passage that matters, not its length as a percentage of the whole text. LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We have some rules here, its Copyrightable, Chinese renminbi, as whole banknote could not be here, as zoomed into the pattern it goes under De minimis. See the rules. --Mile (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we have some more opininion here, some are in doubt. talk, --ghouston, Wikicology ? --Mile (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to know do we must clarify what banknote is that, since De minimis is about to not to configure what/which bankonote is it !? Copy-paste : Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable. --Mile (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I crop?[edit]

Hello, I just uploaded this image from the Library of Congress:,_February_1945.jpg

I inserted it in the article on the Siegfried Line:

Should I crop extraneous material from the photo before I upload it to Wikimedia Commons? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you should crop it for the use in articles, but upload it as a separate file. Ruslik (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It should also be free-rotated, approx 1.5% or such. If you don't feel up for that task I can do so for you, AugusteBlanqui. Since the photographer Antoinette Frissell died in 1988, it is still copyrighted and I presume it will be taken down from commons in due time anyway, or is there a different rational that it could stay? --Rava77 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The two possible public domain rationales are stated on the description page. The uploader believed that it is PD-USGov. That is possible, perhaps, if on that day Frissell took that particular photo in the course of duties for the WAC. However, the negatives remained with Frissell and her statement of release to the public domain suggests that she owned the copyright until the release. The LoC considers that it is in the public domain by the release by Frissell, not as PD-Gov. For that reason, I added the template PD-Frissell, which seems safer. It's one or the other, PD-USGov or PD-Frissell, but either way it's in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
When the extraneous material contains some information that might be useful to preserve, it is better to crop after. When it contains nothing useful, it may be better to crop before. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The area around would only be important if someone wants to change hue, gamma or such. For cropping and rotating the surrounding data is not necessary, and for the photo itself it also contains no data useful to preserve, still I say the original photo should be preserved as well, and the cropped & rotated version should be saved as a new file, since I am no expert when it comes to gamma, hue or even raw processing (though, we have no raw data scan anyway I presume?) So, who will do the crop&rotating. Should I do it? If AugusteBlanqui not answers in the next 6 hours I will do the job. --Rava77 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded the highest resolution version at File:Soldiers at the Siegfried Line, February 1945.tiff, and crops and rotates should be done from that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
4,921 × 6,000 pixels, file size: 84.51 MB, indeed that's some high quality. Thanks. I wonder, should the rotate/crop first be saved as a tiff, and then converted as a png? Or only saved as an png since tiff is usually not used on the web for displaying images? --Rava77 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a personal decision. There's an argument to go straight to JPG, as that's the most web-friendly image format, and forcing anyone who wants to do further edits to go back to the TIFF is probably not a problem. A PNG or TIFF can be used if you think that people will probably want to reedit starting from the crop; note that Wikimedia serves JPG versions of TIFF files for normal display, but PNG versions of PNG files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The image Teengirl.GIF[edit]


Back in 2008 I uploaded the files Teenboy.GIF and Teengirl.GIF to the commons. I can no longer remember what my username was. They were deleted, with one person saying they could find no use for them, other than "userboxes or jokes".

Well, today, I uploaded Teenboy.GIF to Wikibooks and used it at . I wanted to ise the image File:Teengirl.GIF for too, but I no longer have it on my computer. The old site with this image has long since removed my page, since I don't update my page anymore, and the computer it was on was stolen in 2012 and still hasn't been recovered. Could someone please send me the file File:Teengirl.GIF so I can use it for this wikibook?


Bougainville bush-warbler (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Hey guys, The Phase Master Here. I made a screenshot of Chrome that is showing a page that I created in HTML. It's very simple, just a title saying hello and a single line that says hello world. I know that the uploader says that you can't upload screenshots of software, but is this one instance that I've described okay?

TPM Need Something? Contribs 15:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Showing your own page content that happens to have been in a browser window shouldn't raise any copyright concerns, but don't show the surrounding browser menus, etc., which are copyrighted by Google. Whether this is in scope is another matter from the copyright issues. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The data area of a browser is always okay, when it's your code that is to be seen there. But like Jmabel said, the browser could be copyrighted. Even when it is not (e.g. Firefox), then the OS might be unless you use BSD or Linux, but usually Windows OS or Mac OS-X is copyrighted. So, to be safe, just use the inner data area without any surroundings, like the right/left and up/down sliders (=OS, unless it's Linux or BSD and uses a free (as in freedom) GUI) or Icons or Menu bars (=browser, when copyrighted) --Rava77 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding an image with consent from the owner[edit]

I am currently trying to add a Wikipedia page for a company, Athenasphere. If I get consent from that company, can I upload their logo onto the page? What would need to be included in a letter of consent from that company?

P.S.: I am looking to do this for a number of companies I see aren't yet on Wikipedia. If there is a standardized letter I can send out to them to request using their logo, that would be greatly appreciated. --Adisciu (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • If the logos are so simple as not to be eligible for copyright, just mark them {{PD-ineligible}}. If they qualify for copyright, see COM:OTRS for what we need. Note that Commons can accept these only if the copyright-holder releases the logo under a free license, which companies rarely are willing to do with copyrighted logos (although of course they can retain trademark, and if the logos are trademarked you can add {{trademarked}} to clarify that).
  • Also: I notice that en:Athenasphere is a tiny stub that you started yourself, and that it has been nominated for deletion for non-notability. If this is paid work you are doing for companies that do not yet have Wikipedia articles, it is very likely that these logos will be outside of Commons' scope. Further, if you are editing Wikipedia on their behalf as a paid editor, make sure you are fully familiar with en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and its equivalents for other-language Wikipedias. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, Adisciu, I suggest you first create the article in your own user space (using the planed article name), and invite some experienced editors or admins to have a look at them when they seem finished to you. An article won't be deleted in your own user space. Just comment-out the categories as long as the article is not in the main space. When experienced user(s) tell you that they think the article is okay, then copy all the code and create the article in the mainspace (removing the "comment-out" "brackets" from the category wiki code.) HTH, Cheers, --Rava77 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to foreign language wiki[edit]

How can I link from a Wikimedia file to a foreign Wikipedia article? I am thinking of File:Adolph Chlumksy, who has a about him. It wouldn't be {w|Aldolph Chlumsky}, so what would it be? Thanks, Drbones1950 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no page "Aldolph Chlumsky" on cs.wikipedia. And no page "Adolph Chlumksy" either. But if you wanted to link to a page named, for example, Adolf Chlumský, you could link like this: [[:cs:Adolf Chlumský|Adolf Chlumský]]. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Or {{w|Adolf Chlumský|Adolf Chlumský|cs}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Broken SVG?[edit]

File:Vlag ontbreekt.svg seems to be an error message rather than a flag. Does anyone know what's wrong with the file? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @WhatamIdoing: Looks fine to me. It's a placeholder for missing flags: a question mark on a two-tone gray background (two columns in different grays). Are you seeing something different from that? - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • No, that's what I'm seeing. In the context that I saw it, including an non-existent image doesn't seem appropriate, so I assumed that there was a problem with the file itself. Thanks for explaining it to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

FastCCI down?[edit]

See Help_talk:FastCCI#Is_FastCCI_down.3F. Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Image was deleted[edit]

I uploaded an image to which we have full rights, but the image was deleted with the notation that it was a possibly copyright violation. How do we get the image to display? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianaHistory (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

speedy delete of archived image[edit]

Hi. While having a brain cramp I made the image that is currently at

About a minute after uploading, I realized my mistake, made a new version and uploaded it at

I see the {{speedydelete|Reason}} tag, but I don't know how to use it. Please advise. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • If I understand this correctly, the only place the first image is available is as part of the history of the file. We don't delete those unless there are legal issues, etc. "Deletion" is always "soft", so it doesn't save any disk space, and no one sees these images unless they are specifically looking at the file history. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: My brain cramp is going to exist forever!!! What a depressing thought! DennisPietras (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • FWIW, there are tens of thousands of these on Commons, maybe hundreds of thousands, and I bet you never noticed any. Almost no one ever does, which is why it isn't worth the cleanup effort, any more than the fact that there might have been misspellings somewhere in the history of a page. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
        • @Jmabel: Please don't bother to take the time to reply to this, it is just a statement of my opinion. On my computer I can easily delete a brain cramp and allow the disk space to be overwritten by another file. I don't understand why it is such an effort for the commons to do that, and thus force memory to be used forever by brain cramps. Please, don't reply. DennisPietras (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

upload pictures[edit]

how to upload pictures on subjected site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaykrjain (talk • contribs)

What to do about thousands of images uploaded into multiple categories[edit]

Panoramio upload bot apparently uploaded thousands of images on January 16 from [[3]] and placed them in multiple categories of Pakistan, all of them having the "needs checking" template on them. The photos have multiple tages on them and apparently somehow they are being put in many of those categories at once. I noticed when I tried putting some new uploads in Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and saw about 1500 new images in that category, all needing checking. First I moved about 150 into separate categories, (Category:Dallan (73), Category:Daber road‎ (61), Category:Dallan Madrassa‎ (3), Category:Dallan road‎ (7), even though the categories made no sense to me for the photos, but then I realized the job was too big for me. Many of them are also in other Pakistan categories simultaneously. For example, 143 are in Category:North Waziristan Agency, Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at the same time. There are probably other Pakistan categories flooded as well.

If the Panoramio upload bot is uploading all photos from this photographer at Panoramio, them there are thousand more. How to deal with this? Kalbbes (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • VFC is probably your "best friend" in matters like this. Assuming the same pattern of text is in the categories area of numerous photos, you can use VFC to replace that with something more appropriate (e.g. strip the repeating block and replace it with a single Category:Pakistan files from Panoramio to be checked). Unless you are very experienced with VFC, I strongly recommend that you experiment with a handful of files first. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel, I tried experimenting with VFC and got nowhere since I'm not a technical person, don't understand what VFC is asking for and I don't know regular expressions. And it's not just those Pakistan photos that bot screws up. For example, look at File:Tall Ships Race Dublin 2012 - panoramio (33).jpg and File:Sukhoi Su-24 reconnaissance aircraft. - panoramio.jpg and File:Sights on tour from Bagiou to the north - panoramio.jpg and File:A place I can't forget - panoramio.jpg. Some files it just enters "Asia". Should the bot be entering categories at all, never mind so many? Kalbbes (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I give up. I've spent the better part of two hours and can't get to first base with VFC. I'll just uncategorise those files and place them in Category:Pakistan files from Panoramio to be checked by hand. Kalbbes (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel, never mind. I've made 98,254 edits here in a year. I'd burn myself out taking care of over 1500 files in Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa alone by hand, not counting the other Pakistan categories flooded by this Panoramio upload bot. I'll no longer watch over Pakistan. Thanks for your suggestions, but this is over my head, ruined my enjoyment here, so it's best I stay away from things I can't handle. Thanks again, Kalbbes (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Company name change[edit]

Our company changed our name and we would like our Wikipedia page to show the new company name. How do I do that?

Ann Annmrote (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. We host media files for Wikipedia articles, but we don't host articles. See en:WP:MOVE for instructions on how to move pages at the English Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 23:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a photo[edit]

I want to delete a photo I put in by mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drenowe (talk • contribs)

  • @Drenowe: It would sure help if you would indicate what photo! If it's a recent upload, this can easily be accommodated; if it's older, presuming you licensed it correctly, you'll have to go through the same deletion process as for anyone else's photo, because once you've granted an irrevocable license you can't take it back.
  • In general, to do this, just tag the file page with {{speedydelete|Accidental upload}}. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Who holds the copyright on a picture I took of municipal building in Maryland, U.S.?[edit]

I took a picture of a building owned by the Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks that was constructed in 1974 and I'm trying to figure out if I hold the copyright as the photographer or if the copyright holder is the building's architect. I came across a similar discussion in the archives and one of the replies seems to imply that I have the copyright: In the U.S., while buildings are technically copyrighted, there is no problem photographing them: copyright of the photo simply belongs to the photographer." Is the answer that simple or is there more to it? I'm not sure if this matters, but FWIW there is some scenery in the background, but the only reason I'd want to upload it would be to use it in a few articles that talk about that building. Thoughts? Permstrump (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, the answer is that simple. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Bill Winters[edit]

Bill Winters, a former American Football player. and I created a page for him. He has a picture of himself when he played for the San Antonio Gunslingers, a football team that existed only for a year in the 80s. He says the picture belongs to him and wants the picture on his wikipedia page, and does not care if it is reused. I have tried to upload it twice now, and apparently am not classifying it correctly for the copyright. How would I go about uploading this picture for it to remain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delfry88 (talk • contribs)

  • Physical possession of a photograph does not mean owning the copyright to it, which would typically belong to the photographer or the photographer's heirs. Similarly, being the subject of the photo gives you personality rights, but not the copyright. So unless you know who that photographer would be, and can get their permission, there is no way to meet the requirements here on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It is imaginable that, for the English-language Wikipedia only, you can meet their lower bar for non-free use. - Jmabel ! talk 01:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:小仏関所周辺 〔大日本沿海輿地全図 〕. 第90図 武蔵・下総・相模(武蔵・利根川口・東京・小仏・下総・相模・鶴間村).jpg[edit]

公開範囲について。〔大日本沿海輿地全図 〕. 第90図 武蔵・下総・相模(武蔵・利根川口・東京・小仏・下総・相模・鶴間村) 公開範囲インターネット公開(保護期間満了)国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション --Koshiyou (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Barb Schwarz page[edit]

Dear Sirs,

Not only I'm a newbie here on Wiki, but I find it EXTREMELY difficult to find my way around.Someone please help me! I have created a page named, Barb Schwarz that has been promptly deleted due to possible violation of copyrights. Ms. Schwarz her self has given me the permission to use the content from her personal website in order to create "her page" here on Wikipedia. What can I do know? Should I recreate the page again with the same contents? Will I be banned from the community? Thank you in advance Sincerely, Sanja Radovanovic (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Sanja Radovanovic

This seems to be primarily about an issue with a page over at English Wikipedia (see en:User talk:Sanja Radovanovic#Speedy deletion nomination of Barb schwarz), rather than the Wikimedia Commons media repository. As for the copyright issues with File:Barb Schwarz.jpg here on Commons, I've replied at User talk:Sanja Radovanovic#File:Barb Schwarz.jpg. LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to go too heavily into the English Wikipedia issues here, because that is a different site, but I happen to be an admin there as well, so... The main issue would be that you need to provide independent citations that show that this person is notable. You said in the deleted article that she has been written about in a lot of publications, but you did not give a single specific citation from any of those publications. That is probably the main thing you need to do. The less broadly and obviously famous a person is, the more such citation is needed to establish notability. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

identification with species[edit]

Anyone who knows about or interested in determining this photo with the correct species. Sobreira (parlez) 14:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong date in page titles[edit]

I came across File:Bell telephone magazine (1922) (14569824378).jpg. The image cannot possibly be 1922, the technology is much too recent. It is actually from the magazine vol. 46, no. 3, May/June 1967. I have corrected the dates in the template, and somebody else had already taken care of the category. So should the title also be changed? There seems to be a large number of images from Bell Telephone Magazine, all titled as "1922" and with the same similar problems on the page. Way more than I want to deal with. SpinningSpark 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They all may be copyvios. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: we have quite a few periodicals sourced from, who file all the issues under the date of the first one in their collection—which then shows up in our filenames or metadata. does a lot of automated uploading and also runs bots through a lot of the files afterwards to fix such problems; at any rate he’d probably be the best person to ask about the feasibility of handling them ‘in bulk’. (@Ruslik0: I guess they‘re {{PD-US-no notice}}.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The IA is only as good as the contributor, in this case the source is the Prelinger Library. The digitization was for a 'book' of Bell telephone magazines dating from 1922 through to 1967. Unfortunately both on Flickr (where IA has put clips from the "book") and at the IA source, the only date against pages or extracted images is the first year of publication. There is then the presumption of 'no copyright known'. If we have a DR which assesses that images from the magazine are copyright if after, say, 1946, then we can use the IA 'page' number to check which images were published after that year. This would be the only way of doing this without a human identifying where one issue of the magazine ends and another starts.
Feel free to start a DR if you are concerned. Past key DR discussions for this batch upload project can be found at User:Fæ/Project_list/Internet_Archive#Useful_reference_deletion_discussions. In particular, consider Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Ladies' home journal (1889) (14580245160).jpg, as many of the later images may not be PD by age, but may still be public domain if there was no copyright renewal. -- (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The binding is not actually all years 1922-1967 and it should be possible to discover a more accurate date by automatic process. Following the link to "Catalog Entry" takes you to the Internet Archive page where the "Volume" field tells me the binding is actually vols. 45-46. That can be converted to a year with vol+1921. This binding therefore covers 1966-1967. Pinning it down to an exact magazine issue is more problematic, but "1966-1967" is at least not misleading whereas "1922" is so wildly innacurate that if I were to use that information on Wikipedia, I would be accused of creating hoaxes. This picture would imply, for instance, that not only transistors were in existence in 1922, but that integrated circuits using them were already a mature technology. As someone who worked in the industry for a long time, the "wrongness" of the date just leapt out at me. Other users may not have the benefit of that experience. SpinningSpark 12:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Upload picture[edit]

How do u upload picture i try but it not working.

What is exactly not working? Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You can't upload files as an IP, you need to be logged in. --Magnus (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Building a possibility to search for wikimedia-users in different parts of the world[edit]

Hello, I was searching for a picture of a buidling which is not in my actual living place. Is there a function to search for users worldwide so that I could contact wikimedia users in the near of this object with the wish to them to make photos of things in their near? Or is it able to create something like this? I think it could be helpful. Informationskampagne (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Picture requests might help. Finding a user living in a specific area is problematic, nobody has to add a location to their userpage. SOME people don't even bother to have one, hint hint.... ;-). You can start sifting through: Category:Location user templates --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Uploading photos[edit]

Can I upload my own photos to Commons? --Vladimirrizov20 (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you take those photos yourself? Ruslik (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"File extension ".png" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/jpeg)"[edit]

I am trying to upload an updated version of one of my maps (, but when I try so it says what's quoted in the title. Changed the picture to a, but still the same problem.--LeGabrie (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You can only overwrite files with files of the same type, in this case PNG. Obviously you try to upload a JPEG instead of a PNG. --Magnus (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Κλάρας -Βελουχιώτης - Φάκελος 1.jpg[edit]

Material from Greek Police surveillance files has recently been published, including these three photographs ( 1, 2, 3) that I uploaded of Aris Velouchiotis. According to the newspaper article in which the photographs were contained (see here -- in Greek) the file contains material from the 1930s till Velouchiotis's death in 1945, but, taking into account Velouchiotis's appearance and attire, these photographs were surely taken before 1942. Are these photographs considered to be in the public domain? It seems to me that this must be the case, but I am not sure about it. If so, could someone please let me know what is the appropriate tag? Many thanks in advance.

--Ασμοδαίος (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

PS. I thought I should add FWIW that, upon more careful inspection, one of the three photographs (all of which seem to be parts of the same mug shot series) displays a sign with a date "31-7-1930", which -I infer- should be the date the photographs were taken. Ασμοδαίος (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It would help to know more about the publication history. Even assuming their original copyrights to have expired, if the photos were previously unpublished then Realnews will have publication rights for 25 years (until the end of 2041). I don’t know what the pre-1997 Greek law said about work for hire, but if the police service owned the rights and a 70-y post-creation term applied, the photos would not have been free until 2001, so under URAA would receive extended US copyright for 120 y after creation (until the end of 2050). I think you’re only safe if you can find evidence of publication before 1992 (2017 − 25 y) and that the Greek copyright expired before 1996.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
As additional link: Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Greece. — Speravir – 02:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

questions re File:Actincrenactin2016ogg.ogg[edit]

Hello again folks! I'm a newbie intent on adding images and video content to biology pages. I've deceived myself into feeling confident enough about images that I switched to my first video. There is a wonderful video at that compares the protein actin, found in us, and the protein crenactin, found in bacteria. I figure out how to save it from the elife site to my computer, then tried to upload it to the commons. The wizard stopped me because it doesn't accept mp4 files. So, I went to for help, which led me to the online converter at It seemed that I could upload the file OK, and was able to select the commons prefered webm output format, but when I tried to convert, it gave me an error message "conversion error occurred". So, I turned to another approach suggested on the help page: VLC on my computer. The VLC approach worked to convert it to a .ogg file, but as you can see if you compare the 2 videos, the ogg is poor in comparison to the mp4. Now, IMHO, the ogg file is still a great video, but not as great as the mp4. I have 2 concerns: 1) I'm concerned about the licensing, because the ogg video is not the same as the mp4 video, yet the wizard didn't give me an opportunity to declare that I converted the video, which would take elife "off the hook" for preparing a lesser quality video. 2) Do you have any experience with this sort of conversion and suggestions for how I can make a higher quality conversion? I'm using a Dell PC. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)