Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/11.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Hosting HDR images as JPEG with gain map 1 1 C.Suthorn 2024-11-01 07:41
2 Google's semi-censorship of Wikimedia Commons must end 34 11 ReneeWrites 2024-11-03 15:57
3 I messed up making a mass deletion request 2 2 RoyZuo 2024-11-01 18:57
4 Flickr license and license in embedded metadata differ 14 5 RobbieIanMorrison 2024-10-30 21:56
5 Your input... 13 5 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 21:53
6 https://ocr.wmcloud.org/ 6 5 Enhancing999 2024-10-31 21:33
7 Views through mobile phones 7 5 Prototyperspective 2024-11-03 12:28
8 Category:Musical groups by genre 5 2 Jmabel 2024-10-31 01:02
9 Almost 400k files need license review 25 10 Jmabel 2024-11-05 19:41
10 Obtuse bot created categories 14 9 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 10:46
11 Commons Gazette 2024-11 1 1 RoyZuo 2024-11-01 19:15
12 Derivative works (FOP etc.) 6 6 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 10:39
13 Special:Uploads/Claudiupt 1 1 Strainu 2024-11-02 10:19
14 Help needed with a new userbox template 1 1 David Osipov 2024-11-02 11:54
15 Provinces of China by month and year 3 3 RoyZuo 2024-11-02 23:58
16 Edit summary on project chat 6 4 ReneeWrites 2024-11-03 22:35
17 file description pages from IA Flickr stream 1 1 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 14:30
18 New page for establishing textured meshes on Commons 1 1 PantheraLeo1359531 2024-11-03 18:16
19 FYI 6 4 C.Suthorn 2024-11-05 16:37
20 New law in Costa Rica: "Public Domain of Information" 2 2 Jmabel 2024-11-05 19:45
21 Moscow State University Herbarium 1 1 Yann 2024-11-05 15:36
22 {{TOO-US}} 2 2 Jmabel 2024-11-06 19:29
23 Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Kadı 2 1 1 Kadı 2024-11-06 14:58
24 External link detection is now live on Commons 1 1 Sannita (WMF) 2024-11-06 16:36
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Village pump in Diepenheim, Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch


18 September

retirada de copivio

Moved to Commons:Café#retirada_de_copivio[1]

bot Vandalisme during bot upload

(moved to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Someone_using_File_Upload_Bot_.28Magnus_Manske.29_to_mass-upload_vandalism)

Image:Bill Gates Letter to Hobbyists.jpg

I have uploaded a public domain copy of Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Computer Hobbyists." This is the one where he complains that he will never make any money on software. The letter was published in several magazines including the public domain Homebrew Computer Club Newsletter. They were the main target of the letter. The image description provides a explanation of the copyright status. Could someone check my description? -- Swtpc6800 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC) w:en:User:Swtpc6800[reply]

The copyright automatically belongs to the author, Bill Gates. Unless he explicitly dedicated it to the public domain, it's not PD. Superm401 - Talk 15:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the image page seems to be claiming another reason (no copyright notice) as well, so it may be legal. Superm401 - Talk 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States before 1978, the author had to explicitly claim a copyright and include a copyright notice. Mr. Gates did not, so his letter is public domain. (The letter was published in 1976.) -- Swtpc6800 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

George Melies

Public Domain worldwide?

File:Le Voyage dans la lune 2.jpg

Is n't this image now worldwide (not only US) Public Domain? I ask this because its author (George Melies) died in 1938. Since it is now 2008, and France applies the 70 pma-rule (something is in the public domain if the author dies in a calender year 70 years or longer ago), my guess would be that this is now definititely public domain everywhere..... just as all his movies (see en:Georges Méliès#Filmography).
In that case, wikimedia/-pedia can enrich itself with all Melies-images wanted.

Greetings, Herodotus 15:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not before January 1 2009. It goes like this: some date in 1938 + 70 years = some date in 2008 => Copyrighted through 2008, PD in 2009-01-01. Samulili 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Samulili for explanation. So if I got you right, this means today, all works from the people who died in 1937 fell definitely in public domain (besides other public domain-rules being effective of course) Herodotus 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what it means. en:Category:1937 deaths. Samulili 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a page that we can work on together and where we can list people who have probably produced some interesting non-text media: User:Samulili/1937 deaths. So far I have gone through A and B. Samulili 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! I'll help you. Btw: this also applies for textual media. I hope someone involved in wikisource also reads this (I'm not). Herodotus 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Wikisource-cerers, watch this! en:J.M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan, is now in the public domain! Herodotus 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSS update

An administrator should handle the request I made here. HujiStat 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New year, new public domain works

As we now are in the Year of Our Lord 2008, new works are becoming PD. See [2] [3] for a few photographers who died in 1937. And suddenly is Category:Waldemar Titzenthaler legal. Kjetil r 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see also few rows above, under heading #George Melies. Samulili 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks to" Gerda Taro, we now have a legal picture of the famous photographer Robert Capra!

Check out http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.2876631/ Herodotus 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I really wish copyrights in the U.S. weren't frozen. 2019 is so far away :( Rocket000 11:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't complain man. At least you got your public domain-movies up to 1977/1989. We in Europe have to wait another year until George Melies' films (some from before 1900!) are in the public domain. The 70 pma-rule is a killer for movie-fans, especially because it applies to the director, the producer AND the screenwriter. So on which side of the Atlantic are the copyright rules more bizarre???

(BTW: apologies for the stupid "Robert CapRa typo... :( ) Herodotus 13:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I guess we were just spoiled for so long. :) Rocket000 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the whole "U.S. government work = PD" is a beautiful thing. For the most part, copyrights are pretty reasonable here, it's just sometimes your Mickey Mouses and Sonny Bonos get involved. Rocket000 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Page Scraping

Hi; I'm starting an open source project and I would like to page scrape data from the wiktionary. What policies does wikipedia have regarding page scraping? Hits per day? etc. TIA, beno

Well, this isn't Wiktionary or Wikipedia, but see Reusing Wikipedia content. As long as it stays GFDL and follows what that entails, then it should be fine. Good luck with your project. Rocket000 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sure I fit those rules. What I'm wondering about, is this: What if I wrote a screen scraper that scraped, say, 1000 pages a day? What if there were 1000 people like me doing the same thing? Wouldn't that really screw with their bandwidth? That's why I'm wondering if they have rules concerning the same :) TIA, beno

If you want to do bulk downloads from wikipedia, take a look at m:Data_dumps. --rimshottalk 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too sweet! Thanks! beno

Osama family photo

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is there anything stopping this alleged photo of Bin Laden from the 70's[4] from being {{PD-Saudi Arabia}}? -N 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depends on where it was published. I doubt it was even taken in Saudi Arabia, certainly doesn't look so. FunkMonk 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't. It (supposedly) is a family photo taken on holiday in Sweden. The family would not have given out copies in Sweden though, they would have given them out back home. If I take a photo on holiday, I certainly consider the US as country of first publication.... -N 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't be sure, but his mother's family is Syrian, and his father' family is Yemeni, so if it was handed out there, it would be PD too. So well, what keeps it from being PD is simply copyright paranoia. FunkMonk 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one big reason for it not to be PD-Saudi Arabia would be that the photo was taken by a local Swedish newspaper, according to the Guardian [5] and other reports. The Globe & Mail (26 Sep 2001) put it: "Large clans of obviously wealthy Saudis were such a rarity in small-town Sweden that journalist Hans Lendquist was sent out to write the story ... A search of the newspaper's archives turned up the article and the photo of the handsome clan gathered around a massive Cadillac." (found via Lexis/Nexis). --dave pape 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rling/license

This page: User:Rling/license appears to be conflicting with the existing licenses that this user has licensed his photo's under (multi-license, GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5, see one of his images as an example). To my knowledge, it's possible to specify one or more licenses but not to define addition requirements. For example, the original licenses require attribution but don't make specific requirements on how that should be done. But this user additionally asks:

  • displayment of a copyright notice ("Copyright (c) [year] Richard Ling") which is incorrect as the image is under a free license
  • In online formats, you must provide an active hyperlink (not required by licenses, it requires attribution but not necessarily an active hyperlink; strictly, attribution by mentioning "Richard Ling" would be enough)
  • same for offline usage (mentioning the URL)
  • not allowed to remove metadata from image

These requirements aren't in the original licenses so is this allowed really? Otherwise, this page should be removed and the images should be available under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses, without extra requirements. - Simeon87 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is my understanding that attribution can be demanded in a reasonable fashion, and this demand is reasonable. I do not see requiring preservation of exif data and acknowledgement of copyright to be unreasonable (free license!=copyright free!) -N 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - I didn't ask this because of the reasonability of the requirements but it's more about specifying extra requirements in general. After all, if this is allowed then who determines (defines) what it is reasonable (legally speaking). The metadata requirement is the fourth item, by the way. - Simeon87 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kinda. As far as any CC license goes, acknowledgment of the license is required and the copyright holder can specify how they want to be attributed. These are not extra requirements as that's what the license allows you to do. However, if you don't want certain parts of the image to be manipulated (e.g. the EXIF data) then you would need to use something like CC-BY-ND. Which is allowed here as long as you give the GFDL option (not recommended though, as it's not really in the spirit of our project). Rocket000 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prohibition on removal of the metadata is indeed problematic, not least because the Mediawiki software does this automatically to all low-resolution images used in articles and such. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could some admin check this guy's gallery out: [6]

All the images he has uploaded and attributed to himself seem to be the copyrighted work of others. FunkMonk 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the images. Some are correctly licensed like Image:Icterus galbula.jpg. For the other ones, I think he confused scanning/photographing with original authorship. Though things like Image:Pelecanimimo.jpg don't make sense. Rocket000 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's pretty clear he doesn't understand the license tags nor the "source" field. He attributes the real author in most cases, yet uses the "self" tags and says "self-made" for the source. No response on his talk page. I don't think he speaks English, so hopefully someone else can try talking to him. Rocket000 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Now that the PD-Flag copyright tag had been deprecated, what copyright tag should be used for flags that are uploaded? None of the others I looked at seemed like they made sense 67.177.149.119 04:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we see and enjoy a recent picture of vocalist REGINA BELLE on her Wikipedia bio-story? Can anyone help?

I uploaded the photo from Internet, there was no credit, it's from the Washington Post article dated 11/09/2007. I cannot see it...:-) Please, HELP! thanks.

Can you tell us the username you used for the upload or give us any indication on the picture's title? Please note that unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the Web is copyrighted and so not permitted here. The picture you uploaded was most probably deleted on these grounds. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the article was: "Free to Be Regina Belle.Wide-Ranging Singer Credits Her Longevity to Staying True to Her Values"

and the picture title was: "Regina Belle continues to expand her repertoire. A gospel album is due out in February". Thanks. Anyway, the most inportant thing, for every music lover's sake, is that anybody from WIKIPEDIA may upload a nice, recent picture of the jazz/soul diva REGINA BELLE, to make her recognizable. Not necessarily that one that I tried to upload without success and expertise :-).I just found out that the picture was pretty recent and nice! my user name is gizetha.

Unfortunately, things are not so simple. Commons only accepts free content, so we have to find a free picture of Ms. Belle. Also, it seems User:Gizetha doesn't exist. Or you sure of the orthograph? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, it will be a rewarding job. Ms. BELLE is well loved and popular.Please, anybody who can help us out, from the Peak Records, Concord Jazz Records labels? From her management and producers? THANKS !!
I'm not sure I understood you correctly, but you are free to request any owner of a picture of Ms. Belle to release it under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia. Such people should read w:Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. Contacting her management for such a thing is a possibility, but please be very polite when doing that and explain the situation properly. TheDJ 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian films in the public domain?

According to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ , there are several countries with no copyright agreements with the United States. These countries are " Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San Marino, and possibly Yemen ". This means works published first within these countires, made by citizens of these countries, are "Not protected by US copyright law because they are not party to international copyright agreements".
Especially Iran has a huge cinema legacy: en:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Iranian_films. Can we treat Iranian films on wikimedia commons as they are not affected by copyright? As they are not protected by US copyright law, a tag "Public Domain-USA" would apply. Herodotus 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like there is no legal barrier for hosting and distributing those films from a server in the US. However, as a rule of thumb, we only host content that is free in the US and in the originating country. Samulili 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See COM:L#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_foreign_copyright_law for the policy statement. --dave pape 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to upload logo Whatsoever?

Okay, I have been wondering if there is anyway that I can get a copyrighted logo onto WikiCommons and not have it deleted. It is a logo of Advanced Micro Devices' (AMD) to be released microprocessor series, the Phenom FX. I just want to get it over to Commons so I can put it into a Wikipedia article that I am working on. Here is a link to it. [7]
Thanks,

EbonyFalcon 17:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons is a repository of free media. Logos are not free. Therefore, we can't accept them. However, if the article you're working on is at the English Wikipedia, you may upload the logo there using a fair use rationale.--Boricuæddie 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, that'll work! EbonyFalcon 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page template?

Is there already talk page template for notifying user to be carefully when moving images from other wikis, or to ask them to use CommonsHelper? At least i didn't find any, maybe it should be created? --Tomia 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity for a bot

Some of the redirect categories inevitably repopulate because their names seem to be so obvious. I've been manually sending the pics from Category:Frogs to Category:Ranidae today. In the last week I've also redirected dozens of items from Category:American culture to Category:Culture of the United States and from Category:Jewelry to Category:Jewellery.

Wouldn't it be sensible to automate this type of work? I'm not the one to do the coding, but I'd like to get in touch with someone who has the skill. Durova 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:CategoryRedirectBot siebrand told me recently that this bot should be operational in the not too distant future. TheDJ 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Durova 07:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarked images

Template:Captioned I've been wondering about this for a while and thought I'd raise the question so we could all have a bit of a discussion and I could understand the common thinking in this area. The existence of {{Trademarked}} puzzles me. As I understand it, the point of Commons is to act as a repository of free images, not just images that are free of copyright. Some trademarks have extremely high levels of legal protection, with large multinationals willing to aggressive pursue the slightest infringement of those trademarks. To describe those images as free seems rather odd. Take the image to the right as an example - the image is not covered by copyright (the logo is simply the words "Coca-Cola" written in Spencerian Script) - but it seems to me that the uses a downstream user could put this image have very real legal limitations in most jurisdictions. Given that that trademarks are now usually registered in most countries and that the existence of trademark rights over them will restrict their uses, why do we include trademarked images on Wikimedia Commons? WjBscribe 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image is free for just about any purpose save advertising a competing/knock-off product with it. You could print it in a magazine, use it commercially to sell Coke, re-arrange the letters comicly, sell reprints of old Coke ads, sell parody T-shirts and so much more. Just about the only thing you couldn't do with it is use it fraudulently, which you would have a hard time doing with any image. </Devil's advocate> -N 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) It's a good point, and something all of us here have considered at one point or another I think. But... the images are clearly marked as being trademarked. Thats already more than we do for trademarked brand names in Wikipedia (which also have potential downstream concerns in theory). Many insignia and country flags are covered by other laws as well. As a matter of fact, we have some nude material on commons that might actually be more problematic in my eyes than our trademarked images. In my opinion the images are free, their usage is restricted, but that is not really our problem. It is a problem of the one who uses the image. We cannot protect our users from everything. Now I'm quite liberal in these things so I'm sure quite a few people will disagree. But in my opinion the images are free enough for commons, we don't delete all pictures with people in them because there are potential defamation law issues for a downstream user either. TheDJ 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kinda how I see it too. Most of our images aren't completely free. There's personality rights, moral rights, trademark rights, and some pretty restrictive copyleft rights (*coughGPLcough*). It's just we have to draw the line somewhere. Our project's main purpose is suppling images to Wikimedia projects—other users come secondary. TM images are immensely useful to the projects. Especially the ones that don't allow local uploads (!) they would be missing out on a lot. Rocket000 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Rocket000. Trademark protection isn't by any means absolute or all-encompassing: it generally stops people using a mark in a manner in which it could be misunderstood by others as being use by or with the authority of the trademark owner. So, an image including a trademark might not be useable commercially in conjuction with certain goods or services (depending on which goods/services the trademark has been used or registered for), but might well be perfectly OK when used on entirely different goods/services. It may also be OK when used in a non-commercial context such as Wikipedia . Also, trademarks are protected on a country by country or region by region basis. Trademark rights cannot (normally) be asserted to prevent a mark being used in a country in which the mark is neither used nor registered by the trademark owner. --MichaelMaggs 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also with Rocket000. If free means for any purpose then all pictures of living German people have to be banned because of personality rights. Merchandising is'nt allowed by the exception of "right of the own picture" --Historiograf 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.svg downloading

I am trying to download various .svg files to translate IUCN conservation status images but they do not become .svg when I download. On the download screen after 'save image as', there is a drop-down box which suggests 2 different file endings (.png and 'All files'). After downloading both, they do not cooperate as vector images with Inkscape (the newest version). My computer obviously just doesn't recognise .svg as a real ending. What can I do? Harris Morgan 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Harris, are you right-clicking on the image itself or the linked image name below the graphic? You need to do the latter, as MediaWiki produces PNG thumbnails for SVGs. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken Wikimedia uses some backend toolkit to render SVG as PNG in some instances, such as thumbnails. If you go directly to its upload page and click the image it should render it as a single SVG element in your browser and you shouldn't have any trouble saving it. I have saved a few SVG's to my HD from commons with no trouble.
A demonstration of this is the commons E8 graph. If you right click to save it on its commons description page [[8]] it will ask to save as a PNG because it's thumbnailed as a PNG by the backend toolkit, but if you click the image and just render it as a single element in the browser [[9]] it will allow you to save it as an SVG because it's not being converted to a thumbnail PNG by the toolkit. (Note in Firefox when you are rendering the SVG as a single element you will need to use "Save Page As..." rather than "Save Image As...". When you use "Save Page As..." the Save Type As entry in the Save As box will show "SVG Document" rather than the usual "HTML" you would get when saving a webpage) 67.177.149.119 04:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That will be it then! I'm using firefox, so I'll just use the internet for my SVG downloading in the future. Thanks for the help, Harris Morgan 13:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

January 4

Deletion backlog

I just realized Commons has three months worth of open deletion debates. I can't fathom how it got so bad. We have to do something about this. For comparison, English Wikipedia only has 6 days (to be fair, deletion debates there are 5, rather than 7 days, but still). Superm401 - Talk 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is bad, but keep in mind our deletion requests are a little different than WPs. On Wikipedia, all you got to do is establish consensus, here the major reason for deletion is copyright status, which isn't so easy to establish. Rocket000 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even on Wikipedia, you have to have a reason for your opinion (not just up and down). And Commons is supposed to be more free than Wikipedia, which means being conservative. If there's something from September 2007 and no one knows for sure if it's legal, it should just be deleted. Superm401 - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three months? It has been five in the past...
It seems to me a lot more people just pass by and make comments, at en.wp. That is useful. But it's not very common here. Another reason is that the fall-out can be potentially worse, in terms of impact on other projects, here compared to en.wp. But the main reason is as Rocket000 says, figuring out copyright status is not always straightforward.
Please do drop by and make comments if you can. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Scrape or Download Dump?

Hi; I want to grab all the wiktionary entries and use the data for an open source project. Last week, someone suggested I grab a dump here: wget http://download.wikimedia.org/ukwiktionary/20071119/ukwiktionary-20071119-pages-articles.xml.bz2 I did that, bunzipped it and opened it up in vi. Got bored looking around so I tried looking up "antenna" which is found in the wiktionary. Nope, wasn't in the download :( So, am I stuck with screen scraping to get the data? TIA, beno

Don't screen scrape. You can get help at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/ Superm401 - Talk 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Iranian films (/photos) in the public domain:template?

Following the discussion above, I did some research on Iranian copyright law. It looks promising. Photos and cinematographic works from Iran (that is, by Iranian citizens, under Iranian jurisdicition) are under copyright for only 30 years after they are published. This also applies to works from legal bodies. See [1], article 16. Since the US does not protect Iranian copyright anyway, "every" Iranian photo/movie up to 1977 could be hosted on wikimedia: they are free both in Iran and in the US. (Other Iranian works, like paintings etc., are public domain 30 years after author's dead).
I propose a template:PD-Iran, which can be used to license public domain-works made in Iran. Herodotus 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, never mind than :( . I was browsing the templates and could not find this one, so I assumed there was no template. Thanks for correcting! Herodotus 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Industrial designs, tradedresses and trade secrets.

A similar template to {{Trademarked}} and {{Personality rights}} but for Industrial designs, tradedresses or trade secrets from utiliarian objects may be created? --guerreritoboy 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't need one for trade secrets. If we did, they wouldn't really be secrets. And you can't violate patents with images. Rocket000 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It would be very useful if interlanguage links were available for content pages. For example, if I read about Nyctalopia in English, I would like to then read the equivalent article in French, right now I have to go to wikipédia in French and then search with the term in French (or another language). It would be much easier if a link lead directly to the same topic in the desired language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.141.171 (talk • contribs)

  • They are very easy to add to the page you desire. Just type [[fr:foo]] at the bottom of the page to make the interwiki link in the tool bar to the left. Type [[:fr:foo]] in the text to make an ordinary link. You can also use piping to pretty it up (ie [[:fr:foo|foo at the French Wikipedia]]). Hope this helps :) I encourage you to register an account here and fix up the pages that need help :) And be sure to sign your comments by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). -N 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation in uploads from PDB

Category talk:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month

Please discuss!

Maybe someone could create a DOI-Template?

Thank you! --Patho 11:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD-NASA and warnings

{{PD-USGov-NASA}} is an exceptionally ugly template due to all the warnings attached to it. Licensing templates are primarily for re-users of our content, not for internal admin or uploader assistance. Given this the only real thing that needs saying are the restrictions on logos and insignia. As for the other parts:

  1. The NASA website hosts a large number of images from ... non-American space agencies.
  2. Materials from the Hubble Space Telescope may be copyrighted if they do not explicitly come from the STScI.
  3. All materials created by the SOHO probe are copyrighted.
  4. Astronomy Picture of the Day may be copyrighted.

All these aspects are reinforcement of the message: On nasa.gov != PD-USGov. Each only applies to a subset of the images that come from NASA, and they are more reminders to Wikimedians not to upload this stuff than messages to our reusers. The appropriate place to remind Wikimedians would be MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromgov. Why do we have it on the template?--Nilfanion 12:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because we're trying to remind people looking at the image description page of the caveats, not just the original uploader. Getting all the legal and situational details right is probably more important for a copyright template than being aesthetic... AnonMoos 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those caveats should apply to the image that is tagged though. If any of those caveats apply, the image should be deleted. Therefore they are redundant except for the logo and insignia one.--Nilfanion 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freeman.svg won't display properly

Is there a way to remove those huge top and bottom margins from this image? It gets in the way (it's meant for my userpage). I just got Inkscape on here and I haven't studied all of the intricacies of it yet. How do you fix this problem in Inkscape? -IonasFreeman 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed it for you. Easiest way to fix it is to select the object, go to File->Document Properties, then click "Fit Page to Selection" to change the canvas size. -N 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, looking at your picture you are like 8 years old. And you are also apparently proud of the fact you've been banned from en.wiki. Don't vandalize Commons, ok? -N 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Sir Ian McKellen

I'm in touch with Sir Ian's webmaster, he's indicated that he'd be happy to release a few pictures for use on Commons and Wikipedia, http://www.compu-webs.com/keith_stern/photographs/ shows some of his work. Please email me if you've any pictures you'd really like for commons. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith has also indicated that he'd be happy to discuss releasing photos credited to him from at mckellen.com or serkis.com or seanastin.com. :-D --Brian McNeil / talk 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flickr

can we move any image form flikr here? Frizabelaspk2me 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only those with a free license, which are listed here. More information about images from flickr can be found here. Best regards, --rimshottalk 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

question

Does any one know why it seems hard to find WW2 cine-film/video clips? For example, the original film made about the Memphis Belle must be available for use (I imagine the copy right has expired). I know German combat photographer also took some great films/stills, but I can't seem to find them. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.190.186 (talk • contribs)

I think the problem is that unless you have some specific information about copyright status of the video or image (for example it was made by US Government and one can use Template:PD-USGov) than you have to assume 70 years after authors death rule (Template:PD-old) which does not apply to any WWII material.--Jarekt 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Memphis Belle thing is pretty clearly out of copyright, because it was the work of U.S. govt. cameramen. Why not look for cheap DVD's of the Why We Fight series? That's where I got my copy of the Memphis Belle documentary. Also, some version of it appears to be available for download at http://www.archive.org/details/MemphisBelle and/or http://www.archive.org/details/TheMemphisBelleAStoryofaFlyingFortress . As for footage shot by German official photographers, that's probably a more complex matter... AnonMoos 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

small Sherman Firefly images with wrong name and wrong description

Please, can somebody do this:

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.54.172.191 (talk • contribs)

I think you can do this yourself as follows:
  1. ) Upload the new images under the filenames you want
  2. ) Ensure licensing, source, description are correct
  3. ) Copy over any info from the old versions (especially categories)
  4. ) Mark (edit) old versions with {{duplicate|new-name}} eg add {{duplicate|Image:Sherman-Firefly-19840226-1.JPG}} to the top of [[:Image:Sherman-M50-19840226-2.JPG]]
If you don't have an account, create one and away you go (there's lots of other things you can fix too :-) --Tony Wills 03:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingualism

Commons is multilingual, although English is still quite predominant. No one will argue that. I am Filipino, and a native w:Tagalog speaker. The languages code is "tl". However I have been prevented from contributing in Tagalog (translating, etc.) here in Commons due to the template "tl" being already occupied by Template Link. Please help me resolve this. It would be quite unfair if we won't have here Tagalog. -- Felipe Aira 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For that reason, I think, we have {{Tgl}}. --rimshottalk 10:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Duernkrut3.jpg

This image: seemd to be copied from de: wiki de:Bild:Duernkrut3.jpg, but there reads "Do not move this file to Wikimedia Commons!". Also image in commons has lower resolution and different license ({{GFDL}}/{{PD}}). I dont understand other texts in German, is there some problem with original image? --Tomia 11:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the German WP it was uploaded as PD back in 2005 when there were no specific PD tags. Because the author stated that it was self-made, PD should have changed into PD-self but was (bot-assisted) changed into something like PD-ineligible. Since for PD-ineligible the guidelines on de.wp and Commons are not the same, there is a line "Do not more to Commons" included in the PD-ineligible template at de.wp. I uploaded the higher resolution and updated the image description. --Matt314 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this out. --Tomia 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images with borders

What to do when the uploader repeatedly removes the "removeborder" template from "his" images ? - Erik Baas 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Scanned Image from a newspaper page circa 1930

I'm in the process of updating and expanding my Father's (Tadeusz Olsza) entry in Wikimedia and want to upload a photo of him from a 1930 newspaper page which I have among his memorabilia. Would I be violating copyright by publishing this scanned image? - BronkaOlsza

It wouldn't be {{PD-US}} so I don't know if it can be free. // Liftarn
Since Tadeusz Olsza article is in polish wikipedia than there is a chance that the newspaper you are talking about was printed in Poland. If so, than Template:PD-Polish would apply, assuming that you can provide source info about the paper. --Jarekt 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Image:TadeuszOlsza.jpg and Image:TadeuszOlsza03.jpg, but I think they may be misstagged. // Liftarn

Feedback

Hi all! I'm pretty new here and was wondering if I could get some feedback on the image I uploaded, Image:Vamp barnstar.png. I intend to use it as a personal user award on Wikipedia for those who helped me out with a vampire-related article and was wondering if it was correctly licensed, was the sort of thing that's allowed on here (IE, won't be deleted) and anything else. Also, if anyone has time, I tried to get the background transparent, but it didn't work. Could someone do this for me? Pleasy? Asked elsewhere ;) Anyway, I'm not even sure if this is the place to come for this.... Oh, and categories - what ones should I put them in? Cheers, Spawn Man 10:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category part is easy: Category:Barnstars --rimshottalk 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Licensing looks fine assuming you created it from scratch, otherwise you should mention any image that it is based on or derived from. --Tony Wills 10:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

Valuable Images Proposal

I propose to introduce a new class of Valuable Images (VI) on Commons to supplement the existing Featured Pictures (FP) and Quality images (QI) systems.

FPs are the cream of the crop at Commons and in principle reserved for images of extraordinary value and technical quality. Candidates are evaluated in a lengthy voting procedure. By requiring a 2/3 majority vote only the best of the best pass through. About 0.05% of the images at Commons has the FP stamp on them. Due to the voting procedure it is mostly aesthetically pleasing images which gets promoted and are used as Picture Of The Day and for the show room to attract interest and users.

QI emphasizes the technical quality of the images and provides a forum for recognizing users who contribute with images of high technical quality. Candidates are reviewed in a fast and lightweight review process, where a single review by another user is often sufficient. Using the feedback from the reviewers the contributors often get hints on how to improve their contributions, which is fruitful.

My idea with the VIs is complementary to the QIs. A VI is highly valuable for other Wikimedia projects, putting a lower emphasis on the technical quality.

A detailed proposal is available here and discussed here. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. -- Slaunger 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any rule concerning the inclusion of unnecessary external links in Commons media? Is there a general rule that says “no URIs in images”? Which of the following is all right, which is not? And how would we know?

1. Is it all right if…

a) Somebody creates or significantly modifies a map, a drawing, a photo, an audio file etc. and decides to visibly or audibly include their name in the file before uploading it to Wikimedia Commons.

b) Somebody takes free media from somewhere outside Commons and decides to include their name in the file before uploading it to Commons.

c) Somebody creates or significantly modifies media and decides to include a URI to their homepage in the file before uploading it to Commons.

d) Somebody takes free media from somewhere outside Commons and decides to include a URI to their homepage in the file before uploading it to Commons.

2. In each of the above cases: Is it all right if…

y) Another editor removes the artist's (or uploader's) name (or URI) from said media (for example, by cropping the image) and puts the artist's (or uploader's) name (or URI) on the corresponding Commons page instead, if it isn't there already.

z) Another editor removes the artist's (or uploader's) name (or URI) from said media (for example, by cropping the image) without putting it on the corresponding Commons page instead.

3. If a+c are treated as different from b+d: Is somebody who reads/speaks a free text and uploads their recorded voice to Commons an “artist” (that is, a/c)?

4. If one or more of the above are not all right: Do we have problem tags for these cases?

I am asking because I found it irritating to see a map with a URI in it, but wasn't able to find anything against it. Thanks in advance. Dustsucker 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick remark: unless there is an OTRS ticket for the map, it should probably deleted as copyright violation from http://armenica.org . --rimshottalk 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's {{GFDL-Armenica}} -- AnonMoos 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I didn't find any GFDL notice in my quick browsing of the site. I hope the map in question doesn't date from after January 1st, 2007, which is the cutoff date mentioned by the template. --rimshottalk 10:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the tag for all of above cases is template:watermark. See instructions there.--Jarekt 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great. I guess at least a and probably c are tolerated, but all four (a–d) are “strongly discouraged”, and any user may and should remove all visible signatures and invisible watermarks from the image – or track, extending the idea to sound files – and put that information in both the EXIF data and the file's description page on Commons instead. Right? Dustsucker 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Most people are ok with watermarking as long as it's not visible (i.e. EXIF data). There's no reason to add EXIF data unless the author requests it (or it's your own work and you want to). Generally, it's a lot easier to update one record of metadata verses two. (Many people don't think to change the EXIF data when they create derivatives, leaving incorrect data behind, like false/incomplete attribution.) With sound files, I would say adding any available metadata is a good thing as nearly all media players make use of those tags. Rocket000 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COM as alias for Commons namespace

WP as alias for Wikipedia (Project) namespace was created recently for English Wikipedia. Similar request are pending for Polish projects. I think will be good idea to do same thing with COM prefix.

Why not? What I would really like to see is a COM: (or even just C:) interwiki prefix shortcut like other projects have. Rocket000 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
com: interwiki prefix could potentially interfere with en:ISO 639 language codes. --EugeneZelenko 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From en:ISO_639:c#com, it seems that this would only be a problem if there's likely to be a Comanche-language wikipedia... AnonMoos 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
de wp has the same. I would support a redirect COM -> Commons. Code·is·poetry 07:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted request. --EugeneZelenko 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem with Image:Fs-flag.svg

Please see Image talk:Fs-flag.svg. I have uploaded an image of the free speech flag, and the +C0 partdisplays as a black box instead of white text (which I set it to). As I said before, I'm new to Inkscape, and don't know whoe to fix it, so can someone please tell me how? -IonasFreeman 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Fs-flag.svg#C0 ¦ Reisio 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i fixed the image for you. If i'm not mistaken though, this is not the right place for such requests. Instead, see images to improve. /Marmelad 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or Graphics village pump. Rocket000 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for helping! -IonasFreeman 07:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Policy on PD-art?

There been a lot of debate surrounding our guideline on photos of 2D artwork that are PD everywhere except a given copy happens to be from a country that decides to "re-copyright" the painting because the copy happened to be made with a camera. Some disagree that these copies are even protected by copyright in the originating country because they show no originality (as is my view), however, many do see these images as violations of the photographers' copyright. (There doesn't seem to be any argument over scans or other reproduction methods.)

What about changing our policy? (Is it even a policy? Who decided?) No one seems to like it (as consensus has shown over and over again in DRs like here) and it only screws over wikis that don't allow local uploads. Most of the time images like these are perfectly free for them - they shouldn't miss out of all this historic artwork because of some silly policy. There's no reason for wikis to exclude PD work just because they decided to rely on Commons. If it's Public Domain in the U.S. and most other countries, why not allow it? Sure, may not be completely free, but a lot freer than most of our images. A large amount of our stuff isn't completely free, so I don't see why we can't just use a little template like "This image is PD in most countries except possibly this country". It doesn't make sense (nor is technically possible) to follow ALL local laws. Theoretically, a resident of any other country where it's PD can make a new copy of the file and reupload it and everything's fine. Their country wouldn't recognize the photographer's "copyright" and only the original artist needs to be named (no reason to mention what could be copyfraud locally). We have to decide on who's definitions of "copy" and "derivative" we use because it's logically impossible to use every countries'. And, of course, I suggest using the U.S.'s because we legally have to.

This policy is a major reason why we have such a DR backlog and so much confusion over what is or isn't ok. We waste so much time on this when we could be making Commons better. I'm not suggesting we condone users uploading material if their country says it's copyrighted, but we should allow users to upload content if their country says it's PD (as long as it's also PD in the U.S.) I'm also not suggesting we do away with the long-standing policy of original copyrighted work (i.e. the paintings themselves) not being allowed even if the U.S. doesn't respect the copyright; I'm only talking about {{PD-art}} images, where the work itself is PD everywhere. We can even keep everything on {{PD-art}}, but make it clear it only pertains to uploading from that country, not hosting it in the U.S. Another thing I should mention, if there's anything in the photo, like picture frames, shadows, or angles other than straight on, then it would be considered a derivative and still protected.

I'm not one to do the whole formal proposal - but maybe this little comment will start it off. So far the only arguments for keeping this "policy" have been because "it's policy". That's a terrible reason - we're the ones that make the rules (granted those rules are in accordance with the law and our project's purpose). They should make sense and they should made with the question, "What would be most beneficial to the most people?" in mind. Maybe I'm missing some huge obvious reason why things are the way they are (if I am, someone please point it out to me), but all I see is some silly rule that only limits Commons role as a media provider. The current trend seems to be "just upload it to en.WP", but the problem with that is many projects don't know to go there for images. And do we really want to split Commons up this way? As more and more wikis go Commons-only, the demand for these images is going to grow. We need to figure something out. Rocket000 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two points to make in this issue:
  1. It is problematic that we give one weeks notice to images we have hosted up to two years telling everything is allright. The uploaders of those images are very unlikely to visit Commons every week.
  2. Added restrictions to using PD-art are self-restrictions, not strictly required by law.
Samulili 06:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'm suggesting allowing more images - nothing we have would be deleted - actually, the contrary. Restrictions to using PD-art are self-restrictions on Commons? I think you mean not allowing certain PD-art images is a self-restriction that we as Commons have imposed. It's certainly not when uploading from those countries or reusing images in those countries; that is legally restricted (so they say). But I wasn't talking about that. Rocket000 07:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I thought I should point out, we already allow material that is against local laws outside the U.S. For example, Nazi propaganda or Holocaust denial related images are banned in Germany. Tienanmen Square protests, Tibetan and Taiwan independence, and democracy promoting material (and more!) in China (I'm mean, they blocked Google). Pictures of Mohammad and tons of other stuff in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries (they blocked Wikipedia in the past). Criticism of the Thai royal family or Buddhism in Thailand. "Terrorist" sympathizing in Israel. Tons of stuff in North Korea... Basically, many of our images aren't free at all in certain countries (not even under "fair-use"). Just like with photos of people, official insignia, trademarks, etc., I think it should be users' responsibility to know their country's laws and use our images accordingly. Rocket000 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In several countries such as the UK a photograph (not a mere scan) of a work of art such as an old painting does without doubt generate a new copyright for the photographer. Some users don't like that, but the law is as it is. The reason we reject such photographs is the rule that on Commons the image must be copyright-free not only in the US but also in the country of origin. That's a policy - true - but to change that to one where only US copyright is considered would be a pretty major policy shift to say the least. Also, a country that does not recognise the generation of a new copyright for locally-taken photographs may well nevertheless upload in its local courts the law of another country when the photograph was taken elsewhere. That was exactly what happened in the US Bridgeman case, where a US court had to rule on the validity of a copyright claim that was based on UK law. In that case, Bridgeman was a UK art library that had taken in the UK photographs of a variety of PD works of art, and claimed copyright on those photographs. The US court was undecided about whether UK copyright laws should be upheld. First it decided the case on the basis that they could, then re-opened the issue after judgement had been given and decided that they could not. Neither judgement sets a precedent which would bind the higher courts, but it does illustrate that as a general rule it cannot be taken for granted that a court will ignore a copyright claim that arose in another country where the law may be different.
I think what you're suggesting is to change our basic rule to "If it's OK in the US, where the Commons servers are held, that should be enough". By all means let's discuss that, but such a change goes well beyond PD-Art considerations. --MichaelMaggs 07:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. :) I'm only suggesting PD-art images where the U.S. doesn't even recognize there's a new copyright on the image. I'm not suggesting images that use to be copyrighted in the U.S. or could be copyrighted in the U.S. should be allowed. I don't think it's that big of a shift in policy, as we already ignore other countries' censorship laws as I stated above. We stick to "if it's ok in the U.S. it's ok for Commons" (freedom of speech cases). Copyright laws can be seen as a type of censorship too. IMO, this "policy" isn't even that established here as we have DRs that close in favor of keeping these images per consensus. Rocket000 08:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Calling the copyright laws of a large number of civilized countries "censorship laws" just because they deal with copyright in a different way to to the USA is perhaps not your best argument. It wouldn't be too hard to find an example where US laws are more restrictive than those elsewhere: FOP for example. --MichaelMaggs 09:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that's censorship too. U.S. is not an exception. Rocket000 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, yes :-) you do. If something is PD only in the U.S. but not in the source country, upload it locally at the English Wikipedia and tag it appropriately. The Commons caters to a wider set of projects, and our rule is that an image for which PD is claimed must be PD in both the source country and in the U.S. (At least.) The "photographer's rights" countries such as the Nordic countries and the UK have these restrictions right there in their copyright laws, not in some other laws. Hence we'd better respect them. Or change our rule. The "censorship" you mention has nothing to do with copyright, and is thus beyond our concerns.
We have some cases where we do not apply our "PD in US and source country" rule, but de facto use the rule "PD in source country". That concerns all the "freedom of panorama" images of sculptures (not ok in the U.S.), and also all non-U.S. PD-Old-70 images first published 1923 or later and still copyrighted in their source country in 1996 (also not ok in the U.S.) There have been previous discussions about these cases, all inconclusive. But none of them has ever suggested to use "PD in U.S." was sufficient.
You are suggesting for PD-Art to use the rule "PD in the U.S." That's bound to lead to problems, because the rights holders of these non-U.S. images, which are copyrighted in their country, are likely to complain. (Just see the Lafayette Studio images.)
Besides, I have closed the deletion request you mentioned as delete and indeed I will delete all images concerned once Bryan's bot has managed to move them all to en-WP. I had asked him before Christmas to do so, but he was away for a few weeks. There's ample evidence that these images are copyrighted in their source country, and thus should not be hosted here.
In all honesty, since the files will be hosted anyway on upload.wikimedia.org regardless of whether they're uploaded at the Commons or at en-WP, this looks like a futile exercise. However, if they are at the Commons, they can be used by all WPs, but if they're at en-WP, they can only be used there. Even if they're physically stored on the same file system. Absent any guidance of the WMF, we can only muddle on the best we can. We have six options for a rule for the Commons:
  1. PD anywhere. Boils down in essence to "author dead at least 100 years" (Mexico) and published before 1923 (U.S.) IMO that's way too restrictive.
  2. PD in the U.S. and in the source country. The current rule, not perfect, with some de facto exceptions for FOP/post-1923 PD-Old-70 non-U.S. works that are IMO barely tolerable because they apply in many non-U.S. countries, and we're unlikely to get into trouble in the U.S. because of it.
  3. PD in source country. Has the risk that a great many images are PD only in the source country (think of all the "simple photograph" rules (Sweden, Denmark, Finland), or special cases like Poland, Italy, or also Switzerland). IMO a bad choice, since such images would be better uploaded locally at the projects where they are indeed PD. Additionally, this rule runs the risk that we end up with lots of images that are definitely not ok in the U.S., but such images will surely be used at en-WP (Commons said it was PD, eh?). En-WP already has enough troubles with "fair use", no need to turn it into an even greater collection of copyvios.
  4. PD in the U.S. Has the risk that we'll end up with a lot of works that cannot be used anywhere except at en-WP. IMO a bad choice; upload locally at en-WP.
  5. PD somewhere. That boils down to "anything goes", since anything is PD in Afghanistan (has no copyright law yet). IMO an extremely bad rule.
  6. PD in the U.S. or in the source country. IMO another extremely bad rule, since we'd end up with a completely unusable mixture of images that'd be ok to use sometimes only in the U.S., sometimes only in the source country, and nobody would know which image was ok to use where.
All things considered, I think the current rule is the best workable one, even if it is sometimes inconvenient. A clarification from the WMF whether all our content must be legal to host in the U.S. (i.e., whether the "PD in the U.S." part is mandatory) has been promised by Anthère, but is still pending. If so, our current de facto execptions for FOP and post-1923 non-U.S. works that happen to be PD-Old-70 would need to go. But for the reasons hinted at under point (3) I think we should stick to that rule even if the foundation should ever say "we don't care, we're just a service provider" (but in that case, let's keep the FOP/post 1923 exceptions).
As an aside, we could also consider whether we really want to allow PD-Old-50 images. Most of these are not usable in the largest projects we have, since those operate under PD-Old-70 laws or the U.S. law. Lupo 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think "PD in the U.S." would be a good option. Even just figuring out US copyright laws is complicated enough, trying to educate our admins so that they have a working knowledge of copyright in every relevant country is unrealistic and isn't really working out for us. And how can they close deletion discussions intelligently without that knowledge? You say: "Has the risk that we'll end up with a lot of works that cannot be used anywhere except at en-WP. IMO a bad choice; upload locally at en-WP." I think this misses an important point - Commons isn't just a database for Wikipedias, it's also a useful project in its own right. And it also provides services to Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiquotes etc. If you want to use an image at en-Wikipedia, en-Wikisource and en-Wikibooks it is quite inconvenient to upload it locally three times. Haukurth 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it would greatly reduce the usefulness of the Commons for all the non-English projects that do not operate only under U.S. law. With the "and PD in source country" bit, we at least have a decent chance that the work actually is PD in more than just the U.S. and the source country, since often "PD in source" is effectively PD-Old-70, and that applies in lots of countries. The cases where "PD in source country" means less than PD-Old-70 are problematic, though. Which is why I don't agree with aggressive attempts to try to exploit shorter terms for special cases. Lupo 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to suggest, instead, is that we leave old images alone, that is, images that predate Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag (2007-04-26). Or that we, at least, personally contact every uploader in a language they understand, in a project they follow closely, and give them time adequately time to reply and find the source of the image they have uploaded. Samulili 08:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this discussion was about whether to honor the "photographer's rights" that exist is some countries, not about whether PD-Old works needed sources. Lupo 09:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about PD-Art and whether it requires a source, and in the absence of a source should the image be deleted and throught which process, in such cases where we previously have not required a source during the period before writing COM:PDART. Samulili 09:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I know what you're talking about now. There's been some recent discussion (somewhere else too, I can't find right now) about that. Something we can discuss, but let's keep it separate from this. Rocket000 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the response Lupo, however I'm not sure you really got what I was saying. Let me try to clarify with less text and more bullets. Here's what I would like to see as out policy.

  • Images that aren't free in the U.S. are never ok. (Regardless of what the WMF has to say, all our content must be legal in the U.S., right?)
  • Images that are PD in the U.S. but were or could of been copyrighted in the U.S. (i.e. if the work was created in the U.S.) are not allowed if they're copyrighted elsewhere.
  • Images that are PD in the U.S. but not in another country because of "photographer's rights" or something else that goes against U.S. law, can be allow provided that the copy wasn't made (uploaded) in that country.

I think my censorship statement has a lot to do with this, because the common argument for keeping this rule is that all our images should be free in all countries.

One way to look at it is, "what benefits the most". Many of these images are only copyrighted in one or two countries, having perfectly legal files really benefits all those projects that don't allow local uploads. Sure, they can start to use en.WP as a media repository too, but that kinda ruins Commons central role.

Another question, what if I download these images, create new copies and upload from the U.S.? Rocket000 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to grammatical errors, I cannot make sense of your second bullet. For the the first bullet: agree, but note that we do have these de facto exceptions for FOP and for PD-Old-70 non-U.S. images, even if they might be copyrighted in the U.S. For the third bullet: it depends. If you take a Swedish photograph (e.g. from a Swedish book) showing a PD-old painting from anywhere, and the photo was taken 1969 or later, you should be aware that the Swedish photo is copyrighted in Sweden and thus the photo (or a scan of the photo) should not be hosted here, regardless of where you scan or upload the image. Even if you are in the U.S., where that photo would be PD per the Bridgeman ruling. Same if you find a jpg of such a Swedish photo (e.g., on a Swedish website). If you find a U.S. photo (for instance, first published in a U.S. book), you may upload the photo, even if it shows a Swedish work or was taken in Sweden. Theoretically, one must not upload such a U.S. photo if the uploader is located in Sweden or some other country in which that photo would be copyrighted, but that's entirely the uploader's own risk. Lupo 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me try the second point again, because it's key. (Although it's the way things currently are. The first two points are just to clarify the third, which is not the way things are now.)
  • Images that are PD in the U.S. but were previously, or could of been if created in the U.S., copyrighted in the U.S. are not allowed if they're copyrighted elsewhere. What I mean by "could of been if created in the U.S." I mean if the work was created in the U.S. would it have been copyrighted? If so, then the image is not allow even if PD in the U.S.
Hopefully, you got that. I don't know if the commas helped. Sometimes things sound perfectly fine in my head but not to others. :) Rocket000 10:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, it sounds bad to me too. Rocket000 10:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't make sense to me, even if I assume that "could of been" should be "could've been". Are you talking about U.S. works or about non-U.S. works? Lupo 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry, common local dialect grammar error (Midwest, U.S.). I'm talking about non-US works that are PD in the U.S. because, by U.S. laws, the work could not be copyrighted even if it was made in the U.S. Rocket000 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think now I got it. You mean works that fail the en:threshold of originality? Right, if such non-U.S. works are copyrighted in the source country, we don't host them. And the difference to PD-Art is what?? Lupo 12:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is we use U.S.'s definition of "threshold of originality". Rocket000 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) As I demonstrated on the DR, let's say this image was created by a Norwegian last year with a camera. So it would be banned from Commons. What if uploaded this copy from the U.S.? Should it be deleted because I used PD (to me) material? (It's the first image, photoshoped.) If so, does the photographer now have a monopoly on all faithful photographic reproductions of the Mona Lisa? (Yes, I'm somewhat playing Devil's advocate here, but it's still an interesting situation.) Rocket000 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer has a copyright on his photograph. He does not get a monopoly on the subject. If you photoshop the Norwegian (copyrighted) photo in the U.S. and then upload it, that all is fine by U.S. law, since the Norwegian photo is not copyrighted per Bridgeman in the U.S. But it's still a derivative of the Norwegian photo, and thus a copyvio under Norwegian law. Your photoshopped version would be PD (as would the Norwegian original) in the U.S. only, but not in Norway. Hence, upload it locally at en-WP, not here. The Commons caters to more than just the U.S. If someone else takes a new photo and publishes that in the U.S., the photo is a U.S. work and we no longer have these problems. (Whether the Norwegians still might have a problem with it, I neither know nor care. I think such a U.S. photo would be fine even in Norway because their photographer's rights only apply to works of EEA nationals and residents.) Lupo 13:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this whole question of "photographer's rights" is also one of consistency. You advocate ignoring these "photographer's rights" for "simple photographs" of 2D works. However, we have several other tags that explicitly do acknowledge these rights (and try to exploit the shorter protection term). See e.g. {{PD-Finland50}}, {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, {{PD-Denmark50}}. If we acknowledge and regard these photographer's rights in these cases, we can't just turn around and say we ignore those same rights for {{PD-Art}}. This is not an opportunistic pick-and-choose game! Lupo 13:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess those would be included too. I just was using PD-art because it seems to cause the most debate, but, you're right, it's the same issue. So you're saying my copy would be a copyvio? (If the photo was copyrighted to begin with, of course. It's not really a copyvio.) The thing is: what aspects of it is copyrighted? The lighting? The angle? The resolution? What besides the original painting is copyrightable? Even if you say there's very very subtle details unique to each photograph, well, I just changed it all. This is starting to stay from discussing policy and getting into the nature of intellectual property itself, but I'm still interested in hearing what you have to say. Rocket000 13:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, assuming the original photo was Norwegian and copyrighted. In the U.S., it wouldn't be, but in Norway it is. It gets, as a Norwegian "simple photograph", this special "photographer's rights" protection simply by virtue of being a photograph; no distinguishing characteristic is needed at all. If it had enough originality to pass the Norwegian threshold of originality, it'd be a "work" and even get full copyright in Norway (with a longer protection term). The point is that all (Norwegian, or rather EEA nationals' and residents') photos that do not pass the Norwegian threshold of originality are covered by these "photographer's rights". So, whatever you do with that (presumed Norwegian) Mona Lisa photo, it's fine in the U.S., but not in Norway. Lupo 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about what's fine in the U.S., so let's stick with Commons. You didn't answer my question to what exactly is copyrighted. In your reasoning, you are suggesting the photographer does own the copyright of the subject (Mona Lisa). If those things like lighting, angle, whatever are all completely different, why would the photographer's copyright still be on it? This seems to suggest they do indeed have a monopoly on Mona Lisa images. Rocket000 13:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he does not. He just gets the exclusive rights to reproduce and publish his photo. He cannot prevent anyone else go take a new photo (maybe even identical) of the same subject and publish that. If the photo is sufficiently original to be a "work", he gets the normal copyright, which even prevents other photographers from re-shooting an identical image. But a plain photographic reproduction of a 2D original is not a "work", it's a "simple photograph". Thus, no monopoly on the subject. Lupo 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then how is my image still a copyvio if it's no longer his photograph? Rocket000 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photoshopped version of the Norwegian original is a derivative. By uploading your photoshopped version of the Norwegian photo, you publish a derivative of his photo. That's not ok by the laws of the source country (unless you have the Nowegian rights holder's permission), and so not ok on the Commons. But nothing stops you from taking e.g. a U.S. photo of the Mona Lisa as the base of your derivative. That'd be fine. Lupo 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what exactly is copyrighted? How could you tell if it's a derivative? Rocket000 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is copyrighted. You are, rather, violating neighboring rights. The fact that it's hard to tell that you used a particular photograph is incidental. Haukurth 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so if it's not restricted by copyright laws, that changes things. As stated many times, images only have to be free in the copyright sense. So there's no reason to even worry about these rights. (Which are impossible to uphold in some cases like my Mona Lisa. No one would know what photo I used.) Rocket000 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That misconception is precisely why I avoided bringing up the term "neighbouring rights". In the Continental European scheme of copyright, you got author's rights (copyrights) and neighbouring rights. But neighbouring rights (or "related rights") are also types of copyrights for special kinds of objects that are not "works" (such as broadcasts, performances, recordings, photographs, databases), but that (in the eyes of the legislators) deserve still "protection" equivalent to copyright. In the U.S., all these are simply subsumed under "copyright", the distinction between author's rights and neighbouring rights is unknown. Broadcasts, performances, and recordings are protected by normal copyright in the U.S., and databases are covered as collections. So, you'd better immediately forget that notion that "neighbouring rights" were not copyrights. They are. See en:Related rights. Lupo 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I just said that because of how it was stated. We should have been using that terminology, though, to distinguish between rights easier.
I tried to explain my idea, but I don't know if you guys got it. Maybe you did, and I'm just not getting you, but I don't feel like some of my questions are being answered. A little circular reasoning thrown in, too. I'm dropping the issue for now. I would still like a simplified, more inclusive, and more beneficial policy. It doesn't have to be my idea. Rocket000 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photographic anilingus

I just want to point out a pornographic photo, I think that wikipedia should not publish material of this kind.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Anilingus.jpg

--Frazac 08:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's true we aren't here to host porn, but many don't see that specific image as porn. It's used in many articles and deleting it here would be last step of removing that image from Wikimedia. Rocket000 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which countries laws do we choose not to offend?

In light of User:Rocket000's examples from above:

"BTW, I thought I should point out, we already allow material that is against local laws outside the U.S. For example,
Nazi propaganda or Holocaust denial related images are banned in Germany.
Tienanmen Square protests, Tibetan and Taiwan independence, and democracy promoting material (and more!) in China (I'm mean, they blocked Google).
Pictures of Mohammad and tons of other stuff in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries (they blocked Wikipedia in the past).
Criticism of the Thai royal family or Buddhism in Thailand.
"Terrorist" sympathizing in Israel.
Tons of stuff in North Korea...
Basically, many of our images aren't free at all in certain countries (not even under "fair-use"). Just like with photos of people, official insignia, trademarks, etc., I think it should be users' responsibility to know their country's laws and use our images accordingly. Rocket000 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"

Why do we think this image, Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Twenty pounds sterling banknote holograms.jpg, should be deleted? Does UK law still have some sway in ex-colonies ;-) --Tony Wills 10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tony. You got why I brought up the censorship thing. The image you mentioned is completely not-free in the U.K. (not a potential copyright issue, but an all-out illegal act). But like you said, since our severs are in the U.S., it's not a legal issue, but an offense issue. The same thing with what I was taking about with "photographer's rights". It's not a legal issue, but a question of whether or not we respect those photographers. We can not cater to all these countries. Image what we would have to delete if we respected North Korea's and Iran's laws. Rocket000 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop confounding copyright and other laws. When it comes to copyright, we do honor North Korean or Iranian laws for North Korean or Iranian works. Or at least, we try to. Lupo 11:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confounding them - I'm saying, what's the difference? The rationale for respecting copyright in other countries is to make sure are images are free for everyone. We would have to respect censorship laws too if that was our goal. Legally it's the same. Both place restrictions on images. Both limit or outlaw free-use. Why treat it differently? Because one's a policy and one's not? Rocket000 11:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is simply that intellectual property laws are internationally regulated, and censorship laws aren't. There are several cases where courts of one country did consider the copyright laws of another country in copyright disputes, and rights holders can sue in other countries. I have yet to see a single "free speech" case where one country decided something was not allowed based on the (censorship) law of another country, or a single case where someone sued in a foreign country based on censorship laws of his own country (he'd be laughed out of court, I guess). As to patents and trademarks, we generally do ignore those based on our licensing resolution, which encourages us to look only at copyright, and because neither patent nor trademark issues are typically of any concern for us. In cases where there is a direct complaint, we do act all the same. An example was the removal of "Hilti" as a generic term for a heavy power drill at en-WP. That was even a textual removal! (Though that edit was a bit nonsensical, as it only removed it from the "Germany" section, but left it in the "Turkey" section. It's also mentioned in List of non-English generic and genericized trademarks (twice, even). :-) Lupo 12:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic: that "Hilti" edit was even sillier than I thought. It's been mentioned all the time at de:Liste der Begriffsmonopole! (See e.g. the version from Aug 15, 2006, before the removal by Brad at en-WP.) :-) Lupo 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. But in the specific case stated above, the U.S. does not uphold other countries' copyright laws. Rocket000 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all Tony. The criminal offence rationale is not actually needed. Regardless of the criminal position, the UK Government claims copyright on images of UK currency, and it's inconceivable that such UK copyright would not be enforceable before a US court. In this example it actually doesn't matter where the image was taken: copyright-infringing banknote images can't be hosted here. --MichaelMaggs 10:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's copyrighted, then that's something else, but the question (in general) should be discussed as some do think we should delete illegal (not-copyright related) material even if it's ok in the U.S. BTW, that image would not be allowed with my proposal. Rocket000 11:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it was a copyright problem why was that not the reason cited in the deletion log? But ok, is there a special copyright for banknotes, or does that right expire as per normal ... are 100 year old UK notes ok?
Do we only bend to 'foreign' laws that might be enforced in the US? Does this answer Rocket000's question about the difference between other country's copyright laws and other laws ... the connection is that, via international copyright treaties, the US agrees to uphold other countries copyright?, similarly other foreign laws (eg counterfeiting) would be enforceable in the US ? --Tony Wills 12:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there are any special provisions for old banknotes in the UK, I'd have to look it up, but my guess is that a 100-year old note would be fine. On criminal liability I agree that we don't as a general rule police activities that may be criminal in one country but not in the US. A copyright justification for my deletion might have been better.
On your other point, we respect other countries' copyright laws as best we can - and not only those copyright laws that we think might be agreed with by a US court. Guessing as to whether and under what circumstances a US court would be prepared to uphold a particular foreign copyright law would be a completely impossible task. --MichaelMaggs 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we have case law (Bridgeman) to go by for my proposal. We know the U.S. doesn't uphold these specific copyrights, at least as much as we know about any other U.S. ruling. Rocket000 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We don't know very much, actually. Bridgeman tells us that the New York District Court had two tries at the issue, decided in a first decision that UK law should prevail (but got that law wrong); then in a second decision decided that US law should prevail. That helps us very little as it's not a Federal Court decision and has little or no value as precedent in the Federal courts so far as these 'conflict of law' issues are concerned. In any event, there is no reason to suppose a US court would on the basis of Bridgeman alone ignore the 'simple photograph' protection rules which exist in many European countries. They are a distinct species of copyright which has no direct parallel in either US or in UK law. For Norwegian photos it's not simply a case of the US preferring a different level of originality, as in Bridegeman. I agree with Lupo that although existing policy is by no means perfect it's as good as we can reasonably make it (in this area, anyway). I wouldn't favour a policy change that would require us to be conflict-of-laws specialists as well as copyright specialists. --MichaelMaggs 13:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Slightly off-topic tangent*
And Bridgeman applies only in the U.S. Even if an image would be fine in the U.S. under that ruling, if that image is a non-U.S. work and copyrighted in its non-U.S. source country, we don't host it. See the discussion above. Lupo 13:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know! :) I'm responding to MichaelMaggs who said it's impossible to know what the U.S. would do. And didn't you notice I'm currently taking part in the discussion above? :-) Please avoid the "because it's policy" argument. I'm well aware of that, I want to discuss why it's policy. lol. Rocket000 13:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair 'nuff. :-) I thought I had already hinted in the discussion above at the reason for our current "PD in the U.S. and in the source country". Which of the other five possibilities (of the six I've shown) do you think might work better? Or do you have a seventh option? One that is workable, simple enough to apply, broad enough to find consensus, yet narrow enough so as not to get us into trouble big time, and useful for a wide variety of local projects, not just U.S.-centric en-WP? There appears to be consensus that the current rule fits these criteria, and therefore it is our policy. Lupo 13:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my option would be what I've been trying to explain here. It's not really a whole brand new policy - just a little redefining. Consensus has seem to be against the specific rule I'm talking about. Actually, it's more of a long-standing practice instead of a policy. (I couldn't find any real community debate about it.) I'm not talking about what's ok for the U.S. but the majority of countries. To sum up my whole view on the way things should be:
"As long as the media is free, as defined by Commons:Licensing, to the majority of the global population including the U.S. (for legal reasons), it shall be allowed." Rocket000 13:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to apply, I should say. Are you going to consider for each image the copyright laws of all countries, and then sum up their population to figure out whether you have a majority? And you might find that suddenly Commons would be ruled by a combination of Chinese, Russian, and Indian copyright law. :-) Even if you just went for a majority of countries, you might get into trouble. About half the world still uses 50 years p.m.a. By your proposal, that would become the main criterion. But in the largest WikiMedia projects, we couldn't use such images, as these projects operate under U.S. law or 70 years p.m.a. laws. Lupo 14:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's allowed the majority of Wikimedia projects then. Bigger sites get more weight. This would work if we could make it more complicated somehow. Rocket000 14:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This would work if we could make it more complicated somehow" ... even more complicated? Really? Already looking at the laws of the U.S. and the source country is difficult. Now you add to the mix the German, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, and maybe other laws. If it ever comes to that, I'll stop caring. Lupo 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, c'mon. All we got to do is check if the image is allowed on each project based on either the project's policies or local laws. Count up all the projects that allow the image while giving each one a weighted factor, based on the amount of users, to determine if they hold the majority. If they do we keep it, if not we delete. How hard can that be? Rocket000 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm just joking here. But seriously, I still don't think I expressed my point clearly enough based on these responses, but I tried. Oh well. Rocket000 14:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict, and I'm glad to see you were joking, but let me point out the following all the same:) How do you count number of users? Accounts? Active contributors? Do IPs counts? Minimum number of contributions? Are readers also users? How to count those? What when the numbers change (and they do)? What policy does the French Wikisource have? (Hint: it was self-contradictory last time I looked.) And there goes Category:Arthur Dove, assuming that the German, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese projects together outweigh the purely English ones. (Artist died 1946, works copyrighted in many countries for 70 years after the artist's death.) Lupo 14:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know! Sorry, I should have been quicker with the "I'm joking" part. :) Rocket000 14:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first obvious step is to host the servers in Afghanistan, so we don't have to worry about strange US laws, ... then go for the more complicated approach :-) --Tony Wills 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, once Wikimedia controls all the world's information, maybe we can start making our own laws. That way our policy would simply be "follow The Law". Or maybe in the future we can move our servers to the moon and/or Mars... hmmm.. that's a idea for P2P/file-sharing sites. Better than Sealand, anyway. :) Rocket000 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way off topic, but won't the moon be covered by US laws after the unopposed landing of Apollo 11, and can we be sure that it is not covered by an extra territoriality clause in French or Italian law? We need to know! ClemRutter 10:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(lol. Off-topic can be fun.) That's why the Wikimedia Foundation needs all our donations—so we can put the fist man on Mars and proudly plant our own flag. The U.S. may own the moon, but there plenty of other rocks to use. I wonder if we would respect other intelligent life forms' equivalent of copyright. Would PD-art works need to be PD in the U.S. and the source planet? Although, I'm sure if they are more advanced than us, there wouldn't be any equivalent. ;) Rocket000 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple book designs

Some days ago I have noticed this image, with the cover of a book of Adolf Hitler. But well, regardless of the author, it should be trated as any other book.

One part wich seems wrong, is the user Roby licencing it as if it was his own work to licence. Of course, it isn't. The photo may be of his work, but that doesn't override the copyrights of the book itself. The book was published by Secker and Warburg, and unless proof of otherwise is shown, it should be asumed that the copyrights belong to them. And without fitting a case where copyright expires, we must asume that copyright is as valid as day one. Even with the other possible scenario, the book copyrights belonging to Hitler himself and not Secker and Warburg, it wouldn't be free either because 70 years have not passed yet from his death at 1945 for PD-OLD to possibly apply.

So, I marked the image as copyvio, for speedy deletion. It was reverted, but with an interesting reason: he says that the book has such a simple design that it can't be protected by copyright. Does this reason make sense? Is there such a thing as a milestone of complexity for things to be able to be copyrighted? Is the book cover in the public domain just because of not being complex enough? Thialfi 14:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Hitler made that cover himself. It would be the publisher's copyright. I agree with the {{Pd-ineligible}} reasoning. Germany has a relatively high threshold of originality. But of course this is debatable. If this was a DR, I wouldn't close it as "kept", I would just vote "keep". Rocket000 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a DR, now. --rimshottalk 16:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the photographer marking it as his own work: that's perfectly fine: a photograph of something three-dimensional is a work in its own right, namely a derivative work. It will carry the restrictions of the original as well as the derived work. --rimshottalk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks rimshot for letting me know. And I should have pointed out the photo is definitly not PD-ineligible (but the license makes it free). Rocket000 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making sub-categories

I have several pictures I would like to upload that are of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. On Wikipedia there is an article called "Appomattox Court House". I would like to make a sub-category called the same name under perhaps (unless you have a better root categoy suggestion) "Category:History of Virginia". Then I can have Template:Commonscat in Wikipedia showing all these pictures that pertain to that subject. I'm confussed on how to do this (make a subcategory).--Doug Coldwell 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Category:Courthouses of Virginia. To make a subcategory, just create the category, for example Category:Appomattox Court House and add it to Category:History of Virginia by adding "[[Category:History of Virginia]]". --rimshottalk 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnails problems

I currently experience problems with generation of thumbnails for newly uploaded images. Is this a general problem, or is it just me? Lycaon 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems solved, must have been some database lag. Lycaon 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

POTY Voting round 1 now open

Dear Wikimedians,

The 2007 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open!

Please visit here to see if you are eligible and get a voting token: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Voting

The images are presented in categories, but you can vote for as many as you like, in as many categories as you like. (The categories are just so you don't have to look at hundreds of images at once.) The top 28 images will make it to the final.

Before you cast your vote, you can preview them all at Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Galleries. Voting is open from January 10-17, so please take the time to have your say!

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee (pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Would it be appropriate to link to the POTY competition from the main page or at least from the main community page. It took me quite some time to re-find this? -- Slaunger 09:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan just added it to the main page. And isn't this (the village pump) the main community page? Rocket000 09:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. With community portal I mean Commons:Community Portal. -- Slaunger 09:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I never use that page so I forgot about it. Rocket000 10:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you know. Can be handy knowledge as an admin ;-) -- Slaunger 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's available in the sitenotice as well. /Lokal_Profil 12:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to vote, but got a horrible python crash :-( -- ReyBrujo 13:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted on several images in several galleries without any problems. Peculiar. -- Slaunger 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could vote in the mammals category without problem. I reported the crash at the POTY talk page, will continue with the other categories and leave that one last just in case. The only important thing about the crash is that the password for the database containing the votes is visible. Not that it could be easy to use it, but it is a problem nevertheless. -- ReyBrujo 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just left a message on the voting talk page. Looks like there's a glitch in the software. My name appeared on the list of voters last night right after I voted, but doesn't show up now. Is this just a problem with display or are you losing data? Durova 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReyBrujo, that's been fixed. Durova, I copied your report to Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2007/Committee. Please report all problems there or to commons-poty@googlegroups.com. thanks pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Durova 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Owing back to our earlier conversations about our logo's resemblance to a nuke or birth control, I can't help but let loose a sophomoric giggle everytime I see the acronym for "Picture of the Year". --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

I have uploaded a image file which is called Image:Aiguojiangquan6.jpg. The copyright of this article has expired in Taiwan (Fifty years). Someone has requested me to delete this file, because US copyright protects for seventy years. What should I do? Delete it? Or not? --竹筍弟弟 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should include the real date on which the bill was originally printed, so that people can know it's been at least 50 years... AnonMoos 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I can look up from a catalog, but I'm very sure this country-loving lottery (Ai Guo Jiang Quan) is an old history "item". I have some later version, and their copyright has all expired, too. --竹筍弟弟 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question

I have uploaded a image poster of rahe bipayan. this image deleted. rahe bipayan is a TV Series in iran and I am Producer of this program. and all rights belongs to me. why I cant use this image in wikimedia commons? I must add more information for reupload it? azizi 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should donate the images to have them stay here. But by doing so, you should consider that anyone will have the right to use the images, not only you. --User:G.dallorto 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your explanations. I am well aware of the terms and regulations for Copyright use and I have already granted the right for anyone to use the pictures for any purpose. the tag that I have put in the Image description page is also supposed to imply this. azizi 07:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should dioramas be dealt with as sculptures?

We are wondering on the issue in this page. Your piece of mind is appreciated, I personally think we need a guideline on the issue. --User:G.dallorto 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish I could comment there, but with that, I honestly have no idea. I'm sure the images are fine generally, but for Commons? Rocket000 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Louvre wrote me

Just an aside anedcdote in the quarrel about the permission to photograph works of art in the PD, displayed in museums (in Italy we are having big trouble with the issue). Two days ago a curator of the Musée du Louvre contacted me at my private email address to get my permission to print one picture I took in the Istanbul archaeological Museum. (By the way, this is the second time I get a request to publish in a book this very image: when I shot the pic I had no idea the statue was that important, I merely liked it for being beautiful, but this shows how Commons can have unexpected positive outcomes).

To make it short, this statue is travelling to Paris for an exhibition about Babylon, but the Istanbul Museum was not able to provide a picture to be printed in the catalogue, which had to be printed in time. And it seems my picture was the only one available for the curators.

Here we have a very concrete example of how copyright restrictions are jeopardising the museums and their curators in the first place, in the very same way software litigation is by now aiming at Microsoft in the first place.

To be honest, the Louvre museum seems to have a rather liberal stance about allowing photographing their belongings, judging from the marvellous pictures User:Jastrow is taking there, and also in Istanbul I was allowed to photograph all I wanted, apart for the fact that guardians did not allow me to use a flash. This said, greed seems to backfire... in the long run. Let's hope this will help Museum curators to be a little bit less histerical about dilettantes like me shooting at their belongings... --User:G.dallorto 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) And I'd like to point out that User:Bibi Saint-Pol and User:Rama also take great pictures in the Louvre. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested for Valuable Image deployment

Three days ago, I published a proposal for a new Valuable Image concept as a supplement the existing Featured Pictures and Quality Images. The response so far has been encouraging, and it has been suggested that I should be bold and kick it off. Well, I'd really like to but there are a couple of issues I would greatly appreciate to get some assistance from other users in setting up. This mostly relates to technicalities about the possibilities in wiki, should subpages be used, templates, graphics, bots and internationalization, which I am not that knowledgeable of.

More specifically, I need assistance with the following

Therefore I kindly ask you, dear fellow Commoners: Can you help me? -- Slaunger 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

Was DMCA passed?

OK, I have seen many times where it is stated that in the US, 70 years after the copyright holder dies, the work is public domain. Is this a) not updated, b) law already passed (meaning it was originally 50 years after, or c) do I have it all wrong?

By the way, I have put a notice saying I want my userpage here and at simple.wikipedia to be deleted and for the last revision to be restored here and it has yet to be fulfiled. -IonasFreeman 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the DMCA has to do with it, but to align with standard international copyright treaties, the U.S. recognized the "life + 70 years" laws of other countries. However, material previously published in the U.S. is still often subject to other provisions of U.S. law. AnonMoos 09:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: m:Metapub#Set_upload_to_autoconfirmed_Wikimedia-wide

The proposal is to make "upload" an autoconfirmed right rather than an automatic right, as default on all Wikimedia wikis. So after you sign up, you have to wait 4 days before you can upload. Commons would not adopt this functionality. But it might mean more new users at other wikis would upload here, if they were impatient. So it could encourage people to use Commons, and maybe more newbies would come to Commons. Please leave comments at the meta page. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that Wikibooks (and Wikijunior) are looking for new logos. We're collecting entries now, so please please add a submission if you're an artist. There are some guidelines you'll want to look at on those meta pages. Thanks to all who have already entered something, and anyone who does in the future! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

Image redirects

Is there a way to make a redirect for an image on commons? I need this effect: when I call Image:a.jpg on xx.wiki, I want Image:b.jpg to appear. -- Obradovic Goran 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, MediaWiki still doesn't support this feature. See bugzilla:709 for details. --EugeneZelenko 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category tool

I know we have several category tools around, but I'm having trouble finding one which does what I need. Is there a tool available where it can scan for all images uploaded by a user and then automatically add a new category to them all? My goal is to add all of my images to a user gallery, but I never really thought about doing that until nearly 3500 pictures too late. Thanks! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work...?

File:Spiderman dod.jpg
Am I derivative work? Am I allowed on commons?

If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?

By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a t-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist.

Legally, most toys are art. It is the same thing whether you take a picture of a sculpture or a picture of Darth Vader. Both are copyrighted, in both cases, the copyright of the photograph does not void the original copyright, and in both cases you will need the permission of the original creator. You cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you can't upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokemon figures.

...is this really public domain ? Argument would go like "US Govt has accepted to release all his work as PD , so yes, it's PD". But then, if I make a derivative work of something with reserved rights.. and I accept to release as PD, that wouldn't make it PD, would it? So, either US Govt cant' release that as PD, or we can relicense derivative works as we want.

So? -- m:drini 23:07 13 ene 2008 (UTC)

Am I a PD derivative work or not?
The US Govt can do a lot of things we can't. They did make the laws, didn't they. I don't know what the situation really is, but I know not all derivatives of PD work can be remain PD. Just like old PD movies with still copyrighted characters Rocket000 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't copyright a character, only an expression of it. Old PD movies (e.g. pre-1923) are PD in their entirety, though the characters in them may be trademarked. Derivative works of copyrighted works can not be released into the public domain. Whether a work is derivative can sometimes be a complex question. Superm401 - Talk 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one can copyright a character. Remember Mickey Mouse? Lupo 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket... but US Govt is still bound by international traties, isn't it? -- Drini 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I'm outside of USA, then US laws won't apply to me. This is more like discussing the abstract situation rather than the specific example (which I think it's a weaseling copyvio) -- Drini 08:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

Categories with people's names

I have a general complain about categories with people's names: when I see one I can not tell if it is a name of photographer or a subject. For example when I want to find a photo of Ansel Adams I would go Category:Ansel Adams, but that category is full of his pictures and not pictures of him. On the other hand Category:George W. Bush is full of pictures of George Bush. Other categories are mixed some pictures are by a person and some are of a person, like Category:Dorothea Lange. Was this organization decided this way or was it accidental?. My personal preference would be to call all categories of photographers Category:Photographs by ... and reserve categories with people names for subjects of the photographs. --Jarekt 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Naturally, "Category:Photographs by X" should be a subcategory of "Category:X". Samulili 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have some notes on that at Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. BTW all our category organisation is accidental, if something is organised it is despite our best efforts. ;) ;) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some categorization stuff

I had a problem in categorizing two of my mages, Image:Kizilcik meyvesi.JPG and Image:Ki,zilcik meyveleri.JPG, as i'd read the tag as cotoneater dameri, but the category is Category:cotoneaster. Can someone decide if these pictured trees are cotoneaster or cotoneater? Khutuck 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotoneaster, we can find a “Cotoneaster dammeri”, and i find nothing about a “cotoneater”. ~ bayo or talk 14:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antix

Hello. I just add a copyright tag on this category. But i would like to have comment. The game is in text mode and graphiclly very simple. Do you think its possible to clam non eligibility of copyright for some screenshots ? Is here any help page talking about that? Thanks a lot. ~ bayo or talk 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that should be a deletion request on COM:DEL instead of being tagged as speedy. Since it's all text (included drawing characters) I would say it's PD ineligible, but can ASCII art be copyrighted? Rocket000 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image with errors

Anyone understand what is happenning with this image? Can it be repaired/re-uploaded?-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Repaired-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add template:information template and describe what that drawing is?--Jarekt 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

Hi, could someone give a little coaching on the Library of Congress template? I've got some uploads I need to credit properly. Thanks, Durova 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

Is there a discussion or policy on naming?

Is there a convention about categories and page names for images of people whose native language doesn't use the Latin alphabet?

I realize commons is a multilingual project. This has probably come up before. Please direct me to the appropriate page and/or discussion for this topic. Thanks, Durova 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, pending agreement and/or a software fix, consensus seems to be that categories should be in English (but there are plenty of exceptions and anomalies) but galleries can be in native language (with at least a Roman script redirect). See Commons:Language policy for discussion. Man vyi 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combination Italian photo law + US-not renewed/not registered?

As you know, the Italian wikipedia has many fine images from movies, since movies and photos older than 20 years are under some circumstances public domain. There are a lot of Italian movies from the 50s, 60s and 70s in the US public domain, because they where either never registered for copyright, or their copryright was not renewed. Many of them are B-movies, exploitation films and spaghettiwesterns. Think Maciste, Caesar the Conquerer, and probably La Ciociara.

Am I right that screenshots from these movies are permitted on the commons, since they are legal both in the US and Italy? Herodotus 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under which circumstances would the copyright on a movie have expired in Italy after only 20 years? And don't forget about the URAA copyright restorations in the U.S. Lupo 08:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstance is that the image is classified as "non-artistic". Here is the official wikipedia text:

"This image was created in Italy and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to Law of 22 April 1941 n. 633, revised by the law of 22 May 2004, n. 128 article 87 and article 92, all non artistic photographs enter the public domain after 20 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2006, prior to the 1st of January, 1986) after they were first published, this rule is valid also for italian film's screenshot. Artistic photographs enter in the public domain after 70 years." (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sjabloon:PD-IT )

On the Italian wikipedia, practically every screenshot "goes". See http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:La_ciociara%2C_screenshot.gif , http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:10.000_dollari_per_un_massacro_Django_Garko.jpg , http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Ace_High_Hill.jpg .

I am not sure about the effects of the URAA on Italian movies that where prevously public domain. On all sites with public domain-movies (like archive.org and publicdomaintorrents ), the Italian movies are still distributed. Herodotus 09:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an authoritative source on that screenshot thing. I would be very surprised if that were true. Movies (excepting maybe documentaries) are artistic works, and screenshots are not photographs. Lupo 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the use on wikipedia, I would say check out those links from the Italian wiki I gave, or look on http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Screenshot_film . I think they use the following sentences from the Italian law: "Sono considerate fotografie ai fini dell'applicazione delle disposizioni di questo capo le immagini di persone o di aspetti, elementi o fatti della vita naturale e sociale, ottenute col processo fotografico o con processo analogo, comprese le riproduzioni di opere

Dell'arte figurativa e i fotogrammi delle pellicole cinematografiche." ([ http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm#87 link] )

My Italian is not that good, but I think that this is the right text for it. Perhaps anyone with a close knowledge of Italian can say if I'm right? Herodotus 10:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, now I am surprised. Indeed this looks as if Italian law treats single frames ("screenshots") of movies as "simple photographs". The problem is that the U.S. doesn't do that. (And in fact, I'm not aware of such a rule in any other country.) You'd still need to show that the movie itself was PD under U.S. law (i.e., not restored) for such a screenshot to be acceptable. Lupo 10:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no law expert, and that law (1941) does indeed says what it has been quoted for, however the problem is that when we were talking in the it:Wikipedia about the Italian law and Commons, we reached the conclusion that the Italian law is now superseded by the most recent international copyright laws agreements. In fact, all "non-artistic" Italian photographs (that is to say, not only film shots) that had been uploaded in Commons under the 20-years rule, have been meanwhile deleted. Therefore I can't understand how this rule can now apply to film frames alone, which in many case can claim artistic merit (thus being exempt from the 20-years rule, which was intended for news images). In my opinion, uploading these images would not be a good idea. By the way, the copyright disclaim for the images Herodotus refers to, explicitly warns about NOT uploading these pix on Commons. --User:G.dallorto 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lupo: From a dozen of Italian films, I can reasonable claim their public domain status in the US. Combined with this law, I conclude that those screenshots can be allright.

@ G.dallorto: Of course international copyright laws must be obeyed, but that's my point: of some films, one can reasonable say they are public domain in the US. That meets wikimedia commons' demand for public domain in both countries. About the pics I show: they are just an example, I know THESE are not in the US public domain, and can therefore not be uploaded on wiki commons. Both others (as I said, mostly B-movies) are. I will soon upload some, with both the Italian and the US laws cited. People with further objections can comment on them. Herodotus 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category includings

Is there a tool to find category includings like {{Category:Buildings}} instead of [[Category:Buildings]]? --32X 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a specific given category, Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Buildings should do the trick. That should show you the transclusions. But in general, I don't know. A regexp search on Wikitext would be a useful thing... Lupo 08:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more interested in a solution for the general case, since the includings I've found so far aren't very often but occur sometimes. --32X 09:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upload URLs

Hi. I would like to know how are calculated the "/7/73/" part in upload urls like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Rogers_Center-restitched.jpg

In fact I work on a wiki where it is normally impossible to restore deleted images. But these images are still on the server, and I think this information could help me to restore these images.

Thanks for any help. --GaAs11671 10:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're running MediaWiki software, why don't you just upgrade to the latest version, which does have image undeletion? If you're running other software, that other software may determine the storage location of a given file differently. In MediaWiki, I think it is given by the hexadecimal representation of the MD5 hash of the image filename "Rogers_Center-restitched.jpg" (first character converted to uppercase, blanks replaced by underscores). The "7" is the first hex digit of that MD5, and the "73" is the first two hex digits. See en:User:Lupin/popups.js, function "make_image" of "Insta.convert", for a Javascript implementation. (An MD5 implementation is also in that file, function "hex_md5".) Lupo 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steward policy review

Can I draw the community's attention to the vote on the updated steward policies on Meta. This is your opportunity to have your say in this. The page is here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My website in source?

Hi there. I will upload (please note that it's not conditioned to the answer to this question) some pictures i've taken. These pictures are selections from my gallery web-site, were I have a lot of pictures from live gigs. I already use GFDL and CC-by-sa as licenses on my website.

My question is: is it ok to put a link to my website somewhere on the page description of the pictures I'll upload (in the "Source:" field for example)?

There is little interest for Commons to have dozens of pics of confidential bands, but people interested in the few pictures uploaded could be interested in visiting my website (and I insist on the fact that all of these pics are already released under open licenses). (and yes, of course I hope to gain some visibility for my site by doing so, but isn't it a fair tit for tat in that case? and I repeat, if the answer is a loud "hell no!" I will upload the pics anyway.) Case 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Case,
Yes, that's acceptable. See User:Lucag/Credit Luca Galuzzi for an example. See also Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy for more guidance about templates. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, only put your website as the "source" if your website clearly states that are freely licensed and which licenses. It is really better to put "self made"/"own work" if that is the case, and specify the link to your website as a different part of the metadata. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MESSENGER images/NASA

Is there anyone more familiar with NASA copyright policy? I came across this because ofImage:Messenger.jpg but this could affect any MESSENGER images. The copyright statement we're linking to [10] is somewhat unclear. It seems to indicate it's not free (As it only mentions non-commercial and public informational purposes which would suggest that many commercial usages are not allowed and certain derivates may not be allowed either). However it does say it's a NASA mission and links to the general NASA copyright statement which states their images are generally (although not always) not copyrighted. Since multiple organisations are involved in this mission I don't think we can assume US government = public domain. The image in particular, since it's a artist's impression and could be made by anyone in any capacity and the source [11] does say © 1999-2007 by JHU/APL. Nil Einne 12:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/ir_copyright_1970_en.pdf?URL_ID=30380&filename=11424169773ir_copyright_1970_en.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=21603&name=ir_copyright_1970_en.pdf&location=user-S/
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=9480699"