Commons:Help desk

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

Shortcut: COM:HD

Gnome-dialog-question.svg
This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:
How to use Commons

Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them.

Ask your question

or

In order to get quick answers consider the following points:

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

For quicker help, join our live chat room. webchat
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.


[edit]

I'm writing about a software application on wikipedia and I want to put its logo. My problem is with the license.

That is my file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flame-engine.png and its source is from here: https://github.com/flame-engine/flame Mabdelaal86 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mabdelaal86: Hi, and welcome. Is this edit ok?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is good. Thanks a lot. Mabdelaal86 (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mabdelaal86: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I delete an old image I had uploaded?[edit]

I had uploaded an image when I first created my Wikimedia Commons account and I now believe the image I had uploaded back then is in violation of copyright. How do I delete the image? ThethPunjabi (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories "airports by country/location"[edit]

Hi. Is there a reason why there is for example Category:1981 at airports by country and Category:1981 at airports by location which contain the same category? Same for Category:1990 at airports by country and Category:1990 at airports by location. There might be more, like 1992 and so on. Does not make sense to me. --2001:4652:FBAF:0:B475:5B17:732:6701 20:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This follows the logic of the (great grand-)parent Category:Airports by location, which has airports by continent, country and city. In principle, there could be by year categories for any of these. In practice, only country has by year categories, so that Category:Airports by location by year roughly duplicates Category:Airports by country by year. --rimshottalk 20:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Airports by country is in Category:Airports by location and not on the same level. I see a difference. --2001:4652:FBAF:0:B475:5B17:732:6701 21:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Category:Airports by country by year" is also in "Category:Airports by location by year". If, similarly, "Category:1981 at airports by country" gets included in "Category:1981 at airports by location" (and the same for other years), it will be fine? I suppose you can do it, if you want. Whatever logic gets agreed upon to articulate the relations between the main parent categories such as Airports by location, continent, country and city, should be used also for the whole groups of subcategories. Many of those categories were created about one year ago. Pinging Missvain, who may be able to tell more about that particular arborescence of categories. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put Category:1981 at airports by country into Category:1981 at airports by location (and accordingly for all years). Hope, I did not miss anything. --2001:4652:FBAF:0:90DF:1E96:1096:F4F1 10:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more thing: Template:Year at airport automatically categorized into "Year at airports by location". It should use "Year at airports by coutry" (if existing). I am not too munch into template programming, so can anyone please do this for me? --2001:4652:FBAF:0:90DF:1E96:1096:F4F1 10:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody? --2001:4652:FBAF:0:CD4D:FEF0:3C6D:212 09:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I remove watermarks on a copyright-free image?[edit]

Hello, another individual took a close-up photograph of a paper document that is in the public domain so I believe that it is eligible to be uploaded as ((PD-scan)) but the photographer put a watermark on their photograph. Am I allowed to remove the watermark and upload it to Wikimedia Commons whilst still giving credit to where I got the image from? ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @ThethPunjabi: Typically, yes. You might be violating the terms of the site from which you fetched it, though. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your answer. I decided to not remove the watermarks just to stay on the safe side. ThethPunjabi (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ThethPunjabi: Where may we find it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The images were titled 'Sikh Empire manuscript' followed by a number by me when I uploaded them, though not all of them had a watermark. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artist Estate Permission to Post Free Content[edit]

I am the son of the Swedish-American Impressionist, Dietrich Grunewald (aka Dietrich), who died in 2003. I am part of the Dietrich family estate and interested in posting my photos of his work for my accompanying article (currently submitted for review). Please advise. Goryd2016 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Goryd2016: The current holder of the relevant copyrights can clear this as described at COM:VRT. If that's you, that should be simple. If it's someone else, you'll have to get them to do it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you Goryd2016 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to add pictures of George Sanderson[edit]

Hello. I am a George Sanderson enthusiast and have spent much time deliberating on this fact, whereas in the matter of wikimedia commons images can be added in order to enhance the public knowledge of George Sanderson. With a modest inheritance I was able to establish a bicycle shop in the greater Seattle metro area and in that venture I was successful enough to purchase a Cannon EOS 60 Mark II. I have successfully transformed that investment into a portfolio of George Sanderson photographs which I intend to release to the public forthwith. My pictures are of the highest quality and I would like to be credited as the photographer who brought George Sanderson to the forefront of public interest. My belief is that no investment is too great when it comes to the internet benefit of all mankind in regards to George Sanderson. I also run a GoFundMe to offset the travel expenses I incur along my mission and have so far raised over $80 in just 3 months. Who is the foremost George Sanderson authority I would get in touch with on wikimedia commons about publishing my works? I want to make it clear that rather than publish in a book for sale, I am electing as a public service to contribute the body of my George Sanders work for no pay because I believe it is important to give back to the community. Once I sell enough George Sanderson photos, I will be able to upgrade my camera and be able to take even better quality pictures which I will also add. RUmoistyet? (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @RUmoistyet?: Are you talking here about the Disney character by that name, or an actual human being? If the former, you won't be able to do this, at least not on Commons, because the Disney character is copyrighted, making your photos derivative works. If we are talking about an actual human, and you took the photos, and you are willing to free-license them, then there should be no problem. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our Lady of the Sacred Heart category[edit]

Have just redirected C:Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Church, to C:Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Church, Randwick. Not sure if I got it right. Can someone please check? Sardaka (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sardaka: It depends if the unspecific-named category was actually intended for the Randwick one. Looking at the history, yes it was. So, the move is fine. (From the logs, "Category:Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Church, Randwick" existed at some point and was deleted in 2009 [1]. Don't know why the unspecific name was preferred then.) You will need to move the contents of the category to the Randwick category. Also, now that the unspecific category name is freed, instead of redirecting it to the specific Randwick one, a better use for it might be to use it to redirect it to Category:Our Lady of the Sacred Heart churches. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've requested the moves (some subcats changing accordingly, too) in User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Once those are done, the category redirects can also be cleaned up. - Jmabel ! talk
Looks good now. Thanks to everyone who helped. Sardaka (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading Video to WikiCommons[edit]

I have a couple of short videos on my iPhone (30+ secs). How do I move them from my iPhone to WikiCommons? Please bear in mind I'm not that technically inclined. Reddevil39 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reddevil39: I've only used https://video2commons.toolforge.org/ from a PC; not sure if it will work directly from a phone, you may first have to load it onto a computer.
Anyone here have experience doing this from a phone? - Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am just testing this. You need a decent connection and to log in to Commons. Yann (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag for 1935 published photo from Germany?[edit]

I have a high resolution image of this photo taken by an unknown photographer in Germany in 1935 [2]https://www.loc.gov/item/95513432/. In Germany, photographs are protected under § 72 UrhG for 50 years after their appearance, so the copyright has expired. My question is whether this tag is correct:

{{PD-anon-auto-1996|publication=1935|country=Germany|date=1996|reason=German anon works are protected for 50 years from creation, meaning it was PD by 1985 at the latest.}} Freddum (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You misspelled "Germany", I took the liberty of fixing that; I also fixed the template syntax. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think that 50 years is correct. Normally the term of copyright in Germany is life + 70 years. However, if the work is truly anonymous, then it is simply 70 years. The problem is, that means it would not yet have been out of copyright in 1996, so in the U.S. we are up against that URAA restoration of copyright until 2031 (1935 + 95 + 1). - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
50 years is not correct, that is only for "Lichtbilder" (simple photographs), and the German courts have defined those as X-ray images, satellite imagery, surveillance camera images, photos from automated photo booths and such. Regular photographs like the one in question are protected for the lifetime of the photographer plus 70 years after the photographer's death (70 years pma). That a photographer is not named somewhere does not necessarily mean that the photographer is "unknown" (as claimed here) btw. --Rosenzweig τ 20:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a 1935 photo copyrighted by Associated Press in the United States, it probably was published in the United States, not exclusively in Germany. See also the introduction of Photographs distributed by Associated Press. Given which, normally there could be a chance that it could be PD-US-not-renewed. But the AP copyright still mentioned in the description is concerning. Could this particular photo happen to be an exceptional case of renewed copyright on a 1935 AP photo? You can probably tell if the copyright was renewed or not by looking at the copyright renewal books. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo is from one of Göring's photo albums that were “confiscated by U.S. military intelligence authorities in Germany, 1945-1946.” --Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The album containing the print was confiscated as enemy property, which conveniently makes the album and its contents public domain in the U.S. per U.S. law, for parts of the contents that were actually enemy property. Since this photo is identified as AP photo, what was possibly enemy property was the particular physical print collected in the album, but since the copyright was the property of an American business, the copyright was not enemy property. I guess that AP copyright followed its course according to the normal copyright law. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Freddum: Can you tell more about the copy you have? Is it a print? Is there any indication of its provenance or publication? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a high-resolution digital copy without any indication of its provenance or publication. Regarding photograph copyright (Lichtbilder), I just wanted to say that I've read that purely machine-generated photographs are in the public domain, such as surveillance cameras - but that's beside the point. Can § 66 UrhG apply here ("(1) In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, copyright expires seventy years after publication. However, it expires seventy years after the creation of the work if the work has not been published within this period.")? I have other digital copies of Goering's photo albums that do not contain an AP copyright notice like this one [3]https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2009632095/. What do you think, can I publish it here? Thanks for the help in advance! Freddum (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to use the § on anonymous works, you should be able to tell when and where this was first actually published and if it was published with a named author (photographer) or not. Supposedly there is this "Copyright by Associated Press", but to be able to properly determine the copyright status, we need to know more about the first publication. If we don't have enough information about this, Commons will accept photos that are over 120 years old (with the tag {{PD-old-assumed}}). Which for the 1935 photo means in 2056, for the 1937 photo in 2058. --Rosenzweig τ 13:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want English subtitles for Kurulus Osman[edit]

I want English subtitle for Kurulus osman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernell777 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vernell777: Hi, and welcome. If you mean en:Kuruluş: Osman, you will have to ask Bozdağ Film. See also COM:SIGN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

رفع مشکل ویرایش، نگارش، منبع‌دهی، تغییر نام یا ادغام[edit]

سلام من تازه وارد هستم اینجا برای موضوع علیرضا ابلوچ لیبنک و سند دارم ولی نمیدونم چظور باید این مشکل هارا برطرف کرد 

لطفا راهنماییم کنید Taha9999 (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Troubleshoot editing, authoring, sourcing, renaming or merging
Hello, I am new here for the issue of Alireza Abloch.
translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taha9999: سلام و خوش آمدید لطفاً میز راهنمای ویکی‌پدیا فارسی را در fa:ویکی‌پدیا: درخواست راهنمایی ببینید.
Hi, and welcome. Please see the Persian Wikipedia Help desk at fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست راهنمایی and #انتشار در ویکی پدیا above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would anyone be interested[edit]

Hello everyone, I would like to upload, for free encyclopedic use to enhance knowledge worldwide, an anal portrait extravaganza. You see, I am a professional anal photographer and I have photographed thousands of anuses of all shapes and sizes, in various lighting conditions and in numerous settings. I have black and white anuses, cinematic anuses, bleached anuses, and even anal glamour shots. I would like to contribute the body of my work to a worthy endeavour such as this, and spread my anuses across the internet for free use by all. Is this something you all would be interested in? Please let me know and I will get started uploading. Thanks Anal portrait extravaganza (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anal portrait extravaganza: assuming you are serious, first have a look at Category:Human buttocks and its subcategories. It sounds from your description like you are taking pictures that are even narrower in what portion of the human anatomy is covered. It looks like we could use a moderate number of such images, but I don't imagine we'd want hundreds, let alone thousands. So as not to waste too much effort (yours or ours) you might start by uploading a dozen or so images that would give a fair representation of what sort of images you plan to upload; categorize and describe those appropriately; and then come back here so someone can check your work and give feedback. - Jmabel ! talk 05:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you could say my work has a very tight focus. Anal portrait extravaganza (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image of Harold Fraser-Simson Composer[edit]

On behalf of EM Records who are producing a double disc of the entire 67 songs that HF-S wrote to the verses of A.A.Milne and wish to use this image of the composer in their accompanying booklet. Is a license required? John Kember (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Kember: Hi, and welcome. File:Fraser-simpsonH1.jpg is in the public domain in the US, where is EM Records?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photograph of old postcard acceptable?[edit]

I have a photographic postcard dating from about 1910 in the UK, no details of photographer etc. on the reverse. Is an image of this card taken by me acceptable to upload? Yorkist (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yorkist: Probably yes. For more certainty, you can research if it is part of a known series or if someone somewhere has more information (e.g. image search, postcard collectors and traders, local history societies, etc.) Is there a mark or indication on the main side (I suppose you would have mentioned it, but you did not tell explicitly)? If after research you do not find information, you can upload to Commons with the status tags PD-UK-unknown and PD-US-expired, applicable to the image of the postcard. (Please note that Commons does not allow its contributors to claim a copyright on the reproductions they make of such images, so contributors cannot mention themselves as authors of the reproductions or use a license, which would possibly attract a deletion request.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I've uploaded it with those tags, hopefully that's acceptable. Yorkist (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Soomaaliyeey toosoo.ogg revdel Delete Request[edit]

Soomaaliyeey toosoo sound source includes copyrighted revdel. I want you to delete it.

The size is also shown in the form of an image or art. This means that you have a duty to delete revdel, which violates copyrights.

It also contains songs by Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra and is copyrighted.

Both are true. Non-free frame revdel, Overwritten revdel on the presence of.

in the old days File:Viva viva a Frelimo (Instrumental).ogg There was a version of revdel that was tagged with the author's name in PD-Art format that was uploaded to the ogg.

The revdel to be deleted is as follows.

19:24, 22 December 2019. 55 s, 1,280 × 720 (1.31 MB) It is. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.72.215.56 (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe there is something related to this and I request the deletion of revdel.

Please refer to Commons:Revision deletion There is a reason why you should delete revdel. --211.72.215.56 12:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This is currently subject of a deletion request, which I believe should be allowed to play out. Could you make your remarks at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soomaaliyeey toosoo.ogg and could you be clearer about what exactly you want to have deleted preemptively? (Timestamp would help). - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • File history This is Revision deletion (Revdel). The destination of deletion is 19:24, 22 December 2019. 55 s, 1,280 × 720 (1.31 MB) I'd like you to delete this. --211.72.215.56 09:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I request the deletion of File history 19:24, 22 December 2019. 55 s, 1,280 × 720 (1.31 MB). --211.72.215.56 09:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My page (contribution) was deleted[edit]

I wrote a page about the president of the Federal Technological University of Paraná (Brazil), Mr Marcos Schiefler Filho: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_Schiefler_Filho It was important for our community from University.

But someone from https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:DarkWerewolf deleted it and I don´t know what to do.

Could you help me? Thank you Maurini de Souza (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maurini de Souza: Hi, and welcome. Please read pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Marcos Schiefler Filho. DarkWerewolf deleted the page on that basis.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are logos part of copyrights?[edit]

Hi, 2b2t have recently updated their logo. I updated the logo and added it on it's Wikipedia page, but was removed by Filedelinkerbot as a potential copyright violation. Now, are logos a copyright violation? How can I update the logo?

Thanks!
HassanElDessouki (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HassanElDessouki: Hi, and welcome. File:2b2t newLogo.png was deleted because it is copyrighted by Hausemaster. Please read COM:L.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. I see.
Quick question, if I make a page for a place and its logo will it also be considered copyrighted? or can I add the logo with no issues?
HassanElDessouki (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick answer: I think you should read COM:L as suggested above because you don't seem to understand what the word en:copyright means when it comes to Commons?
More detailed answer: the copyrightability of a logo depends on how much creatively went into creating it and the copyright laws of the country where the logo was created (first published). In order for a logo to be uploaded to Commons, it needs to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States (where the Commons servers are located) and the country of origin (country of first publication) where the logo's creator created it or first published it. Complex logos which are considered to be eligible for copyright protection can only be uploaded if they've been released under a free license accepted by Commons or the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT can be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medicina Ecologica Ecuador[edit]

Acabo de subir un artículo como Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Medicina Ecológica Ecuador.Sin embargo no encuentro resultados cundo pongo las categorías correspondientes en el buscador.¿Por favor, me pueden explicar porqué? WikiWal1948 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ecological Medicine Ecuador
I have just uploaded an article as Ecuadorian Society of Ecological Medicine Ecuador. However, I do not find results when I put the corresponding categories in the search engine. Please, can you explain why?
translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WikiWal1948: Hola y bienvenido. File:Wiki 1 Medicina Ecológica SEME.pdf probablemente se eliminará porque incorpora texto de su sitio web, promueve su organización y está fuera de nuestro alcance de proyecto.
Hi, and welcome. File:Wiki 1 Medicina Ecológica SEME.pdf will probably be deleted because it incorporates text from your website, it promotes your organization, and it is out of our project scope.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help regarding uploading an Image[edit]

The image File:Draupadikichaka.jpg depicts the subject in a pink garment rather than a black one as seen in File:Sairandhri, by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg. The 2nd version (05:02, 12 June 2010 by Redtigerxyz) of File:Sairandhri, by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg has a higher resolution version of the same pink garment painting. As I am unable to overwrite the file, I would request anyone of you upload that picture as a new version in File:Draupadikichaka.jpg. With regards, 2405:201:402D:9954:9D7E:BAB8:9029:A640 06:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • These are two distinct images and belong (as they are) in two distinct files. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The version of the file mentioned by the IP (12 June 2010) is the same painting (the vertical pink dress painting) but not the same source as the first version (30 September 2005) of the file. (The source of the second version was not disclosed by its uploader, but it can be seen that it's not from the same source as the first version), so indeed apparently it's not really the same image, and one should not overwrite the other. That was the mistake made by the uploader of the second version of the file. The 2005 file should never have been overwritten. Ideally, the file should be reverted to that 2005 version. The second version can be (re)uploaded separately, if its actual source is found. The case gets stangely even much more messy, since in September 2022 a user overwrote everything with the different painting (the black dress painting). I would normally trust that user as I know he knows much about India, however I don't understand that overwriting, it does not seem acceptable. His image of the different painting should have been uploaded as a different file. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Yann as overwriter.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, reverted, but I am doing a general replacement, so that the better image is used. Yann (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to get a picture with copyright violation removed?[edit]

I had uploaded an image when I first created my Wikimedia Commons account and I was now made aware that it is a violation of copyright (File:Katja_Loos.jpg). I agree and already nominated the picture a few times for deletion. It was also nominated for rapid deletion by the copyright owner and tagged as copyright violation. I also removed the false copyright tag. But all requests of deletion get turned down and user even add the false copyright tag back. How could I get this picture deleted? Thanks for your help. ChemPol (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katja-Loos.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry wrong file. I meant this one : File:Katja Loos.jpg ChemPol (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChemPol: I tagged File:Katja Loos.jpg for you. See also internal links.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help. I hope it gets deleted soon. ChemPol (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Related DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katja Loos.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rationales used in the various nominations: “I would like to use another one using this name” and “not the correct year and/or person”, both by User:ChemPol, and “This photo is taken by me and not copyright free. Please remove it ASAP” by User:129.125.13.6. With those rationales, the last one by an IP user, I can absolutely understand why “all requests of deletion get turned down”. --Rosenzweig τ 20:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ID[edit]

I need to change my ID — Preceding unsigned comment added by Update200 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Update200: If you mean you want to change your user name to something that isn't "Update200", I'd suggest just logging out and creating a new account. The above question is the only thing you've done as "Update200" on any Wikimedia site, so there's not much point in renaming the existing account. --bjh21 (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Update200: That having been written, exactly what username did you want and why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to create a new copyright tag[edit]

Hi, I want to create a new copyright tag which will be used with files that are work of a government. Various types of governments, like national government, provincial government or local government, allow others to upload their contents under the conditions:- 1) proper attribution and 2) use in non objectionable and respectful manner. Copyright tags for the Governmental works of individual governments exists, like Template:GODL-India for Government of India, Template:PD-USGov for Government of United States. As it is not possible to create copyright tag for every single government, I think a general copyright tag should be created. So can you share the procedures required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ku423winz1 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ku423winz1: Hi, and welcome. We have tags for many governments, see COM:CRT. We already have {{Attribution}} (or any of the nine other redirects for {{Attribution only license}}). "use in non objectionable and respectful manner" is a non-copyright restriction we don't concern ourselves with. Please see COM:SIGN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ku423winz1: Actually, yes, it is possible to create a distinct copyright tag for any government that free-licenses its materials. For some governments we have more than one tag to deal with different bodies of materials that may have slightly different non-copyright restrictions (e.g. different attribution issues). - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: , that's why I am wanting to create it. A common copyright tag for Governmental works will be very useful. There would be a parameter which will show the government name. Can you please share me the procedures?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ku423winz1 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ku423winz1: just model it on an existing template for a similar case. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dokumentformat[edit]

Ska texten som ska laddas ner vara i pdf-format? Barbrosundner (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I understand correctly (with the help of Google Translate), that is a question in Swedish asking if texts should be downloaded in PDF format. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe "laddas upp" (uploaded)? But in general texts don't belong on Commons. @Barbrosundner: could you ask a more specific question? I can't determine what you want to do. & via Google Translate: Kan du ställa en mer specifik fråga? Jag kan inte bestämma vad du vill göra. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsure of the Copyright of an image[edit]

I'm currently on a quest to find images of old senators and governors without any. I found an image for Maryland Senator Robert Henry Goldsborough. The problem is, I am unsure if the image is in the public domain or not. According to the site I found it on (https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Goldsborough-72), images are automatically copyrighted unless the creator permits use. According to the site, the original image was made in 1802, but uploaded in 2020. It also says the image is public, but I am unsure if that means public domain as the help page for Public Images on the site simply mentions being able to freely view it.

Thank you for your help. AlfLandonFan (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AlfLandonFan: I believe you can safely use {{PD-old-100}} for any U.S. image from 1802. But if you want a more definitive answer, and it would bother you if the image were eventually deleted, you would do better to bring the question to Commons:Village pump/Copyright - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of images[edit]

Hi I am not familiar with this site. I work for Topical Television and we would like to use two photos in a BBC daytime programme "Caught Red Handed". These are the two images:

1. "Swinging London": Young adults in London's Carnaby Street. 

     Londons_Carnaby_Street,_1966.jpg ‎

2. London - Carnaby Street in 1968 showing Lady Jane fashion boutique on left side. · File:London - Carnaby Street (1968).jpg 

     Created: 7 August 1968

Please could you confirm there is no payment required, even if when the programme is sold abroad. Please could you also confirm that the first photo can be used with no credit and that the second photo just needs to have a credit to Roger Wollstadt

Thank you very much

Sue Barber sue.barber@topical.co.uk SueBarberTopical (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SueBarberTopical: Hi, The best thing when checking information about files is to check the sources.
  • The notice for the first image on the National Archives website at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/record?catid=1977925&catln=6 mentions that it is originally from "INF 14 - Ministry of Information and Central Office of Information: Publications Division: Photographs". The immediate source for the Commons copy is the flickr stream of the National Archives at https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalarchives/3008584298/. The National Archives tag it as "no known restrictions" for use, so that looks safe to use with no credit, no payment, anywhere.
  • The source of the second image is what looks like the perfectly legitimate flickr account of the photographer at https://www.flickr.com/photos/24736216@N07/2698850060. It is tagged by the photographer with the license CC BY-SA 2.0, so safe to use without payment, anywhere, but with attribution to the photographer (the account is currently identified as "Roger W" but it was probably "Roger Wollstadt" in 2014 when the image was copied to Commons) and the mention of the license and its url (see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en for details). For more information or if you would want to use the photo without the license, you can ask the photographer, who indicates his contact email on his flickr account.
-- Asclepias (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi
Thank you very much for your help and advice - much appreciated.
Sue SueBarberTopical (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

recherche[edit]

bonjour michel leeb a habité le manoir sur seine nous voudrions savoir si il a des photos ou des noms de personnes !merci d'avances cordialement 109.209.190.56 17:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cant remove category[edit]

Category:1615 paintings from the United Kingdom. how can i remove "1610s paintings from the United Kingdom" down there? ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 19:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you could remove the template "Template:PaintingfromUKcat". But the template is apparently made to include all similar cases in the respective categories. So, preliminary question: why would you exclude this particular category from the general categorization scheme (which I assume is the application of a consensus of the contributors to this topic)? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
because this: Category:Non-empty category redirects @Asclepias ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Good question. The situation was caused by the fact that a user changed the name of the category. Was that change correct or not under whatever conventions apply to that category tree? I would advise caution before getting involved into that sort of change and reorganization, unless you are already familiar with the organization of the categories and templates in that field and with the consensus of their contributors. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging Birdie, who might be able to help. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Sbb1413, who changed the name of the category to Category:1610s paintings from Great Britain.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

How can an out of date logo be removed from infobox and replaced with the new one? This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Studies_Council has an old logo on, I can't see how to add a new logo that will appear in infobox or take off the old one. Thanks MelCousins (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MelCousins: Firstly, you or someone else must upload a new image file with the new logo. If the logo is copyrighted, you can use the upload link in the left sidebar of Wikipedia and choose the option to upload a non-free file. Or, if the new logo is too simple to be copyrightable, it may be uploaded to Commons instead of Wikipedia. Secondly, you edit the page of the article and replace the file name of the image that is currently there (Field Studies Council.jpg) with the name of your newly uploaded file. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The old logo is entirely on en-wiki, not Commons, so unless the new logo is too simple to be copyrighted, Commons is not involved in this at all. @MelCousins: you might want to read en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wrong name[edit]

A file named "flag of CMPA" is not the flag of CMPA, so I requested deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan.svg one and a half months ago, but the user changed its name to "former flag of CMPA" and the problem still exists. Fire-and-Ice (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Yann as keeping Admin of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan.svg and continuing editor of that page.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file is in use. There is no copyright issue. No other name was proposed. Yann (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the risk of possibly stating the "bleeding obvious", it seems to me that the pertinent question is whether this image does or does not depict the (or a) former flag of the Communist Party of Afghanistan. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's the issue. But since it is in use and there is no copyright issue, it can't be deleted. Anyone is free to propose a new name, and a different description. Yann (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I know nothing about this, but out of idle curiosity I dragged the Wiki flag image into Google image search and it came up with a couple of hits of near-identical flag, with translation of the bottom line of script as "Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan", BUT with a star instead of the hammer and sickle; see http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-communist-maoist-party-of.html and https://www.redspark.nu/en/tag/shola-jawid/. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no doubt that it can't be the flag (or former flag) of the party. I think you don't need waste time on confirming it. I have explanated it in detail. Fire-and-Ice (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are certain that it is not as described, and no one knows that it is a "real" flag of any description, and it "cannot be deleted since it is in use" (even if the uses are incorrect??), then I suppose we should change the name/description to something incorporating the idea of "unidentified flag". Presumably the users of the image should also ideally be informed? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTY[edit]

Um, why is there a feature on the main page highlighting "PICTURE OF THE YEAR 2021". Should that be 2022? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The competition was for photos that were promoted to Featured Picture in 2021. For more info see COM:POTY/2021. -M.nelson (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thanks. I guess people can see how the feature looks 11 months late. Anyway, nice photo ... ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it is a little confusing. There's a proposal at Village Pump/Proposals to try to clear this up. -M.nelson (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public domain "The Elements" by Tom Lehrer song upload?[edit]

Tom Lehrer has released his songs to the public domain [4] and I feel it would improve the article on that song to embed it directly into the article. If this makes sense, how / where should I upload it, and should I upload the original mp3 or transcode it to ogg? Razziabuissa (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Razziabuissa: His lyrics are now released. The tune also should be no problem ("Modern Major General" is PD, as well) but any given recording remains an issue. You'd either need to record it yourself, or have someone do a version they would free-license. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Jmabel. The source of Tom Lehrer's release seems is his website https://tomlehrersongs.com/ which, among other things, states Performing and recording rights to all of my songs are included in this permission. His release explicitly mentions music and lyrics, and the right to perform or record them, but I understand it to not cover the rights to the recordings themselves. (For the record, most of his recordings seem to have been self-released, so he should be able to release them into PD if he wanted to.) -M.nelson (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe we can get a bunch of folks here to do a recording of it together. With luck some might also get Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath links out of it. DMacks (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Razziabuissa: You can upload to Commons. For types of audio files accepted, please see Commons:File types#Sound. As others said above, depending who performs and records your version, it will have to be free. Or you could just use the file already on Commons File:1-16 The Elements.mp3, which is in the public domain. The uploader tagged it with a false CC0 declaration, though. Instead, it should have some sort of PD tags covering all aspects, including performance and recording. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @CalendulaAsteraceae: what is the basis to say that The Remains of Tom Lehrer is in the public domain? - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say it is that he offers it for download [5] on his website under his full public domain release [6]. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Applying the precautionary principle, I don't think that his release covers his own performances/recordings. -M.nelson (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He is clear that he releases all rights of all sorts and retains none. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be worth contacting him for clarification, especially given that this is relevant to anyone who might want to use the recordings on his website. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cv[edit]

Hello where can i publish my CV and my scientific articles and books ელინა (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On your private website. Magnus (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading Pictures From Wikipedia[edit]

The title says it all but can I uplode pictures from wikipedia SmallyBoii (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SmallyBoii: Hi, and welcome. You may upload pictures that are already on Wikipedia using FileImporter. Look for a tab labeled "Export to Wikimedia Commons" in Vector or "export to wikimedia commons" in Monobook. However, I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload png photos as a new user. Such uploads of png photos are not allowed at all. The following applies to each photo. You indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a png or smaller jpg photo, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including any metadata, but if you were not the original photographer, that person may need to license it on their official website or social media or send permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload svg or jpg versions, too. If you can't get a compliant license, the photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter. See also COM:FS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Money taken from my account[edit]

On the 17th December US$31 86 was taken from my account,which after conversion rate equals NZ$64 88. I have no idea what your company is or does. the reference number is 235074249056.I would appreciate it if you could get back to me as soon as possible as it has left me with deliquent payments I dont have the money to pay 101.53.218.85 03:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Whatever may have happened, certainly you are on the wrong website. Wikimedia Commons is part of the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit. Wikimedia Commons isn't a "company." or even a thing that has a bank account. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As with all important things, especially concerning money and legal advice: don't just post to some random help page somewhere on the Web, talk to someone who can do something about it! In this case, this would be your bank. They will certainly be interested in hearing about un-authorized charges to your account. --rimshottalk 16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very long time for OTRS?[edit]

I have uploaded 5 new pictures for my article (on top). I uploaded on behalf of "Amt für Kulturgüter Fribourg". They have sent an Email to OTRS (see text by any of these 5 newest pictures). Its waiting very long?

There is also a photographer with name. He worked on behalf of the "Amt". The Amt has the copyright (like a publisher). But like an author of a book, the photographer is named too. Is this OK or irritating? For me, the autorisation of the copyright holder "Amt" ist sufficient?

I have not yet substituted the old pictures in article by the newest (after restauration). Thanks for help. Meginrat (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Meginrat: Eleven days is not a particularly long time for VRT (formerly called OTRS). - Jmabel ! talk 16:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi Meginrat. Did you read the wording of the {{Permission received}} templates that were added to the files' pages. In general, a 30-day grace period is granted to files tagged with such a template to take into account that VRT verification sometimes takes a bit of time. So, there's still at a few weeks to go before the files will once again be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion COM:CSD#F5. You can, if you want, ask about this at COM:VRTN, but you need to understand that VRT members won't discuss specific details related to the emails they receive anywhere on Commons and they only will discuss details via email with the person who sent in the original email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel and Marchjuly: Thanks a lot. I gather that time is still normal (I have seen {{Permission received}} and I only wondered a little why it did not continue. Finishing of the article was intended as a Christmas present for the "Amt", because there was a very good cooperation during restauration of the Chappel.
So we will continue waiting and I prepare the "Amt", that they receive questions directly if there are some. There is no problem. --Meginrat (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly and Jmabel: I have read the text of {{Permission received}} again: The 30 days refer to my reaction to the first VTRN-member contribution? That means: it is not the waiting time for first reaction of VTRS. But when they ask something or have another demand, the files can be deleted, when I do not react during 30 days? --Meginrat (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ps: There are different parameters in template I see now. My text in all pictures says only, that it is waiting for VTRS but no other problem. So the 30 days should not yet started? --Meginrat (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Meginrat: Hi, and welcome. Ticket:2022121310004345 has been received 2022-12-13, but is awaiting artist and photographer identification and permission, as well as years of artistry and photography, via email. The files may be deleted as soon as 2023-01-12.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thanks for this more clear answer. The „Amt“ used a template for mail (assume you can see) and filled that form in all points. Is there a newer one? The Amt für Kulturfragen in Fribourg has the copyright, the photographer is named in each picture and the mail also. The files are brand new, EXIF is uploaded. Shortly: what shall we do? Did you mail this to the Amt für Kulturfragen (they have no experience with Wikipedia). Background: The Chappel was restored. I made the old photos but for the restored the Amt hired a photographer. But as far as I know, the Copyright is by the Amt. Thanks for help and sorry.--Meginrat (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Meginrat: Let us take File:Altarbild 5 Kapelle SainteApolline.jpg for example. We start with the bridge and chapel, which date from circa 12th century - we need no more information about them, but it could help (engineer for the bridge, architect for the chapel). Then, we have the painting of the bridge and chapel on wood, dated 1680 - who was the painter? - we need no more information about the painting, but it could help. Then, we have the modern color photo - it appears Alain Kilar was the photographer 10:27, 25 October 2021, may we have permission from them? If they granted copyright to the Amt as a part of the photography contract, we need a copy of the contract, else we need permission from the photographer. Then, we have the restoration - was the painting restored or the photo? Who did the restoration and when? May we have permission from them? I have similar questions about the other four files, plus: What do we know about "Jo'. Achert. P.", painter of File:Altarbild 1 Kapelle SainteApolline.jpg?; What do we know about "GUILLAUME", painter of File:Altarbild 2 Kapelle SainteApolline.jpg?; What do we know about "S: APOLONIA", painter of File:Altarbild 3 Kapelle SainteApolline.jpg (or is that the name of the subject)?; and What do we know about the painter of File:Altarbild 4 Kapelle SainteApolline.jpg? If you want to add private information, please email permissions-de@wikimedia.org, include "[Ticket#: 2022121310004345]" without quotes in the subject line, and carbon copy your Amt correspondent to keep everyone in the loop.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jeff G.: . I am a little bit mixed up :-) There are optional and mandatory quesions? Optional questions are described in Kapelle Sainte-Apolline. The pictures were restored and therefore new fotos were produced. But it would be additional work to describe all in commons and the howto is also not clear.

Lets focus on licence questions first, to use in article If I understand you correct, the photographer also has to send a mail (list of photos, dates):

  • "I worked on behalf of Amt für Kulturgüter Fribourg and made fotos after restoration 2022. With mail from xxx.xxx.xx the Amt für Kulturgüter has already allowed use of these pictures with Licence CC BY-SA 4.0
  • I explain in relation to the pictures whose photographer I am:
  • I hereby allow anyone to reuse the image under the free Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de ... (I have this text only in German)

In practice this seems a little bit informal between Amt and photographer. So both have copyright and allow use. Ist this correct and sufficiant? Or you have another mail template in English, we can fill. -Thanks and sorry. -Meginrat (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Meginrat: Two of the mandatory questions at this point (synthesized per Google Translate from German) which have been answered are: "Who is the photographer"? (answered as Alain Kilar); and "In what century were the paintings painted"? (answered as the 17th century in the article). The remaining mandatory question is "How did Amt obtain the copyright (or at least the right to sublicense) from Alain Kilar?" If he granted copyright to the Amt as a part of a photography or employment contract, then we need a copy of the contract, else we need permission from him. If you have email from him, please send that with full Internet headers per the above as "private information".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks @Jeff G.: . Seems to be quite clear now. I will ask directly the Amt, if there is a written contract. If not (I assume), the photographer will send an own email as described.
The remaining question is: If I want to add Info to the pictures (similar to upload assistant) how can I do it? I see only and can edit the classic fields. --Meginrat (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Meginrat: you should be able to edit anything about the image. If there is no clear place to put a piece of information, add it to "description". At worst, someone who knows more about how to do this can move it later. Also, if you really want, there is always {{Information field}}, but usually only pretty experienced user get their heads around that. - Jmabel ! talk 16:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Thanks, {{Information field}} seems to be a good extension. I added already something in description. --Meginrat (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright help regarding Different CNG signs.jpg[edit]

Dear all, i made one picture from three public available signs, concerning CNG fuel. They are from the UN Regulation R110, DIN EN 16942 and the German BASt. I don't know which licence i have to select.

Search for "Zeichen 365-54" https://www.bast.de/DE/Verkehrstechnik/Fachthemen/V1-VzKat-Aenderungen-1992-2017.html?nn=1837978

Second page at the bottom: https://fuel-identifiers.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/QA-consumers-DE.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanNWiki (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page 108 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42011X0507(01)&from=EN

Bottom, left at page https://www.din.de/de/ueber-normen-und-standards/nutzen-fuer-den-verbraucher/verbraucherrat/ueber-uns/einheitliche-kennzeichnungen-fuer-kraftstoffe-nach-din-en-16942-319690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanNWiki (talk • contribs) 13:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--StefanNWiki (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no file called Different CNG signs.jpg or File:Different CNG signs.jpg, and never has been. You don't even seem to have uploaded a file with a name anything like that. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course is not. Because i could not upload it .... StefanNWiki (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You triggered the filter for small jpegs - usually, these are copyright violations, that's why new users can't upload them. In this case, you have two kinds of issues:
  1. File format: JPEG is a poor format for graphics like these, you should really use a lossless format like PNG, or ideally SVG
  2. License: You need to know the copyright situation for each of the images you want to combine. Official German road signs are public domain ({{PD-VzKat}}). Simple text in a basic shape is PD too, because it is too simple for copyright ({{PD-sign}}). If your effort consists only of pasting these together, no copyright is created at all, and you can use {{PD-because}}, give the above reasoning and add the respective license tags. --rimshottalk 20:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rimshot: Any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so please do not recommend uploading png images for use on WMF projects.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StefanNWiki: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/156 by trying to upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes) jpg image as a new user. Usually when someone uploads a smaller jpg image, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you created the image yourself, please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including original EXIF metadata. If you did not create the image, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the copyright holder license it on their official website or social media, or send the image and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the image may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remplacer la photographie d'une personne décédée[edit]

Bonsoir. Agnès Brabo, la fille de Michèle Brabo, m'a confié une photographie de sa mère afin qu'elle puisse être mise à la place de celle existante sur la page Wikipedia de Michèle Brabo. Voici le lien qui permet d'avoir les informations concernant ladite photo qu'Agnès souhaiterait remplacer. Comment puis-je procéder ? Merci. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mch%C3%A8le_Brabo_1982.jpg Mr. Jaune (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:Mchèle Brabo 1982.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr. Jaune: there are a few problems here.
  1. From what you say, the claim of "own work" is false, as is the 2017 date.
  2. More importantly, though: who took the photograph? That is the person who presumably owns the copyright, and they (or, if they are no longer alive, their heir) are the only one who can grant a license.
    • Slight exception to that if the copyright has been formally transferred, but then we'd need evidence of the transfer.
  3. See COM:VRT for the way confidential correspondence can be handled so that someone can grant that license without having an account here.
    • If the rights-holder has a site or page that is obviously under their control, they can indicate the license there instead of going through VRT. Then you can cite that as a source.
Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point number 1 relates to the photo by Gourgons already on Commons, not to the photo by Agnès Brabo uploaded by Mr. Jaune. The Gourgons photo has the date of the digitization in the date field, a common mistake on files with scanned images of photos originally taken in the 1980s, which I guess may be caused by some automatic insertion by the Upload Wizard, and uploaders probably don't realize that it's something they should change. The presumably correct date mentioned in the file name shows that it is not an attempt to deceive about the date of the photo but it's probably inexperience with the peculiarities of the upload process on Commons. That situation does not imply that the statement of own work is false. Commons already has VRT confirmation for other own works by this account, so I suppose that's a situation where there's nothing basically wrong if the only thing to fix is the date field. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: sorry, I skimmed & didn't get the context right. My apologies. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr. Jaune: Bonjour, Il s'agit qu'Agnès Brabo confirme, par un courriel qu'elle envoie à Wikimedia, qu'elle est la photographe et la licence libre sous laquelle elle offre la photo. Vous trouverez tous les détails de cette procédure sur la page d'aide Commons:Équipe des répondeurs bénévoles. Pour remplacer la photo dans l'article de Wikipédia, il faut aller sur la page de Wikidata:Q15407016 et y remplacer le nom du fichier de l'ancienne photo par le nom du fichier de la nouvelle photo. Ou, si vous ne modifiez pas la page de Wikidata, une autre méthode est d'ajouter dans l'infobox de l'article de Wikipédia un paramètre photo suivi du nom du nouveau fichier. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the Czech Republic vs. Czechia[edit]

What's the correct name to use for categories? I have seen both in use Trade (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • en-wiki uses "Czech Republic", and I think that is the more common name in English, though it may be the harder one for non-native English-speakers. "Czechia" is more analogous to the native name "Česko". So, yeah, it would be nice to standardize on one, but it's hard to say which would be preferred. - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Trade and @Jmabel: They are official formal and short names, respectively, per en:Name of the Czech Republic. I suppose we could have an RFC about them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=718349212"