This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are pleny of icons alike such as (File:Gtk-dialog-info.svg) and (File:Messagebox_info.svg). But if you want to upload it, the license information of the Extension:OggHandler extension itself will apply to this image if there is no specific information about the image. However it appears license information is missing in this case. I'll ping the author and he or I will get back here. –Krinkletalk21:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, got it. It appears the author didn't create the images himself. According to the README file they were included from the Crystal Clear project ( http://www.everaldo.com/crystal/ ). We've got many images from that project. Please use the {{Crystal Clear}} template when uploading, it contains all relevant information including author, source, license and categorization. Please use a descriptive filename such as "Crystel Clear info icon.png" and not "info.png". –Krinkletalk21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that worked. I wanted to use the actual icon, now CrystalClearInfoIcon.png, not something similar in the Help:File page article.--agr (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Pedal-driven-weaving-machine.jpg
I'm having a problem with the licensing of this file. It's my own work and I'd like to license it as CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. Seemingly, I have missed stating it during upload. Please, help me to correct the problem. Edal (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Image twice improved, but still original (and wrong) image appears
The image File:Euskal Herriko mapa koloreztatua.png has been improved twice, but still the original (and wrong) image appears there. You can see that "Lapurdi" appears twice in this map (in orange — upper side — and in dark green — upper right side) and that this has been corrected in the two newer versions (2 November 2010 and 21 January 2008). How could this be corrected? --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Great! Looks fine to me too, now. It's funny — it didn't appear the correct version some hours ago, no matter how many times I pressed F5. And the first improved version was from 2008... some two years before I used this browser (Chrome) for the first time, so no cache image should have interfered. Anyway, all is fine now. --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
But now, it doesn't show for me and some other images don't show either. is it a momentanuous commons problem, a server problem? --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
everytime i try to upload an image today i keep getting the same message "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding." even though i am providing all info and license.. is the site having problems right now? i have never had a problem in the past uploading my own images... thanks --Ltshears (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Using own photos coming from Flickr
Good Day!
I would like to ask what if I myself, would like to upload photos coming from my Flickr account? I have the photos tagged as "Some Rights Reserved" already?
There should be no problem at all to license them at your discretion here on Commons, as long as your are the creator and copyright holder for thoses photos. You're basically free to do whatever you want with your own rights on your own photos - well, as long as you haven't already done something with them (sold some usage rights to Getty via Flickr's cooperation with this company, for instance) apart from publishing the images on Flickr. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
There may be some instances that a moderator may raise an issue because they found the photo on another website. Should I use OTRS request form if such would occur?
I had no idea the web site was such a complicated thing to use. Having said that let me tell you my intention in contacting this site and offering the authentic squadron patch image that I did.
I was a member of this Air Force unit from 1956 until my discharge in 1959. This patch represented our squadron. It was offered to you as it was purchased and worn by me. I had no part in its creation however I have scanned my patch and uploaded it to you. The patch that currently appears on the Wiki web site in some ways resembles my patch but indicates no squadron affiliation. The unit has been deactivated some years ago and for the sake of history I'd like to see my patch displayed since it was the authentic patch in 1956 when I joined the 317th F.I.S. and I would imagine some period of time before. The squadron was known as a fighter interceptor squadron where most squadrons are referred to as fighter squadrons. Perhaps that was because the type of aircraft flown was a new, right from the Convair factory in Texas F-102A All-weather Interceptor.
I would be more than happy to put forth whatever effort is necessary to assure that this patch is somehow represented in public records so that the men and women that served in this squadron and the squadron itself is not forgotten.
Perhaps if you are totally aquainted with this site you could accomplish this task yourself but all of these buttons along the bottom of this form can discourage the average person from contributing. Hopefully you can find my post using my Dikjenkins1 ID.
I got a message on my discussion that here is a lacking of a source for this file. Yes, it's true, but I do not really know how to remedy to this problem - I made only the move from EN to Commons. Anyway, even if there is a lack of identifiable source, a photograph of an allied warship on duty in the European theatre of operations during the middle of the second world war is really likely PD-US-Navy (or PD-UK-Gov, given the "HMS" prefix"). Maybe someone could have a look if there are some evidences of image manipulations by censors (thus proving the governmental origin) or has a clue where this file come from. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone being adminstrator on en:wiki, may shortly undelete the original file on en:wiki to see what has been mentioned there about the source. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am an admin on en. I just checked, and there was no source given in the deleted history there. In the first version, the uploader used the CopyrightedFreeUse template. Later, a bot changed that to PD-release. Jonathunder (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Image uploaded not showing
I just uploaded this and it is not showing in the preview or on Wikipedia where I posted it. It does show the actual photo though. Is this just a standard delay or does it need to be reuploaded or what?
Thanks for any help.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There are several photos of modern toys and dolls now on commons that sooner or later will end up deleted as derivative works. Many of them could be moved (back) to en.wiki and used there under fair use. But I have no idea how to go about properly moving them while reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it. Any help? Siawase (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll look into how to do that. But what about images that were uploaded directly to commons where there is no image to undelete on en.wiki? Siawase (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Leonardo's Lucan Self-portrait
I represent Nico Barbatelli, director of Museum of the Ancient Peole at Lucania and discoverer of Leonardo's self-portrait in 2008. The painting's authenticity was proven by a team of scholars over the last couple of years and I have been entrusted with English language work to place seven images of the Lucan on Wiki Commons, and to replace the iconic, Turin so-called self-portrait with the real image and details of the Investigation. Tonight I uploaded all the images to Wiki Commons under a ioo year+ licence before attempting to modify the main page, But I can't find any trace of them, and presume I have been automatically deleted for some reason or another.
All your uploads from this account are shown here. If any of these uploads had been deleted, they'd show up as red links. Since they're all blue, it appears that none of these were deleted. I also don't see any files starting with "LUCAN" in our deletion log for the whole night. I see no trace of any uploads of yours last night, nor do I see any uploads elsewhere. Looks to me that you didn't upload anything last night? Lupo14:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If you are the copyright holder of the photograph, please also state the free license that you are releasing the photograph under on the image description page (e.g. The photograph is released under: {{Cc-by}} The work itself is public domain by: {{PD-old-100}}). This way we avoid the legal complications of the {{PD-Art}} tag. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Which licence to use, if the owner states on her page that non-commercial projects may use her pictures?
Not free for commercial use ==> not allowed on commons ==> not accessible for wikipedia ==> I am afraid, you need to go to a "fair use allowed" hosting wikipedia, but then it is only usable on that hosting wikipedia. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason for requiring permission for commercial re-use is that the Wikimedia Foundation believes it can reach its goals faster by allowing commercial distribution of its content, for example in low-cost CDs and DVDs suitable for purchase in the many parts of the world that lack reliable Internet access. --Teratornis (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
please help with copyright, i doubt it has any but the explanations on wikimedia are of zero help, file itself was downloaded from news vortal onet.pl, original source is cited as official Reuters photo, how do it go about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vercynogetorix (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Random images you find on the web are not acceptable at Wikimedia Commons. Reuters photos are generally copyrighted with all rights reserved by Reuters. See Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. The account name is Mitsupicture. It appears as a red link, and recently when checking my watchlist I got a message that there was no such account and no such watchlist. (The watchlist now seems to be working.) Does this mean that the account is good, and I just need to create a user page? (apologies for any confusion!) Mitsupicture (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Which license do I use? I used "May be used for any purpose, including commercially, if the copyright holder in properly attributed." However, I have been flagged with:
File:Hakeemsigningauto.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
I removed the speedytag. That is one more user which does not understand the difference between copyright and license. Yes the picture is copyrighted, but is also licensed as free~by the copyright holder. No copyvio, but copylicensed. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the difference between copyright and license in this case. I should, but I don't. Any resources I can look at? Which template should I be using to upload pictures if I use pictures from the University of Houston? Is continued use of the University of Houston photos in violation of any user terms? Danielleelder (talk)
Also, can I delete the copyright violation warning from my talk area? Danielleelder (talk)
In this case the image is public domain (or so UH claims), but UH automatically includes a copyright notice on every page. It should be understood that it only applies to the other content on the page. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean that it only applies to the content on that page? This information came from the picture metadata - Use and Reproduction This image is in the public domain and may be used freely. If publishing in print, electronically, or on a website, please use the citation: "Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries." To order a higher resolution reproduction, see http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections-archives/request-digitalDanielleelder (talk)
The copyright notice only applies to the other content on that page. The image is in the public domain, but the rest of the page is under copyright. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If there's a tool to do this could someone help? Also can the descriptions be rechecked while doing so, and the original copyvio versions deleted. Thanks. FT2(Talk | email)10:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
All your files are being deleted?
I've recently discovered a collection of images that are simply scans from a book; if I understand rightly, they're non-free, so I expect to nominate all of them together for deletion. Since the same person (1) uploaded all of them and (2) has no other contributions, I'd like to use a template that I've seen before, but I can't remember what it's called. I notice that All your files is linked from a few usertalkpages, such as User talk:Hypnomusic, but all of these links are apparently for blatant copyvios, and I don't believe that this collection of images qualifies for speedy. Is there a way to nominate all of a user's uploads with a single action (I'm not meaning Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request; that takes plenty of edits to get the unified deletion request), and is there a template that I can use to say "All of your files are at COM:DR together"? Nyttend (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Non-Governmental Organization Logo Upload
Hello! I wanted to create a page for World Breastfeeding Week on Wikipedia and I needed to upload a logo of that organization here. Can anybody please inspect this picture and tell me if I can upload this under the following licenses: "{{PD-OpenClipart}} and {{insignia}}" Or if I can't, can you advise what kind of license can I use for uploading such material? It should be a non-governmental organization logo I believe. I appreciate the help and concern regarding this. SiarFisher (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You're approaching it from the wrong direction. With the exception of the US Government, it doesn't matter who you are, it matters whether you've released it under a free license. From just the picture, it's impossible to tell, but it's unlikely. Secondly, especially in the case of logos, you may have something too simple for copyright, but that's not true in this case. You can only use something like OpenClipart if it's actually has been uploaded into the OpenClipart library.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I understand. I believe it doesn't have a free license and haven't been uploaded to the OpenClipart library yet. So I could only use Fair use which is not allowed here! I think I can only upload it under the Non-free Fair use on the Wikipedia instead of here. Thanks for your answer. SiarFisher (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
DATE-Template
In order to simplify the upload of files, the template {{DATE}} would be a "nice to have". I would like just insert {{subst:DATE}} to get rid of any problems with the right format of the current Date. {{CURRENTDATE}} exist, but it isn't the preferred format.
would be the perfect format, but you see it isn't easy to handle and hard to remember. I'd program the template but I fear to offend against any secret agreements. Finally, there are "magic words". And last but not least I don't know what I have to consider regarding all categories.
So what do you think about creating the template {{DATE}} with the contents{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}. Greeting from germany --Mjchael (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a wiki. Be bold. You might need some <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> tags.
In the archive I found instructions for downloading an SVG file, but in terms that would work for a Windows computer. My Mac has no right mouse button.
I have tried several ways to get a copy of my own SVG image -- because it needs changing. Each time for what ought to be a 36k document I get a 4K document with the right filename, but the document itself is empty.
I seem to recall having downloaded many of my own files in JPG format without any problem and through a completely transparent process. What is the problem/solution with SVG files? Patrick Edwin Moran (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi fellow Mac user ,
Many Apple-users from before 2006 may not know this, but the Mac does have contextmenu functionality. Since 2006 Apple's own brand mouse has a right mouse button to trigger the contextmenu, before 2006 one could use a third party mouse or, simply, hold the CTRL-key on your keyboard and click (this works on Macs built before 2006 aswell).
Aside from that, there is no need to use the contextmenu to download any of the original files behind the thumbnails you see on Commons. Instead of opening the contextmenu (by right-click or ctrl-click) on the big preview on top of a File-page and picking "Save target as...", the alternative is clicking on it normally and go to the File-menu and choose "Save as.." –Krinkletalk01:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that no matter what method of saving I use I do not get my SVG back. I just tried as you suggested, downloaded a file. The only content was:
image/svg+xml 410.1 433.9 486.0 656.1
I used to be able to download previously uploaded SVG images without any problem.
Also, there is nothing I can access on my browser that says "Save target as." What you mean by "thumbnails you see on Commons" is unclear. Also unclear is "big preview on top of a File-page." I have been using computers since I built one by hard-wiring it in the late 70s, and I still haven't become accustomed to all the jargon. These terms as you apply them are not known to this user from the US even though I frequently use Windows in addition to Mac computers.
Has anybody tried downloading an SVG image and opening it with Inkscape? I doubt that my computer has been jinxed lately, but I forgot to try things with a Windows computer when I had the chance.
One other thing, I have had trouble getting some SVG images to render properly on the SimpleEnglish Wikipedia. Has the whole system been changed lately? Two days ago the hydrogen spectrum image I tried to download today would not show up on Simple English. Today it shows up.
If I go to the page that I would arrive at by clicking on my diagram in, e.g., the English Wikipedia and then clicking through to the Commons page with the file description, etc., and right-click on the picture shown there, what I will get is:
800px-Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg.png
i.e., an SVG file automatically rendered for display as a PNG image. But I can't use the PNG image to get back to an editable SVG image. When I click through to the actual SVG image page and try to download that, I get a file with a little information (as shown above), but no picture.
This isn't only a problem for me. If anybody else wants to edit one of my SVG images, s/he should be able to do so without having to laboriously recreate it from an PNG image. What if I use one English word in a SVG and somebody wants to use that image on a Russian language article? Unless my new MacBook Pro is cursed, there is something wrong with the system.Patrick Edwin Moran (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I went to File:Kim EtAl Quantum Eraser.svg and right-clicked on Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg just below the "Add a note" button, and had no problem downloading it as a perfectly good SVG file. Or I could click on the Download button at the top, and select full resolution, and save the file I get. It seems to be a problem just for you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The browser I use has an odd menu item, "save link" which should be written "save linked file." I remember trying your method, seeing "save link" and thinking that the equivalent of an alias or shortcut, and then trying to find another way to save the file. BTW, the file listed as 2000px is a PNG rendering of the SVG file. I don't see anything that says "full resolution" for this file. Anyway, I have now found the magic incantation.
Where are some clear instructions on how to nominate something for deletion? I'm attempting to put File:JeffDye.JPG up for deletion but can't find any step by step instructions. Thanks, Dismas (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Once you add the sub-page, those instructions disappear. I don't normally use the toolbox. I will next time, thanks. Dismas (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is my file deleted?
I have made two banners for the 2010 Wikimedia Foundation fundraising. One is this one File:Banner Jimmy Says Pay Up....png. I have upload the other one two times but it has been deleted. It says "Because Jimmy Wales can't do it by himself". It is a picture of Jimmy Wales with another editor. I used only pictures from Wikimedia Commons. The picture of an editor is one of the pictures on this page [1]. The picture of Jimmy Wales is also used by someone elses banner. I do not understand why my file is deleted. Please help me. Ben Carcu (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This banner uses the same picture of Jimmy Wales. I don't understand why my banner is deleted but this picture is not deleted. What is the difficulty? Ben Carcu (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a banner for Wikimedia fundraising. My teacher told me it was good work. I spent a lot of time on it and I would like to have it considered for the fundraising campaign. I do not understand how it can mean anything else other than what it says. Please help me to upload my banner proposal. Ben Carcu (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith - this could very well be an honest attempt at a fundraising banner. Let's restore it and only delete it if it's actually used as an attack image. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Banner proposals are probably fine here (well, are they in scope? Realistically useful for an educational purpose? Maybe for a course "how to design banner graphics"?), but the fact that this one was interpreted as "creepy" or an "attack image" shows that this design was very bad. If a banner can be misinterpreted in such ways, we shouldn't use it for sure. Hence, even assuming good faith, it wouldn't make much sense to restore this particular image. Lupo08:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
How can you make comments on it if you can not see it? There is nothing wrong with the banner! It does not attack anyone! I do not know why it is being deleted. If it is not good enough to be used as an official Wikimedia banner that is OK but please give it a chance. Thank you. Ben Carcu (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I could see it. Besides; sometimes the reactions of others (which is all I really commented about) is enough to infer something about the image, even if one cannot see the image itself. Would you want to use a banner image that evidently can very easily be misunderstood? That is what's wrong with it: nothing technical, but it conveys a message that can (and has, twice) be negatively misunderstood. Consider it a basic entry test for banner designs: if a design gives rise to such problems, it won't be used anyway. Lupo15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You are making people think there is something wrong with the image but there is nothing wrong with it. It does not attack anyone. It is not "creepy". No one complained to me about anything. It was deleted without anyone explaining why. I asked Phillipe (WMF) why he deleted my file but he did not answer me. My banner is here if anyone want to look at it and tell me why it can not be uploaded here. Thank you. Ben Carcu (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing to do with sex in my banner! Because there is a man and a woman in the picture some people are worrying that crazy persons might think it is about sex? I can upload a picture of a naked person but I can not upload my banner proposal because of some song? Ben Carcu (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I find your comments very insulting. I use Wikipedia often and I responded to a banner asking people to make banners for the Wikimedia Foundation fundraising. I used pictures that were suggested and uploaded my banners to Wikimedia Commons as was said. I am not a good writer but I am learning compueter graphics in school and I made a banner. My teacher praised the banner that you will not allow me to upload. I have asked for help and all you do is insult my banner. Now insult me also. There is nothing wrong with my banner. Why is it deleted? Please tell me. Ben Carcu (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Go to the image page, click "edit" at the top, and change the {{pd-self}} to {{GNU}}. And you should mention in the image source section the name of the file you made the map from. ←fetchcomms03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Using a trademarked image?
Hi, all. :) I'd like to add this image to the side of this article, but am unsure whether or not this type of image is allowed (and, if so, what the license type is). Taco Bell owns the image on the left. Any ideas? Thanks! --Dariodee (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically:
Do you know what license the image is copyrighted under?
If not (I couldn't find any mention of a license), you can't upload it here, and I don't think this falls under Wikipedia's fair use policy, so you can't use it on Wikipedia at all.
If you did know the copyright license, and it was compatible with Wikimedia Commons (i.e., it was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license), you could upload it here, and use it on any Wikipedia article. (But as there's no license mention on the image and and neither the website nor Taco Bell says it's under an acceptable license, it's assumed copyrighted and not suitable for use on Wikipedia.)
The best thing, I think, is to make a similar image yourself. However, you can't just grab images of tacos from anywhere—you'll need to make all of the image yourself, or find freely licensed images to use in the picture (all images on this site are freely licensed with the exception of the Wikipedia logos and such). You could, as an alternative, email Taco Bell, ask them if they would release the image under an acceptable copyright license, and then forward the email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org But that is probably not going to happen or they'll make some sort of restriction we can't accept, etc. So unless you really want to pursue the latter, it takes longer than making something similar by yourself.
Thanks for the reply. I was thinking that surely there's some exception for images like this... it's comparing an ad with reality, in a journalistic fashion, and, when posted on Wikipedia (on the false advertising article), there will likely be a caption under the image saying that the image is from a false advertising article. Does that kind of image require a license here?--Dariodee (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the concept you are looking for is fair use. Valid in many contexts, but except for de minimis, Commons pretty much rejects fair use justifications for inclusion. Commons policy on this is much stricter than the law. - Jmabel ! talk05:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I would also point out, in addition to not being allowed on Commons, I don't think it would pass muster with the English Wikipedia's , either. (It might, but I'd be surprised if it did.) Unless some reliable source has specifically called out that exact image of a taco as being misleading, then the picture constitutes original research, and holding it up as an example of "false advertising" is potentially defamatory. Powers (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have checked the help articles. The closest I have found to this question is an image of a gamebox, which was denied. Vindictus is a free game distributed by Nexxon, which I have taken several screenshots of. I have found the article to be lacking in any images other than the logo, and I feel that a series of screenshots could add significantly to the understanding of this article, including several expansions I plan on adding should these screenshots be allowed.
To upload a screenshot it is required that the underlying software or video has been published under a free license or is in the public domain. See Commons:Screenshots#Software. As far as I can see on the website of Vindictus there is nothing that indicates any free license for the game. The fame is "for free" - but that has not much to do with free content. Maybe a screenshot or two is allowed under Wikipedias Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, but it is not allowed here on Commons because its not free. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
If you really want to upload a screenshot here, my advice is to take a screenshot, then send it to the author of the game and specifically ask them to release the depicted content under a free license, such as the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0. If they do so, you can upload it via the OTRS process described at Commons:OTRS. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
New to commons, need help with featured picture nomination.
I submitted a picture but I do not see it listed on the list of November featured picture candidates. Can anyone point me to where I may have made a mistake with the nomination process?
Here is the photo that was nominated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chene (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no issue with it being free as i believe it should be but when I am trying to upload a similar image to Wikipedia i am told I cannot due to the copyright.
So can you please tell me What makes this image free and eligible for Commons? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)
Upload picture: We have permission, but Wikipedia still asks for it.
How does one get permission? The upload form for pictures just says that you must. It says to send an email. I have permission from the widow of the creator, but she does not have email.
If someone could crop File:US census—Hadji Ali.pdf I'd appreciate it--maybe save it in a better file format as well, if applicable. I do know how to crop, as rudimentary as my skills are with images, but the problem here was that when I imported the image to the image editor I have (PAINT.net), it was losing a ton of resolution so I decided to upload as is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, all. :) I'd like to add this image to the side of this article, but am unsure whether or not this type of image is allowed (and, if so, what the license type is). Taco Bell owns the image on the left. Any ideas? Thanks! --Dariodee (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically:
Do you know what license the image is copyrighted under?
If not (I couldn't find any mention of a license), you can't upload it here, and I don't think this falls under Wikipedia's fair use policy, so you can't use it on Wikipedia at all.
If you did know the copyright license, and it was compatible with Wikimedia Commons (i.e., it was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license), you could upload it here, and use it on any Wikipedia article. (But as there's no license mention on the image and and neither the website nor Taco Bell says it's under an acceptable license, it's assumed copyrighted and not suitable for use on Wikipedia.)
The best thing, I think, is to make a similar image yourself. However, you can't just grab images of tacos from anywhere—you'll need to make all of the image yourself, or find freely licensed images to use in the picture (all images on this site are freely licensed with the exception of the Wikipedia logos and such). You could, as an alternative, email Taco Bell, ask them if they would release the image under an acceptable copyright license, and then forward the email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org But that is probably not going to happen or they'll make some sort of restriction we can't accept, etc. So unless you really want to pursue the latter, it takes longer than making something similar by yourself.
Thanks for the reply. I was thinking that surely there's some exception for images like this... it's comparing an ad with reality, in a journalistic fashion, and, when posted on Wikipedia (on the false advertising article), there will likely be a caption under the image saying that the image is from a false advertising article. Does that kind of image require a license here?--Dariodee (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the concept you are looking for is fair use. Valid in many contexts, but except for de minimis, Commons pretty much rejects fair use justifications for inclusion. Commons policy on this is much stricter than the law. - Jmabel ! talk05:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I would also point out, in addition to not being allowed on Commons, I don't think it would pass muster with the English Wikipedia's , either. (It might, but I'd be surprised if it did.) Unless some reliable source has specifically called out that exact image of a taco as being misleading, then the picture constitutes original research, and holding it up as an example of "false advertising" is potentially defamatory. Powers (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have uploaded a few audio recordings for Wiktionary, but I would rather just have them all deleted, and I will re-record them at a later date. I think a few were sloppily done. How can I delete all these recordings I've uploaded? Thank you --dezzie (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone tell me where to start looking for information about uploading images to a local wiki? All the info I have been able to find is about uploading to Commons, but I don't have Commons on my system. Thanks a lot for any help in this direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.184.193 (talk • contribs)
The reason why you only find information about uploading to Commons around here is that you are at Commons.
I know that I am at Commons. But the reason I am at Commons is because the only info about uploading images I have been able to find up to now is about uploading them to Commons. Here is the starting line in help about uploading images: "If a family of projects has a Commons project, typically the file is uploaded on Commons." As you can see, it starts with an "if", making no provisions for other cases. But thanks to your pointers I may be able to get the info I need.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.184.193 (talk • contribs)
Er..., which local wikis are there? Installed on my local system, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.184.193 (talk • contribs)
For a list see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias. Indicate here which wikipedia you use for articles. Images can be uploaded at commons for use in all wikipedia's, or at one local wikkipedia for use in that one local wikipedia. Or do you mean a personal website only using wiki-swoftware, but not falling under wikipedia/wikimedia? --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, looks like we have a problem with the definition of the "wiki" here. As far as I see it, a wiki is a wiki, regardless of where it is installed and of the type of access to it. The one we are having our discussion at now has public access to it, while mine is installed on my personal computer and only I have access to it. That is, I installed the Apache/PHP/MySQL package on my computer and then installed media wiki 1.16.0 software. I call this a local wiki. Or is it wrong to call it this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:20, 21 November 2010 (talk • contribs) 193.107.184.194 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, the shared file repository of Wikimedia projects. This is the Wikimedia Commons help desk to ask question related to THIS project, If you have technical questions related to MediaWiki software or the set up of a shared media repository for your MediaWiki pages you should go to the help pages of MediaWiki. A local project for us here on Wikimedia Commons is a project of Wikimedia, thats not your projects. Of course there is a possibility to reuse the free media files stored here on Commons in your external projects, but that still does not make your projects a local project for us or give us the insight to help you with your websites or your computer. Look out for MediaWiki help pages or technical help desks. Doku already gave you the links to the MediaWiki manuals on how to configure manual uploading on your wiki, thats the place to go. --Martin H. (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
organization logo - uploaded and deleted
I uploaded the logo (File:Cisv port 2col ad bul.jpg) of the organization I represent: CISV Bulgaria (www.cisv.bg) but it was deleted afterwards.
I do have written permission to use that image from the organization which is the artwork owner.
Since I'm not literate on the subject of copyrights and commons policies and therefore I might not be choosing or typing the correct info in the file upload form.
What should I do? Please help me! Thanks!
Forward the organisations written permission to Commons:OTRS - see instructions there. Refer to the exact filename File:Cisv port 2col ad bul.jpg in your email, same as you did above already, and the file will be undeleted if the permission is confirmed. This can take some time, you will receive an email if the permission is processed. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have finished a book and wish to use this picture as my front cover. will give full credit to Mr. McAdams. It is a story of Ky.
I need to contact Mr. McAdams or to know I will not be sued for using his picture. This is my first book and I am self publishing so it will probably not have too many sales anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.237.130 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
As the infobox on that page says, it's licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. It requires you attribute him in the way specified and to share the file the same way you found it (ie. the Creative Commons license), in this case the attribution is "Bruce McAdam (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce_mcadam/209474423/)" (or "Bruce McAdam") and the short note for the license "CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)" (or CC-BY-SA-2.0).
To anser your question, media licensed under a free license like this one does not require you to notify the author as long as you follow the terms.
So in it's entirety you may use something like: By Bruce McAdam (Flickr) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.
Or via Flickr, we only host the image. The creator is not an user of this project. As Krinkle said it is not required to ask anyone before reusing but if you want to contact them you must go to Flickr, the image page there allows for comments or you can contact Bruce Adams via flickr mail on his flickr profile (requires flickr login). --Martin H. (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Michel Szulc-Krzyzanowski
Dear reader,
Please help me. I am working on a page about Michel Szulc-Krzyzanowski, in Dutch and in English. I published several pictures, but with the wrong license. I do have a license to use these pictures, by the makers (Michel himself and a portrait of him made by Merel Waagmeester). The license these pictures should have is "Own work, copyleft, attribution required (Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA)". I can't change this, I don't know how. Can you advise me, before every picture is deleted?
I had given you quite detailed instructions at your talk page. Just follow them; if any images were already deleted, they can be restored once the permission is received and if it is deemed sufficient. Lupo14:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Uploading image
I have been trying to upload an image (an image of my own) to Commons, but no matter how careful I am about fulfilling the requirements of the steps to do so, it keeps coming back to tell me that if I "dont enter a licence etc my image will be deleted" ... apart from the fact that I don't need a licence to use my own image, I have double, no triple checked what I am doing but cannot make the system function correctly...
What can I possibly be doing wrong?
You have to license your image if you upload it here. You, as the photographer, own a copyright on the photographic work, if you include it on Wikipedia not you reuse it (which will not require a license) but Wikipedia reuses it and, thats the 'free' in 'free encyclopedia' anyone can reuse the image anywhere, anytime for any purpose under the contidions of a free license. Files on Commons must be free of copyrights or published under free licenses, there are only scome license conditions allowed, see Commons:Project scope#Allowable licence terms. All you have to do is to select a license in the "Licensing" drop down menue at the bottom of the upload form. The licenses and their purpose is shortly described in Commons:Licensing, Section 1. Acceptable licenses with subsections. --Martin H. (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Destination File Name
I'm at a loss as to what to do with this. I browse my files, click on the image I want, it gets uploaded, but then when I go to send it all away, it says I have to find another name. So I put in a name and then it says I can't do that. I don't know what to name it. My images are on a CD from my digital camera. I know it's because it's a digital camera image, but I don't know how to make it compatible for this 'destination file name.'Malke 2010 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Possibly the file on your computer/CD is named DSC_1234.jpg or some other generic camera filename? That filenames are blocked, they are not descriptive. If you are at the 'my own work' (I asume you try to upload a photo you created yourself) Upload form [2] you have to select the file from your Computer and then change the destination filename to an appropriate and descriptive name. Commons:File naming. Now two things that I guess could have been wrong with your first try to do exactly this renaming: 1) A warning can show up that the file was automatically renamed, that rename will normally replace all spaces with underscores, thats a technical thing, you can just go over it and proceed. 2) You added an descriptive name to the destination filename field but you forgot to add the file extension, so DSC_1234.jpg must go to Something_descriptive.jpg, without the .jpg it will not work. Thats just two guesses, I hope I not bother you with to simple suggestions. --Martin H. (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, Martin. You are smart as you have nearly hit it on the button. There's no DSC, it's IMG_.0006.jpg. So I subsituted IMG for "Something descriptive_.0006.jpg. And that didn't work. So, do I leave off the .0006 and just make it, "Something descriptive_.jpg" ?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malke, you should generally leave off the number, just a descriptive filename will do - but that filename should not have been blocked, so it's possible something else is wrong. Please tell us exactly what the error message says after you have entered the descriptive filename. You may also want to try another web browser in case yours in experiencing issues with Javascript support. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Here's another question, I've uploaded this but it's on it's side. [3] It's on my CD. Can we rotate here or do I have to do it on my computer and then upload again? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
-- On right hand side top, you can see complete details.
Firstly see that the uploader release it to public domain so that it can be used for free use outside. This satisfies wikipedia's :
The freedom to use and perform the work.
The freedom to study the work and apply the information.
The freedom to redistribute copies.
The freedom to create and distribute derivative works.
I am doing this as a part of illustarting the article concerned. I am a wikipedia user with name: Keyan20. I need help here. Keyan20 (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any indication on the site that these images are public domain, just that they are publicly visible. - Jmabel ! talk05:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
why wouldn't your word-search find my existing file?
I uploaded a file picture 05:51, 18 November 2010 called "Domesday Book folio 301v ms detail" but word-seach wouldn't find it.
I spent an hour searching your "latest files" pages to find it. So why wouldn't word-search find it? Is there another way I don't know of?
If I put-up a picture for a wikipedia page that you're working on how can I get it right away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildwyke (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I trimmed the black borders off an image and in my ineptitude, wound up re-uploading four extra versions. I can't figure out how to delete the four unnecessary ones. File is: File:Ingrid Bergman in Notorious Trailer(3).jpg. I also can't figure out why this link is showing up red despite having been copy-and-pasted. Sorry for all the trouble! -- HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
(I fixed the red link) - you forgot the ":File:" prefix.
Always compare the file sizes in the file history table if something seems not to have worked after a reupload. Most times you have a cache problem in your browser. The versions can be deleted by any admin - however, it's not really necessary to do it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I uploaded a photo last year of myself: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Daniel_Creese_01.png&oldid=46413283
Yesterday i was searching my wiki pages and the page linked above was vandalised (text changed to abusive comments)
Can one of the moderators/admins please lock the page Except for myself RIFTMASTER (I am the author of the page)
Generally, you can request undeletion at COM:UNDEL.
If the photo really was from this website you need to give a reason why why you have permission to upload it here. Otherwise it will not be undeleted. I think best would be: simply explain here first and an admin can undelete it then. So we do not have a duplicate discussion (here and at the "Undel" page). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Your answer is clear Saibo. It is important help for me. As a month-long user I lack it in the articles' section of English Wikipedia. My point of view is simple. The address you have mentioned is the official site of this person. We could ask the administration of that site if they agree to let us to place this photo here or not. I don't think that it will be a problem. Best Regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so if I understood right you do not have any permission to use this photo currently. So the deletion was correct.
I would like to know why you don't have Rondell Biggs listed as a Michigan Wolverine football player and his biography. He played for years as a defensive end. Please correct this as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.164.204 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Surprisingly here on Wikimedia Commons we dont have any articles as this is not Wikipedia but Commons, the free media repository of Wikipedia and other projects. If you want to have an article about that person you should create an account and go yourself to Wikipedias page en:Rondell Biggs and write it. Make sure that the person is notable enough for an wiki article, see Wikipedia:Notability. Then do some reading in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, maybe also read some example of other biographies of other players and if you finished reading you should be able to be bold and write the article. --Martin H. (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete my picture
Hello!
I am sorry for my English.
Whether I can remove the pictures loaded on a warehouse? Now they have lost an urgency. Here these files:
Generally, pictures loaded yesterday and not in use anywhere can be deleted by adding {{sdelete|Uploader request}} to the image. In the future, however, I might recommend using your native language, or a different major language in your posts; posters on this board speak many languages, and can translate the question for you if they can't answer it, a lot better than any automatic translator.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I was recently updating File:George Hare - Vitory of Faith.jpg to include details on where it was exhibited, which gallery it was housed within, and noticed it was the only Hare painting we currently have. I was wondering if we had a template that would allow me to list all known titles of paintings by George Hare on Category:George Hare or elsewhere so that people could help hunt down copies of works by an artist? It would be fantastic for all painters/sculptors if we had some sort of template "Commons is currently missing representations of the following works by this artist..." - but I didn't want to create one if there is already some other, more acceptable way of doing this. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent"22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
warning: I am not very much into artworks.
I would just create a gallery page and list all works there: Works by George Hare. Then fill it with the files you already find. Then you see the missing works and - as a side effect - have a nice gallery page to be linked from WP articles. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, feel free to delete it if you have a better idea. Is there no Wikipedia article about him yet? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but I was still thinking a template might allow us to actually sort by artists with the most missing works, or allow wikiprojects to focus on filling in the gaps in Dutch Painters' works, or somesuch, if implemented properly. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent"21:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
KISS, if possible. ;-) Maybe it's possible somehow. A simple solution would be to add a (hidden) category to the painter gallery like this: [[Category:Missing painter's works|12]] if 12 is the number of missing works. So you would have a sorted list in Category:Missing painter's works. But I see no necessity in it. Why not grab any artist you like and search for works by him and fill his gallery? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Because I don't like Renoir enough to hunt down which paintings are MISSING from Commons - but I like Commons enough that I'd list which paintings are missing in the hopes that a Renoir fan would be willing to track them down if given the names ;) But realistically, in the George Hare example, many of his paintings simply do not exist online...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't list them...maybe somebody will visit Stourhead Gallery and take a photograph of the paintings for us in the future if they know we are looking for them :) Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent"03:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Using trademarked image?
Hi, all. :) I'd like to add the image on this page to the side of this article, but am unsure whether or not this type of image is allowed (and, if so, what the license type is). Burger King owns the Whopper pic on the left, but the overall image is used on this big news site (sfgate.com, the site of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper), as part of an article. (and yes, it's in the "News" section). Can this be used? And the license type?--Dariodee (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The image is a photographic work or a computer animated picture wich is protected by copyrights, as a whole - or in parts if it comes from different photographers/graphic editors but that will not matter. The image is not published under a free license so it cant be included in the Wikimedia projects. Beeing published on a website, for educational purposes in the news or visisble on the internet "for free" does not make something free in the meaning of free content. See Commons:Licensing (the introduction), see Commons:First steps, the license selection chapter, see Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Making Hurricane tracks
I'm new here, and have already made my own paper on a fake 2012 hurricane season. I know how to upload pictures, but I can't make my own hurricane track with the colored circles. How do I make my own hurricane track? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryder Busby (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Salute. Can I ask about the license of an image in an external site (I intend to upload the images here in Commons) here in the Help Desk? I leave the links and someone of staff can examine them to me, because i want obtain green card for these images. I left the links hidden under <!-- --> — Slade04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I am very new to wiki and trying to figure out this whole editing process :) Actually started trying because of a game I play, Guild Wars. They have their own wiki and I'm trying to do a dye gallery. To do so I have to upload my images on Wikimedia Commons first. I've got my image and all, but I really have no clue how to license it. The image is screen shots I took off of my Guild Wars account, I cropped them and put them into one image to form a gallery of sorts. I posted it this morning but I guess I really messed the licensing up because it was deleted shortly after uploading it. If anyone can help me it would be appreciated :) Game is Guild Wars by ArenaNet/NC Soft. Here is a link to a picture on the wiki like I am trying to upload http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Screenshot_Necromancer_Vabbian_armor_f_dyed_Red.jpg. Thanks for any help :) Jereviens (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You can not upload screenshots like http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Screenshot_Necromancer_Vabbian_armor_f_dyed_Red.jpg. Thats a screenshot of proprietary software which is not free content. So it is not allowed to make screenshots and publish them so that anyone, worldwide, can reuse the screenshot anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial purposes and modifications. But thats what we require here. Unless the game is licensed under the GFDL or another free license or unless the copyright holder of the game gives you written permission that you can reuse the screenshot under GFDL or a similar license you can not upload it here. The FREE in 'the free encyclopedia' means free content only, screenshots of non-free content arent acceptable here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm well, I went through Guild Wars wiki, and they said to upload images I must use Wikimedia commons. Under the screen I linked there is a box about licensing. I went through the links in it and I wasn't sure really what to do, or if I personally needed to ask ArenaNet if I could use a screen shot taken from the game. The box below says this, "This screenshot contains property of ArenaNet or NCsoft which is used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use. It is not released under the GFDL. Please see Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights for further information." So, does that mean I need to personally ask their permission or? Sorry I'm just very new to all of this, and don't want to do it wrong.Jereviens (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, permission must be given to reuse the screenshot under a license similar to the GFDL, that license must allow anyone (any third party, not only Wikipedia etc), worldwide, to reuse the screenshot for any purpose. This permission must come from the copyright holder. By default this permission is not granted, Guild Wars is not en:Free software or published under any free content license. If you want to upload something to guildwarswiki you should log in there and go to http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Special:Upload, apparently on Guildwarswiki it is allowed to upload non-free screenshots while all other content on that wiki is also freely licensed under GFDL - but guidlwarswiki has nothing to do with Wikimedia, Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. If you want to upload something on Wikimedia Commons you must make sure that you have permission from the copyright holder to the licensing, otherwise you can not upload here. --Martin H. (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That I would not know, but if you wanted to know I would post on Gaile Gray's page in Guild Wars Wiki. She works for ArenaNet and could probably answer ^^ Jereviens (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hidden category question
Hi, since I started uploading photos in Commons, I have been using two hidden categories, one with my actual name Category:Stylianos Karavias(for GNU and CCA-Share Alike 3.0 releases) and one with my wiki username Category:Hoverfish (for Public Domain releases). I observe that when I include a photo in the English Wikipedia, the hidden category does show up in its image page there, under File History column Comments (which I would rather it doesn't). I am aware that if I add a lot of text in the image description, then it doesn't show up, as only a limited amout of text is included. Is there a way to avoid these hidden categories from showing up? Actually I don't see why ANY categories should appear under "Comments". Hoverfish (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(File:Gtk-dialog-info.svg) and 
(File:Messagebox_info.svg). But if you want to upload it, the license information of the Extension:OggHandler extension itself will apply to this image if there is no specific information about the image. However it appears license information is missing in this case. I'll ping the author and he or I will get back here. –Krinkletalk 21:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Done I put it, but the uploader had put (the wrong way) a {{Anonymous work}}, which may be also applicable. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I just uploaded this and it is not showing in the preview or on Wikipedia where I posted it. It does show the actual photo though. Is this just a standard delay or does it need to be reuploaded or what?
Thanks for any help.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
,
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
wikimedia.org
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palm_syrup_maker_Bagan,_Myanmar_.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
