Commons:Help desk

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

Commons:Help desk/Header

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 4 days.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anais21

Hello,

I got a message telling that my uploaded file File: Kimbra Auckland New Zealand Anais Chaine Photography.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. I am a photographer and did take the photo and have full copyrigth on them and am happy to share give this photo to Wikipedia. You can see it on my website : http://anaischaine.com/portrait/celebrities/ Same with these files : 

   File:Tchangodei-portrait by anais chaine photography bec de jazz france Lyon croix rousse.jpg
   File:Tchangodei-montage-by-anais-chaine-photography Bec-de-jazz France.jpg
   File:Tchangodei-piano by Anais Chaine photography france.jpg

thank you to let me know what is the problem with it if there is any.

Kindest regards, Anais

@Anais21: Hi,
Since these images were published on your website with " © 2014 ANAIS CHAINE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." before being uploaded here, we usually require a permission. This is to protect your rights, so to be sure that nobody uses your images without your permission. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. You could also change the license on your website to a free license (e.g. CC-BY-SA). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unbedingte Löschung von zwei Bildern, Urheberrechtsumbenennung von einem Bild

Hallo!

Es müssen dringend zwei Bilder aus den wikimedia commons gelöscht werden. Es handelt sich um folgende: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rekonstruktionsmodell_der_Kaiserpfalz_Ingelheim.jpg?uselang=de-formal

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeologischer_Schutzbau_%28Ingelheimer_Kaiserpfalz%29.jpg?uselang=de-formal

Der Uploader ist nicht der Rechteinhaber, sprich Fotograf der Bilder. Der Fotograf selbst befindet sich gerade in einem Rechtsstreit mit der Stadt Ingelheim indem er jede Verwendung seiner Bilder in anderen Kontexten untersagt. Deshalb bitte ich um eine sehr schnelle Löschung.

Bei diesem Bild: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apsis_der_Aula_Regia.jpg?uselang=de-formal ist der Urheber falsch angegeben, hier genügt es, diesen zu korrigieren. Es handelt sich beim Fotografen um Klaus Benz.

Genügt es, den Sachverhalt hier zu posten oder sollte ich mich noch an jemand anderen wenden. bzw. was muss ich tun um die Bilder entfernen, bzw. korrigieren zu lassen? RamonaLiteratur (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Es gibt drei Löschverfahren:
  1. Normal mit {{delete}} gekennzeichnet, mindestens eine Woche Diskussion (für Einsprüche, Zustimmung, etc.), kann jahrelang dauern bis ein Admin entscheidet.
  2. Schnell mit {{speedy}} gekennzeichnet, für eindeutige Fälle, dauert nicht jahrelang.
  3. WMF offiziell, einstweilige Verfügung hat WMF erreicht und wurde nicht als offensichtlich unsinnig in Ablage, rund befördert.
–Be..anyone (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danke! Das heißt, dass ich die Bilder selbst mit {{delete}} und {{speedy}} versehen kann, dann werden sie gelöscht? Sorry, aber ich habe noch nie mit wikimedia/wikipedia gearbeitet und habe gar keine Ahnung. Deinen 3. Punkt verstehe ich leider gar nicht. WMF? "Ablage, rund"? Wäre toll, wenn Du mir noch etwas dazu schreiben könntest. RamonaLiteratur (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, auf z.B. der Seite File:Rekonstruktionsmodell_der_Kaiserpfalz_Ingelheim.jpg klick auf editieren, dann Vorlage {{delete|Grund}} oder {{speedy|Grund}} einfügen, wie auf den Vorlageseiten erklärt — hoffentlich, falls da die Übersetzung fehlt, sag hier bescheid :-} Punkt 3 ist für Urheberrechtsverletzungen, wo die WikiMedia Foundation eine Löschaufforderung erhalten und für korrekt befunden hat. Englischer Name "DMCA takedown", in etwa Löschaufforderung gemäss dem Digitalen Jahrtausend Urheberrechtsgesetz (USA, relevant für WMF samt Servern). –Be..anyone (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super, danke! RamonaLiteratur (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

permission from the artist

I am making a page for a comic strip and would like to post an image of the characters and a picture of a book. I have asked the artist myself if I could make him a page before I started. How do does Wikipedia know that I have permission from the artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benheer2 (talk • contribs)

Let the artist send permission, including the free license they want to use, to COM:OTRS. Be sure to tell them that this means that anyone can use the pictures for any purpose, including changing them and using them commercially. A license for use on Wikipedia only is not enough. --rimshottalk 19:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Via edit conflict, pretty much the same advice. See COM:OTRS, but be aware that it's not enough to give permission to use it in Wikipedia: it has to be either placed in the public domain or under a free license that is broad enough to allow commercial use and derivative works (though it can require attribution). - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Heideggers Parteikarte

Hi, I'd like to upload this photo of a nazi's memberschipcard, may I? Source: Bundesarchiv Berlin (Personenbezogene Unterlagen des ehemaligen Berlin Document Center; NSDAP-Mitgliederkarteikarten)


I didn't took the photo... But if i do it myself in the Berlin Document Center?

thanks! f. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filinthe (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask whether you may upload it after uploading? Anyhow, the card itself does not look copyrightable. The headshot might be, however, and it may still be copyrighted (by the photographer's heirs, for example). It borders on de minimis, too, but does not quite reach it. In summary: the situation is not quite clear. --rimshottalk 17:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry! I meant for ever uploading. So I don't have the right to use it... thank you very much

There is a template for US works published between 1923 and 1963 with copyright not renewed, as seen at the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spicy_Mystery_Stories_October_1936.jpg , yet that didn't appear as one the pulldown options when I uploaded the similar file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spicy_Mystery_Stories_Sept_1937.jpg.

That being the case, I chose the pulldown item about "i don't know what the license is." Can anyone help figure out this discrepancy? Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete my User page and Discussion page and any other pages I may have?

Hello,

I thought db-user would work but it doesn't.

Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Parabolooidal: Have you tried using {{Speedydelete}} as the template? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to delete them? --rimshottalk 21:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try that. I want to delete them because I no longer want to be harassed by an editor who left me 34 criticisms in one day. Tired of trying . Parabolooidal (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've only been here for a few weeks. Please don't get disheartened by someone having a different opinion than you. You have only had three comments on your talk page, this is hardly harassment. Also consider that someone with a little more experience with Commons might actually be right. --rimshottalk 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After many thousands categorisation edits (4,631) as a newbie, doing my best to learn, you note that I have had only three comments. Then User talk:Roland zh‎ gave me at least 34 notifications in one day (those red things that appear by my name at the top), that when I clicked on them I found they were obscure and weren't helpful. He hasn't ever even posted on my talk page. That many red numbers to figure out at once is not possible for me. I've created many hundreds of categories correctly, improving as I learned my way and correcting my mistakes. User talk:Roland zh‎'s blitz of 34 red numbers were hard to understand and seemed like a mean thing to do. I don't want to experience that again. Best for me to avoid categorization and other Commons work. I can look at the wonderful pictures anyway and make subpages for myself, without risking User talk:Roland zh‎'s wrath. Best wishes, Parabolooidal (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those notifications are just things telling you about reverts, thanks and talk page notifications. They're not warnings or criticisms, they are generated automatically whenever something like that happens. If someone alters a lot of pages, then yes, you might get a lot of notifications. I see three comments from Roland on your talk page - those are actual attempts to communicate with you or leave you comments. No harrassment has happened here. I am sad to see you decide to quit because of this - we were all new once, we all made mistakes and we all ruffled a few feathers. Please reconsider. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The critical "notifications" seemed to be triggered by this: Revision history of "Category:Solomon's Temple, Aizawl which said "15:16, March 18, 2014‎ Roland zh (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (categories have been checked, please check Commons:categories and avoid "over-categorization", ref user talk:Parabolooidal March 18, 2014) (undo | thank)". Considering the images in question were named a "Temple", I don't see how User talk:Roland zh‎'s wrath was warranted by changing all the images to "church", naming me and creating 34 criticisms with useless advice to "please check Commons:categories and avoid "over-categorization", ref user talk:Parabolooida". The "advice/criticism" offered by User:Roland zh‎ was singularly unhelpful, referring to a large amount of abstract category jargon that did not explain at all why an image labelled "temple" should be categorized as a "church". It also implied that I haven't made efforts to understand the category issues. Considering all of my over 4,000 categorizations have been correct, except for User talk:Roland zh‎'s complaints and undecipherable "advice", I see User talk:Roland zh‎ as unwilling to offer useful help to a newbie but rather seems to want to discourage me. Also, much of my work has been to reduce over categorization by categorizing specifically. It appears my efforts here aren't appreciated but rather condemned. Parabolooidal (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, from my side User:Parabolooidal has been contacted personally, from my side for the last time related to that topic, on User talk:Parabolooidal as of as of 19:41, 20 March 2014 trusting in ending that kind of imho public harassment. [fixed as i had as German speaking Wikimedian to log out for correct form of date] Final regards, Roland zh (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We try to avoid over-categorisation - so if a photo is in a category for a particular temple, it doesn't need to be in more generic categories. I am sure that despite the 34 changes you spoke of, you have done some good work. We only learn through experience, and as long as you do things in good faith there is no harm in being wrong once in a while. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the technical issues here (as against how they were handled):

  • Unfortunately, in some cases if someone does the same thing to 34 files it results in 34 notifications. (Once you observe that the notifications are effectively all about one thing, there is usually no need to look into all 34.)
  • Our categories work differently from (for example) Flickr tags. If something is tagged with a precise category, we leave out any corresponding less precise category. (There are a few minor exceptions, but it's probably not worth going into.) For example, we wouldn't put Category:New York City on a picture of the Empire State Building, because it would have a more specific Category:Empire State Building; similarly, if it has Category:Empire State Building interior, we'll leave out Category:Empire State Building.

Also: I've been here practically since the beginning, I have probably 30,000+ pictures I've uploaded, I know the category system pretty well, and people still often can improve my initial set of categories. Expect that this is a collaborative project, that your content will be edited, and that most (though admittedly not all) edits will be improvements. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pictures from the internet

I am confused about the copyright law. I am creating a page for a cartoonist who's art is in the public domain (I found his art in Google images). His work is also under a copyright with a syndicate. I asked a question earlier about uploading the pictures and was told that the artist needs to put the picture under free license. My question is, why does he have to put it under a license and give me permission, when his work is already under copyright law and is on display for the public on Google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benheer2 (talk • contribs)

  • Most work in Google images is not in the public domain. Displaying something publicly is completely different than placing it in the public domain. Does that make this clear for you? You might want (at the very least) to read public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bronstein_math_book_german.jpg

Hello,

ist the licensing of the file okey? I dont think so. Do I need to submit a deletion request? Can some one help me? --Christian1985 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


It's not my old GDR Teubner edition, the coauthors Musiol & Mühlig are new, the publisher is also new. Is the cover interesting enough for some kind of copyright? –Be..anyone (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Geogebra demonstrations

I write some geometry-related articles and would like to add interactive GeoGebra sheets that demonstrate the geometric constructions. It is possible to upload the demos to the GeoGebra site, but this would require an external link. Is there a way to upload interactive GeoGebra pages to Commons? --Erel Segal (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading screenshots directly from the clipboard

In case the answer to the previous question is no, the 2nd-best option is to take screenshots. It is easy to copy the GeoGebra screen to the clipboard, but currently I have to copy from the clipboard to a file, save the file, then upload the file to Commons. Is there a way to upload an image from the clipboard directly to Commons? --Erel Segal (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the program can export in SVG format (or something easily convertible to it), that would be the best way to go. Raster images, including screenshots, are not very suitable for geometric diagrams or similar illustrations.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Upload hangs

With Describe section completed the Next button wont function - page just hangs [30 mins] Reason ? Tfitzp (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Political Maps

I edited a map of Europe I found on the internet. I know wikimedia commons policy on using and altering bits of other people's work, but were talking about a map. A map with countries on it. Does it still apply there? Because for some reason everyone drawing a map is actually copying other people's ideas (the people that invented and drew the borders first.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal.beelen (talk • contribs)

  • Yes, it does apply. Maps are generally copyrighted, with all rights reserved. The only exceptions would be a very old map (e.g. first published pre-1923 in the U.S.) or one where rights have been explicitly released (e.g. the policy for all works produced by U.S. federal government employees as part of their work). Commons:Map resources gives some good leads to find free-licensed and public domain maps. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, anything already here on Commons should be adaptable if you are willing to use a consistent license. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baffo

I try to fix this deletion request but I'm not able. Someone could fix it please.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 06:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is the block! I can not write Spanish, Italian Wikipedia has vanished and escape from the block is wrong.--Baffo (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put a tutorial on SVG-files?

I already have written a tutorial on cleansing SVG-files but I don't know where to put it. On Wikipedia or on Wikimedia? What shall be the categories? Wereldburger758 (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does your recipe arrive at a basic 1.1 baseProfile? Help:Basic or Project:Basic are red links (= available). Or start with a Help:SVG/basic subpage. No good idea for Wikipedia, Commons is better. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to delete this page, it completely misses the point. Anyway only that Chemdraw produce incorrect IDs, we do not need a own page on Commons. PS.: I've never seen such over complication to such simple issue, sorry. -- Perhelion (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I need help please. I'm trying to add a picture of the cover of "Skinny Bastard" (a book) for an article on Wikipedia. As far as I know, this image is in the public domain for free usage. It is the one from the website www.skinnybastard.net. I've no idea who owns the copyright or how to contact them. But a notice came up when I uploaded the picture, saying it may be deleted in seven days. The cover of another book by the same author has been used on Wikipedia. So why not this one too. Am I going about this the wrong way? The instructions on copyright seem complicated, I need it simplified. Thanks if you help me.

--This lousy T-shirt (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source page says "(c) by Running Press", no hint why the cover should be free. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can upload it directly on en Wikipedia following the fair use criterium--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, great, thanks for the help!  :) This lousy T-shirt (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many carefully worded petitions must I write to help the community delete one little CSS parameter in an edit-protected Wikipedia template? This petition for establishing the correct copyright information of my screenshot to prove existence of the resulting bug is one of them. Is there something wrong with me that I think that this process is counterproductive and over the top?
– 6birc (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's only semi-protected, I replaced the TOC-line by m:Template:TOCright, and apparently this does not break the few pages where I checked it, but I can't tell if it helps anywhere. I fixed the categories/license of your screenshot here. If you have a test page, where that fails, simply discuss it on m:Template talk:Archive header. The same template name on another project can be very different. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. @Be..anyone: Thank you for fixing my screenshot "copyright". But that's just one upload by me. Now, how are other people supposed to know which licence to apply in similar uploads without posting a petition here each time?
2. You're right, the template is only semi-protected. I have just noticed this.
3. Your solution merely buries the problem deeper from one template into another. But it's actually good that you brought TOC-line to attention because it behaves in the same faulty way, so it needs to be fixed too. I intend to accomplish it by injecting the following CSS: max-width:40%;min-width:30em;. Is that good?
4. One affected page: m:Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment/Archives/2014-03-07. (Exactly as seen in the screenshot.)
5. That's what I do. I discuss this problem on m:Template talk:Archive header. I came here only because my screenshot "copyright" licence threatened me with deleting the screenshot in 7 days. I didn't expect to discuss the template.
– 6birc (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is full of obscure Orwellian stuff, {{Cc-by-nc-sa}} is an example. It arranges for the speedy self-destruction of the allegedly "non-free" upload, so far it's fine, because NC is not good enough here. But it also refuses to show the proper:  license explicitly permitting certain kinds of uses starting with a copy, and it puts the NC file in a "copyright violation" category. There never was any copyright violation, NC is just not permitted here.
Apparently screenshots were a major issue years ago, there are special pages (templates, discussions, policy, categories, the works) all trying to do something with screenshots. Therefore I guessed that categories for "MediWiki bugs" (turned out to be "MediWiki errors") and "MediaWiki screenshots" must already exist for your screenshot.
Verdy_p fixed the Meta-version of {{TOCright}} using your 36em and max-width:50% suggestions. If that's still not good enough we're running out of template wizards, the original was a Pathoschild.
–Be..anyone (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Be..anyone: Works beautifully! And I wouldn't be able to repair it like Verdy_p did. Now I don't regret having to post this "petition" :-). Thank you for the intervention. Also thank you for finding better image categories.
– 6birc (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 6birc (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is my drawing of a real subject (not somebody's invention) not my copyright? The administrator's justification for deleting this particular drawing was "derivative work of peter.jpg". How else could I prove that the depicted person was indeed that person if the drawing hadn't been based on any reference photo? Every drawing of a real subject is a derivative work of that subject. Are people no more free to draw reality? The whole reason that I made my own drawing rather than uploaded the photo which I used for reference is precisely because I respected copyrights. So deleting it on grounds of copyright violation seems rather mindless. Even in court proceedings happening "behind closed doors", where taking photographs of people is prohibited for reasons more important than copyright, drawing them is not. No one's copyright extends on images recorded in somebody else's mind; no law may regulate thinking.
– 6birc (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sadly, when a drawing derives from someone else's photo, it is considered derivative work. Obviously, this doesn't apply to a drawing from life (the courtroom example you give), and is no problem with a drawing derived from one's own photo. It' a trickier question when someone draws someone based on numerous photos by different people, much as it's a trickier question when someone writes an article that is a loose synthesis of other articles: somewhere along the way the line is crossed between copying one particular expression of a fact (the person's appearance) and a particular expression of the idea (one particular image). In those cases, it becomes a judgement call, and not always an easy one. But if your image is basically a drawing of a photo, and someone else owns the copyright on the photo, their permission would be needed (as well as your own) to license your drawing. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 6birc (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Redfern photos

Hi,

I uploaded photographs, belonging to me, onto a web page about my late father. They were taken down. Why? and how do I get them put back up.

Thanks,

David Redfern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dreaduk

  • "A web page about my late father" is pretty vague, and you wouldn't normally have a page about someone on Commons (and I don't see you ever having had any galleries here) so I assume this is about the photos you uploaded in April 2012, such as File:Monza at speed.jpg. If I've misunderstood, please correct me. The issue is pretty straightforward: these are presumably copyrighted photos and it is likely that someone other than you owns the copyright. The deletion discussion was here. Your talk page shows that you were informed in a timely fashion, but apparently you did not comment, if you think the nominator's rationale was wrong.
  • The fact that the subject of the photo was your father has nothing to do with copyright. To upload someone else's copyrighted photo here, you would need a COM:OTRS-style release from the actual photographer (or the heir to the photographer's intellectual property rights).
  • If there are any such images where you actually are the photographer yourself, then the matter is simpler, although with such old photos (and with you not having made other substantive contributions to Commons, so it's not like we know your work) I'd strongly recommend going through the COM:OTRS process even for your own photos to make a clear assertion of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moin, könnt ihr mal schaun ob das OK ist? Ansonsten halt Löschen. Gruß --Peter in s (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cc-by-nc-sa euro icon.svg:  geht hier nicht. Ich habe Deine Quelle+Erlaubnis "verbessert", danach war das Bild auf automatische Selbstzerstörung programmiert. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Geht es in anderen Wikiprojekten? --Peter in s (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Die englische Wikipedia w:en: erlaubt "fair use", etwas in dieser Richtung gibt's auch im deutschen Recht, aber ich bin in meinen unter 100 Beiträgen auf w:de: noch nicht darüber gestolpert. "Fair use" für geschützte Logos ist halbwegs einfach, freie Berichterstattung ist wichtiger als Urheberrecht, also ist eine minimale Verwendung erlaubt, wenn sie zur freien Berichterstattung notwendig ist. IANAL –Be..anyone (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vielem Dank. --Peter in s (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrreview

Any idea why this image and a couple of dozen like it were marked by flickr2commons on wmflabs as needing review (using {{Flickrreview}} with no arguments)? I've fixed them but (1) shouldn't flickr2commons be able to tell that the license is fine and (2) failing that, given that I'm an admin, shouldn't flickr2commons be able to tell that my uploading them implicitly means I've reviewed? - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bot owners discuss a technical change by Flickr at the Village Pump: Flickrreview malfunction. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:אריה מכונף על חלק העליון של הבניין גנרלי.JPG

Hi, I fixed the description in Hebrew and English, but cannot figure out how to make the formatting work so the blue and white box appears on the page. Can you help? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reset your broken version to something based on the last working state. It's a wiki, just try again. Better stay away from the right-to-left Hebrew part, unless you can check what it's supposed to mean.;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Upload Flickr and Airliners.net images

Hello, I want to upload this picture to the Commons: http://www.flickr.com/photos/106414094@N04/11719108126/

I am not sure how to do it though? I messaged the owner of the photograph and he said that it was perfectly fine for me to use his photo as long as I recognize him as the owner, so can I upload it?

I also wanted to upload these images from airliners.net:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cathay-Pacific-Airways/Airbus-A330-343/2359096/&sid=c440988023ad61c37810c6470b268003

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Turkish-Airlines/Airbus-A330-343/2220985/&sid=07c3f6ebd68b3305bd4ef02ffffd24eb

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Saudi-Arabian-Airlines/Boeing-777-368-ER/2335058/&sid=12ca88e9526deef816bf4e6417e6e0e6

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapore-Airlines/Boeing-777-312/2042146/&sid=f6b06a7ec65855bf11c2ba58c5e0f595

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pakistan-International-Airlines/Boeing-777-340-ER/2004301/&sid=251569dfba178e26e0561fc2065a17c5

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas/Airbus-A380-842/2249678/&sid=4caa5cb7ff3b8f700bcecf3689ebd252

I emailed all 3 owners of the photographs and they also said I can upload the images. So can I upload these photo's as well? MoHasanie (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the images that are published as “all rights reserved“ or similarly restricted, informal permission isn’t enough for them to be hosted here. You will have to ask the owners to e-mail OTRS, confirming their copyright and specifically releasing the images under a suitable licence, such as CC-BY-SA.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Flickr, possibly simpler than OTRS, the owner can change the license him- or herself on Flickr. I don't know anything about airliners.net, but if the uploader can edit a caption they could indicate a license there, also an alternative to OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will ask him to change the license to CC-BY-SA.

Some of the owners of the photographs from airliners.net have images of their's already uploaded on Wikicommons by other users, like this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Air_New_Zealand_Boeing_777-300ER_Nazarinia-1.jpg So can I upload the photo's taken by him? MoHasanie (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoHasanie. The releases we have on OTRS that support our Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners project are for the images available on the different user's photostream. You should be an OTRS volunteer to add OTRS tickets to any photo, if you were to do this yourself, the photo is likely to get flagged as a problem. I have a handy script that sorts these out and even trims off the watermark bars, if there are new photos being added, the script will update what we have. Please add a note to the batch upload project page if there are images from a particular user you would like to see uploaded and myself or Russavia will probably be the ones to check it out and double-check the OTRS release if necessary. We may not be fast, but we get there. :-) --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template message

The file File:Carole Aurouet chez Lipp.jpg has a section stating "This media was probably deleted."

I do not see what is causing this message.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See page history. Someone had by mistake inserted the Template:Image permission, without a parameter, thus defaulting to the "probably deleted" version, but has now fixed it. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tag for this?

ResolvedQuestion answered, image tagged. 71.234.215.133 02:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At File:Amethyst.jpg, an amethyst ring was uploaded over an amethyst slice. The first image fits much better with the file name. Is there a tag I can place on the page to get a history split, so the ring can get its own file with a more fitting file name, and the original image of the slice can again be used? 71.234.215.133 18:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Split}}. I'll add it. In this case, it happened so long ago that it's probably the old image that should be moved. - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 71.234.215.133 02:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The license is for the original file, though. The uploader of the new file never gave one. --rimshottalk 07:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posted under wrong category

I have posted few photos of half breed dogs and put them into "Dog breeds" category, because "half breed" category isn't created. This is my first time here. Then I noticed there is "mixed breeds" category and I have to move my photos there, but I don't know how to do that. To delete and upload again is an option but I was wondering if there is another easier way to do that.

Yes, there are simpler solutions. Go to the three file pages, e.g., click File:Jo_aka_Hovawart.jpg, then click "edit", in the edit box find Category:Dog breeds, change it to Category:Mixed breeds, add a comment in the comment box, e.g., "fixed cat", and click save. But apparently Category:Mixed breeds does not yet exist, so pick something that works. ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to use HotCat, a gadget that should be available whenever you’re logged in—unless you disabled it in your Preferences. By clicking the ± (plus-or-minus) symbol beside a category name on the file page, you can activate an edit-field to change it: a pop-up menu shows existing categories as you type, and marks your entry with a check if valid, or a cross if not. (When editing only one category at a time, this saves a trip to the Edit page.) Be as specific as you can, and where appropriate add as many categories as cover the content of the image, not just the principal subject.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the image it's from http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/env_vulnerability.pdf I don't know anithing about the copyright status of the image. It's not a copy paste (I had adapted to catalan and made it in power point) --Qaubp14ilj (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UNEP Knowledge Base talks about "open access", but on their terms and conditions page it boils down to non-commercial and no derivative use. Apparently you went for "own work", and your adaption of their diagram is visually different, and another language. You could add a reference to ISBN 978-92-807-2887-3 on File:Esquema de desastre.JPG. If you stick to "own work" you define the license, e.g., {{CC0}}. Maybe others here have better suggestions, for starters, does a simple text diagram like this need any license at all? I've no idea. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

help

at some point in the past i accessed a commons paɡe in russian, and ever since then when i am at commons (and only then) when i type caps it comes up cyrilic, like thisː θɥɪʃ ɪʃ çɑʋʃ. ɪ ðɔŋθ ʎɪɬɛ θɥɪʃ. i have rebooted my machine and so forth. my lanɡuaɡe preference is set to enɡlish and so forth, cannot find anythinɡ in preferences to fix this. as far as i know i don't have any javascript or .css paɡes or anythinɡ, at least none that i made. help. --Herostratus (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like IPA to me than Cyrillic, but anyhow: when you're in the edit box, there is a little keyboard icon in the top right. It will open a menu where you can select the keyboard to use. You should select "Use native keyboard", or press Ctrl-M. --rimshottalk 19:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OH YEAH OK THANKS! Herostratus (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is a scan of Page 42 from Edgar J. March (1948) Spiritsail Barges of Thames and Medway, Devon: David and Charles Retrieved on 22 March 2014. ISBN: 9780715346815. </ref> from my local library. This barge was later involved in a accident out in the North Sea and sank, now is a shipwreck. This seems to be the only known photo of her. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_Hibernia --DavidAnstiss (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would make it almost certainly still copyrighted, unless the photo is much older and was published much earlier. If it was published for the first time in the UK in 1948, it would be copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death. Do you have any reason to think there is something I'm missing here?- Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book will likely have a page of photo credits, possibly under “Acknowledgements”. If it can be shown that the source was public-domain or otherwise free of copyright, or that the photographer died before 1944, the file can be hosted here. Failing that, I suggest uploading it to the English Wikipedia under a fair-use rationale. (It would have to be reduced somewhat in size; the silver lining to that cloud is that the moiré could probably be ameliorated at the same time.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of images noisy

Category:Grant's Anatomy plates I've uploaded a large number of medical illustrations from a 1962 book that are in the public domain. Unfortunately somewhere in the scanning [or uploading] process a large amount of noise has been introduced. This isn't visible when the images are viewed at full scale, or when they are on my computer. I'm wondering if it has something to do with the way in which wikipedia converts png files to thumbnails? The solution I found was uploading the files as jpegs instead. Is there any way to batch delete the images so that I can upload the jpeg alternatives at once? Could with delete privileges fix this for me all at once? (Note: This does not apply to the images above # 600.) -- CFCF (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC) EDITED CFCF (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at File:Grant 1962 14.png, I don't see any noise, just the original printer dots and the grain of the paper. There are some interference patterns when looking at it initially, but these seem to disappear after a moment (presumably this is my browser rendering it). -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To compile some of the worst offenders there are:
  • Lossy version without pattern, would need to be renamed to lose "lossy"
    Lossy version without pattern, would need to be renamed to lose "lossy"
There are some more I really would like to replace, but these are the worst ones. Could this also be resolved by running som bot on them to optimize them for Wikipedia. I uploaded them in as high a resolution and quality as possible from my scanner, maybe it was a bit too high to have the images at 80mb? -- CFCF (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reproducing images from previously printed sources is a tricky business. The tartan- or mesh-like texture is an interference pattern created by combining two or more waves—here the halftone screen used in the original printing process and the pixel grid in the scanner—and are called moiré. If the patterns are only strongly apparent in thumbnails of certain sizes, I wouldn't worry about them too much. You can often weaken moirés by scanning at a lower resolution, but this also results in a loss of detail, especially for the text and linework in illustrations like these; the same goes for blurring the image afterward. The best solution is sometimes to process the halftoned portion separately, recombining it with the linework after blurring or whatever—but of course this takes considerably more time & effort. Scanning at a slight angle and then straightening the picture often helps. Sometimes varying the effective scan resolution just a little can make a big difference to the nature & intensity of the pattern. (In the pre-digital era we used to hold a piece of plate-glass between the copyboard and the lens of a camera; slowly rotating or tilting it back and forth would often blur the image just enough to subdue the moiré … but I’m showing my age.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips, angling helped a bit. I'll reupload the worst offenders that their thumbs can be used in articles at least. I don't have the expertise to recombine linework etc., but I will keep those things in mind when I get hold of rare books, that I might only have access to for a few hours and can't scan multiple times. CFCF (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright regarding an image with text only

HI, before uploading an image that could be directly deleted, i prefer ask about it.
Here is the corporate data from SNK company on an image taken from a flyer with severals pages. I want to use it as a source. There are only text inside, and more, it's only basic data.
Can i uplod it/ which licence ?--Archimëa (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the data is not copyrightable, but the presentation is. Thus you cannot upload the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks for help--Archimëa (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colocação de foto

Não estou conseguindo carregar um ficheiro, na pagina de Venceslau de Queirós, com a foto do Dr. Raul Valentim de Queiroz. Executei todo o processo e aparece a mensagem "só é aceito o carregamento se for usuário há mais de 1 mês" - contribuo c/ a Wikipédia há +- 2 anos, inclusive essa biografia do Venceslau foi escrita p/ mim. Alguém, por gentileza, pode ajudar-me? Grato Capeto47 (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did not want to violate any rules, just new to this. please remove the photo.

--Ormondj1 (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of me with a stand up cutout? OK? Not ok?

Is it copyright violation to upload a picture of me posing with a cardboard stand-up image of a movie star? The stand-up cardboard full sized image was at a mall. Thanks for your time. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyeatts (talk • contribs)

  • Almost certainly not OK for Commons. The stand-up image is almost certainly copyrighted. The few exceptions all require it being very old, and I imagine you would have said if it was. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the code to insert to properly attribute Flikr source, copyright, and license?

I uploaded an image with permission of creator of image. Image is on Flikr with a CC license. It is https://www.flickr.com/photos/67017883@N00/13453437414/lightbox/

What is the coding necessary to update the page.

A reviewer rejected the page because it was not properly attributed, stating: A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson Geiger v. Kitzhaber.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Infomaniacale (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you already found the answer and added the link to the source. That should solve it. However, there may be another problem. The photo looks like it's taken in a private place. It's not obvious that the pictured persons gave consent to the free distribution and reuse of this photo. Please see the policy Commons:Photographs of identifiable people for details. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Flickr Bots claimed that the version here is not exactly the same as the version on Flickr. Out of curiosity I downloaded both and got this:
Commons 3000×2000×24 (1.28MB) EXIF: Canon 2013-09-21 etc. FFmpeg (raw image) MD5=240432d80933b6f16c52b5242b4db7ab
Flickr 3000×2000×24 (1.28MB) EXIF: Canon 2013-09-21 etc. FFmpeg (raw image) MD5=240432d80933b6f16c52b5242b4db7ab
But it's really not the same binary; COMP finds more than ten different bytes. What happened? –Be..anyone (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=120124024"