This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:
How to use Commons
Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them.
Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after two days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. The latest archive is Commons:Help desk/Archive/2025/05.
This file has two pages in the wrong order. Can someone with a pdf editor swop the pages please? RichFarmbrough, 21:30 25 April 2025 (GMT).
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. Havang(nl) (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. has freedom of panorama for photos of buildings, anyway, so we don't even need to resort to the de minimis rationale. - Jmabel ! talk00:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to ask a question as to whether uploading the logo of the Edits app to Commons would be allowed? I was part of the project and made a donation
I just wanted to upload a photo and require your assistance
Na uploaden van de foto kreeg ik de melding: Deze afbeelding bevat geen informatie over de auteursrechtenstatus. Tenzij de status wordt opgehelderd, wordt de afbeelding zeven dagen na de verwijdernominatie verwijderd: (29 april 2025).
Ik heb geprobeerd via bewerken gegevens bij te werken, maar dat mislukte. Mijn voorstel voor aanvulling van gegevens m.b.t. bron en auteur is:
Bron: Beeldbank van Gemeentearchief Veenendaal onder registratienummer F0323. De foto is online te zien in de gemeentelijke archieven Veenendaal: dat betekent dat de foto niet valt onder auteursrecht en wel in het publieke domein. (https://onderzoek.veenendaal.nl/Beeldbank/)
Auteur: Auteur is meer dan 70 jaar geleden overleden.
Als deze informatie afdoende is, wat moet ik dan doen om de foto geaccepteerd te krijgen? Nu al dank voor de te geven aandacht. CalGege (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CalGege: Please see what I've done to fix that. Note the changes.
I cannot imagine any technical reason you could not have edited this yourself. Please try again to edit one of your own uploads. - Jmabel ! talk18:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Na uploaden van de foto kreeg ik de melding: Deze afbeelding bevat geen informatie over de auteursrechtenstatus. Tenzij de status wordt opgehelderd, wordt de afbeelding zeven dagen na de verwijdernominatie verwijderd: (29 april 2025).
Ik heb geprobeerd via bewerken gegevens bij te werken, maar dat mislukte.
Mijn voorstel voor aanvulling van gegevens m.b.t. bron en auteur is:
Bron: Het boek is in het bezit van G.G. Callenbach in Zwolle.
Auteur: Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach, in 1935. Nu meer dan 70 jaar na publicatie; valt dus in het publieke domein.
Als deze informatie afdoende is, wat moet ik dan doen om de foto geaccepteerd te krijgen? Nu al dank voor de te geven aandacht. CalGege CalGege (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After uploading the photo I got the message: This image does not contain any information about the copyright status. Unless the status is clarified, the image will be deleted seven days after the deletion nomination: (April 29, 2025).
I tried to update data via editing, but that failed.
My proposal for adding data regarding source and author is:
Source: The book is owned by G.G. Callenbach in Zwolle.
Author: Publisher G.F. Callenbach, in 1935. Now more than 70 years after publication; therefore falls into the public domain.
If this information is sufficient, what should I do to get the photo accepted?
Thanks in advance for the attention to be given. CalGege
@CalGege: Hallo en welkom. Omdat u in het Nederlands schrijft, ga ik ervan uit dat COM:Netherlands van toepassing is. U heeft de sterfdatum van de auteur nodig in {{PD-old-auto |deathyear=}}.
Pagina Tweespijkderillusie is zonder vooraankondiging of discussie verwijderd en ik begrijp niet waarom. Ik ben eigenaar van de tekst en deze heeft een neutrale wetenschappelijke inhoud. Omdat ik nieuw ben wilde ik niet het mijn hele stuk ineens publiceren maar eerst testen of alles gaat zoals ik wil. Ik was van plan meer toe te voegen maar dat heeft op deze manier geen zin. Jodi.Krol (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
page deletion Page Tweespijkderillusie has been deleted without prior notice or discussion and I don't understand why. I own the text and it has a neutral scientific content. Because I am new I didn't want to publish my entire piece at once but first test if everything goes as I want. I was planning to add more but that doesn't make sense this way.
Sorry for the type eroor in the page name, it concerns page Tweespijkerillusie. I cant even see its history anymore. Two uploads I still can see. I do not understand what has happened to it.
I have started a page with the same name on Wikipedia. Until now it stands.
It would be nice to know what happened here, to prevent it next time.
Right, you can see what happened here. Jodi.Krol, Commons doesn't really do articles, that's done on Wikipedias. What you created was a gallery page, which is mostly supposed to be images- as you had not put enough images on it, it was deleted. It might still get deleted with more images, and it seems you want to write the article, and not a gallery page, so I suggest doing so on Wikipedia. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying works are a black & white photography from ca. 1914, a colored postcard based on the b&w photo from the 1920s, with no attributed authors. Therefore both original sources are in the public domain both in the EU and the US (see the PD templates). However, the 1920s postcard was digitally scanned and uploaded to Flickr in 2019, and the uploader slapped a CC-by-SA 2.0 Generic license on his uploaded file. Is that even permissible? Can you just add a new license to a public domain image, if you haven't altered it in any way, i.e. if your derivative work doesn't meet the threshold of creativity? (If not, I think we should remove the CC template.) Rixkölln (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, thank you. I dug a bit into it, and there is actually a template for these scenarios: Template:Licensed-PD-Art-two. The template's important sentence regaring "sweat of the brow" is: "In these jurisdictions, [note: e.g. the US or the EU] this work is actually in the public domain and the requirements of the above license are not compulsory." So what I take from it, is that if I used the above image outside of Wikimedia, e.g. on my website, I would not need to attribute the scan's original uploader, since I operate within EU jurisdiction, but here on Wikimedia, even though US copyright doesn't have a "sweat of the brow" doctrine either, I would have to retain the uploader's original CC license for the cropped version that I produced of the original scan here – File:Linden-Theater_Lichtspiele_Hermannstraße_166-167_near_Schierker_Straße_Körnerpark_Neukölln_Berlin_circa_1914_cropped.jpg –, since in some other countries such a license might still be relevant. (Makes sense.) Rixkölln (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed and downloaded images for our historic building. Will these images need approved before they can be viewed for our property before they are posted? And is there a contact telephone number to call for assistance? Thank you Michelle Lewis Guckercoalco (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, since most work from the 1940s is still copyrighted, probably will need licenses from the heirs who hold the copyrights. - Jmabel ! talk19:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guckercoalco: That doesn't sound right. Verifying an account is normally something you would initiate, not something where you are responding. Did you read the description of account verification at Commons:Username policy? Is this something you already did? I don't see any evidence of it having been, though I guess it could still be in process. Jmabel ! talk03:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded many images to Wiki Commons, but in the past week I get a message that my file cannot be uploaded because cannot connect to server. What's up with that? My Internet is working fine and I can navigate around Wiki Commons no prob. What's going on? Quinet (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How to mass rename/move (files)/delete (redirects, where files are already've been renamed) for IP ~400 objects at least changing obvious email (that is COM:ADVERT) "[email protected]" to "Klub Lewicy" (according to flickr account name it uploaded from) as it's too hard to template it one by one, you know.
Are you talking about deleting revs like [1]? Yes, technically an admin can hide those. I personally am not convinced that hiding them would be a good thing. - Jmabel ! talk20:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel No, there is no need to hide comments on intermediate revisions, what is meant there is to hide it only on the original (first) or any other later revision where the file was uploaded and which, for this reason, is permanently displayed in the table of the "file history" section of the file main page, which is what causes the dissonance due to the requirements of COM:ADVERT, because still being massively (if there's many similar ones exists from same uploader) displaying the advertising both on such file pages and in external search engines' result that display its readable content.
Of course, only if there is a violation in such a comment on the file load.
As for the hiding of earlier images in the history - in this revision example an image was uploaded containing, as only useful, advertising posters with full contact information of two companies belonging to one individual, which is difficult to perceive as anything other than COM:ADVERT, but that was recommended to just blur, which, however, was not done ever, but no way to delete, since the image is ostensibly an example of local architecture. And, based on the expressed doubts about the admissibility of the file (in fact, the nomination for deletion is), if and when the recommendation to blur advertising posters is at least followed by someone, who will create such a new image and upload it as new revision of current file, it is logical, in order not to violate COM:ADVERT, to hide from the history the original image containing full contact information, leaving only the blurred one. Although, considering that over 6 years no one has blurred this data, the file is quite subject to a new nomination for deletion for the same reason, since the violation still remains.
The question here is - how exactly to do both (request to hide the comment on the file upload) and the other (request to hide an earlier upload from the file history)? What templates can be used for this or where to create such a request? 4.242.91.5419:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If someone else thinks this matters, they can take over responding. - Jmabel ! talk20:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there's a bug while notifying "the file uploader/page creator" (step IV of Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually) when using a "Nominate for deletion" tool on redirect page while processing who exactly have the tool to notify about nomination.
"warnings": { "main": { "*": "Unrecognized parameter: _." } }, "continue": { "rvcontinue": "20250501062131|1026459161", "continue": "||imageinfo|logevents|tokens" }, "curtimestamp": "2025-05-02T21:42:08Z", "query": { "pages": { "160754639": { "pageid": 160754639, "ns": 6, "title": "File:NEXT14 Day 1 - Image by Dan Taylor - [email protected] (14091533006).jpg", "revisions": [ { "user": "Wieralee", "timestamp": "2025-02-27T13:59:36Z", "slots": { "main": { "contentmodel": "wikitext", "contentformat": "text/x-wiki", "*": "#REDIRECT [[File:NEXT14 Day 1 - Image by Dan Taylor (14091533006).jpg]]" } } } ], "imagerepository": "local", "imageinfo": [ { "user": "1Veertje", "comment": "Transferred from Flickr via #flickr2commons", "sha1": "90c3f3788f2c8a1a9f8d700f2d3bdc1de51bc74d" } ] } }, "logevents": [], "tokens": { "csrftoken": "+\\" } }
}
where it looks like the tool "searches" exactly for first appearance of "...->imageinfo->user" (the image uploader, but of the page that is connected to deletion nominant just indirectly) value instead of "looking into much closer place" of "...->revisions->user" which also always exists on the page, regardless of whether it is a redirect page or an image file (in the latter case, it also coincides with the file uploader, so there is no need to look for it anywhere else, which exactly causes the confusion - issue itself).
So I think it would be a good idea to change on that step using not "...->imageinfo->user" field (that can misidentify one who have to be notified as answer at the case above returns other page's author) but exactly the "...->revisions->user" field - to be always clear and right about who exactly have to be notified about the page deletion nomination and, in fact, that way to resolve the current issue.
Such a tool behaviour is repetitive so still good to be fixed.
Hello @Wikkyshor. I agree that the explanation in COM:JAPAN is insufficient in this case, that’s why I don’t think the images are “clear copyright infringement”. It is not clear that “restoration” of utilitarian objects (e.g. planes and engines) are considered “copyrighted work” (著作物) in the Japanese copyright law you linked. Do you know if there are any official statements or court rulings that indicates whether the restored utilitarian objects, particularly those in museums, are subjected to copyright? Tvpuppy (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a legal expert, so I may not fully understand Estimated restoration. However, to the best of my knowledge, there was a notable case referred to as the High Chair Case (TRIPP TRAP), which was decided on 14 April 2015. The case involved a dispute between the company holding the rights to the original high chair and a manufacturer that sold imitations.
Generally speaking, chairs are considered Industrial products. In fact, the court acknowledged that the chair did not fall within the scope of the Copyright Act, but it also concluded that the issue was not about prioritizing either the Copyright Act or the Design Act. Ultimately, the court found that the rights were infringed under the Design Act.
@MaiIn ekual NaMe: you are the uploader. You did not provide any template either indicating a free license or indicating why it would be in the {{Public domain}}. I have no reason to think it would be either of those, so I can't help you beyond saying that you as uploader are the person responsible for knowing why one of these two applies. - Jmabel ! talk05:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am recently trying to find the image is of Tibetan Kache, I found the images but they are in book:- Islamic Shangri-La an image is of 1960, my question is that does these images under {PD-China} copyright or not Please help me seniors Mr.work-shy (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.work-shy: while that is probably in the public domain in China, it is unlikely that it is in the public domain in the United States. Am I correct that book was first published in the United States? Assuming that was the first time the picture was published, then if copyright was properly maintained in the U.S., it is still copyrighted. See COM:Hirtle chart. - Jmabel ! talk16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I can't make sense of that. Is there some other language where you could say this more clearly than in English, and I can try to get an appropriate person to help you in that language? - Jmabel ! talk03:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble adding the "Artwork" template to artwork that I have uploaded onto Wikipedia. When I type-in {{Artwork, nothing happens. I thought a set of default sub-categories is supposed to emerge, such as Creator, Date, Medium, Dimensions, etc... What am I doing wrong? Steven Seward (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven Seward: I'm a little confused about context here. You say "I have uploaded onto Wikipedia." Is this about an upload to one of the Wikipedias, or to Wikimedia Commons? Also, is this a problem in an upload tool, and if so which (Special:UploadWizard here on Commons, for example), or is this in the Visual Editor (here on Commons, or in a Wikipedia?) or just editing wikitext? Also, the sections of a template are not categories, "sub" or otherwise, they'd just parameters to the template.- Jmabel ! talk19:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jmabel,
I have uploaded four images of paintings to Wikimedia Commons using the upload Wizard. This is my upload page:
I cannot figure out how to add the "Artwork" template to any of these images. From reading about Templates it suggests that I just type in the word {{Artwork}} and the parameters will automatically appear and then I just fill in the necessary information. But that does not happen when I type {{Artwork}}. Can you please guide me on the precise nuts and bolts of adding the Artwork Template? Steven Seward (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UploadWizard inserts the {{Information}} template automatically. The {{Artwork}} template uses many of the same parameters as the information template so you can edit the page afterwards and replace "Information" with "Artwork" there. If you want the specific parameters from the Artwork template you need to type/copy and paste them in REAL💬⬆20:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on an article for EN Wikipedia about a Polish college in the city Jelenia Góra. I would like for the infobox to show the full logo of that college. I believe I cannot make an upload to Wikimedia Commons, however, I believe this pic covers the fair use policy (I hope?). What should I do in order for the picture to appear in my draft and later the finished article?
@Kaworu1992 Hello! On en-WP, you can add such a non-free picture as leadimage, but only when the article is "live", not while it's a draft. So if/when your draft becomes an article, go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard, choose Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I try to upload a new Wikipedia page (text, with photo and links to other pages), I get a message that the file format is not acceptable. I have tried files with extension .docx, .doc, and .docm. What format should I use? StevenTiger (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles belong on Wikipedia, presumably in your case the English-language Wikipedia. If you need help on en-wiki, and cannot work out where to get started, you can ask a question by clicking here. - Jmabel ! talk04:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am making a draft article (hopefully a real one soon) diving deep down into State standardized testing system and wanted to upload a screenshot of a prompt saying that all students must watch a tutorial before the test from the testing website page. I dont know if this is allowed so please help. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SVSWIKIPED: You don't say what country, but almost certainly if the content can be copyrighted it is copyrighted, and you are very unlikely to get a free enough license for Commons. The key here is going to COM:TOO (threshold of originality), which varies from country to country; since I don't have anything to go on all I can do is point you at that page. - Jmabel ! talk04:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just uploaded my first photo and I wanted to know what an appropriate copyright description would be. On the file page you can see the URL I found the photo on; it is from a Library of Congress collection called Chronicling America. The copyright info section on that webpage says that “the newspapers in Chronicling America are in the public domain or have no known copyright restrictions”. On the upload wizard, I selected “This work is not protected by copyright law”, which opened a series of checkboxes. I didn’t think any of them applied, but I was required to select one, so I checked “Original work of the US federal government” and subsequently removed the US gov tag after uploading. What would have been the appropriate procedure for designating copyright for this file while uploading? Thanks. Edit: Since writing this I have found a higher quality version of the aforementioned file and I plan to delete the existing file and replace it with my new one, so any pointers on errors (copyright or otherwise) in the existing file would be appreciated. NuclearSpuds (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearSpuds: You had also inserted "PD-US-no notice", which may be fine, at least in as much as the newspaper does not have a copyright notice. However, the photos in that page are likely copies of studio photos provided to the newspaper by the subjects or by their parties. It's not clear who the copyright owners were and if the photos were published there with the permission of the copyright owners. If your other version comes from a different source with more information about the photo, that may be better. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick reply @Asclepias. I found no attribution for either photo. The other photo is from a campaign ad in the same newspaper and no attribution is given aside from saying the ad is “authorized by the candidate”. Is this off-limits for Commons? NuclearSpuds (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearSpuds: I suppose that it can be assumed that the campaign had the rights to publish the photo and that on Commons the file should be ok with the template "PD-US-no notice". -- Asclepias (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are reaching out to inquire about the possibility of uploading music files to Wikimedia Commons, specifically those that have been distributed to our radio station, AccuRadio. We have noticed that Wikimedia Commons already hosts work from NEFFEX, and we would like to contribute music from similar artists, such as Relentless Flood, Music from NCS 'NoCopyrightSounds', Babymonster, and Imagine Dragons, among others.
We understand that Wikimedia Commons has strict guidelines and policies in place to ensure the integrity and legitimacy of uploaded content. We have reviewed the rules and regulations, which include:
Licensing: All files must be licensed under a free license, such as Creative Commons or public domain.
Copyright: Only files that are owned by the uploader or are in the public domain can be uploaded, or those for which permission has been obtained from the copyright holder.
Original work: Only original work can be uploaded, and not copyrighted material without permission.
File format: Wikimedia Commons accepts a variety of file formats, but some are not recommended.
File size: There is a maximum file size limit for uploads.
Content policy: Certain types of files, such as explicit or violent content, are prohibited.
Categorization: Files must be categorized correctly using the category system.
Description and attribution: Files must include a description, author or creator information, source, and licensing or copyright information.
Respect for others: Uploads must be respectful of other users and their work.
Compliance with laws: Uploads must comply with all applicable laws, including copyright and privacy laws.
We want to assure you that we will obtain the necessary permissions from the artists and rights holders before uploading any music files to Wikimedia Commons. We believe that our contribution will enhance the platform's music offerings and provide a valuable resource for users.
Please let us know if this is feasible and if there are any additional steps we need to take to ensure compliance with Wikimedia Commons' policies and guidelines. We look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the platform and work with your team.
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons! Thanks for taking your time to understand our policies and guidelines. However, there are a few additional ones and some clarifications:
Username policy. Because your username is an organization/company, we need to verify your identity. This is usually done by sending an email to us, but see here for specific instructions.
Content Policy. Our content policy differs significantly from other websites. We have a project scope to follow besides laws, particularly:
Commons is not censored. Explicit and violent content are allowed, as long as they have a realistic educational use. "Educational" is to be taken broadly, but see our project scope and our nudity policy for details.
Almost everything here, including moderation, are user generated. Although Wikimedia Foundation Inc. hosts the servers and holds the trademarks, almost all policies and guidelines, content, moderation by admins, etc. are made by the community and not the staff/employees.
No warranty. Although you might find valuable content here, Wikimedia Commons makes no guarantee of validity of anything you find here, without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose. See our general disclaimer for details.
Licensing. Note that some Creative Commons licenses are forbidden, particularly any license that contains a NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND) clause. Hence, only CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA licenses are allowed.
Note that I am not an administrator and may not fully understand the policies and guidelines. See the list of administrators to contact to.
"we will obtain the necessary permissions from the artists and rights holders before uploading any music files to Wikimedia Commons."
It is important to note the distinction: files must be released under a compatible open licence; it is insufficient to simply ask for permission "to upload to Wikimedia Commons".
If you are not the rights holder, then we will need evidence that whoever does hold the rights has agreed to this, either on a web page that they (not you) control, or in an email. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On file pages, where do you place templates such as {{Vector version available}}, {{Convert to SVG}}, {{Logo history}}, etc.? I've been solely placing them under the information block beneath the Summary header, but I've seen them placed at the very top of the file page just as often, and I'm wondering if templates should be positioned at one place compared to the other or if it's up to editor preference.
Being such a general question, I've had difficulty in finding answers to this question on the website. If there is a specific answer, I think it would benefit from being clearly stated somewhere unless I am missing something obvious and it already is. — rae5e <talk> 13:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indexing this DjVu on the English Wikisource and it seems like the DjVu won't generate thumbnails, especially on the Commons page where it's blank. Is the file broken? It was imported from the IA, and IrfanView goes through it just fine. Thanks, hope this is the right place! Overthrows (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Overthrows, it appears the thumbnail is showing properly now. This can sometimes happen to PDF/DjVu files, you just have to purge the page multiple times until the thumbnail appears. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Mr.work-shy. You can request a rename by going to the file page, under “Tools”, then select “Move”. A prompt will then appear, which you can enter the new filename and the reason for the rename. This will then generate a request and one of the filemovers will rename the image later on. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot: Looks like it is moving toward deletion, but you seem to have wanted to try to get an appropriate free license. Have you given up on that? I could delete. - Jmabel ! talk17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no - do not delete yet - i'm trying again with help of @John_Cummings
I want to add zoning maps to cities in Orange County. The maps themselves don't have copyrights on them and they are publicly available on their city's websites. The maps exist as pdf files and I cannot directly upload them to the page because they are not my own work. I was going to upload them to the Commons and insert a link, but am unsure if coding them as {PD-US-GovEdict} is appropriate or if I can even upload them to the Commons? For example, I want to upload the pdf zoning map found here: https://www.sanjuancapistrano.org/425/MapsIforgot456 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iforgot456: Hi, and welcome. As that is Orange County, California, the appropriate tag is {{PD-CAGov}}. You may upload the files when you have COM:AP after request at COM:RFR when you think you are ready (once you have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to move this a bit more quickly than 500 edits, but this is literally your first edit on Commons, and you seem pretty new to en-wiki as well, so I think this needs to wait a little. - Jmabel ! talk17:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User Yann claims that information about copyrights are missing, and I dont know why he claims this, because the source itself claims it as commons in my tag, that the pic is from unknown author and pic is more than 50 years old is absolute correct.
User Yann seems to make many times such desctructive claims! Please stop him! I work unpaid for WikiPedia and I have the right that my work is respected! --Martin Mair (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Mair: The 2015 article from which this image is extracted is reproduced in several places on the internet. The information about this image reads like this:
"KGB officers look on as a forensic expert examines human bones extracted from the Bykivnia mass graves. April 1971. Source: Tymon Kretschmer, with permission to publish from Mieczysław Góra, deputy chair of Polish government investigations at Bykivnia. The original is in an unpublished picture album dated April 1971 and called ‘Fotodokumenty mesta massovogo unichtozheniia liudei v period nemetsko-fashistskoi okkupatsii g. Kieva (19-i kvartal Dneprovskogo lisnichestva upravleniia zelenoi zony)’. 66"
The template PD-anon-50 that you used is for exceptional cases only (and has been criticized because it is susceptible to be misused). Its use should be supported by a rationale based on the information about the publication history of the work and the copyright legislation of the country. To use this template on Commons for this image, one would at least need to: A) specify the year when it was first made available to the public, B) conclude that that was more than 50 years ago and C) demonstrate that the copyright legislation of the country of publication does not provide a copyright term longer than 50 years. It seems that this image does not meet those conditions.
If there is no suitable template for a work, the file can be deleted. The first warning message on this file was applied automatically at the time of the upload. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When uploading an image from a website with Creative Commons to Wikimedia Commons, Where should I write the word "LicenseReview"? (Which site? Where should I write it?) For example, what should I do if I want to upload an image from the Prime Minister's Office website? Unlike when uploading a YouTube screenshot, there is no place to write the word "LicenseReview".
::I uploaded an image with a license review attached (written), but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right.
Can you send me a screenshot of what you've actually filled out, like File:Uploading in UploadWizard with YouTube license and LicenseReview.png - Wikimedia Commons?
{{UnDR|reason=I am the original creator of the image and the brand owner of The Chhapai. The file was deleted under criteria F10 and G10, but it is not a personal photo or promotional spam. This is the official logo of a registered fashion brand. I would like to have it undeleted so it can be used in related documentation. The image is self-created and I am ready to relicense it under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Please consider restoring it or guiding me on re-uploading with proper categorization and license. Thank you. [[User:Kapdewala|Kapdewala]] ([[User talk:Kapdewala|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}
This logo was created by me, Akash Sharma, as part of the branding for The Chhapai. I am the copyright holder and I release this file under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
@Kapdewala: If your name is Akash Sharma, why are you using the username Kapdewala and spamming in support of The Chhapai and your own image? What gave you the impression that spamming our projects was a good idea? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Jeff G.,
Thank you for your feedback. I want to respectfully clarify that my contributions are not intended as spam or mere self-promotion.
While I am indeed the founder of The Chhapai and previously Kapdewala, both have received independent online coverage that verifies their notability and authenticity. Here are some references from third-party platforms:
These articles show that the brand is independently recognized and not merely self-published.
My intention in uploading the logo and image was to provide publicly accessible assets under a free license (CC-BY-SA 4.0) for documentation, not to promote a business. I fully understand Commons' policies now and will gladly follow any instructions to ensure proper compliance.
If required, I can also submit verification via the VRT system or re-upload the image with more context and proper categorization.
I appreciate your time and patience and hope this clears up any confusion. 🙏
I understand this process can be frustrating for experienced editors, but please understand that I’m a new user who’s genuinely trying to learn and follow the right steps.
I did send the required VRT email, but as you might know, it usually takes a couple of days to get a response. In the meantime, I was simply trying to understand what I may have done wrong so I don’t repeat those mistakes in the future.
Instead of feeling helped, I’ve felt blamed, and that’s been disappointing. It would mean a lot to receive a bit of guidance, especially for someone who’s new to how Wikimedia works.
If I came across as spammy, that wasn’t my intent — I was just trying to understand and fix the situation. I’d appreciate any advice on how I can improve my contributions and avoid any unintentional mistakes.
This free media resources page says that of the images in LIFE magazine, there are "Many public domain ones, although with false copyright claims." How do I distinguish which photos fall under legitimate copyright and which are public domain? Thanks. NuclearSpuds (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearSpuds: The detailed photo credits section in each issue of LIFE is usually very good at specifying the authors, sources and copyright owners of all photos in the issue. On the basis of that information, basically apply the usual rules to determine the copyright status of each photo case by case. Copyright can be assumed unless public domain is concluded for a reason: work by government employee, reproduction of work first published before 1930, etc. For issues of 1944 and 1945, also take into consideration List of public domain issues. The line in the page Commons:Free media resources/Photography is strange. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. One more question and I promise this is the last: For the photo credits section, when it lists the name of a photographer without a copyright symbol, (example) does that mean the copyright belongs to the magazine? And as such, does that mean that those photos in the public domain issues are also in the public domain? NuclearSpuds (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general understanding on Commons seems to be that when there is a general copyright notice for the issue of the magazine, it covers the whole contents in the issue, with the exception of advertisements or other excluded items, each of which may or may not have their own distinct copyright notices. The copyright on any particular item may be owned by the magazine or by someone else, but the general notice for the issue is considered sufficient to protect the copyrights of all owners. I'm not sure if the renewal by the magazine of the copyright for the issue has a similar general effect to renew the copyrights on works whose copyrights are owned by someone else. But copyrights on such items could be renewed independently by their respective owners. So, items in the issues without copyright renewals are likely in the public domain if they were made for the magazine, but for copyrights owned by someone else, caution would be to check for copyright renewals by the respective copyright owners. It might be easier to answer if you ask about specific photos and specify in what issue that is, so we can look at the whole context. The specific copyright notice for an agency in this issue was probably a requirement of the agency. Honestly, this question is much beyond my limited knowledge of such subtleties of U.S. copyright. For better answers, you can post the question on Commons:Village pump/Copyright, or we can notify users who can explain that more accurately. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is original artwork by two collaborators (Nick Stern and Ken Hammel). All of the people depicted have been changed. It has political content, i.e, it might be controversial to some audiences. It carries our signatures and we would put it in the public domain (CC0). Ken Hammel (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS- The original we based our drawing on is in the public domain:
The high res version on wikimedia commons, which I cited above, seems not to be in the public domain, when I look at that site. Perhaps the original has been changed by the author in some way? Anyway, our drawing is a parody of the original by Cranach, i.e., is not based specifically on the high res image. Ken Hammel (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Lucas Cranach the Elder died in the 16th century, his work is firmly in the public domain. The "High Res" file had incorrect license claim, which I have fixed. As to if it is ok to upload your parody, there are 2 issues: 1)License. The Cranach work is PD, if you and your collaborator specifically agree to share under a free license, that would be okay for Commons. 2) Scope. Is it in scope for the project - eg legitimately useful to illustrate some educational topic? If so, ok; if not, there are many other places online to share personal cartoons. Thanks for asking. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem about the license; we would relinquish all rights and put it in the public domain.
Your other point is the main issue. It is a political cartoon that criticizes the current US government. In that sense, it could be considered educational, because it addresses current events that a lot of people are talking about. But the opinion expressed will be disliked by some, and what I'm not clear on is whether Wikimedia Commons seeks to avoid getting involved in political controversies. Or whether it considers political content educational.
Maybe the simplest approach would be for you or another editor to look at our drawing. Nick Stern has put it on a Substack page, side by side with the Cranach original:
If it's judged inappropriate, we can just drop the issue, instead of posting it and then having it rejected. But if it meets your criteria, that would be great news. Ken Hammel (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an opinion about whether my post satisfies the criteria under "scope?" One user has marked it for deletion, and I have attempted a rebuttal. Please weigh in if you have some insights. Ken Hammel (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by your "post", but if you mean the file you uploaded, yes I think it is out of scope, as I've said both her and at the DR, which is the correct place to continue this discussion.
To be clear: I am the farthest thing from a fan of Trump, but I do not believe Commons should become a repository of cartoons, memes, etc., unless they are somehow notable. - Jmabel ! talk17:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay to upload a colorized footage from 1896 while mentioning the name of the original uploader?
First off, it seems like you made two threads on the same topic, so I just wanted to confirm that they are the same concern. Wikipedia Commons allows for uploading media that are freely licensed or in the public domain. In the United States, any work that was published in the 19th century is in the public domain. In principle, it is possible that a work is still protected by copyright that is 130 years old, depending on where that work was originally made. So assuming that it is in the public domain in its original place of publication, then it can be published here, as long as it has a plausible educational scope and is in an acceptable file type. All that said, colorizing an older work is a sufficiently creative activity to be covered by copyright in most places, so this newly colored video also has to be in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed. Do you know if the colored video is in fact acceptable on those grounds? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯11:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is "almost never OK," but do read the project page that Jeff linked, which explains this. - Jmabel ! talk17:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an edited picture of Antinous, which I think falls under public domain, plus the SiIvaGunner PFP has been uploaded. Just double checking Gaemr1000 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't uploaded anything to Wikimedia Commons under this account, so I don't know what image you're talking about. Only images which can be shown to be free licensed or public domain can be on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a fair amount of clarification on the copyright status for us to accept it. (1) What is the origin of the image of Antinous (in particular, info that allows us to know the underlying image is really something old enough to be PD)? (2) Why are the modifications to it PD? Are they done by AI (in which case they would be) or might they have been done by a human artist (in which case almost certainly not).
The election of Leo XIV and coverage of his maternal family connections to New Orleans has generated interest in New Orleans history buffs, myself included. I've uploaded some media related such as the church where his material grandparents were married, etc. Is there a set or preferred way of categorizing media for "Family of (someone famous)"? If so, I haven't yet found it. Suggestions? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't overly sweat the naming of a category like this. Anything reasonable, and it can be changed later if needs be. - Jmabel ! talk00:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can i upload the picture of J-36 and J-50 chinese 6th gen fighters, i mean lots of people took a picture of itduring a test flight. Harry-Shaun (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to upload YouTube screenshots with a Creative Commons license, but the spam filter blocks them and I can't upload them. What should I do? There are already YouTube screenshot channels with screenshots uploaded, but when I try to upload something, the spam filter blocks it and I can't upload it.
The "YouTube screenshot channels with screenshots already uploaded" mentioned here are "Nihon Chugakusei Shimbun" and "Hatsune Channel".
I have a million things to tell wiki apout & million stories and programs. Is completely different and new for this I don't found a source for my storys & my program's is not like that but I don't know what to do with it. I need a some help to do I have like Thinking Tree have to live in the world and give her products to the world and human Eternium.vio (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Arabic is completely fine for useful contributions, your message does not indicate that you have understood what Commons is, actually. Please read this: Commons:What Commons is not. Furthermore, misunderstanding Wikipedia in general as surrogate for blogs and self-publishing platforms is bound to lead to problems and a blocking of your account. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution-Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0
Au niveau de téléversé d'image est-ce-que je dois sélectionner la partie " Attribution-Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0 " parmi les options ? Semako64 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0 When uploading an image, should I select "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0" from the options?
Does that mean you think Rocks12 designed the font? Because a full font display like this sometimes can be copyrighted in the U.S., even though if it is used for lettering/signage in a more conventional way that cannot. - Jmabel ! talk23:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, in my opinion, but don't be surprised if someone does. As I said, it's complicated. I'm not a lawyer. I know far more about copyright than a random layperson, but this is an area where I'd hesitate to draw the line. - Jmabel ! talk03:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Justjourney: Yes, but not this easily! These are both, at worst, close calls. Generally, we only impose sanctions for repeated and/or blatant copyright violations, disproportionate to the person's positive contributions. We are particularly likely to impose sanctions if people apparently deliberately lie about sources, date, etc. E.g. I can actually recall a case where someone was indef-blocked for a single copyright violation, because when challenged on a claim of "own work" they made up an elaborate story about how back in the 1980s they came to be on a particular film set, what camera they were using, etc., all of which turned out to be a lie. I presume you have no plans to behave that way.
Of course, you could also get in trouble for copyright violations from someone unrelated to Commons for having violated their copyright. We can't protect you from that possibility. - Jmabel ! talk23:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I make the article in Ukrainian Wikipedia about Eiffel 65 2002 single Cosà Restera (In A Song). I wanted to add some pictures. For example the picture of cover of single or the photo in which Eiffel 65 performs this song in live concert (Festivalbar 2002 or else). I`m the begginer and I joined Ukrainian Wikipedia few months ago. What should I do? Can I upload pictures or no, If yes, how can I do this. Thanks. Kystava 6 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the cover of the single is protected because of copyright. In this case , you can't upload this on "Commons".
I don't read Ukrainian, but the Ukrainian Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is at uk:Вікіпедія:Добропорядне використання. You probably want to read that to see if there is a way to upload this locally to uk-wiki.
Français
Italiano
Moved from Commons:Village pump/Technical#COM:ADVERT 
_(52081442749).jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Larnaca_Youth_Information_Center,_2011.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1023227908){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=1003222167){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=326998423){kind=link}
.jpg&rvprop=timestamp%7Cuser%7Ccontent&rvdir=newer&rvslots=main&rvlimit=1&iiprop=user%7Ccomment%7Csha1&iilimit=50&list=logevents&letype=import&leprop=user&letitle=File%3ANEXT14%20Day%201%20-%20Image%20by%20Dan%20Taylor%20-%20dan%40heisenbergmedia.com-256%20(14091533006).jpg&action=query&_=1746221934686){kind=link}
_Best_Clip.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Best_Clip.jpg){kind=link}
._This_is_the_fourth_courtyard,_and_the_pavilion_in_the_center_is_called_%22Yizhen_Pavilion%22.jpg){kind=link}
