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.
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]
I think what happened is, Guckercoalco owns the rights to the Gucker logo (as the heir), and therefore assumed that they own the rights to all photos of signs with the Gucker logo on them. Which is an understandable error, but an error nonetheless. DS (talk) 14:29, 16 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]
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]
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?
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 photograph taken of a celebrity (by someone else)
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.
@Havang(nl): The file itself seems ok. As Ankry observed at the phabricator discussion, the thumbnails display correctly almost everywhere, for example on nl.wikipedia, on en.wikisource, etc., except on nl.wikisource. Instead of speedy deleting immediately, maybe you can try to wait a few days to see if it gets displayed on nl.wikisource also. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably no way to answer your question as stated. If the images in question are ones where you create all nontrivial visual elements entirely yourself and they are within Commons's scope, then you should be able to free-license them and upload them here. Otherwise, no. - Jmabel ! talk01:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandeep Kumar Bind: नमस्ते, और आपका स्वागत है। आप हमारे मिशन से संबंधित सामग्री लिख सकते हैं, न कि COM:NOT/hi द्वारा अस्वीकार की गई सामग्री। ब्लॉगिंग प्लेटफ़ॉर्म की तलाश करें।
Hello @Sandeep Kumar Bind if you wish to converse in Hindi or seek any help, you can approach me at my talk page anytime. I may help you better bcoz of no language barrier. Thank you.
नमस्ते संदीप, यदि आप हिंदी में बातचीत करना या कोई मदद चाहते है, तो आप मेरे वार्ता पृष्ठ पर कभी भी आ सकते है। मैं शायद आपकी बेहतर मदद कर सकूं क्योंकि हमारे बीच भाषा एक बाधक नहीं बनेगीं। धन्यवाद। Shaan SenguptaTalk14:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I did read the rules of uploading to Wikimedia Commons, but it wasn't quite clear to me as much as I thought it would be. I have done some research whilst being on Commons, and I've searched the topics such as: Khalid, NEFFEX, Alan Walker, Marshmello, etc. and I've noticed that some images are either uploaded on Google as well, YouTube, or other platforms
I was wondering if Commons is fully monitored by the Admin & Moderators, because the rules do mention: No Logos, CD/DVD Covers, Most Pictures published on the internet. and it makes it clear that "By Default, you can't upload someone else's work".
I want to also make a suggestion that Wikimedia Commons gets reviewed by the staff on the certain topic that I have mentioned, and if you were to search "NEFFEX", there is a logo uploaded to Commons.
Anyways, I was wondering if any of the staff could possibly make it more clear to me on the rules, I have noticed that some people have broken these rules and somehow got away with it, this is a Help Question, as well as a report.
I was recently unbanned via Email Request, and I understand what I've done before was a common mistake, and I won't make it again. I want others to feel like this isn't "Favortisim".
Anyways, if someone can, please explain the rules more clear to me, as well as letting me know if any of the information in my report is inaccurate.
When complete, pages listed here will be archived at Commons:Administrators/Archive. Before casting a vote, please familiarize yourself with the requirements and responsibilities outlined on Commons:Administrators. All logged-in users are welcome to participate in the voting process, although users with limited or no editing history may not be accorded the same level of consideration.
I feel like this is more of a professional tone, what do you guys think?
I'm just a regular user on Wikimedia Commons, but I've been noticing something that's been bothering me lately. There are a lot of people uploading screenshots of stuff that's not really relevant to the wiki, like their desktop wallpaper or a picture of their favorite celebrity (e.g. DJ Marshmello). I get that it might seem harmless, but it's still against the rules and it's cluttering up the site.
I was thinking that it would be really helpful if staff could do a review of some the uploads on Commons (not all since there is thousands and thousands of uploads) and remove any that don't meet the criteria. I know it's a big job, but I'm willing to help out in any way I can. I've been going through some of the old uploads and I've found a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be here. I've been reporting it to the admins, but it's hard to keep up with everything.
I have to admit, I've made mistakes in the past too. I was actually banned from Commons once for uploading a copyrighted image/personal images (I know, I know, it was a rookie mistake). But luckily, Bedivere saw that it was an honest mistake and unbanned me via email request. I've learned from my mistake and I'm being way more careful now. I just want to help make sure that others don't make the same mistakes I did.
Some other things that I think would be really helpful on Commons are:
A better system for reporting copyright violations
More clear guidelines on what types of images are allowed for new people to understand
A way to filter out uploads that are clearly not relevant to the wiki
More admins and mods to help keep an eye on things (unless there is plenty)
Oh, I am? I am so sorry! I am not the most ideal person to be familiar with Wikimedia Commons! I thought me suggesting about the edit would go here, and the stuff I've mentioned under the line was just added for extra, since I had no clue where to put it.
Hello @SageBravura, as @Yann said this isn't the place for this. But no worries. This isn't much of a problem since you acted in good faith. Coming to your concern, we really appreciate feedbacks and suggestions. We have a great system in place to report copyvios. SD nominations are DRs are in place and working effectively. COM:Licensing is in place for all of us to learn what's allowed and what's not. COM:OOS is in place for what's irrelevant here. And quality is always better than quantity. Adminship is a thing which requires experiences and comes with a lot of responsibilities. So its better to have less yet qualified people here. If you still want anything to discuss, you can go to (and move this to) COM:HD. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk14:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it, Shaan! I now understand what great of a System you guys have put in place. Once again, my apologies. I will be sure to discuss other topics or move this to ::Thanks! SageBravura (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello once again, Shaan! I have edited my profile, and was wondering if it is allowed? It's a lot to read, but I would love to have a unique profile.
NOTE: THERE IS NO SELF-PROMOTION! (I am adding this note because I got in trouble when I first joined Wikimedia for that reason.) SageBravura (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SageBravura everything is fine. Just one thing. We aren't staff here. You should refer to us as users or editors or contributors or volunteers. This is a volunteer project where we work bcoz we want to and love to. That's all. Shaan SenguptaTalk16:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a website https://maproom.org which presents images of maps from atlases, mostly published in the 19th century. I used to sell higher-resolution versions of these images, but my sales have dropped to zero. I'm considering donating all the higher-resolution versions to Wikipedia. That's 2484 jpgs, totalling around 70 GB.
My main concern is to minimise the amount of bureaucracy for me. I would not want to have to specify a filename for each image, let alone add it to categories. I can provide access to a database with information (subject, date, source, etc.) for each image.
I anticipate that this will involve more work than any Commons volunteer would want to take on. But if there is a way of managing things, please let me know. Maproom (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, we technically could host ODS files (OpenDocument Spreadsheet, alternative to XLS/XLSX files) and other formats, but we don't because we can't stop people putting viruses and other nasty stuff into those formats. HyperAnd (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should I just use citations with the origin of the file then? the link leads to a place where you download a zip file, where then you extract it and get some weird database file (along with a few irrelevant files). I converted it to excel and wanted to upload it Someonefighter (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Someonefighter: if the licensing issues can be resolved, it could imaginably be put on Commons as tabular data, which is a copy-and-paste rather than an upload of a file (which prevents the virus issues that HyperAnd mentioned above). - Jmabel ! talk02:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure what copyright tag to use because this photo is an official product of the Government of the United Kingdom. Here in the US federal Government photos of such officials are public domain. There was no place to indicate that this is an equivalent - just of a different nation. --ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A photo of the UMNH, Salt Lake City, Utah, I have photographed and posted on wiki commons. How do I insert it in the article with the other photographs? Thank you. Constance R ConstanceR (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominate for deletion feature is broken, it stays "Adding template to the file" and its stuck, ArtopiaBoy test it in the now deleted page, but now the fewture is not qorking. 131.226.105.23407:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Some images, such as Sevlid Hurtić CIN.jpg and Lidija Bradara CIN.jpg from the Bosnian Center for Investigative Reporting, have been uploaded locally on to Wikipedia with the Center for Investigative Reporting license. Also, when you go to the very bottom of the website, it says, translated from Bosnian: "Acquisition of content from the Center for Investigative Journalism is permitted with the obligatory reference to the source www.cin.ba". I am now wondering whether this images can be exported to Commons, as it says in the aforementioned images that "If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license". Bakir123 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the last part of your question, the placement of the en.wikipedia redirection en:Template:LicenseReview on the files on en.wikipedia was probably a mistake by the uploader (although not really their fault, see below). The uploader probably wanted to request a license review, similarly as how a license review is requested on Commons with the Commons template Template:LicenseReview. However, the en.wikipedia redirection is a recent creation [2] by a en.wikipedia user and it redirects to the en.wikipedia template en:License migration review, which had a completely different role, relating to somethig from many years ago, and which is not for requesting reviews of new material as the Commons template LicenseReview. The creation of that en.wikipedia redirection to that target seems like a very bad idea, because unsuspecting users will obviously be confused and are likely to use it mistakenly much more often that not. Maybe someone should do something about that on en.wikipedia. But anyway, in short, you can just ignore that redirection when it is used mistakenly on en.wikipedia, as on those files.
Your main question is about telling if the template en:Template:Attribution is an adequate interpretation of the copyright satus of the images and in particular of the permission note at the bottom of the website. The answer is not obvious. But the permission note seems vague, because it is not clear if they want to permit all types of uses and modifications. You can ask that question also at Commons:Village pump/Copyright for more comments.
It's for a Wikipedia draft page I'm working on (this will be usable on Wikipedia if I upload it here, right? Sorry, I'm new to all of this). I noticed it said no uploading logos at the upload page but the Twitter Wikipedia page has the Twitter logo, so I'm not sure what to do. Do I need to get permission from the owner of wasteof.money? Thanks for any reponses in advance :) cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 16:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it fits our scope! However, do not upload drawings of copyrighted characters, even if you drew them. We need explicit permission from the original artist to release under a free license if so.
Also, personal artwork that doesn't have educational value (i.e. only to show off their art skills, not to illustrate a character/idea/etc.) may be deleted, though we may allow a small number of them as a "profile picture" for their userpage.
Hello. I received photo from owner/initial photographer with copyright, she gave me permission to use it in Wiki commons and after I upload it she will send her permission to VRT (she didn't have Wiki account and she don't want to make it bcs it is too comolicated but she didn't mind to share this photo with public).
Did she need also send original with metadata?
Also is it okay to upload photo with her copyright or I need to crop it out?
Do I need to ask her where she first uploaded this photo and put link in description?
You are asking several separate questions here. I've taken the liberty of reformatting so they do not run into one another. - Jmabel ! talk02:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that the original photographer is "TUKKATA MICKIE" and that is how she wants to be attributed. I've edited accordingly, but please fix if that is wrong.
You had the "permission pending" tag on there twice. I've fixed that and put that in a more appropriate place.
Given that EXIF metadata appears to have been stripped from the version you uploaded, and other photos from this session are on line, yes, she should definitely provide that to VRT to show she was the photographer.
Not sure what you mean about cropping out a copyright. A copyright is an abstraction. Are you talking about some sort of watermark? I don't see any on the uploaded photo.
If this precise photo is already online, the earliest upload should ideally be listed as the source. Otherwise, the source is simply that she provided you the file.
Description seems fine. A category related to where the photo was taken would be good.
More important than any of this: you have not indicated what license is forthcoming, just that the permission is pending. {{Permission pending}} is not a substitute for a license tag, it is a supplement to a license tag.
•There was watermark at photo but I thought it can't be shown so I cropped it out, I asked just in case if it is okay to upload photos with watermark of photographer name at Wiki Commons with photographer permission.
•It first was upload at her Instagram, so I put link to this post now just in case.
•I send her generated letter text that she need to send to VRT team her license stated as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I added license like this at License's photo category or I did it wrongly? Илона И (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Илона И: Much progress here, but the photo you linked on Instagram seems to be a different photo, possibly from that session. Also: just as well to crop out the watermark. Watermarks are allowed, but not encouraged; see Template:Watermark.
@Илона И: I'm sure that if she sends the email, we will get this sorted out. Sorry it was so late in the process that anyone aimed you at Commons:Uploading works by a third party, the document that would have guided you through most of this. FWIW, in the time since that's been written, we have occasion here on help desk to aim several users at that every day. Not sure what we could do to make it more prominently visible.
You certainly should not have been reported to an Administrators' noticeboard, and I hope you noticed that once it was in the hands of the admins there, everyone tried to help you rather than presume you were doing anything wrong for any reason other than confusion. I'm sorry if this put you off of Commons. You were clearly trying to do things right, and you are welcome here. - Jmabel ! talk04:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually right now I don't know what to do. So situation like this. I am in fan group of Kim Seon Ho and when I mentioned that I worked a little bit with Wikipedia they asked me to change his profile photo (current one really not it). So after this was all this bruhahaha with copyright infrigment from my ignorant side but after this one of the fans said that they knew fan with good pictures, I asked them twice if she took it by herself and pressed that it need to be her own photo, taken by herself, they answered Yes. So I contacted her and she gave me her permission. I upload it and instructed her how to answer to VRT and give permission for Use. But after your side asker her for original she said to me that it was capture from Welive so she didn't have original ㅠㅠ.
IDK if it was misscommunication or lost in translation but I asked her before if she took it by herself and in person ㅠㅠ. So now I again need to put this pic for deletion? I am so sorry for all this commotion... Илона И (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Илона И: I'm afraid so. As I wrote in that piece I linked, "Unfortunately, adding third-party work to Commons is one of the trickiest things a user can do here: it raises every issue that might come up in uploading your own work, plus a slew of additional issues." But now that you pretty much understand the process, please do try to track down someone who can and will legitimately give you permission for a good photo they took. - Jmabel ! talk06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chely Franke: ¿Quiere decir "bibliografia" o "biografia"? Pero la respuesta serí la misma: no hemos ni bibliografias ni biografias aquí en Commons, y no creo que Matías Dávila sería bastante notable para wikipedia. (Presumo que Vd. refiere a Matías Dávila que hace podcasts.) - Jmabel ! talk04:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I believed that this image would be public domain in both France and the USA since both the magazine it came from (La Cinématographie française) and the film's production company (Ciné France) had folded 70 years ago. However, it was flagged as being improperly tagged and now I'm not sure if it's considered public domain in France, despite obtaining it from Bibliothèque nationale de France/gallica.bnf.fr. Their "about" section says that most of their material is free for non-commercial use, with credit. I know very little about french copyright law and want to be certain that this image complies with Wikipedia's rules.
@Yann: you tagged it. What do you want covered that isn't covered?
The existing claimed license covered the (questionable) French side but not the (clear) U.S. side; I will add "expired" to cover the latter, but the French side may be a problem. - Jmabel ! talk04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "... insert a license" template was placed automatically at the moment of upload, for some reason, not sure why. I think Yann just adds a "no licence" template in such cases to make sure that inattentive uploaders are notified. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, file pages must have a template that specifies the copyright status of the work in the United States and a template that specifies the status of the work in the country of origin (if other than the U.S.). Your upload was missing a U.S. template. For some reason, the upload system of Commons automatically placed on the page a warning "insert a license". That warning is now removed.
However, there is also an important problem with your uploads in general. You cannot use a template "PD-old", which is based on the death year of the author, when you do not even identify the author. (Unless a work is really very old.) For works made in the 1920s, authors could well have lived past 1955 (70 years ago). For each work, you must do a rigorous research to identify the author and the year of death. And then indicate the author in the "author" field in the Commons page and only then use a PD-old template, if applicable. The name of a production company is not an author (excepted possibly in rare cases). For works such as films, the authors are almost always known. The laws of the specific country define who are the authors. It can be the director or other people. For artistic film posters, the author is the artist and the author can sometimes be known even when the poster is not signed. If, after a serious research, you conclude that the author of a work is really unknown (not unknown only to you, but unknown to specialists in the field), then you can use a template describing the situation, for example PD-anon-70-EU, if applicable. If the author is known but the year of death is unknown and if the work was made before 1905, you can use PD-old-assumed, if applicable. Please review your uploads to identify the known authors in the "author" field, or Unknown if really unknown, and to adjust the status templates if necessary.
The Gallica notices are notoriously unreliable. They sometimes claim copyrights on works that are in the public domain and they sometimes mark as public domain works that are not, or not entirely, in the public domain. To complicate matters more, since a few years, they have removed the public domain tags in their notices in French but they left them in the versions of their notices in English. In the case of your upload "File:600,000 francs par mois (1926).png", the Gallica notice is supposed to refer simplistically to the publication date of the magazine. It ignores the actual copyright status of the included items, which is what must be determined for Commons.
Thank you, your response is very helpful! I was curious, for french films, how many people are considered the author? Is it just the director, writers, or does it extend to the rest of the crew and even to the cast? I'm still new here and want to make sure I edit my previous and future uploads to wikipedia standards. Baby Purple Bat (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to add this during the Upload Wizard, but here is how you do it after uploading: You edit the "Summary" section of a page and find the code that says |permission= and then add the link after the equals sign. HyperAnd (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
salve, ho lavorato molto sulla pagina di prova ma non riesco a pubblicarla. questo è un vero peccato perchè scrivo di uno scultore famoso non presente in wikipedia. potete aiutarmi? grazie Luca.mion.1 (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
post an entry hi, i worked a lot on the test page but i can't post it. this is a real shame because i'm writing about a famous sculptor not present in wikipedia. can you help me? thanks
Hallo Wenn man eine Änderung vornimmt, dann muss diese gesichtet werden. wer macht sowas? und könnte ich das auch machen. Manche Änderungen werden auch automatisch gesichtet wie und warum nicht bei allen? Lolo130503 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Angsaz: it is perfectly acceptable to ask questions here in German, though Commons:Forum might be a better choice. You appear to be brand new to this site. Please don't come here to tell other people what not to do. - Jmabel ! talk03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolanda1900: I'm guessing you mean the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki), rather than one of the hundreds of others.
I'm guessing you were the purchaser, but your use of passive voice leaves that an open question.
Sounds like a question entirely for en-wiki, not sure why you asked it on Commons, but I would think that someone paying Getty in no way changes the policies at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. This would still be just like you cannot upload an arbitrary photo you took to en-wiki and say "this can be used on en-wiki, but not elsewhere." That's still a policy violation, unacceptable non-free content. - Jmabel ! talk18:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is new to Wikimedia Commons, I would like to ask a question. Sorry if it has been answered before or if I missed something that I could've easily looked-up myself.
Do I have to cut out any potential non-free text and/or logos if I take a screenshot of somewhere in a CC-licensed video that features them, even if the video is under a CC license itself or can I leave such a screenshot as it is and upload it without it being flagged has having non-free content in it?
I'm asking because everything I uploaded so far(only two screenshots, more specifically) doesn't feature any non-free logos and/or text besides whatever is in the background of those screenshots. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~Berilo Linea~: It depends on the particular situation. If they are visible enough in the image, non-free items should be cropped out, entirely or partially, depending on what is reasonable, or blurred. However, in some particular cases, it is not be necessary to remove items. For example, if the item is below the threshold for being copyrightable. Also, if the item is so small and insignificant in the image that it can be considered merely incidental. The linked pages provide more details. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should pass threshold of originality in the United States, but not sure for the Philippines. Can I still upload it to Wikimedia Commons or upload it as non-free media in Wikipedia? Btw, where can I ask help for better SVG formatting? Thanks RFNirmala (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So is it possible to post pictures of my self on this page
@Angsaz: Typically no, though if you are active on Commons or on some other Wikimedia project, then a small number of pictures specifically for your user talk page are OK. They need to be appropriately licensed though: unless they are selfies, someone other than you was the photographer and presumably owns the copyright, so they are the only person who can offer a license, not you. You would probably do well to read Commons:Scope. Do remember, this is not a social media site.
And I have no idea why you directed this question to an individual, but put it on the (very public-facing) Help desk. If you only wanted an answer from them, you should have used their User talk page. - Jmabel ! talk06:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently had an issue with using the 'iNaturalist Import' button on category pages. It had been working for years, but now when I click the button nothing happens. Has anyone else seen this happen? — Junglenut | talk09:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are files with CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license are allowed? I couldn't find a way to upload files with CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Jako96 (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Français
Italiano
Moved from Commons:Village pump/Technical#COM:ADVERT 
Moved from COM Talk:Adminship Requests
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Larnaca_Youth_Information_Center,_2011.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1023227908){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
