• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:HD

Skip to table of contents | Skip to bottom | 🌐 Help desks for other languages

This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:

How to use Commons

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

Ask your question

or

In order to get quick answers consider the following points:

• Have you checked the frequently asked questions, help pages and the help desk archive?

• For licensing and copyright issues, please use the copyright village pump
• For proposing changes to the way Wikimedia Commons works, please use the proposals village pump
• For community-wide discussions, please use the main village pump
• For changing the name of a file, please see our file renaming guidelines
• For matters requiring the attention of an administrator, please use the administrators' noticeboard or contact an individual administrator directly
• For questions about Wikipedia content, try English Wikipedia's "Teahouse"
• For questions not about Wikimedia projects, try English Wikipedia's reference desk

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/2025/04.

For quicker help, join our live chat room. ^webchat

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.

Die Kartenskizze wurde vor mehr als 70 Jahren erstmals in einem heute nicht mehr existierenden Verlag Amstutz & Herdeg in Zürich veröffentlicht und der Urheber der Kartenskizze ist unbekannt. Die Kartenskizze wurde zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt auch im Himalayan Journal abgedruckt. --Tkb (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkb: Assuming that amounts to an assertion that it is in the public domain, you still need to add an appropriate tag to the file page saying why.- Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where and how can I add this tag? Tkb (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkb: see File:Araku Coffee logo.svg for a good example of how to do this . Open it for editing, you'll see the PD tag(though not the particular tag you'd need). I imagine that would be {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}}.

I see that this took long enough that the file was deleted. @Krd: would it be OK with you to undelete this so Tkb can add that tag, or do you want them to go through a formal undeletion request? - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the file and added the appropriate license tags. Krd is generally ok with things like that (told me so a few times). --Rosenzweig τ 10:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe eine Begründung geliefert. Welche Angaben benötigt ihr noch von mir?

--Tkb (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe bereits eine Begründung geliefert. Welche Angaben fehlen noch, was muss ich noch tun?

--Tkb (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkb: (Ich habe zum Teil Google Translate verwendet, um dies zu schreiben.) Ich habe Ihre Fragen oben zusammengefasst. Es scheint sich im Grunde um dieselbe Frage zu handeln. Bitte erstellen Sie nicht mehrere, verstreute Abschnitte für ein einzelnes Problem.

Und wenn Sie jemandem (einschließlich mir) eine Folgefrage stellen möchten, empfehle ich Ihnen dringend, die Aufmerksamkeit des Benutzers per "Ping" zu erregen. - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file has two pages in the wrong order. Can someone with a pdf editor swop the pages please? Rich Farmbrough, 21:30 25 April 2025 (GMT).

This is an advance question, because there's still one caveat (see below). I would want to extract the audio from this video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wKGzaCmazA – and upload it to Commons. It's a German composition (incl. lyrics) and music recording, and both are (most probably) public domain in Germany & the EU for the following reasons: (a) this adaptation of the composition incl. lyrics is from 1889, the composer died in 1921, while I still have to find the year of death for the lyricist, this currently being the only caveat; (b) the recording is (at the latest) from 1961, which is the earliest publication date I could find, i.e. the recording had definitely re-entered the public domain in 2011, because the protection of ancillary recording rights (Leistungsschutzrechte, master use) in Germany at that time was still restricted to 50 years after the recording date, i.e. too early for the extension to 70 years (EU copyright harmonization), which only came into effect later, and only for works/recordings still protected under the original 50-year rule on 1 November 2013. So, to make things short: if the lyricist year of death fits, which might be hard to find out, both the composition & the recording are public domain in Germany & the EU.

However, as far as I can gather, a file uploaded to Commons also needs to have a US public domain template, if it's a non-US work. Since US music/recording copyright rules are kinda all over the place, I'd like to know, which Commons tag/template, if any, would have to be used in this case. (tia) Rixkölln (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rixkölln: Hi, and welcome. Do you have any biographical info about the lyricist so far?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lyricist's name is Oskar Klein, who also worked as a librettist. There are a couple of Oskar Kleins, one of them a pseudonym of a writer, who died in the 1920s, but I think that's a different one. Let's say Klein was 19 years old at the time he wrote the lyrics and lived until the age of 90… then the work would still be under copyright protection until 2030, i.e. no upload. So it's definitely important. (And the US issue, too ofc.) Rixkölln (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "Klein, Oskar" here: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110311402.101/pdf?licenseType=restricted … quote: "death date unknown". Not sure if that's the one. Rixkölln (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the underlying work (composition), PD-old-assumed can be used, if a year of death is unknown, and PD-US-expired as the second template. However, the 1961 recording is a separate matter. 2A02:3032:360:D0C5:4C55:64DA:B41C:50AB 11:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The recording by Willi Rose was never registered with the US Copyright Office. In the US records I could only find one recording of Der Rixdorfer or song with Rixdorf in the title, namely a later recording by James Last (1970s). For the EU template, you can use PD-EU-audio. As for the US, since it was never published there, it might not be necessary to add a US-specific template. (?) 80.151.146.157 12:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta Records published the song in the US on this record: https://www.discogs.com/release/13141821-Willi-Rose-Prost-German-Beer-Drinking-Songs under license from Ariola Germany, without a copyright notice. But I don't think it needs to be registered with the copyright office to be protected under US copyright law. 2A02:3032:360:D0C5:4C55:64DA:B41C:50AB 12:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then the recording copyright for the US would be restored, because on the URAA date (1 Jan 1996) the recording was still copyrighted in Germany. Since the US does not follow the rule of the shorter term, the recording would imho not be eligible for upload on Wikimedia Commons before the year 2057 (publication date + 95 years) --- unless the Fiesta record was published within 30 days of the original German publication by Ariola. Then US rules apply for Wikimedia Commons, and since the Fiesta version of the album was published between 1930 and 1977 without a copyright notice/registration, it would be in the US public domain. But you would have to determine the exact publication dates for Germany and the US. 80.151.146.157 13:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't look like the two albums were published close together. The original LP is Ariola's Wir versaufen unser' Oma ihr klein' Häuschen, which is from 1959, and the LP licensed to Fiesta Records in the US, which has the same track listing, but a different album title, is from 1962. So if the above information on the protection of foreign works in the US is correct (30 days publication rule), then this recording of "Der Rixdorfer", while public domain in the EU, is still protected until 2057. Bummer. Rixkölln (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See {{PD-US-record}}. Recordings are different in the US. Some of the details have not been tested in court, but it looks like every audio recording between 1925 and 1972 is copyrighted in the US, and if published after 1946, will get 110 years of copyright or until February 15, 2067, whichever is less.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. The Hirtle Chart is quite useful, and it has a dedicated section on sound recordings. The crazy thing is, since the US album had no copyright notice—only a license notice—, the recording would be back in the public domain, had it been published between 1972 and 1989. (But there is at least one pre-1925 recording of the song that I can use.) Rixkölln (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, pre-1972 (before February 15, 1972) US sound recordings are not protected by federal US copyright, but by a separate scheme which was introduced in 2018 (the Music Modernization Act, details are in {{PD-US-record}}). It's very similar, but it's called protection against unauthorized use and not copyright. Foreign sound recordings additionally may be protected by copyright because of the URAA. So even if a foreign sound recording “escaped” the URAA, there is still the protection against unauthorized use. --Rosenzweig τ 09:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, the recording was still protected by German copryight as of the URAA date. In Germany it fell back into the public domain only in 2010. But it did escape the "use it or lose it" EU copyright amendment that extended master use rights from 50 to 70 years on 1 November 2013 for all still protected recordings. But the URAA rules wouldn't apply here anyway because the recording was also published in the US between 1957 and 14 February 1972. So 15 February 2067 is the PD date. (Which is pretty harsh tbh, but those are the rules.) --- PS: external media template to the rescue. Rixkölln (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload an image of a famous Indonesian singer in the 80s. Would it be permissible to upload photos of an album released in the 70s and 80s, or would it fall under copyright infringement? Said album is O.M. Awara Volume 7, released in 1979. To my knowledge the record company of this album has since been disbanded. There are some personal pictures taken of the singer at home or during events, but they are of lesser quality. Thanks in advance. WannzKaswan (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Com:Indonesia (assuming the album sleeve images were taken or made there), and ask again if you still have questions after that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The disbanding of a company does not remove any work from copyright. All it does is make it very difficult to work out the current owner of the copyright, so it is much harder to get a valid permission. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I’m reaching out to ask if you could reconsider the block on my account. I’ve been using Wikipedia for a long time as a reader, and recently got really involved in the Teahouse to help out new users. I tried my best to offer useful advice, but I admit I made some mistakes along the way. I didn’t fully grasp how strict the protocols are, and in my excitement to help, I ended up stepping on a few toes. I know it may have seemed like I was just being egotistical or disruptive, but honestly, that wasn’t the case. I was just trying to contribute, and after getting positive feedback on my help, I was pretty frustrated when it felt like my efforts were dismissed. The comment I made about “Are you blind?” was definitely out of line, and I regret it—it was born from frustration, not malice. Looking back, I realize I should have been more patient and understanding. But the block feels like an overreaction. I didn’t get a clear warning or explanation on how I was supposed to improve, and I think it would’ve helped if there was a clearer way to know what was expected of me. I’m not asking to be let off without understanding what went wrong, but I’d really appreciate a second chance. I’ve put a lot of effort into my edits, and I genuinely want to learn from my mistakes. If I’m given the chance to come back, I’ll definitely be more thoughtful about how I approach things. Please consider giving me another shot—I’m here to help, and I think I can make a positive contribution to the community if I’m given the guidance I need. Thanks for your time. Best, IHitmanI (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome @IHitmanI. Not sure if you realised this, but this is the Help Desk for Wikimedia Commons, the image repository that works with other Wikimedia projects. I see that you have been blocked at English Wikipedia, but I’m afraid there isn’t much we can do here regarding your block.

Also, it is only a 3-month block, so you are given “the chance to come back”. I will just advise you to take this as a learning opportunity, follow the advice given to you by other contributors, and make sure after 3 months you don’t repeat the same behaviour you did previously. Best of luck to you. Tvpuppy (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tvpuppy, you are only admin i have ever met seems human to me. you are right it is 3 months which seems easy for you to say but i was blocked without any harmdoing or not even close to it, but just for making my point. You know i thought Wikipedia was those place where we are free to share and help, with smiles but well as you can see. I have tried to learn and learnt but Wikipedia seems more of a strict place, I am sorry, this is not my place si.

It was good stay, I atleast got opportunity to edit some good article.

Same message as in Wikipedia:

My friend once told me: Fuck it if it does not respect your contributions. And this admin BS on Wikipedia is kind of famous on the internet. I thought, combining some wasted hours on no work, I could use it on Wikipedia. But it is literally garbage, filled with admins who are trying to label you as a terrorist. Seems like the block button feels smooth for you people. Your guidelines say consensus over disputes, but your admins throw a few words and then block me, even though I genuinely helped with a smile.

You think you are the next Einstein, the way you messaged me, but it does not make any point.

1. Haha! The image is not any vendetta; it is basically an irony — it means that even though the image says something about helping editors, it literally blocks them.

2. I never really understood why I was blocked, seriously.

3. You do not need to "make it clear" because I understand the wiki admin system very clearly now. It is very depressing, filled with BS, bureaucracy admired, unnecessarily strict, pack-rat for their useless articles.

4. It would be a strict "no" for me to the person who thinks Wikipedia is best for editing, or is willing to sacrifice both his life and mental health.

I thought to help Wikipedia, but it is really frustrating and filled with a stupid environment. Really not for educational edits.

Here I am giving my account, do what you can with it, I do not care.

Username = IHitmanI

Password =

I am not kidding; this account belongs to Wikipedia now, it is not mine.

Thank you. IHitmanI (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IHitmanI: I can see your intentions are good, but I can also see why you are blocked.

Please do not further import "drama" from the English-language Wikipedia to Commons. If you continue to do that, we will have to block you there as well.

If you want to protest your block on the English-language Wikipedia, the only appropriate place to do that is your user talk page on the English-language Wikipedia. I would suggest, however, that you just wait out the three-month block.

If you want to participate in Commons, in a manner appropriate to Commons, feel free to do so.

Please do not make another lengthy reply here on this Commons page. If you want to write a sentence or two acknowledging that you've seen this, fine, but that's it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My wife is executor of the estate of her late mother who was a well known actress. We would like to replace a few photos that were posted on her Wikipedia page by unknown people. Some of our pics are personal shots. Some are her publicity "head shots" photos (which she may have paid to have taken). Others are "stills" from film,TV and stage work that we presume are in the public domain since they are easily available in many places on the web— but don't know how to verify. Would someone kindly let us know if it is possible and how we should correctly notate our material? Thanks for your help. Asticou (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. @Asticou: I'm sorry for your family's loss. As you may have seen, media uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons needs to be either public domain (lack of copyright) or released under a free license. There are two ways the estate could provide photos for Commons:

• The estate owns the copyright to the photos, and is willing to freely license the photos.
• The copyright of the photos (or stills) has expired and fallen into the public domain. This can depend on a handful of factors (publication date, copyright registration and renewal, etc.).

I'll touch on copyright ownership first, followed by public domain.

Generally, whoever takes a photo owns the copyright to that photo, unless the copyright has expired or the photographer has explicitly transfered the copyright to someone else. For the personal photos you mention, if those photographers are willing, they could upload their photos themselves and release them under a free license.

For the works-for-hire, that all depends on the terms of the hiring. Generally, for the estate to own photos from publicity shots and the like, the terms of the hiring need to explicitly mention that copyright is owned by the client. Unless we have the details and terms of the hiring, those likely wouldn't work out.

Regarding public domain, note that just because something is widely available online does not necessarily indicate that it's in the public domain. The copyright expiration of photos, films, etc. depends on when, where, and how they were published -- and copyright expiration can vary quite a bit by country. You can explore copyright rules by territoy here, and (as an example) see U.S. copyright expiry rules here. In the U.S., anything published before 1930 is considered public domain. From 1930 through 1989, whether or not a work is public domain depends on when the work was published (that's published, not created); whether the work was published with a copyright notice; whether it was registered with the copyright office; and/or whether the copyright was renewed. More contemporary works would be considered copyrighted. Note that, since the Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, we generally only host public domain works if they are considered public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the work.

If you've reviewed the copyright expiration rules and have any works that you believe are in the public domain, then we could potentially host them. Let us know if that's the case, or if you need help determining that.

If you believe the estate does own the copyright to any photos and would like to release them, then the estate would likely need to correspond with the Volunteer Response Team to provide evidence that the estate owns the copyright and is willing to freely license.

I know this is a lot of info, but I hope it's helpful. Let us know if you have any additional questions. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third way, which is to obtain a license from the copyright owner.

As far as I know, our most comprehensive discussion of how to proceed for third-party materials that you want to use on Commons is Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

replaced / removed all embedded raster graphics 120.29.78.34 12:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been redirected from Wikipedias Help Desk.

My image "File:Kevin Fegan.jpg" was taken down from the Commons, by a user, under the reasoning 'low quality, no metadata, unlikely ownership'. It appears I can't challenge this as it was a while ago, and it has since been removed from the archive. 'Unlikely ownership' is a false assumption.

I re-uploaded that image today under the same name, with higher quality, and metadata. I own this image. This re-upload was recently takendown by the delinkerbot. How do I go about preventing this happening again / attempting to re-upload it? Thanks. Whirlpuddle (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.) the images are different. 2.) Neither of the photographs looks like an own work. Abzeronow (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original copyvio was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Whirlpuddle. When we say ownership, we mean "copyright by the photographer" not physical ownership of the photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm full aware. Whirlpuddle (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whirlpuddle Afaict, the situation is this: you say you are the copyrightholder of this picture, but other people don't believe you [1][2], at least partly because it's published elsewhere already. What you can do now if you wish, is to communicate with Commons via mail, and prove you are the copyrightholder that way. See Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries and use the blue button. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I'll move forward with this Whirlpuddle (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to correct an error in the information box of a category relating to a person, specifically in the "description" field. Other fields have an edit icon to edit the information at Wikidata but not the description field. It seems that information is harvested from an authority file but I have been unable to discover which, where, how...?

The category page is Anya Taylor-Joy by year. The question I posted on the talk page is:

Nationality

I notice the description field says "American-Spanish". Anya Taylor-Joy is verifiably American-British; there is some question as to whether she is also Argentinian; she is not Spanish. Her mother is, Anya is not. I would fix this myself but I'm not conversant with editing Commons, and having spent some time trying I cannot for the life of me see where this description field acquires the editable data. Can anyone shed some light please?

Where can I find the data in order to edit it?

Many thanks, Captainllama (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Captainllama: my quick answer the data is probably on Wikidata at Anya Taylor-Joy (Q20882479).

On the category page it calls {{Creator}} with the Wikidata ID to create the description you see.

That in turns invokes Module:Creator that uses Module:NationAndOccupation. Either this last module has a bug (it is ignoring citezenship as US-UK for some reason) or there is something not perfect or misleading in the Wikidata entry.

Somebody may be able to check. Commander Keane (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Template:Creator, the description is

• country of citizenship (P27) ethnic group (P172) → nationality
• sex or gender (P21) → gender
• occupation (P106) → occupation

So (1) "Spanish" here is strictly ethnicity and (2) it cannot cope with multiple values. Not good. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do I know if an image is made of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes and hasn't crossed the threshold to gain copyright. Could the following images be considered copyright-free under this criteria?
https://tvn-especiales-editorial-comercial.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/beisbol-nacional/img/logos/Bocas.svg
https://tvn-especiales-editorial-comercial.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/beisbol-nacional/img/logos/Occidente.svg
https://tvn-especiales-editorial-comercial.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/beisbol-nacional/img/logos/Chiriqui.svg
https://tvn-especiales-editorial-comercial.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/beisbol-nacional/img/logos/Cocle.svg
https://tvn-especiales-editorial-comercial.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/beisbol-nacional/img/logos/Colon.svg Panamenian0102 (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Panamenian0102: The laws on this are different for each country. For a copyright question you always need to say what country to get a good answer. Also, usually better asked at COM:VP/C, but here we are, so that's OK.

Are these all for Panama? If so, I don't have any particular knowledge about their threshold of originality. These all look close to the line, but most of them look OK. https://tvn-especiales-editorial-comercial.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/beisbol-nacional/img/logos/Occidente.svg is the most likely to be problematic, I'd probably skip that one. - Jmabel ! talk`

Please Upload Image of this birds in their infobox Sahidrajaansari (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't just upload images you find on the Internet, they usually don't have a free license (see COM:NETCOPYVIO). It does look like we're still missing images for most of those birds, so if you find some with a free license, feel free to upload them. If you're not sure about the license, you can ask here. I found some images here: Category:Bycanistes cylindricus, for the hornbill. --rimshot^talk 14:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning to upload pictures taken by others, rather than take pictures yourself, you should probably read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to upload a picture of my late grandfather and where do I stand in terms of copywrite and permission. I have inherited all his photos so I assume I can upload them. Can someone please clarify CLW003 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two big considerations about adding a piece of media here: 1.) does it fit our project scope in principle and 2.) is it appropriately licensed? In general, the educational scope is very loosely enforced so that many mundane things can be considered useful for educational purposes, so in general a picture of your grandfather probably could pass that first filter, but it may not and could be something that has no real educational value. As for the second one, if you are in the United States, almost always, the person who took the photo owns the copyright. So it's possible that you are the inheritor of that copyright and it's also possible that the copyright has expired, but unfortunately, it's difficult to say with the information that you've given us (and no one here is competent to give actual legal advice, just our best understanding of what's acceptable). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Justin

thank you for taking the time to reply and clarify for me.

i am based in the UK

i am in the process of creating a Wikipedia page on my Grandfather and his involvement with Oldhams Press in Watford, England. There are many press articles about his major role in the development of one of the largest gravure printing works in Europe. He retired in 1963 and I believe the picture was taken around that time. There are many pictures of the inside of the factory and many of him and his colleagues. I just wanted to upload a portrait of him. I hope Wikipedia accept my page and I would like to include his portrait.

thank you for your time

Claire CLW003 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. To be clear, I'm not a member of the en.wp community, so I can't comment on anything in particular related to editing there, but I would definitely recommend you ensure that you look at w:en:WP:NOTABILITY and w:en:WP:COI. Let me know if you have any questions related to Commons or any other Wikimedia project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, correcting a typo it is Odhams Press ltd not Oldhams. CLW003 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CLW003: Please be sure to read and comply with en:WP:COI, and in particular to use the "AfC" process described there to draft your article and submit it for review. If the picture cannot be uploaded here, you can use it under the criteria described at en:WP:Fair use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to upload a Canadian photograph from the City of Toronto (Canada) Archives. The photograph is dated 1954, and is an official portrait of the Municipal Council. There is not enough information attached to the photo for the archivists to determine if the copyright is held by the City -- and thus available to use in the USA under the City's usual attribution license, e.g., {{Attribution only license}} -- Or by the anonymous photographer. (Note: If copyright is held by the City, then the photo is in the Public Domain in Canada because it was taken before 1962. See item 3 of en:Template:PD-Canada) Is it possible to do this upload and which tags should I use?? HumberPark (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a partial answer. The web-site City of Toronto Archives states:

"If the identity of the author of a work is unknown, copyright in the work shall subsist until the end of 75 years following the end of the calendar year in which the work was made."

So, Public Domain in Canada in 2030. HumberPark (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HumberPark: Before 2020, the copyright duration for works of unknown authorship was the shorter of 50 years from their publication or 75 years from their creation. See the old version of Template:PD-Canada-anon on Commons. The PD-Canada template of en.wikipedia linked in the question has the same thing in point 5. A 1954 official portrait photograph of the municipal council can probably be assumed to have been published in 1954. As such, if the identity of its author is unknown, it was in the public domain in Canada in 2005 and it will be in the public domain in the U.S. in 2050. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! HumberPark (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just uploaded File:Portræt af Jenny Raphael Adler med sine døtre Ellen, Hanna og Emma.png, which is a higher resolution version of File:Portræt af Jenny Raphael Adler med sine døtre Ellen, Hanna og Emma.jpg (both are faithful photographic representations of the same painting). Maybe the latter should be overwritten, but I'm not sure due to different file extensions, and I don't have permissions to do this. But presumably all the pages using the painting should use the higher resolution version? If so, how to implement that? Kranix (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot overwrite different filetypes, so you will have to manually replace the JPEG with the PNG. Since there are only a handful of uses of the JPG across Wikimedia Foundation wikis, it shouldn't be terribly hard. Let me know if you need help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{PNG with JPEG version}} tag, but doesn’t the tag recommend the JPG version to be used rather than the PNG version? Tvpuppy (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually suggest converting the PNG to a high-quality JPEG and overwriting the existing JPEG with that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, Tvpuppy, Koavf, and Kranix:  Done to combat phab:T192744.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the guidelines for moving files to Commons, and gone ahead and moved File:Toilet-paper-trees.jpg (see Special:Diff/1025884644 and Special:Diff/1025884646) from the English Wikipedia over here. However, I would like to know if I should've uploaded this file, as there is a building in the background. Justjourney (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:De minimis, small portions of copyrighted works can be included in a larger work under certain circumstances. As a non-lawyer, I'd say this is valid. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 29 April 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 ! talk 00:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FoP is not important; I assume the building is pre-1990 that it is not a protected work of architecture. {{PD-US-architecture}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimedia Team,

I was unaware that my company's account on Wikimedia has been blocked for an extended period. We need to revise some information and update details about our recent business growth. Could you please restore our page to normal?

Thank you for your understanding and support.

Best regards,

Phanith HAK

Admin, Comin Asia Comin Asia (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Comin Asia: Blocking is normally per project, not across Wikimedia, unless it is globally locked. You don't say what account, so I cannot work out which it is. Normally, the place to ask for any given account to be unblocked on a particular project is on your user talk page for that project, to which you should have access unless you have abused the privilege of that access.

"[D]etails about [your] recent business growth" certainly don't belong on Commons (which is a media repository) and as a general rule aren't something you should be editing about your own company on any Wikipedia I'm familiar with (see, for example, the English-language Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest and paid editing.

Also, most Wikimedia projects don't allow company names for account names (although Commons does, with proper verification; see Commons:Username policy. - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that they are referring to their account on Wikipedia at w:Special:Contributions/Comin_Asia.

@Comin Asia Go to your user talk page on the English Wikipedia, and follow the directions given. Justjourney (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following document eligible to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as a public domain work or under a free license?

https://web.archive.org/web/20060504185549/http://www.seameo.org/vl/library/dlwelcome/publications/report/thematic/97sym32/97syman3.htm

It is a speech delivered in 1997 by H.E. Sukavich Rangsitpol, then-Minister of Education of Thailand, at the SEAMEC Conference in Manila. The speech was published on the SEAMEO official website without any copyright notice.

Could it be considered in the public domain, as it was given by a public official and published by an intergovernmental organization? Bumrung Chiablam (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumrung Chiablam: Thailand has no requirement of a copyright notice. Under the Berne Convention, anything copyrightable is copyrighted at creation. Is there any particular statute under which you think this would be in the public domain? See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Thailand for further information. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Die Expeditionskarte ist gemeinfrei, weil sie 1939 erstmals veröffentlicht wurde, der Urheber nicht bekannt ist und somit das Urheberrecht spätestens 70 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung erloschen ist (§ 64 UrhG). Da die Veröffentlichung vor mehr als 70 Jahren erfolgte, ist die Schutzfrist abgelaufen und die Datei kann frei verwendet werden.

Die Expeditionskarte erschien auf S. 36 im Buch "Schweizer im Himalaja", Zürich, 1939, das von der Schweizerischen Stiftung für ausseralpine Forschungen herausgegebn wurde.

--Tkb (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkb: Warum erzählst du uns das nochmal? Setze einfach einen entsprechenden PD-Tag auf die Dateiseite. = Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the appropriate license tags to the file. --Rosenzweig τ 10:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support! Tkb (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am using a gadget whose name is XReport, but I can't use it for speedy deletion due to abuse filter. When I add a SD template, a filter doesn't allow me. Could anyone help me? Karacehennem (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Karacehennem: Hi, and welcome. You triggered Special:AbuseFilter/303 by appearing to not have a template or heading only on the first line as a new user (you had noinclude tags there, too). Until phab:T298672 is resolved or you have gotten COM:AP via COM:RFR, please do not try to use XReport on files like that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maartje here. I have recently added a Dutch lemma on Clara Welcker, one of the first Dutch women archivists. At the National Archives we have a picture of her from 1912. As the photograher Samuel Schotel has been dead for over 70 years, we consider this photo to be in the public domain (cc0). May I upload a scan of it so I can add her face to the information? ArchivarisMaartje (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArchivarisMaartje: I fully believe it is public domain (use {{PD-old-auto-expired}} with the proper death year), but it is certainly not cc0, which would require an explicit dedication by a copyright owner. -Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book Burgers in Nood, written by H.M. van Randwijk, was in 1935published by Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach. So it is now more than 70 years after publication. The book itself is in the possession of G.G. Callenbach in Zwolle. G.G. Callenbach took the photo himself.

--CalGege (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book Burgers in Nood, written by H.M. van Randwijk, was in 1935published by Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach. So it is now more than 70 years after publication. The book itself is in the possession of G.G. Callenbach in Zwolle. G.G. Callenbach took the photo himself.

--CalGege (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the Zandstraat in Veenendaal is managed by the Beeldbank of the Veenendaal municipal archive (https://onderzoek.veenendaal.nl/beeldbank/), under registration number F0323. The photo is from around 1890; the author is unknown, but because of this date, the photo automatically falls into the public domain. The photo can be seen online at the Municipal Archives Veenendaal. It is released in connection with copyright.

--CalGege (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should add this information to the file's page, not here. Ruslik (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CalGege: as far as I know, "70 years after publication" is not relevant. For the Netherlands, the issue is 70 years after the author's death. For the U.S., the issue for works published in the Netherlands is 95 years after publication. Both of these criteria must be met (currently author died in 1954 or earlier, work was published in 1929 or earlier). - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree when this medium is removed. I had made a mistake that I otherwise improved.

--CalGege (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to ask a question as to wether uploading the logo of the Edits app to Commons would be allowed? Taking an example of File:Youtube logo.jpg, we see that though it is logo meant to be in the public domain it isn't. I want to upload the logo, but I am not sure if I should upload it in Commons, or in Wikipedia, as it may be public domain. Please help! AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the logo in SVG for anyone looking for it. I am not sure about the gradient and the threshold of originality  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Wikimedia Commons are fine with the pictures I took. Timmy96 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general they are fine, though some seem awfully similar to each other. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Gregory here

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

Regards

Bluesurf23 (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesurf23: Can you link to somewhere that logo can be seen? - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 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: 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]

• Convenience link: File:D.S. van Schuppen aan de Zandstraat Veenendaal in1890.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much, Jmabel, for this improvement. I have seen what you did to fix it. I hope to learn from it.

  I'm going to try to correct other uploads. CalGege (talk) 05:24, 3 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 ! talk 18:30, 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]

@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=}}.

Hi, and welcome. As you are writing in Dutch, I assume that COM:Netherlands applies. You need the author's date of death in {{PD-old-auto |deathyear=}}. Yann: FYI.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Jodi.Krol: Hallo en welkom. Ik zie geen bewijs van een dergelijke pagina. Kunt u specifieker zijn?

Hi, and welcome. I don't see evidence of such a page. Please be more specific.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Tx Jodi.Krol (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Tx. Advice taken. 2A02:A458:F2B9:1:A1C5:5DA5:B473:1005 21:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this image: File:Berlin-Neukölln_LINDEN-THEATER_Hermannstrasse_(ca._1914)_(52081442749).jpg

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]

@Rixkölln: The license would cover any rights the person might have obtained in scanning and uploading. It is possibly relevant in some countries that have a "sweat of the brow" doctrine. Potentially at least somewhat appropriate, but it should be done the way I did File:Icon - The Entry Into Jerusalem - MNAR.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 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]

As ek my storie op hierdie webwerf publiseer, sal Hollywood-filmmakers my storie gebruik? Yashshukla27 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

""""google translated: If I publish my story on this website, will Hollywood filmmakers use my story? - Afrikaans""""

please check COM:NOT. @Yashshukla27 modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 20:17, 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]

@Guckercoalco: you can see your images in Special:ListFiles/Guckercoalco. However you have claimed these images as your own work but these are mostly COM:Derivative works, photographs-of-photographs. One of your pictures is a photo of computer monitor showing a Flickr picture. We would need to know the original author(s) to keep these. MKFI (talk) 08:16, 3 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 ! talk 19:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the heir. does this address your comment or do I need to make further applications? thanks for you assistance. Guckercoalco (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guckercoalco: by the way, I see that you have a business name on your account. Please see Commons:Username policy. You will need to verify this account (as explained on that page) or it will almost certainly be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I verified the account via an email I received. Is there something else needed completed? thank you Guckercoalco (talk) 16:24, 4 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 ! talk 03:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did initiate and the email received was in reference to verification of account. thank you Guckercoalco (talk) 21:09, 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]

Can you give some more info and also try uploading again? It might be an issue on your device. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quinet: Also, what tool are you using for uploading? Commons:UploadWizard or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Commons:Village pump/Technical#COM:ADVERT

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.

Also - how is possible something like deleting a revision comment meant here and here? 203.57.51.188 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First part is solved (still one by one), but still no answer for the second one. 201.150.118.26 15:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about deleting revs like [3]? Yes, technically an admin can hide those. I personally am not convinced that hiding them would be a good thing. - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 3 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.

I.e. here you can see the redirect page creator is @Wieralee however user being notified by the tool is @1Veertje, who is redirect target image uploader that I find as wrong as exactly @Wieralee had to be notified.

An issue looks to appear whyle trying to identify the one to be notified via link with the parameters lined up:

where answer is:

   "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.

Any ideas how to do it or any alternative views are welcome 201.150.118.26 00:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan is insufficient, as it lacks any reference to derivative works. In the case I submitted for deletion, there is a clear copyright infringement. Estimated restorations by restorers fall under 'Article 49' of Japanese copyright law and are also covered by 'Article 46'. I find it difficult to understand why copyright violations are being overlooked based on U.S. law rather than Japanese law. Wikkyshor (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Tvpuppy Hi, good day.

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.

Thank you. Wikkyshor (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload my canvas poster? Bumrung Chiablam (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poster that you made yourself? Ruslik (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A link to an example online is usually useful when asking a question like this. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamb of God - Redneck (Official HD Video) Best Clip.jpg

--MaiIn ekual NaMe (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ! talk 05:26, 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 ! talk 16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

senior images r from India and china where copyright is expired the images r taken by photographers with date ex-20 oct 1936,Source: Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford. But book is showing © 2018 by David Atwill. Mr.work-shy (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am unable to verify the notice. As living in Singapore. They r taken from museum. Mr.work-shy (talk) 20:33, 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 ! talk 03:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's is in PD in china.Can i upload that image on WP Mr.work-shy (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. You started out by asking if it is PD in China. You are now asserting that it is. On what basis is it PD in China?
2. On what basis is it PD in the U.S. (which is also required)?

Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For 1936 photograph, it is probably {{PD-China-1996}} 50 years from publication or creation that passed before 1996  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx ☺️ you senior Mr.work-shy (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask something? Scotland777 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to ask ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you just did. And if you have other questions and they're related to using Wikimedia Commons, you can ask here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How To Upload Photos, Videos, And Audio Files? If Anyone Can Tell Me, Please Do! Thx JustCory69 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @JustCory69: See Commons:First steps. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello im trying to recreate Twinkle screenshot.png with modern layout of wikipedia @This, that and the other Depotadore (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Depotadore please go right ahead. Just make sure the article in your screenshot uses only public-domain images. The Eurovision Song Contest article is an ideal choice for this reason. This, that and the other (talk) 07:03, 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 ! talk 19:53, 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:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Steven_Seward&ilshowall=1

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]

@Steven Seward: I have no idea where you were "reading about templates" (and you don't link), but that would be news to me. I always add a template by filling it out explicitly in the wikitext; for {{Artwork}} I would copy-paste either from a similar case or from Template:Artwork:Usage. - Jmabel ! talk 04:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try that. Steven Seward (talk) 22:35, 6 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  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try changing {{Information}} to {{Artwork}} and copy and paste the Artwork Template. Steven Seward (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends.

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?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

@Kaworu1992: Further to the above, please see en:WP:Fair use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

авторские права как я могу их удостоверить? Юлия Судакова (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your question—which Google translates as "Copyright how can I verify it?"—is far too vague for us to give a meaningful answer. Please be more specific. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

clafo que si Danielitho1k (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't upload personal images with no educational purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 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]

@StevenTiger: You've asked the same question elsewhere and it's been answered. Also, Commons is not a place to write an article. Commons is not Wikipedia, it is a media repository. See Commons:Scope. - Jmabel ! talk 04:36, 6 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 ! talk 04:42, 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 ! talk 04:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok its the US by the way. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 13:01, 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]

Dear Wikimedia Commons Team,

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:

1. Licensing: All files must be licensed under a free license, such as Creative Commons or public domain.
2. 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.
3. Original work: Only original work can be uploaded, and not copyrighted material without permission.
4. File format: Wikimedia Commons accepts a variety of file formats, but some are not recommended.
5. File size: There is a maximum file size limit for uploads.
6. Content policy: Certain types of files, such as explicit or violent content, are prohibited.
7. Categorization: Files must be categorized correctly using the category system.
8. Description and attribution: Files must include a description, author or creator information, source, and licensing or copyright information.
9. Respect for others: Uploads must be respectful of other users and their work.
10. 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.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Eric. FiveSTARRadio (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
   • No advertising or promotional content. Using Commons solely to advertise or post promotional content is not allowed, and you may be blocked when doing so.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Regards, HyperAnd (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"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 edits 15:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FiveSTARRadio: please do read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ウィキメディアコモンズに画像をアップロードするとき、"LicenseReview"という文字はどこに記入すればいいですか？(どのサイト？に記入すればいいですか？)
https://www.youtube.com/live/3w0mP2gkGvE?si=Bj_zNUWn32hLGfsb
(または、https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0mP2gkGvE　動画の内容は同じ)の8:26付近のところのスクリーンショットをアップロードしたい場合、LicenseReviewに記入することは
ライセンスレビュー |サイト=https://www.youtube.com/live/3w0mP2gkGvE?si=Bj_zNUWn32hLGfsb |ユーザー=石垣のりこ |日付=2024/07/05
または
ライセンスレビュー |サイト=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0mP2gkGvE |ユーザー=石垣のりこ |日付=2024/07/05
と記入すればいいですか？
ライセンスレビューの{{}}を記入するとややこしいことになるので、{{}}はあえて記入していません。--副代表 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try to show it in a screenshot: File:Uploading in UploadWizard with YouTube license and LicenseReview.png

In my user page I have scripts you can save as bookmark to quickly copy YouTube license template with LicenseReview, other related templates like From YouTube  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:40, 6 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. — rae^5e <talk> 13:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theki: In this case, the right answer is that it doesn't matter very much. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 7 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]

please see it is my urgent request to the senior editors please change the name of File:Xi'an Prefecture, Mosque (main courtyard of the Grand Mosque). This is the fourth courtyard, and the pavilion in the center is called "Yizhen Pavilion".jpg to shorter name. I mistakenly put description on it. Mr.work-shy (talk) 00:36, 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]

Thnx u senior Mr.work-shy (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, how do i get this deletion request closed File:Return of displaced people via Al-Rasheed Street after ceasefire, January 2025, Gaza Strip.jpg. Cinaroot (talk) 03:28, 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 ! talk 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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/Maps Iforgot456 (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 ! talk 17:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]