• 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.

If I understand the Attibution Guideline [1] correctly, pictures from enb.iisd.org may be uploaded to Commons:

• https://enb.iisd.org/media/jianxin-hu-college-environmental-sciences-and-engineering-peking-university-china-oewg => d:Q110785892
• https://enb.iisd.org/media/miriam-diamond-university-toronto-oewg2-spp-15dec23-photo => d:Q55704450
• https://enb.iisd.org/media/martin-scheringer-international-panel-chemical-pollution-ipcp-spp-oewg3-20jun2024-photo => d:Q52820
• https://enb.iisd.org/csd/csd18/6may.html => Ake Bergman => d:Q15214807

If so, could somebody please upload these pictures using the appropriate license templates? Thank you so much. 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:D6 21:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in the guidelines it states any usage will have to be approved by the website, so the images are not free to upload to Commons without prior permission. Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've written to IISD to ask them to use standard CC licences - mentioning this here so other people don't duplicate that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Any reaction from them yet? 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:11 22:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but then this is Easter fortnight, so if we are going to get a reply I wouldn't expect it yet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Die hier gezeigte Kartenskizze stammt aus einem 1939 erschienenen Buch. Ein Urheber ist weder auf der Karte noch im Buch genannt. Nach deutschem Urheberrecht erlischt der Schutz für Werke unbekannter Urheber spätestens 70 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung (§ 64 UrhG). Für einfache Lichtbilder beträgt die Schutzfrist sogar nur 50 Jahre ab Veröffentlichung. Da die Veröffentlichung 1939 erfolgte, ist die Abbildung spätestens seit Ende 2009 gemeinfrei und kann frei verwendet werden.

Genügen Euch diese Angaben? Könnt ihr bitte die fehlenden Angaben, die erforderlich sind einfügen, da ich nicht weiss, wie man das richtig macht.

Inzwischen habe ich noch eine Expeditionskarte eingefügt, bei der ebenfalls die obenstehnde Begründung zutrifft.

--Tkb (talk) 21:50, 22 April 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]

The State Library of Victoria has a number of images that are marked as Out of Copyright and give this instruction: "How can I use this item? Copyright. This work is out of copyright. Conditions of use. There are no copyright restrictions on this work. You can use this work for any purpose, including commercial uses, however State Library Victoria does not endorse or support any derogatory uses of this work. In using this work, please acknowledge the work's creator and title (where known), and State Library Victoria as the source of the work."

Here is an example of a work I want to use. An art catalogue published in Australia in 1939 and very likely not published in the US. What Creative Commons license should I give it? https://viewer.slv.vic.gov.au/?entity=IE2382170&file=FL17043245&mode=browse LPascal (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the announcement of the exhibition is what's out of copyright, and not the artworks themself. For example- this link is for the artworks of Inez Abbott, but she died in 1957, which means copyright expires in 2027(in both Australia and the US). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LPascal: I concur with DoctorWDoctorWhoFan91. That SLV link and copyright refers to the three page typed document. Per item D in {{PD-Australia}}, typed works published in Australia prior to 1 January 2000 are out of copyright in Australia. You would still need to consider US copyright for Wikimedia Commons and I don't think you are interested in the announcement itself. The document has a reproduction on the first page, but I am not sure if SLV has evaluated that for copyright.

A Creative Commons licence is not suitable unless you know the copyright holder has released their rights. Commander Keane (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment from DoctorWhoFan91 and Commander Keane seem to be about two different things so I need to clarify. It is the three page catalogue that I want to upload and place on her article. So it will be the cover page, the letter on the second page and the list of her artworks in the exhibition on the third page. She is listed as the author/creator but may or may not have been the actual author of the catalogue. It could have been Sedon Galleries as the author because they put on the exhibition. The gallery would have compiled and published the catalogue. There is a small and rather poor black and white reproduction of one of Inez Abbott's artworks on the cover page but she would have given permission to Sedon Galleries to put this reproduction on the cover. The catalogue was donated anonymously to the SLV. So I believe that the SLV means the whole three page catalogue is out of copyright and as the publication date was 1939, it's a printed work out of copyright like the newspapers in Trove which we take images and letters from. What do you think? LPascal (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LPascal: oops I didn't see much value in the catalogue itself so didn't think you wanted it. I am at the limit of my copyright knowledge, but I would say that Inez Abbott still maintains copyright on the reproduction and her permission to Seddon Galleries doesn't extend to a free license for Commons.

You may be claiming de minimis on the reproduction on the first page, but it looks pretty central to me. You could blur the artwork to be safe.

I think the typeface copyright doesn't apply to creativity of the writing itself. So a journalist/newspaper holds copyright on the text of their article, but not on the typeface.

In this case the text is a list and some details not meeting the threshold of originality, possibly apart from the foreward - but maybe R. Valluad died more than 70 years ago.

Newspaper clippings from Trove may have public domain photos (pre 1955) we use, US copyright should be condidered too though. I would imagine the newspaper article text copyright is held by the journalist. And letter writers hold their own copyright.

An expert from Commons:Village pump/Copyright may have a better understanding than me about all of this. Commander Keane (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone please remove the thumbnail this another version for this photo of Prospero Sanidad because this is a wrong edited image. Thank you!!!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c3/20250421100940%21Prospero_Sanidad.jpg TheJediMaster327 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJediMaster327: as far as I know, no human user has direct control over the pages in subdomain upload.wikimedia.org. That file is algorithmically generated from File:Prospero Sanidad.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJediMaster327: maybe you are having purge issues. Try purging the page(s) where you want the file to be updated: Help:Purge.

That url you gave won't change but is not relevant as far as I can understand. Commander Keane (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editors, I have difficulty uploading subtitles from YouTube and request assistance with completing captions at File:040213 FLOTUS FilmWorkshop HD.webm; this may be helpful in supplying a part of its text. Thanks. Yovt (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yovt, I have imported the subtitles from the YouTube video and I added it to the TimedText file. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvpuppy, In the future, I can run whisper turbo on any video needing captions (I have it running locally on my computer). All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great. Thanks for letting me know. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So i've spent lots of times for identifying traffic lights in photos taken in Hanoi on Wikimedia Commons and add Category:Traffic_signals_in_Vietnam to them. And this caused that category to be populated mostly by Hanoi traffic signals and very little from elsewhere in Vietnam, so today i used Category:Traffic_signals_in_Hanoi instead but what should i do with the images i added Category:Traffic_signals_in_Vietnam

My options:

1. Add Category:Traffic_signals_in_Hanoi and keep Category:Traffic_signals_in_Vietnam

2. Remove Category:Traffic_signals_in_Vietnam and add Category:Traffic_signals_in_Hanoi

thanks everyone Stvk Công Cuối (VN) (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stvk Công Cuối (VN): I think you would do option 2 and make Category:Traffic_signals_in_Hanoi a subcategory of Category:Traffic_signals_in_Vietnam.

To link a category to its parent, you edit it and place the parent category link there. For example, edit Category:Traffic_signals_in_Hanoi and place "[[Category:Traffic signals in Vietnam]]" there. Commander Keane (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the wojak, doomer, soyjak, doomer girl, tradgirl, pepe wojak, boomer wojak, crying wojak, or npc wojak anywhere on Commons. Are they really all copyrighted even though they're mostly made by random unknown people on the internet and copied into numerous variations without credit in the same way that public domain images can be copied and transformed? 2601:644:8184:F2F0:EC7D:241A:7805:DCE2 06:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Are they really all copyrighted even though they're mostly made by random unknown people on the internet and copied into numerous variations without credit in the same way that public domain images can be copied and transformed?"

Then those uses were copyright infringements, memes works like that but now how copyright works

Annonymous works were still copyrighted by default Stvk Công Cuối (VN) (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is a very real problem in how copyright law doesn't align with what people think is fair and appropriate, and how cultural works used to be copied, tweaked and built upon through history. As digital copying is so easy, authors need some protection or support, but the current laws make good-faith spreading of intellectual property all too cumbersome. –LPfi (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"memes works like that but now how copyright works"

typo fix: memes works like that but not how copyright works Stvk Công Cuối (VN) (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded some cartoons I know have fallen into the Public Domain, however apparently I have to add stable links to both the original copyright entry and relevant volume(s) of the CCE to confirm the non-renewal. I guess I have to add links to entries for when it first got copyrighted and when it fell out of copyright? How do I do this kind of stuff? SteamboatWilly2 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SteamboatWilly2: No, you don't really have to prove the non-renewal by links. As long as you seem pretty consistently to get it right, this should be fine. Of course, if someone were to show that renewal did happen for any of the uploads you claim were not renewed, it casts a certain level of suspicion on the others that you uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have images I want to upload to my wiki page that have been granted to me by the author. How do I do this and add the appropriate credit? Thank you! ButFirstFika (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ButFirstFika: Hi, and welcome. The procedure is at VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Uploading works by a third party may give you a broader how-to than VRT; you can probably skim roughly the first half before you get to the parts that are relevant for you. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found an image of the undocumented on Wikipedia Association SRT41 Garage 56 entry.

I'd like to know what the license on this photo is so I know whether it's safe to upload or not.

Source: https://24h-en-piste.com/en/AfficherDetails.php?Type=Course&Annee=2021&Numero=84 Image 2 of 3 Lumakid100 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Lumakid100, it states “© Laurent Dangeard” under the image, so the image is copyrighted by him. Also, the website’s legal notice states, “All reproduction rights are reserved, including …photographic representations”. This means you cannot upload the image without prior permission from Laurent Dangeard, which appears to be the website owner. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mrs_Arnold_Lupton_in_1909_when_President_of_the_Sleaford_Women%E2%80%99s%E2%80%99_Liberal_Association.png

It appears at the bottom of this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Lupton - can the photo be made a tiny bit smaller please? Thanks 115.70.23.77 22:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Section header makes no sense to me. On Commons (as on any other mediawiki wiki) if we don't title it this way it won't work as a PNG file.

To make it smaller where it is displayed on a particular wiki page is entirely an issue on that wiki. Commons does not control the display size of an image. You may want https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Images. - Jmabel ! talk 22:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the size of the display on enwiki so the image is smaller. Abzeronow (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srbernadette: Please login and use internal links. On enwiki, you may also benefit from en:H:PIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a picture of the leader of Slowjamastan attending the NATO Summit. I want to upload it to the page. Can I do this? Phaze4448 (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phaze4448: Hi, and welcome. Where exactly was the photo published? What page do you want to upload it to?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was published on the Slowjamastan website. I want to upload it to the Non-Nato Attending countries List on thee 2024 Nato Summit Page. His name and Slowjamastan are already on the page. 99.50.201.30 03:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im not logged in but it's still me. 99.50.201.30 03:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phaze4448: You call that exact?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New Frontier: NATO Attendance for Slowjamastan! - The Republic of Slowjamastan 99.50.201.30 14:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.slowjamastan.org/2024/07/16/sultan-attends-nato-summit/The New Frontier: NATO Attendance for Slowjamastan! - The Republic of Slowjamastan 99.50.201.30 14:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Phaze4448: You have to know and be able to show that the file is free licensed. See also Commons:First_steps. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• More specifically: under the Berne Convention (which all but about half a dozen countries in the world have signed), pretty much everything copyrightable is copyrighted at creation, and there is no jurisdiction in the world where materials less than 20 years old have emerged from copyright (70 years or longer is more typical). For almost anything in recent decades, you need to have a COM:L free license from the copyright-holder to upload it to Commons. For a more detailed discussion, see Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hallo, habe am Straßenrand einen alten gerahmten Fotodruck vom Holstentor in Lübeck gefunden. Ein handschriftlicher Gruß auf der Rückseite ist von 1948. Das Foto stammt offensichtlich von Farbfoto und Verlag: Karl Braune, Lübeck ohne Datum/Jahr

Ist es schon frei für WikiCommons? Schöne Grüße!

--Wikitarisch (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikitarisch: Auf welcher Grundlage glauben Sie, dass dies nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt ist? - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not OK Karl Braune starb 1971, also ist das Foto in Deutschland noch bis Ende 2041 urheberrechtlich geschützt. In den USA wahrscheinlich noch länger, je nach Erstveröffentlichung des Fotos. Falls die erste Veröffentlichung 1948 war, ist das Foto in den USA noch bis Ende 2043 geschützt. --Rosenzweig τ 18:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hallo Jmabel & Rosenzweig,

vielen Dank für den Hinweis. War mir nicht sicher, bei so einem "Nachdruck" eines Bildes von 1948.

Habe es gerade zur Löschung vorgeschlagen.

Vielen Dank! Wikitarisch (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there are two things that I need a bit of advice on. Currently, all of these images exist as "external media" templates on wikipedia.

1. Defunct people's armed police/MPS Active Service Forces(PAP units under the command of the ministry of public security) agency emblems. This xinhua article has all of the badges of PAP branches/agencies that became defunct in 2018. Currently the China fire service's patch already exists on commons, however I am hesitant to upload the other emblems since I want to make sure I am allowed to upload them.
2. Chinese navy ship emblems. This article on the Anhui provincial national defense education office website has many chinese navy ship emblems, along with this article on the Guangxi regional veterans affairs department that has the Chinese LHD Guangxi's emblem. I have asked about this before on the wikiproject military history discussion page along with the help desk, where I was advised to just use external media templates instead. However, I would still like to hear advice on whether navy ship emblems fall under Article 5 of the PRC copyright law(which states "This law shall not apply to laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof;") or whether Template:Insignia also applies to navy ship emblems, and therefore whether navy ship insignia can be uploaded onto wikimedia commons
3. I have started a topic on Wikiproject military history regarding which version of the PLAGF aviation badge should be uploaded; see full context there

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thehistorianisaac: difficult copyright questions are much better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Also, if there is any relation among the various questions you are asking here I am missing it; I suspect each of these should be asked on a different thread. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i posted it there but nobody responded so I assumed I was meant to post it here Thehistorianisaac (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Never mind. Other than no 2 I think Im fine so far. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi team need help on getting my account unblock, as a comms team member for the organization i am trying to create a page for the director general who is a well know Indian scientist and ex ICAR DG. Please suggest what to be done. Icrisatcommunications (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Icrisatcommunications: It sounds like you're referring to your block on the English Wikipedia. This is the help desk for the Wikimedia Commons, a separate project that hosts freely licensed media -- this is not the place to get help with blocks on the English Wikipedia. I recommend you read the instructions left on your English Wikipedia talk page. Ultimately, undisclosed paid editing is against the rules, and you should generally not be creating pages for your organization or people related to your organization. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. Icrisatcommunications (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This File:Joel Kaplan.jpg image is a very low resolution crop of Joel Kaplan's official portrait, published by the White House in 2006. This photo was taken by Eric Draper, the official White House photographer at the time. This authorship is confirmed by both the Alamy and Getty Images listings for this photo. As an employee of the US Federal Government, that makes this photo in the public domain.

Can I improve this image on Wikimedia Commons with a higher resolution version from Alamy or Getty Images, since there are no copyright restrictions on the original photo?

https://www.alamy.com/no-film-no-video-no-tv-no-documentary-new-deputy-chief-of-staff-for-policy-joel-kaplan-pictured-in-washington-dc-usa-on-april-19-2006-photo-by-eric-draperwhite-housekrtabacapresscom-image386878682.html

https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-photo-new-deputy-chief-of-staff-news-photo/57368405

Cooper37 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this agency is known for rigorously pursuing what they consider to be unlicensed uses of their material, I would strongly advise against it; at least as long as the high-resolution version is only available from Getty Images. --Túrelio (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Getty both has a fine collection of copyrighted images and is also rather notorious for committing copyfraud, falsely claiming they have the copyright of public domain works. If it can be proven that the higher resolution version is under the same license as the smaller version IMO that would likely be OK. (Yes, I see I'm giving the opposite opinion from @Túrelio: above - but if you can conclusively demonstrate that the media is PD and the copyright claim of Getty is false, it seems the law is on your side.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooper37: Hi, and welcome. It all depends on your tolerance for the legal risk involved. If in doubt, please consult a lawyer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the question should be brought up with Wiki legal meta:legal? Discussion suggests it may be a bit beyond casual help desk answers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since its quite clearly stated by Getty to be by Draper, that should be fine - but there is still the matter of the intrusive watermarks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. I'll take this to meta:legal for confirmation. Since Getty is helpfully not claiming copyright in this case, I think the risk here is low. ("Getty Images provides access to this publicly distributed image for editorial purposes and is not the copyright owner.")

Cooper37 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the page on threshold of originality in the UK and want to make sure my assumptions are correct: is an extreme example of simplicity (no flak to ae, of course) like w:File:Autechre peel sessions 2.jpg protectible by copyright in the UK? In other words, considering the geographical origin of this work, would it be incorrect to assume that {{PD-simple}} can be slapped onto it and a vectorized version made and transfered to Commons? Autechre, who created the album the sleeve is for, hail from England and still reside there, if my memory serves me correctly. — rae^5e <talk> 18:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A white rectangle with one word? Probably {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UK's ToO has gone up due to a recent court decision to be more in line with the rest of Europe. Abzeronow (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was working on a gallery, on my own talk or user page, and now I can no longer locate it. I assumed it would at least be available on my contributions page, but this is also not the case. Am I missing something obvious? 74.102.207.128 21:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, did you create the page while you are logged in? Then you should able to see it in your contribution page after you have logged in. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit perplexed right now as to why the alignment of text to the right doesn't seem to work in this map. The texts concerned (as "Tanja", "Qurtuba", or "Mursiya") appear further to the left than they should. However, if I change the alignment to the left, I can see that the coordinates seem to be entered correctly.

File:Caliphate of Córdoba (1000).svg

Does anyone recognise what I am missing here? WikiForMen (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an award, the Branch Rickey Award. It's also a replica of a statue you can see in the foreground at File:Coors_Field_exterior_2022.jpg, by one Category:George Lundeen (he's very much alive). Is this pic allowed per Commons rulez? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: No. I tagged File:The first Branch Rickey Award presented to Dave Winfield in 1992.jpg as a copyvio.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. Yeah, I thought so. Same goes for his busts at Nebraska Hall of Fame I guess? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on the above question. This photo of an American building has a modern (artist alive, etc) statue in the foreground, but it's not the point of the picture. Is there any written Commons guidance on this, or is "that's fine" common sense here? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång There is a Common policy about this, see Commons:De minimis. As for the photo you mentioned, I think de minimis will apply here, so it should be fine. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvpuppy Thanks! Not a name you'd guess easily. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the normal legal term for this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got that. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 25 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).

I'm writing an English Wikipedia article about Dorfromantik: The Board Game, and I was wondering if I could use a picture of the box or some game components. If I take a picture of the board game's box, as well as some pictures of the components of the game, could I upload it to Commons to use in the article or would it be copyrighted? Chorchapu (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does make you think that there may be no copyrights on cover illustrations? Sculptural works on game pieces or artwork of a game board is also a creative work. So, no, you can't upload imagery of this kind to Commons, see Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Board games, directly below of that: COM:BOOK and COM:Derivative works. The English Wikipedia may allow something under their fair use prerogative. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, thank you. Chorchapu (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

File:Schiermonnikoog video.gif; van dit bestand kreeg ik de melding dat het verweijderd is.

De betreffende bestanden, zoals door mij geupload, zijn door mijzelf gemaakt. Als ondergrond is Openseamap gebruikt. (OSM - Data can be used freely under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license.) Daarna heb ik zelf een grafisch beeld aangebracht zodat er een animatie ontstaat van de betreffende vuurtoren. Ik begrijp niet goed waarom dit bestand verwijderd is. Op geen enkele manier heb ik naar mijn mening inbreuk gedaan op enig copywrite. Als ik iets anders moet doen laat het mij weten want deze graphic geeft meer inzicht in de werking van deze vuurtoren. Dit geldt ook: File:Schiermonnikoog video.gif File:Inchkeith video.gif File:GirdleNess video.gif File:FifeNess video.gif File:Ardnamurchan video.gif File:Fidra video.gif BuchanNess video.gif File:CorranPoint video.gif File:Chanonry video.gif File:Turnberry video.gif BobSchrage (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BobSchrage: Hallo en welkom. Deze bestanden zijn verwijderd vanwege auteursrechtschendingen door beheerder Wdwd. Heb je aangegeven dat de achtergrond onder de licentie {{OpenStreetMap}} valt?

Hi, and welcome. These files were deleted as copyright violations by Admin Wdwd. Did you indicate that the background was licensed {{OpenStreetMap}}?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now, what I have do to make it work, please help BobSchrage (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. @BobSchrage I've replied at the undeletion request section: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Schiermonnikoog video.gif Tl;dr The background is Google Maps -- DaxServer (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i have mentioned that. I go transformed all that to Openstreetmap the next few days, BobSchrage (talk) 21:22, 26 April 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]

picture of a person Mn-imhotep (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how can i upload a picture from my Handy? please, descripe the steps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mn-imhotep (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome @Mn-imhotep, check out COM:FS for a tutorial on how to upload pictures. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very sensitive, in the gallery of new files, there are a large portion of pictures not showing ArtopiaBoy (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

welcome...

sir, mozilla firefox is good for that. try that. and also, wait 2-5 seconds before scrolling. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 21:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To start the story from the beginning, I contacted someone who had photographed Adele in concert in Munich because I was interested in a photo. I asked her to send me the original picture with the metadata. I suggested using the email template for a declaration of consent or the Upload Wizard, whichever she would prefer. However, the photo she emailed me didn't have the metadata attached.

Meanwhile, I straightened this photo using Fotor software because it was leaning too far to the right, and I didn't want to bother her with that, so I did it myself.

She uploaded her photo using the Upload Wizard... except that this image has all its metadata: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adele_in_Munich,_Germany,_3_August_2024.jpg

I emailed her the first photo I had straightened and cropped and told her she could use it as a second version, which was my intention from the beginning. I thought everything would go well, except that the upload of this new version (the photo without the metadata) landed at a new address: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adele_in_Munich_Germany_3_August_2024.jpg

Every time I straighten and slightly crop the original photo, all the metadata disappears, so I don't know how to do it. I think it doesn't overwrite the original file because of this. Oroborvs (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Oroborvs. Probably it is the editing software that’s removing the original metadata in order to add their own metadata. I think the current set up is fine, which you have the original image and the edited image as separate files. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvpuppy: Yes, I could use different software each time it stripped the metadata. Indeed, the setup is good as it is; @Asclepias: helped, otherwise, I would still be here scratching my head. Thanks for the help.Oroborvs (talk) 20:33, 26 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 [2][3], 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]

Please help me for the copyright here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parabola_with_focus_and_directrix.jpg It's from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parabola_with_focus_and_directrix.jpg Is it non-compliant? --Yyfroy (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yyfroy. It is tagged for speedy deletion because the file does not have a license. When you are uploading images from Wikipedia, you should use the default file importer, so the description and license information will automatically inserted, also the file history can be preserved. See Commons:Moving files to Commons. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yyfroy: I dealt with the licensing issues, etc., for you. The file still needs categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Yyfroy (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:13, 1 May 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]

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]

دى حرية شخصية محتاج تنشر انشر مفيش انا احاسب عل أخطاء أمام جميع بس اهم حاجه بدون تدخل اهلى بمشاكل Sns masr (talk) 02:05, 2 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]
• @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]