Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/09.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Freedom of panorama in Japan (outdoor memorials and indoor advertisement) 4 2 HyperGaruda 2022-09-20 16:23
2 Missing TOCs (tables of content) 3 3 Liuxinyu970226 2022-09-20 09:37
3 Isle of Wight categories 23 11 RZuo 2022-09-22 07:20
4 Impending changes to Canadian copyright law 12 4 JWilz12345 2022-09-20 04:24
5 Bulk renames 5 3 Jmabel 2022-09-18 19:54
6 Template for AI enhanced images? 5 4 El Grafo 2022-09-20 09:26
7 Determining if a photo of art is public domain if the artwork is public domain? 4 3 Multichill 2022-09-19 16:33
8 Non-copyright restrictions on photography in Egypt 2 2 El Grafo 2022-09-20 09:13
9 Creating a subcategory in "Category:Media that need categories from ..." 12 6 Wouterhagens 2022-09-22 20:03
10 Using screenshots from movie scenes 8 4 Jmabel 2022-09-22 21:41
11 Notice: Oversighter stepped down 3 3 PierreSelim 2022-09-22 09:43
12 Old newspaper pdf files? 4 4 PierreSelim 2022-09-23 14:53
13 Announcing the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period 1 1 Zuz (WMF) 2022-09-22 08:51
14 An update from the Wikimedia Sound Logo contest 2 2 Huntster 2022-09-22 22:15
15 Migrating files 2 2 Jmabel 2022-09-23 14:57
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

August 29[edit]

View it! Tool
Upcoming View it! tool discussion - for those interested in Wikimedia Commons & structured data - August 31, 2022

A project has been funded by the Wikimedia Foundation as part of the Structured Data Across Wikimedia Work to create a tool called View it! The tool aims to increase the discoverability of images on Commons, give readers and editors access to more images, and encourage contributors to utilize Commons & structured data. Please visit the Meta page if you are interested in trying out the prototype. We are having a demo and feedback session on August 31st at 16:00 UTC, please join us if you wish!

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic, Kevin, & Jamie

September 10[edit]

Freedom of panorama in Japan (outdoor memorials and indoor advertisement)[edit]

Hello everyone. I'm currently working with fellow authors on the page series of Japanese figure skater Yuzuru Hanyu on English Wikipedia, and we'd like to get it to a featured topic. In that context, I have questions regarding copyright and licensing of some self-taken pictures in Japan that we'd like to add to those articles.

On the sub-page about Hanyu's Olympic seasons (currently nominated for FAC), we've already included images of his two monuments and handprint memorial (outdoor) at the International Center Station in Sendai. These memorials are permanent installations in 2D, presented in 2017/19, and show drawings of Hanyu at the 2014 and 2018 Winter Olympics. We were told to add a fitting FoP tag to these images, but it seems that we used the wrong template (as these pictures are not about architecture in the first place). I am not familiar with copyright tags and templates at all, so I'd be very happy about help here.

Update: According to the city's sports promotion division, the designer of the monuments has never been announced, and it's not planned to reveal any illustrations for the designs in the future (see Q&A #6). Henni147 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Hanyu's main bios page, we'd like to show his public presence (which is unusually large for an amateur athlete) in a visual form. For that, we took pictures of indoor advertisements, which had made the national news. Two photos were taken at Tokyo International Airport (1, 2) and another two at JR Central Tokyo Station (1, 2). I want to know if these images violate any copyright rules in terms of permanent/temporary installment, 2D artwork, FoP or whatever. We would like to use one or two of them for the article.

Addition: I found comparable images to the pillars photographed at Tokyo Station in the categories wrap advertising and advertising columns in Japan. This might be of help. Henni147 (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no ill intention behind these uploads. If there is any issue with the pictures, they can be deleted immediately, of course. I just want to make sure that we are allowed to use them on Wikipedia for encyclopedic purposes, especially now in the course of FAC nominations. Thank you very much in advance. Henni147 (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link to deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yuzuru Hanyu Monuments - Sendai International Center Station.png. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 15[edit]

Missing TOCs (tables of content)[edit]

At some point today, regular TOCs seem to have vanished from Commons, as noted by another user at the German language Commons:Forum. They were still available as of 9:44 am (German time) this morning, as evidenced by this edit I would not have made if I hadn't seen something was wrong in the TOC.

Any idea what happened? --Rosenzweig τ 16:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

phab:T317857. Multichill (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see this issue, probably because I'm using 2022 Vector? Might be an old Vector issue. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 16[edit]

Isle of Wight categories[edit]

User:Blackcat has been moving some Isle of Wight categories from the standard usage "on the Isle of Wight" to "in the Isle of Wight", which sounds clunky and doesn't represent standard usage with regards to the Isle of Wight. I believed this was limited to Category:Streets on the Isle of Wight being moved to Category:Streets in the Isle of Wight, and changed the direction of the new redirect and recategorised. However, I have now stumbled upon Category:Towns in the Isle of Wight, also recently moved, and there may be more. Is an admin able to move this stuff back? Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just my two sense but the whole Category:Streets on the Isle of Wight thing sounds weird. Really, the whole "on" thing in general does. It might work for a small island with only a few streets that isn't an official administrative boundary, or something like a hill, but the Isle of Wight is a county and it has multiple streets. No other county level category tree has "on" for the child categories. Even Category:Streets on the Isle of Wight is the child category of Category:Streets in England by county. There's also already other "in" categories for Isles. For instance [["Category:Roads in the Isle of Man, Category:Roads in Anglesey Etc. Etc. So "on" doesn't seem to follow any precedent or established naming practices. At the end of the day though the streets aren't "on the Isle of Wight", they are "in the county of the Isle of Wight." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While they are in the county they are on the island, and when anyone is refering to the Isle of Wight, they are referring to the island, not the administrative county, unless they work for the council. As I say, "on the Isle of Wight" is the standard usage, in speech and in writing. Even the Counties of England template was modified long ago to take this into account. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a note to the above, even the Isle of Wight Council uses "on the Isle of Wight", not "in the Isle of Wight". Simon Burchell (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am with @Simon Burchell on this. Things "in the Isle of Wight" could be underground infrastructure, but stuff on the surface is on the island. Comparatively, we have streets in the borough of Manhattan, but on Manhattan Island.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone who is familiar with commons would realise that the whole matter has already been considered and decided upon. To the extent that the template has been changed to accommodate this. Unilaterally changing this is just inconsiderate of others and disrespectful of the community here. Blackcat is a problematic admin with a string of edit conflicts and admin tool abuses to his name, also he doesn't have the command and comprehension of English that he claims to have. Best just to repair the category and if the problem admin continues to create an issue report him at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems Oxyman (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apart the pointless things from the user above, I just wish to point out that @Green Giant: , who's a native speaker of English, on that topic, suggested here that he was prone to the form "In". Since he's a native speaker I trust him. So, what's the correct form then? - Blackcat Ar Icon Contact.svg 14:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A single post from one user on your very own talkpage shouldn't overturn a decided upon consensus this should be obvious to any respectful user here and pointing out that you are a problematic admin is not a pointless thing but valuable contextual information to comprehend your behaviour. Oxyman (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also a native speaker, and live close to the Isle of Wight. The correct form is "on the Isle of Wight". Islanders say "on the Isle of Wight", the council says "on the Isle of Wight", everyone in my region says "on the Isle of Wight".

In addition to the above mentioned categories, the following have also been moved from their original names:

Simon Burchell (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Simon Burchell: , maybe I haven't been clear. To me, doesn't matter the form. I had that information and acted accordingly. If from discussion emerges consensus for "on", I'm the first to change all in "on" the isle of Wight. -- Blackcat Ar Icon Contact.svg 14:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I lean toward "in".
  1. A Beatles song ("When I'm 64") uses "in the Isle of Wight", so it is apparently reasonably colloquial.
  2. Given our multilingual situation, I'm inclined to stick with "in" even for islands, hills, etc. I created Category:Houses in Capitol Hill, Seattle, Washington even though as a local I would always tend more toward "on". - Jmabel ! talk 14:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With respect, the Beatles are from Liverpool, in the north, and their English usage is different. I would offer that an attempt to "regularise" the English language is a futile and thankless task. English is an irregular language with many idiosyncrasies. The consensus is already that usage should be "on the Isle of Wight". Simon Burchell (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isle of Wight resident here. We say "on the Isle of Wight". And by we I mean everyone - absolutely everyone. Having lived here continuously almost my entire life the only times I've seen "in" used are by the occasional business who use standardised signs and don't take the island's more unique status into consideration. Being completely honest coming over here and using the phrase "in the Isle of Wight" would get you laughed out the room by locals. Some great photos of the island by the way, Simon. Editor5807speak 00:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For me I guess this comes down to if the names of categories should follow the local conventions of a small minority of Commons editor who attend local city counsel meetings and think "on" is fine because that's how city counsel members phrase it, or should the category names follow how most everyone else in the English speaking world speaks and 99% of the categories are already named. This is a global project after all and the names of categories are supposed to follow the most common usage. I assume that doesn't mean "the most common usage in my neighborhood" or whatever either. Otherwise we could play the "lets follow hyper local naming conventions" game all day until categories are essentially useless out of just being somewhere to dump random files.

Personally as someone not from the Isle of Wright I would never think to do a search for something like "sports on the Isle of Wight." It's just not that type of place. Chalk it up to me being a speaker of American English or whatever, but the ability of people who don't speak a hyper specific form of British English where it's "Sports on the Isle of Wight" still need to be able to find what they are looking for. That isn't served well by disregarding how the rest of the world outside of the Isle of Wight speaks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blackcat: as an admin you should know better to rename categories without consensus and bypassing Commons:Categories for discussion. This is clearly controversial. Multichill (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Multichill: That's why I'm listening to what English-speaking people have to say on the topic. But is there a clear consensus leaning towards either form? -- Blackcat Ar Icon Contact.svg 22:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there is a clear and established consensus for "on" as you can tell by checking "what links here" on some of the categories. That points to an earlier discussion at from 2010. It is an old consensus and consensus can change over time but the emphasis is on the person wanting the change to form the new consensus. Until the new consensus is formed, the old one still stands. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there is a clear and established consensus I'd hardly call the outcome of a discussion on a random administrator board that had less participants then this does "a clear and established discussion." Especially considering there are as many people in this discussion that want the categories to be "in" then there was in that discussion who thought it should be "on." Personally, I see no reason Blackcat should have to "form the new consensus" about it when there wasn't a formal process done to "form a consensus" in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A consensus is a consensus. I find it strange how you want to belittle a previous consensus as invalid just because it disagrees with your current opinion. A consensus of any scale or quality remains valid until a new consensus is formed. Yes, this current discussion is of a larger scale but it is a logical fallacy to try to link it to Blackcat's actions before the discussion started. My point is solely that when conducting a large scale renaming of an existing set of categories, it is best to consult a group of editors and not rely on the personal opinion of an individual editor. This is especially important where you are working in a language where you have a limited grasp of nuance. Have the discussion, form a new consensus and then act. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't a consensus though. At least not in any way that matters. In no way am I belittling anyone or anything by saying so, but all that happened was someone asked an admin to move all the categories and they did. It's a pretty routine occurrence. 99% of the time when someone asks an admin to move something they just do it and their actions don't reflect the wishes of the broader consensus in any way, shape, or form. Claiming I'm somehow belittling anything by saying so really comes off like a bad faithed strawman. We can disagree about what makes something without you needlessly disparaging me about it.
That said, I don't mind there being a wider discussion about it, we are having one here, but it's not like you can't make the same ridiculous gripe about how people who think it should be "in" just have a limited grasp of the nuances of English no matter where or how the discussion ultimately takes place. I can almost guarantee that if no who thinks it should be "on" has a better argument then that now they aren't going to have one later. So why waste everyone's time with it? Really, we should just discount the whole "limited grasp of nuance" thing as derogatory, irrelevant nonsense on it's face and be done with this since that's literally all you seem to have. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a professional writer and commentator on the Isle of Wight. This discussion is a not a new one. It is a valid discussion to have albeit the tone has not always been positive, so I'm grateful to Simon Burchell for bringing the point up. Both positions have some merit and neither are wrong. Nonetheless consistency does require choosing one or the other form. It is true that most writers on, or familiar with, the Island would use the 'on' form and that is a characteristic of the way language is used for this particular location. But to be consistent with other locations it is often found as 'in' when used by those from elsewhere. I note that Google Trends shows 'on' as a more popular form, and has done so consistently for a long time. Using the geographical tools one can infer that the 'in' form has an association with Isle of Wight County, Virginia (which is not an island). Whereas in the UK the 'on' form is always dominant. It seems unlikely that we will form a consensus on this issue as there are clearly two current usages, both correct. However I see no reason that the less popular and less distinctive 'in' form should displace the 'on' form, and unless there is a demonstrable benefit from doing so I would not support changing these categories, or any others, to 'in'. Naturenet (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm all for consistency myself. If you look at other categories for Isles in the UK from what I can tell some use either "in" or "of." For instance Category:Isle of Skye has Category:Animals of the Isle of Skye‎, Category:Buildings in the Isle of Skye‎, ad nauseum. Although others like Category:Isle of Arran do use "on", it's to a much lesser degree then "of." At the end of the day it doesn't really matter that much, but the whole thing about how "in" is consistent with other locations in the UK or that it's how proper British English speakers refer to isles are both clearly nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(i'm not a native speaker.)
obviously, these two rules are true: 1. use "on" for an island; 2. use "in" for an administrative division.
then comes a problem: what if the name of an administrative division contains the word "island"?
(when the word doesnt contain "island", e.g. iceland (island), taiwan (island), nobody disputes the use of "in". when an island is not an administrative division by itself (e.g. some of these w:List_of_islands_by_area#Islands), most people would happily use "on", i assume?)
personally, i prefer using "in" as long as it's an administrative division.--RZuo (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impending changes to Canadian copyright law[edit]

Hello, There has been some discussion in the news of the Canadian government changing copyright law next year so that copyright is extended from 50 years after the artist's death to 70 years. On articles I've edited I can think of a few images that pass the 50 years criteria but not 70 years. If the law is changed, would all Wikimedia images that don't meet the new standard have to be removed or would there be a "grandfather" situation where those images that met the old standard be allowed to stay. Thank you. Curiocurio (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it depends on the details of the law and how it handles those cases. Often works that are already in the public domain stay there (like works of authors who died in 1971 and entered the PD in Canada in 2022 will stay in the PD), while works of authors who died in 1973 will then not enter the PD in Canada until 2044. Works of authors who died in 1972 could be treated one way or the other depending on when the change is effective. The other possibility, that works who entered the PD let's say in 2021 will be protected again until 2041 is less likely IMO, but not impossible; it has happened in some countries. A "grandfather" situation is only likely IMO if the law provides for it, see {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} for just such a thing with Swiss photographs. --Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that's a good explanation. Curiocurio (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, fine. But there's not the risk that the PD situations between 1951 and 1971 are restored under copyright? -- Blackcat Ar Icon Contact.svg 17:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That depends on the Canadian lawmakers. I don't know their intentions. --Rosenzweig τ 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, now I do know their intentions because I was looking for the text of the law (or, more precisely as of now, the bill). It's here, part 5, division 16 of a huge omnibus bill (the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1) changing all kinds of laws. There is a Transitional Provision in there that says:

"No revival of copyright
280 Section 6, subsections 6.‍2(2) and 7(1) and (3) and section 9 of the Copyright Act, as enacted by sections 276 to 279, do not have the effect of reviving the copyright in any work in which the copyright had expired before the day on which sections 276 to 279 come into force."

So apparently the new law will not revive copyrights. --Rosenzweig τ 18:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So @Rosenzweig: if I read well, whatever is in PD because of the 50-pma years rule remains in pd and the rule applies for 1972 onward? (btw 70 years is a crap. 50 is more than appropriate. Put Sir Paul McCartney, may he live 200 years, mind you! But as for now the Lennon/McCartney songs are copyrighted AT LEAST until 2092, which mean 120+ years the latest ones...) -- Blackcat Ar Icon Contact.svg 20:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The date the changes take effect is yet to be determined. If it's still in 2022, works by authors who died in 1972 or later should receive the new 70 years term. If the date is in 2023, it should be works by authors who died in 1973 or later. We'll see. --Rosenzweig τ 20:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the great research! That definitively answers my original question. Curiocurio (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Curiocurio, Rosenzweig, and Blackcat: are the two pending copyright law amendments going to alter the Canadian freedom of panorama in a substantial manner or not (not, in the sense Wikimedians need not to worry about possible.restrictions like adding "non-commercial" or "incidental only" conditions)? My apologies, the copies of the two bills (C-19 and C-244) cannot be viewed in my smartphone. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: No. Bill C19 is only about the duration of copyright terms, while bill C244 (a private member's bill, first reading) wants to "amend the Copyright Act in order to allow the circumvention of a technological protection measure in a computer program if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product in which the program is embedded", like software in tractors I guess which has been causing trouble for their owners in recent years. So that bill seems to be a "right to repair" effort. --Rosenzweig τ 04:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: that's good to know. I don't want seeing Canada becoming either red or yellow on our FOP status map. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 18[edit]

Bulk renames[edit]

I assume that there exists both a method for efficiently renaming several hundred files whose names all have an identical problem, and a more specific place to request that this be done.

(All the files in Category:Dictionnaire raisonné du mobilier français de l’époque carlovingienne à la Renaissance, tome 6 have names that are just 06-###.png, which is not useful; they should at least include the name of the book from which the images were taken. There's a parallel problem for the category that has all the images from volume 5. The category for volume 1 does not have this problem, as its files are properly named; and volumes 2, 3, and 4 have not had their images extracted as of this time.) DS (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Have you tried User:Jeff G./massrename.js as copied from User:Perhelion/massrename.js with doc at User:Jeff G./massrename?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That (looks like it) requires more regex than I'm comfortable using (which is to say, any). DS (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven Then you may want to post at Commons:Bots/Work requests.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven just make sure when you put in a bot request you are as precise as possible about what you want, so that if someone fulfills the request as written you'll be happy with the result. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for AI enhanced images?[edit]

Is there a template, or some other standard way to mark images that have been digitally enhanced beyond what the original image contained? Case in point here: QEII. File history mentions a that the new file is a higher resolution, but not the fact that the image has been enhanced using some tool which predicts details not originally available. HTGS (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar examples here: [1], [2] and [3] which uses {{Messagewarningbox}} to note the AI enhancement, and categorizes at retouched pictures.
I assume there’s no template warning as I hoped, but I wonder if this is a good place to discuss one? (I’m far less familiar with Commons than Wikipedia.) HTGS (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HTGS: Template:Retouched picture can be used for this. If you wanted to create something more specific, I suggest that it be "wrapped around" that template. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HTGS: You could also use {{Fictional}} or the more general {{Factual accuracy}}.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of these are really appropriate. We definitely should have one or more templates for this. And there needs to be a distinction between different types of enhancements of real photographs (upscaling, colorization, ...) on the one hand and images that were created from scratch by an AI such as en:DALL-E. --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 19[edit]

Determining if a photo of art is public domain if the artwork is public domain?[edit]

I had always understood that a simple photo reproduction of 2-D artwork (like a photo) cannot have a separate copyright from the 2-D artwork itself. But looking into this, it seems slightly more nuanced: if given special lighting or just a part of it, it seems that a photo might have a separate copyright. Is there a guide to this somewhere in Wikimedia? I have seen a bunch of 2-D pieces of art where the photographer lists it as some form of CC (or even GNU) license, but I suspect they are in the public domain as simply a reproduction of public domain 2-D art. I don't want to be changing these pages to public domain unless I check so I'm sure they are so. (If I do know for sure, I think I'd be changing a lot of images to state they are in the public domain, as I'm often going through these images.) Can someone please help clarify this? MPSchneiderLC (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-copyright restrictions on photography in Egypt[edit]

In Egypt, there are non-copyright restrictions on photography in public places, last updated in July 2022. According to secondary English-language coverage of the most recent photography law, photography of certain subjects (e.g. children), with professional equipment, for commercial purposes, or which can "damage the country's image", is prohibited without a government permit, but smartphone photos for personal use are okay.[1][2][3] I have not located an official copy of the current regulations, or how these regulations affect publication or reuse of photos and videos taken in Egypt. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose a statement like "the situation is unclear" at Commons:Country specific consent requirements might be useful in any case? --El Grafo (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 20[edit]

Creating a subcategory in "Category:Media that need categories from ..."[edit]

Category:Media_needing_categories_as_of_19_November_2021 has 9,638 items, most of which have no description, and the filenames like "-i---i- (24311898958).jpg" are meaningless. Is there an easy way to put all files without description into a subcategory so that it is easier to categorize the other files? Wouter (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wouterhagens: I don't know about detecting "no description", but you can use the alphabetic Table of Contents to skip past the "-i---i-" files, then take one "previous page" to start immediately after them on the lower part of this page. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: thanks for the advice. Could you explain the part "&pagefrom=0&subcatfrom=0&fileuntil=0#"? May be I can use it in Category:Media_needing_categories_as_of_24_November_2021 with 21.812 items to skip all files that start with BSK (see File:Bsk 001 (36253396910).jpg). Wouter (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wouterhagens: Tapping on "C" should bring you to this page, right after where the "Bsk"s used to be.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wouterhagens: I've never really analyzed that part of the URL, it's just the result of the two steps I described. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that helps to skip large amounts of files that I don't think need a category anymore because they are already in hidden categories. Wouter (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wouterhagens: Ah, but they do still need cats in the topics tree.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Jeff G.: You're absolutely right, but I'm afraid no one will add categories to these files. For example File:Arkansas -Jackson County - Yell County- - NARA - 17384476 (page 1413).jpg which is in the hidden category Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration. It's possible to add the Category:Documents of the United States to that file, but I don't think it's doing anyone any favors. I rather think there will be a protest when thousands of files are added to that category in that way. Wouter (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wouterhagens Actually, what is needed is someone to create a category for the entire document, from File:Arkansas -Jackson County - Yell County- - NARA - 17384476 (page 1).jpg until the last page and then categorize the category. Adding each page on its own will just over a thousand separate images that all belong in one category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:US National Archives File Unit: Arkansas (Jackson County - Yell County) already exists. It would take only a few seconds with Cat-a-lot to place all 1,666 files into it. --Animalparty (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done! Thanks! Wouter (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:-i---i- (11380992645).jpg as this images seem to fail COM:SCOPE Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 21[edit]

Using screenshots from movie scenes[edit]

What are the rules guiding the uploads of screenshots from films on Commons for use on Wikipedia? Production companies and studios release trailers and still shots as part of their promotion to be widely used. Can we upload screenshots of these to Commons to give film related articles more visual appeal to readers? Danidamiobi (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Danidamiobi: No, sorry, we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some older U.S. stills and trailers were released without copyright notice or registration back when that was required for copyright, and those were immediately in the public domain. However, this only applies to those few and, frankly, if you are not expert in the area you are unlikely to identify ones that haven't already been added. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. How about personalities’ Instagram videos. How can they be repurposed on Wikipedia? i.e If Lupita Nyong’o posts a video of her making comments (for example with the Smithsonian Institution), can we use it?
2. How about that videos production companies/studios/media companies and other organizations make available? e.g. this provided with Chimanda.
3. Can I use images from websites released by a media company by adding the company as author and add the URL of the website I got it from as a source with CC BY-ND 4.0. I see it done here with [[4]]. Can I use the first image on this New York Times article on Genevieve Nnaji's article and cite Netflix as author and New York Times as source?
4. Is this instance of a screenshot from a movie scene used on Genevieve Nnaji's article valid?
Thank you for your kind answers @User:Jeff G., @User:Jmabel. Danidamiobi (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Danidamiobi: Most likely none of that can be used on Commons. File:Black Panther Wakanda Forever logo.png is too simple to copyright, which is why we can have it: its simplicity (just typography) places it in the {{Public domain}}, although you will note that it has a warning that it is trademarked.
  • We do not accept NC or ND licenses. Also, you cannot offer/introduce any license on copyrighted material where you are not the copyright holder. Only the copyright holder can issue a license.
  • Again: Commons accepts only materials that are either in the public domain or have a sufficiently free license. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand your answer on copyrights. Can I simply upload a material that is not copyrighted or restricted at the source page, cite the source page and author and indicate that it's not my work? Danidamiobi (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, see sufficiently free license (note that material is copyrighted by default if copyrightable, no notice is needed nowadays ) @Danidamiobi: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Danidamiobi: You can do that if the material is in the public domain or free licensed. However, the sort of thing you are describing typically is not. - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 22[edit]

Notice: Oversighter stepped down[edit]

i think this is worth the attention of the whole community. last week, an oversighter User:PierreSelim lost his sysop status because he was considered inactive and consequently lost his oversighter status: Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2022. he performed 24 oversighter actions in june according to special:permalink/686257729.--RZuo (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's also currently a vote for a new Overighter going on at Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Minorax, so we'll likely be back to having four of them soon. Thanks for your service, PierreSelim! --El Grafo (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @El Grafo: for the kind words. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old newspaper pdf files?[edit]

is it appropriate to batch upload scans of old newspapers in pdf format? i think hosting them on commons makes them more accessible than other websites for interested historians and hobbyists. example: .--RZuo (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo Many of them are organized in PDF format and there is already a lot from the Internet Archive. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons is a media repository, not a newspaper archive. Files that contain mostly text are not really our concern unless they are of particular use for one of our sister projects. It's a bit of a grey area. We do have scans of selected old books that serve as basis for getting them into Wikisource, but I would advise against batch uploading piles of newspaper scans. See also Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats. El Grafo (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite clearly stated, Wikimedia Commons is a free media repository, we accept PDF when they are of potential use on other projects (e.g. scans for Wikisource). PierreSelim (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languagesPlease help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2022 Board of Trustees election process. Your participation helps seat the trustees the community seeks on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

These are the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election:

You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.

The Board will complete their review of the most voted candidates, including conducting background checks. The Board plans to appoint new trustees at their meeting in December.


Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee.

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An update from the Wikimedia Sound Logo contest[edit]

Hi everyone, dearest Commons community members,

The Wikimedia sound logo contest launched last week and we have been positively surprised with the global response received. As of September 21 @ 17:00 UTC, there were 615 submissions from 94 countries, all of them diligently screened by a small team of dedicated volunteers. With so much enthusiasm and still 3.5 weeks to go, we are happy to invite you to listen in. In order to preserve the anonymity of each submission and to make it all more accessible and user friendly, we will regularly share random compilations of them. Enjoy listening and many thanks to those of you who have submitted or helped spread the call.

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for keeping us updated, MPourzaki (WMF). There's a handful of the samples that really spoke to me, so I look forward to hearing the finalists. Huntster (t @ c) 22:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 23[edit]

Migrating files[edit]

Is it considered acceptable to perform file migrations from other Wiki, for image which are reasonably trustworthy?

For example many photos from seem to be acceptable for transferring them. Or with valid license templates.

Is it OK to upload them here (which would enable to request deletion at OSM Wiki). Is it necessary to do something extra? Is such action welcome/unwelcome?

Are there maybe helper scripts already existing?

I looked for example for Commons:Migration

I would do edits with manual review, including categorization, so I think that bot flag would not be needed. Maybe from a separate account.

Feedback welcome!

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 24[edit]