Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Shortcut: COM:AN

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~30
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No license since 15 May 2024: ~5
• No permission since 15 May 2024: ~40
• No source since 15 May 2024: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-05: ~83

Other:

• Duplicates: ~2
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~6
• Other speedy deletions: ~7
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~15

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~38
• Interface admin: ~18
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~37
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Deletion problem

Could an Admin who is familiar with server issues take a look at this, please?

I deleted File:Dalquhandy farm roadend - geograph.org.uk - 459775.jpg per the DR on 11 August. If I click on the link, I see the image, but the pull down menu under the down arrow to the left of the search box starts with "Undelete" and it has "Create" to the left of the star, so it appears that the software thinks that it is "deleted", as far as we actually "delete" anything. Both Denniss and I have tried several times to delete it for good, with no result. Note also that the link to the file is blue.

And, yes, I have purged both the server and my own cache. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Denniss also tried to delete it - see User_talk:Denniss#Non-deletable_image. The answer is Bugzilla:39221; hopefully will be fixed in a day or two. Rd232 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Happens sometimes. I fix such files with adding ?action=delete to the URL. --Martin H. (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC) ...and this not works here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Túrelio even tried to restored and delete the image again ^_^ --PierreSelim (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The next one was: File:Rcti 2.png. This time Martin's patch worked well. --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems that such deletion-failures are becoming the SOP on Commons: File:Johannes Schulze 1949.tif and File:Euerbach-006.JPG could only be deleted using Martin's patch. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't completely understand the Bugzilla report, but I think it says that there are more than a million files that have the problem that is causing this, but that they should be repaired soon. Let's hope so. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

3 more patch-only-deleted files: File:Hacker watch.jpg, File:ReCAPTHA annoying protection.jpg, File:Forest HD wallpaper 2.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Undeletable file: File:Quang ninh.jpg. --Art-top (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin's patch did it also in this case ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been able to delete File:Dalquhandy farm roadend - geograph.org.uk - 459775.jpg today (seems they fixed the permission on that file). Not sure if we still have files in inconsistent state. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Turku Art Museum Entrance hall & staircase.jpg seems to have the same problem. Jafeluv (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg

I notice that the CommonsDelinker bot is removing from all(?) Wikipedias the links to File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg, which has been not only renamed but overwritten with radical alterations. The arguments that the rewriters and renamer have used to maintain either that the coat of arms of the Holy See is identical with that of Vatican City State or that the Holy See has no coat of arms but only an emblem have been based on what the discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard of the English Wikipedia considers unreliable sources. The action of the bot means that in every Wikipedia every instance of the image of what has hitherto been presented as the coat of arms of the Holy See is being replaced by a completely different image that is not a coat of arms and is possibly connected not with the Holy See but with Vatican City State. This seems an excessively drastic and a misleading action that is based on arbitrary actions of a few editors. I thought of waiting until tempers at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg had cooled before reverting the overwriting of this file, but even now it is already too late for me to do so, since the links that once led to an image of the coat of arms of the Holy See are now leading to a different image. So may I hand this problem over to the Admnistrators? I leave it to them to decide what, if anything, to do. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that Bellae artes has since reverted to his own overwriting of the file that was previously called File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg and is now called File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg. The global links to this file once again show a coat of arms, not just an emblem, even if the name of the file they point to uses a wider term. It is of course possible that, when User:Fry1989's 3-day blocking for file reverting (see immediately below) is over, he will revert to his own rewriting of the file. I will postpone until things settle down any reverting by me to the form that the file had before being overwritten by Bellae artes and Fry1989, the correct form according to sources such as Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930), which states that in the arms of the Holy See the gold key is in bend, not in bend sinister: "The colours of this coat have varied a good deal. The field is almost always red, occasionally blue. At first the keys are white, then comes a time when gold keys are found, and finally the present usage of placing a gold key in bend across a silver one in bend sinister slowly makes its way" (emphasis added). Perhaps no action is needed immediately other than deciding to keep an eye on it. Esoglou (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

After altering the image of a coat of arms in File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg to an emblem and having the file renamed as File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg (after which the CommonsDelinker bot globally made all links that were supposed to point to the coat of arms of the Holy See point instead to an emblem that is not a coat of arms), Flanker has now reverted the revert by Bellae artes. So once again the Wikipedias in all languages that had a link to File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg are now displaying as the coat of arms of the Holy See what is not a coat of arms at all but only an emblem! The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg shows consensus neither for deleting the file of the image of the coat of arms of the Holy See (as Bellae artes proposed and Flanker and Fry1989 have opposed) nor for changing the image from a coat of arms to an emblem (as Flanker and Fry 1989 counter-proposed and Bellae artes and I have opposed). Yet all three have in turn unilaterally changed the image at least once and one of them has even changed the name of the file, while the discussion about the file continued. Surely, in those circumstances, the file should return to what it was when the discussion began and the changes by CommonsDelinker should be undone. Esoglou (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am postponing for some more days any reverting by me. There seems to be hope that discussion may settle down both at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg‎, where there is consensus neither for deleting the file on the grounds that the Holy See's arms are instead identical with those of Vatican City State nor for altering and renaming it on the grounds that the Holy See has no coat of arms, and at en:Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City, where it is demonstrated that the Holy See does have a coat of arms, distinct from that of Vatican City State. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Temporary revert protection

Pls protect: 4 against 1. Logos der deutschen Bundesregierung:[1][2] (precaution). Discussion is here and here. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. And blocked User:Fry1989 for upload-warring. (Others participated too, and shouldn't have, but at least they only reverted once per file.) Rd232 (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Where was Fry warned for this ahead of time? What he was reverting was for the sake of the articles the images go into, not a measure of dick size. Not an edit war, reverting unhelpful edits.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you don't see the real situation. For enlightenment: between an edit war and a revert war is no distinction made (but I also do not understand what do you mean by that). He reverted against "4 other people" with no "clear comment" or clarification "his edited version". I / we go after a official reference and you called me POV (thats obviously why I call you a blind follower...)!? How unobjective (evasive) your both discussion style is can we see on his talk page. Your "Fry" does dull and obdurate crop and remove background automated with any graphics. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A warning is not essential when the user is well aware of the blockability of edit warring, and engages in it regardless. Remember it's irrelevant in edit warring who is right, as long as everyone is acting in good faith (vandalism is excluded). Rd232 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

File:209618_207496752601970_4168145_o.jpg

Hi! Please (speedily) delete this redirect. It results from an upload by a wrong file name. But the file is already renamed now. Thank you very much, DocTaxon (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

read this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:209618_207496752601970_4168145_o.jpg

 Done Yann (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:4. This earth is a Flower-Prison in Potulice, 2000, acrylic paint on photography, 120x180cm.jpg

This file has been deleted recently as missing a permission, although it had a (a priori) valid OTRS ticket and an open deletion request. --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Additionally, you might have another issue: this case, if it is not isolated, shows that somebody is deleting files with missing info mechanically, without even looking at the file pages. --Eusebius (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would even say that some files are deleted without real understanding of the issue. Yann (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests and Bot-archiving

Dear admin colleagues handling/working through deletion requests: please take note of the problems with bot archiving of certain types of deletion requests. I tried to improve the closure instructions but they may not have been recognized by all admins. Late July and early August DR (not counting numerous issues in previous months) are filled by closed request non-archivable by DRBot and I have neither time nor patience to go through all to fix or manually archive them.

Many non-archive issues could be prevented upon closing (verify proper first heading, remove subheadings) while Mass DR request always require manual archiving some time after closure. I'd like to encourage at least one or two admins to look after these issues and manually archive them. --Denniss (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is User:Bryan still editing? If so, someone ought to ask him to provide a patch for his bot -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete files in Category:CDC Vital Signs

Could someone delete the files in Category:CDC Vital Signs. I improperly named them.Smallman12q (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Use the rename template and we'll rename them. That makes more sense than uploading everything over again. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used the rename template on all the files.Smallman12q (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ResolvedIt's been fixed by User:INeverCry.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Tor Logos

Please can anybody with administrator rights move the deleted File:Tor_project_logo_hq.png into German Wikipedia? I don't know why, but on commons it doesn't seem possible to license it correctly with "public domain - no threshold of originality" + "trademark". It was deleted a few months ago, then we had a discussion, it was undeleted, now it is deleted again - it's only stupid. I don't want to discuss it again because in a few months there is maybe the next administrator doing stupid things... Please move it to German Wikipedia, we don't have any problems there with such license constructions. --Entzücklopädie (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not call others stupid, it really does nothing to help your case, granted this file were deleted with good reason. [3] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done because I'm stupid and I do not have import rights on dewiki. Have a nice day clever guy. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a copy! I've uploaded it into German Wikipedia. --Entzücklopädie (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

deletions after legal threat for photos allegedly from private land in :cs

Just for the record: I have courtesy-deleted several obviously legitimate landscape photos such as File:Lípa v Dolní Stropnici (1).jpg (for the others see[4]) by User:Jednorožec on his request after he was threatened with legal action for allegedly taking photos from privately-owned land by the alleged land owner. Though there may be no legal base in Czech law for such a claim, the uploader could still suffer problems from a resolute plaintiff. I've therefore complied with his request, but strongly recommended to publicly discuss this case on :cs wikipedia, see User talk:Jednorožec. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can/should we log this at chillingeffects? Sven Manguard Wha? 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. But one problem is that the main communication was in Czech language, and another problem is that it seems that the legal threats, as I became aware only after after the deletions, were issued by another user, so not really from outside. Anyway, if you want to jump into, I would suggest direct communication with Jednorožec and the others from :cs who commented on his talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

FWiW, I handled an OTRS ticket (I can find the ticket number if it really matters to someone) on this issue earlier today. The landowner was adamant that the photos were a violation of his privacy. He did also mention copyright, but I suspect that was based more on a lack of understanding of copyright. I have no opinion on the validity of these views, but they were certainly strongly held. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Lacquered leather quiver Asian Art Museum SF 2006.3.629.JPG

I would like to get an opinion about a change made to several images, BrokenSphere originally uploaded this image and now has changed the text in the permissions area of the image and I want to know if this type of change is allowable. This editor has made the same changes to several other images as well. [revision history]

Here is the text when originally uploaded.

("Photo taken by User:BrokenSphere and released under the following license(s). You may use it for any purpose as long as you credit me and follow the terms of the license you choose. Example: © BrokenSphere / Wikimedia Commons If you use this image outside of the Wikimedia projects, please let me know. Where source attribution is required, you may link to this image page.")

And now.

("This file (photograph, motion picture, graphic or audio recording) was created by BrokenSphere. It is not in the public domain and use of this file outside of the licensing terms is a copyright violation. If you would like to use this image outside of the Wikimedia projects, I would appreciate it if you let me know by sending me an email or leaving a note on my talk page as a courtesy. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the file, please contact me to negotiate licensing terms. Please credit authorship as follows: © BrokenSphere / Wikimedia Commons. Where source attribution is required, you may link to this file page.")

If some one can take a look at this and let me know I would appreciate it.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be okay? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Because now the editor has given the impression that someone would need ("special permission to use, license, or purchase the file, please contact me to negotiate licensing terms.") there by implying that someone would need to pay for use of this image when that is not the case.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the keyword there is special, meaning that if the permission given by the license isn't suitable for the reader, different terms could be negotiated. The wording is perhaps not the best, but certainly "allowable". —LX (talk, contribs) 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Example of typewriting - Linzensoep.gif

What has happend with the file Image:Linzensoep.gif??

The conclusion of nomination for deletion was "keep", see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Linzensoep.gif. The image appears to be deleted anyway in 2009. Why was that? Is it possible to restore it, or should I load another version (if possible, I must check whether I am able to make it again - my scanner appears missing). Elly (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Foroa tagged it for speedy deletion with the rationale: "Bad File ??" I have undeleted it because "Bad File ??" didn't make any sense to me. After doing so, however, I figured out what Foroa meant: the file cannot be thumbnailed because it is too large. If you could reduce the dimensions of the image by about 1.5x on each side (which would be 3888x2784), or save it in a more efficient file format than GIF (like PNG), that would be a big help. (Note that if you change the file format, it will need to be uploaded to a new filename; otherwise, you can simply re-upload over the current image.) Thanks! Powers (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I downscaled this, so that a thumbnail can be created. Yann (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both, very, very much. Maybe in future more examples of typewriting may appear on Commons. Most uploaders are too young I'm afraid to posess original typewriting (and as in this case - made by themselves) Elly (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan images

Can someone knowledgeable in Pakistan copyright (and to a lesser degree India and Iran) look at this thread over on en wiki: w:User_talk:Crisco_1492#Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah. Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

12,5 million pixel limit

File:Italy Army - 1984.png is there a chance to increase the pixel limit? Noclador (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need such a high resolution for regular files. You can just downsize it, and keep the original for archive. Yann (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

at the current resolution the image is sharp, if I downsize it, the fonts and military symbols get all blurred. Noclador (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally COM:MAXTHUMB covers this - upload a smaller version with {{Compressed version}} and use that in Wikipedia. But in this case the image is simply too big (11k pixels wide) and too detailed to be usable directly in Wikipedia. You can make it small enough to render, but then you can't see anything. (Even if the 11k version did render, it would make the page scroll horizontally an enormous amount at full size.) So just provide it as an external link, I'd say, which people can click on and then on Commons use ZoomViewer on. Rd232 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do so. thanks! Noclador (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename File:Pine Ford Lane proposed 171m v1a.svg

Please rename subject file to Pine Fork Lake proposed 171m v1a.svg. I made a glaringly obvious typo of the sort that only gets noticed just after uploading—I guarantee that it is a lake, not a lane. Thanks! Kbh3rd (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of South Africa (1932-2000).svg

To note to the community that I have undeleted the file File:Coat of Arms of South Africa (1932-2000).svg as it was being extensively used at English Wikisource, and there was no notification to that community of the discussion that the file was nominated for deletion, nor a notification that it was to be deleted. I believe that it is important that Administrators at Commons remember that Commons is supposedly central storage for all the sister projects, and that it is incumbent on them to undertake deletions with respect to these other projects. To those who say that they are busy and there is a lot to do, my response is "So? Your business, your … does not takes precedence over these communities?" If a decision is that due to copyright reasons that the file needs to be deleted, then there are templates in place, eg. {{Fair use delete}}, and a bot that are meant to be used to undertake these tasks to move the file to the local wiki in use, or contact a local admin at that site asking for them to organise the moving of the file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As of right now, the fair use upload bot has been blocked on en.wp, so while I know the main focus is on Wikisource, it is one thing we must keep in mind. I have not looked at this deletion request, but from looking at this file, it is a trace of an JPEG file (ans that JPEG file was an altered scan that was original done by someone else). So the copyright is unknown. I think, for right now, we can use the older flag so there is some kind of image in place (or the base shield, of which we have an SVG for) and replace all usages of the SVG file. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Wikisource project doesn't allow fair use images ("All files should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons except those strictly relevant only to the English Wikisource (such as local project logos, copyright-free image files or OTRS secured user photographs") and this image applies to none of that. I am replacing the file with one that is the shield and has no copyright issues, so the replacing is going to take some time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright had nothing to do with the deletion. Someone nominated it as "useless" or "bad quality", and it was deleted despite being in wide use. Should never have been deleted. It's not great, being pretty much an automatic vectorization, but something in actual use is in scope and should not (ever) be deleted (for non-copyright reasons, anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• head desk* User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Beyonce Knowles 2012 BET awards.jpg

Can someone please check if this image from Wikipedia is under a free license? I thought the image was a copyright violation but the user who uploaded it says its under a free license from the singer's official website. Oz91 (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

en:File:Beyonce Knowles 2012 BET awards.jpg is not hosted on this site (Wikimedia Commons), but on the English Wikipedia. The photo comes from http://media.beyonce.com/files/images/bet_awards_2012_02.jpg, and carries a clear "all rights reserved" copyright notice. I've no idea as to what would make en:User:Lolcakes25 believe that it's under any sort of free license or that it's okay for them to claim to be the author and copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added en:Template:Db-f9 to the file information page, citing this page which clearly credits the photo to Getty Images. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

License

Can I upload from flickr to commons with this license, AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, NC- and/or ND-restricted material is not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Photos of books by Kafka

See Category:Books by Franz Kafka. This presents some interesting questions as Kafka died in 1924 but most of his work was not published until after his death. For works published prior to his death I'd expect PD-Old to apply (which is used in only one photo in that category I listed). But for works published after his death, does PD-OLD apply since it's well past the 70 year+ date or does the date of the photo apply? Please advise.PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kafka is a complicated case and there is no easy, all-encompassing answer for Commons purposes. Commons:Deletion requests/De Kafka Hungerkünstler (1924) (kept) and the statement by Dr Peter Hirtle (Cornell University) quoted there might be an interesting reading. In short, I think we can say: nearly everything by Kafka is now in the public domain nearly everywhere in the world (except maybe works/fragments first published lately, i.e. in the last 25 years or so, see en:Publication right), but whether a work is also in the public domain in the United States depends on the particular circumstances of publication, copyright notice (or lack thereof) and renewal of copyright (or lack thereof) of the work in question. As Kafka's works were out of copyright in the possible source countries on the URAA date (Kafka died in 1924 + 70 p.m.a. = protection lost January 1, 1995 - URAA date for Germany, Austra, and Czech Republic is January 1, 1996), URAA restoration doesn't apply in this case, but first publication of a work might have occurred in the U.S. or simultaneously, which complicates matters. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Oh, your question is about the book covers only. This is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do whatsoever with the status of Franz Kafka's works, I'm sorry. Kafka is not the creator of these covers. So, whether they're PD depends on questions of threshold of originality, date of death of the cover's creator etc. And if it's a photo which gains protection as a work of photography, it must be correctly licensed as such (e.g. the photographer of a PD book cover such as File:Kafka Ein Landarzt 1919.jpg has the right to license the photo using a free license of the photographer's choice). Gestumblindi (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite fascinating. Yes, I'm talking about the photos of the book covers. See "File:CountryDoctor.jpg" over on en wiki please. It's listed as Fair Use. Based on what you're telling me, Kurt Wolff published the book, he died in 1963, so the book cover is still non-free? PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No; what matters is not the date of death of the publisher, but of the cover's designer - if the cover is of sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection. In the case of your example en:File:CountryDoctor.jpg I would say that no, this cover is not copyrightable. So, IMHO there's no need for "fair use" but it could be uploaded to Commons as {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-text}} like e.g. this cover: File:A. E. Helbig, Anleitung zur Maßarbeit, Leipzig 1949, Buchdeckel.jpg. What still remains, however, is the possible copyright of the photographer, but I think this one is as near to a 2D reproduction (it may indeed be a mere scan), that additionally {{PD-scan}} should be applicable ("it is a mere mechanical scan or photocopy of a public domain original, or – from the available evidence – is so similar to such a scan or photocopy that no copyright protection can be expected to arise"). The resulting template to use would be formatted in this way: {{PD-scan|PD-ineligible}}. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah so! Danke sehr! PumpkinSky talk 00:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)