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 ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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/2024/04.

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:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Help locating photo origin 0 0
2 Proposal affecting FoP Chile 82 16 JWilz12345 2024-04-18 08:09
3 Exporting Images at Full Resolution from Website 8 2 Noha307 2024-04-21 18:16
4 Public interiors in Ecuador 3 2 Ymblanter 2024-04-17 15:51
5 Obvious copyvio patrol bot 5 5 PantheraLeo1359531 2024-04-19 12:13
6 Should some images have huge margins, so they look right in wikiboxes? 14 3 Watchduck 2024-04-22 12:50
7 Category:Hawker Hurricane 2 2 MKFI 2024-04-17 06:38
8 Download name should always be page name, not SVG title 11 3 TheDJ 2024-04-21 14:23
9 Category structure for members of bands 10 6 Adamant1 2024-04-17 12:40
10 watermarks and advertising 17 7 Jeff G. 2024-04-19 22:31
11 Bill Cramer's photographs 5 4 Pigsonthewing 2024-04-20 16:23
12 "The Arabian Kingdom" 4 3 Enyavar 2024-04-23 13:21
13 Immediate deletion of upload by its own author/uploader 14 8 Zache 2024-04-21 07:27
14 Interwiki notification of deletion requests 3 2 65.92.247.66 2024-04-20 23:25
15 I've done something great. 1 1 OperationSakura6144 2024-04-21 11:57
16 Questions about FoP in UAE 5 3 JWilz12345 2024-04-24 15:40
17 Insufficient information at Wiki Loves Folklore images 5 4 JWilz12345 2024-04-22 23:06
18 Ambiguity of the term "cars" 9 3 Sbb1413 2024-04-23 07:02
19 a no-no in specifying disambiguation categories 8 6 ReneeWrites 2024-04-24 09:34
20 Crop tool 3 3 Enhancing999 2024-04-23 16:30
21 File extension ".pdf" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (unknown/unknown). 6 3 Omphalographer 2024-04-23 17:28
22 Category with all microprocessor models available (flat list) 3 2 PantheraLeo1359531 2024-04-24 10:55
23 Category:Latinx 16 9 Jmabel 2024-04-24 05:57
24 A user is harassing me 4 2 Immanuelle 2024-04-24 07:52
25 Category and location info directly from Upload wizard 3 2 IM3847 2024-04-24 14:56
26 create a new category 4 3 Pi.1415926535 2024-04-24 18:22
27 Very large batch upload should get some consensus beforehand 5 4 Pi.1415926535 2024-04-24 18:05
Legend
  • 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.
Village pump and gaslight at a meeting place in the village of Amstetten, Germany. [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.

April 01[edit]

Help locating photo origin[edit]

I would like to upload this photo of Joe Clark which I found at ParlInfo. It states it is in the Public Domain, which is of value for the Commons. However, I have no idea when it was taken or by who. When I reached out to the Library of Parliament Canada, they told me they got the photo from an 'outside source'. Reverse searching gets me a full resolution copy, but still no author or date. Does anyone else out there by chance know anything about it or recognize this photo? Perhaps there is a better sleuth out there then me. Thanks.

April 10[edit]

Proposal affecting FoP Chile[edit]

The proposal, though not yet passed and is still being discussed heavily, may affect Commons' ability to host Chilean monuments (unsure if it would be retroactive or not). Right now, Wikimedia Chile chapter is rigorous in opposing one part of this proposal. (source1, source2)

Informally known as "Balmes law", the proposal has one part (Article 5 according to source2) which makes it mandatory the need for remuneration to artists for images of artistic works found in public spaces that have been used for profit-making or lucrative purposes. Wikimedia Chile opposes this as this will hinder Spanish Wikipedia's ability to illustrate articles of contemporary monuments of Chile. It is uncertain if this could affect architecture too, since the proposal is relatively vague.

Note that I have mentioned this in meta:Freedom of Panorama which I created. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should really just revolt at this point and allow for non-commercial licenses since that seems to be the direction a lot of countries are going in with freedom of panorama laws recently. Otherwise we are needlessly screwing ourselves out of hosting images from a large part of the world. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 unsure if that will sit well with many of the peeps within Wikimedia Foundation (I'll ping here @Sannita (WMF): who started major FoP discourse recently, for their inputs). It will be a major overhaul of the policies of both Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia Foundation. The policies are anchored on the Definition of Free Cultural Works (which essentially prohibits non-commercial content).
Unless, WMF will make a statement about the purported failure of free culture and finally embrace non-commercial licenses like CC-BY-NC-ND and CC-BY-NC. One more far-reaching consequence of this overhaul is to finally force Creative Commons organization that both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA should be invalid in images of all modern architecture and public monuments of no-FoP countries, and that only the NC-type licenses must be used for that. This means, CC licenses can be revoked for images that show these public landmarks of these countries. All of these is assuming we will start embracing non-commercial content. Sounds convincing to stop deletion requests, but may be detrimental to free culture missions by both Wikimedia Foundation and Creative Commons organization. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least copyrights laws of majority of post-USSR countries also prohibit mass usage of photos of copyrighted monuments, so it not only non-commercial clause which should be taken into account. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EugeneZelenko ah yes. It seems one nuisance in restricted FoP laws. If the quoted text at COM:FOP Kazakhstan is correct, then it also means non-commercial images of their copyrighted monuments and buildings are also not allowed to be freely disseminated (note the conjunction "or" instead of "and", separating non-commercial condition from the main object condition). Ping @Adamant1: for attention. Also, a substantial number of countries lack FoP altogether, such as our country as of now, Burma/Myanmar, Indonesia, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, Palestine, and Afghanistan from our continent. No FoP makes legality of very wide distributions of images, regardless if there is commercial intent or not, questionable too, IMO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, I think I may not agree – for now – the possible proposal for a far-reaching policy change for both Commons as well as WMF. Embracing NC FoP and allowing NC licenses may complicate several things. This is in addition to possible conflict with the free culture movements that both WMF and CC orgs promote. It may also open up one critical question: "What is the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, if their licensing policy is now similar to Flickr and other stock media sites?" That is, assuming we are now embracing NC-type licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are not invalid for photos of structures in countries with noncommercial FoP. The photographer's license release allowing commercial use is still valid; it is merely encumbered by additional restrictions from the architect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts at least from a major critic of Wikimedia as well as most American social media sites (ADAGP of France), those two licenses are not legally compatible to French buildings and monuments. Refer to their presentation to the EU Parliament in 2015, which includes harsh litanies against Wikipedia (they do not differentiate Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, seemingly lumping both projects as a single community). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I may want to add that there are few instances of photographers getting entangled in lawsuits against commercial reusers. Former Marine John Alli, who was the author of the photograph of the (in)famous Korean War Veterans Memorial, got dragged in the Gaylord v. United States case. Unlike US Postal Service, though, a settlement was immediately reached between the Alli and Gaylord, in which any further sales of his images would always include 10% royalty to the sculptor. (source) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: It is same case as Commons:Derivative works - architects/sculptors are primary creators of copyrights in this case, not phototgraphers.--EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 and EugeneZelenko: All I'm saying is that a photographer may choose a license like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and it will have the same effect as CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-SA respectively. In other words, I'm saying that JWilz12345's statement that "only the NC-type licenses must be used for that" is incorrect. A CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license on a noncommercial-only structure is valid in the sense that the photographer cannot sue a reuser for use in line with the CC license (no matter if the use is commercial or noncommercial), though of course the architect can sue for commercial use. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: If Diliff takes a CC-BY photo of a building with no commercial FOP and a hypothetical reuser reuses that photo for commercial purposes without attribution, both Pixsy and the architect can sue that reuser.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but Diliff being able to sue is due to the lack of attribution, not due to the noncommercial nature of the building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: What would become of COM:LJ and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I don't think they would necessarily have to conflict with each other as long as we are up front about it through proper licensing templates and whatnot. Regardless, there's a difference between the project as a whole following a certain standard or philosophy and how we treat individual files. Its not like there aren't any restrictions on reuse already either. For instance attribution requirements. You could argue the same applies the instance of this being a censorship free platform but still not hosting certain that violate the law. Say I'm a person who wants to use an image of a monument as part of a school project in a country that doesn't allow for commercial usage, which would otherwise be totally fine. How are the project goals or my needs being met by Commons not allowing for non-commerical licenses? I'd argue that's probably most of the reuse on here to BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source-country copyright is actually a made-up Commons-internal rule. The WMF does not specify where content must be freely licensed (other than the US for legal reasons). So there is no reason why, from a legal and WMF policy perspective, Commons can't just be like English Wikipedia and follow only US law. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support using US law only for FoP issues. That would at least allows us to have pictures of buildings and pre-1929 art worldwide, whatever is the local law. Then each project can decide to use the pictures or not. There would be nothing really new here, only an enlargement of current policies. Some projects already don't use Commons in some cases, and apply stricter rules (German language WP doesn't use Mickey pictures and films, etc.). Yann (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: What US law has to do to monuments and buildings located in other countries? And also this double-edged sward - what about countries where freedom of panorama is less restrictive then in US? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> And also this double-edged sward - what about countries where freedom of panorama is less restrictive then in US?
It's not actually a double-edged sword, because what Commons does now is unlawful. Commons is hosted in the US, and thus US copyright law must be respected, always. The fact that Commons allows for FOP uploads on the basis of non-US law has no real basis, legally. It's copyright infringement.
The current position of Commons on FoP in non-US countries can be summarized as follows.
  • Where the country is stricter than the US (no FoP), prohibit adding FoP images.
    • This is totally legal, but, in my opinion, a bad restriction.
  • Where the country is more lenient than the US (allows for FoP with non-building items), ignore US law and allow uploads of these items.
    • By allowing this, Commons (hosted in the US) is breaking US law.
All images that aren't free in the US cannot legally be hosted on Commons. There's no exception for "foreign freedom of panorama" in US copyright law. You seem, @EugeneZelenko, to accept the assumption that @JWilz12345 argues for — that this is a choice about whether we will be bound by the source country's law alone or US law alone.
But, as @King of Hearts and @Yann point out, this is not the choice we have. We must apply US law, and we have chosen to apply other laws on top of, not instead of, US law.
We can adopt standards that are stricter than what US law allows, but we legally cannot adopt more liberal standards. The fact that this means South African or Brazilian or German campaigners' work "goes to waste" is perhaps unfortunate, but we cannot just choose to ignore US law. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: @D. Benjamin Miller: "Commons (hosted in the US) is breaking US law." you seem to be making the assumption that use here on Commons is commercial, which it is not. If we publish an image of (for example) a modern statue in Germany, it is likely that it could not legally be commercially used in the U.S., but our own hosting of that image would almost certainly be considered fair use for an educational purpose, even if our site doesn't explicitly make that claim on each such page. Most online fair use for educational purposes in the U.S. is not explicitly called out on the relevant sites, but that doesn't make it any less legal. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel I did not make such statement. It was D. Benjamin Miller who made such statement. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got confused in the shuffle. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that Commons is commercial. But the US has no "non-commerical" freedom of panorama provision. Sure, some uses will be justified by fair use, but that depends on the specific use. It's hard to believe that at least some of those examples are not fair use. Most online "fair use" is not actually really fair use, but just a case of copyright not being enforced. In any case, Commons doesn't accept fair-use rationales, and doesn't accept "the copyright isn't being enforced" as a justification to host something either. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US FoP-only or US law-only proposal[edit]

  • @King of Hearts and Yann: I would rather oppose immediate overhaul of Commons' FoP policy to only respect U.S. law just because Wikimedia Foundation's main servers are in the U.S. (even if there are also servers in Singapore and elsewhere), in an identical rule as being enforced on English Wikipedia (although the practice on enwiki is not yet an official policy). This matter was brought up by @D. Benjamin Miller: at FoP talk page before. See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Ideas wanted to tackle Freedom of Panorama issue for the very looooong debate involving me and D. Benjamin Miller. WMF representative Sannita (WMF) themself is cold on the idea of applying U.S. law blanketly on Commons while disregarding all other countries' laws, and for a good reason (Commons will potentially face trouble in front of French authorities and anti-Wikipedia group ADAGP). Other than that, I do not agree to a premature change to U.S. law-only policy sitewide, because:
  • This may impact Wikimedians in countries with adequate FoP like Singapore and Brazil. Images of Christ the Redeemer statue and Merlion statue may become major targets of mass deletions as these are unfree in the U.S.. Expect stiff opposition from Wikimedians in U.K., Singapore, Brazil, and other 70+ countries with adequate FoP including sculptural monuments.
  • This may put all FoP efforts by Discott and other South African Wikimedians to waste as the soon-to-be-implemented South African FoP may become invalid on Commons; the only motivation for them to pursue FoP advocacy is for Commons to be able to host post-1990 monuments of Nelson Mandela and other monuments connected to South African culture and post-colonial history.
  • This may discourage FoP movements globally including an initiative that both Reke and Buszmail plan to commence, for "ESEAP" Wikimedia region (East, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific), since there may be no more reason for such movements if only U.S. FoP would be followed by Commons.
  • We here in the Philippines are monitoring for the progress of copyright law amendment bills here (three lower House and one upper House/Senate bills containing FoP clause), see meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama#Recent developments; admittedly, our government is too focused on matters irrelevant for Wikimedians like the proposed revision of the country's Constitution, but we are still hopeful that one day (maybe in 2025 or 2026) FoP will finally be implemented here.
  • And lastly, limited scope of Wiki Loves Monuments photo contests, which will be undesirable.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 Your point about South Africa doesn't make much sense to me. All uploads on Commons already have to follow US copyright in addition to their country of origin, no? They couldn't upload the statues here either way, because they will be copyrighted in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Theoretically (i.e. in terms of what the law prescribes) yes, but practically (i.e. in terms of what is actually followed on Commons) no, as D. Benjamin Miller describes above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Huh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA kindly look at dozens of Merlion statues here. The famous icon of Singapore is legally not free in the U.S.. Still, a mass deletion of 99% of those images (perhaps 1% may be de minimis) is a dagger at the hearts of Singaporean Wikimedians and Wikimedians who shared images of the monument here. Are you in favor of totally nuking out all of non-incidental Merlion statue images? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 Considering that, unlike the reverse, it is illegal for us to keep doing that, yeah? I mean that's kind of unrelated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like what Jmabel said, Commons itself does not make profit from the images (technically, not illegal). It is the American reusers' possible commercial use of the images of post-1928 Singaporean/Brazilian/German (and in the future, South African/Philippine) monuments that may be illegal, and this is alleviated by the tag that you called "dubious". But Commons is aimed to be multilingual and international and is aimed for all users and netizens globally, not just American users and netizens, notwithstanding that WMF is hosted in the U.S. (but in fact, WMF is not wholly hosted in the U.S.). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It aims to be, but is (commons at least) hosted in the US. That is the legal reality. And IIRC the non commercial clause with FoP doesn't apply in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding South Africa, should Discott et. al. succeed, the images of Nelson Mandela statues can be hosted here, all slapped with {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The license in that is dubious. Commons is hosted in the US and therefore the highest priority is obeying US law. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA so, in your POV, no nelson Mandela statues from South Africa could be hosted here even if South Africa finally implements FoP? Note that the tag is a result of a similarly-heated discussion: Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 Well it's illegal. The project could get sued for that. I'm not going to suggest we mass delete every file but it is an issue, yeah.
And again, it's irrelevant to the problem. Hypothetically making it so we ignore FoP rules that are higher than America's does not, strictly speaking, mean we have to ignore that which is lower. Theoretically we could do both. It's not bending the rules any more than we already are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really doubt this will happen, but I would support applying US law only for FoP issues, and just put a warning like the German projects use. We already do that with PD-Art stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PARAKANYAA if you want to have U.S. copyright law as the only law to be honored here, then applying it only to FoP does not make sense. It only creates inconsistency as other works, like PD-government works of other countries, are not legally OK to be hosted in the U.S.. You may want to apply it to all other copyright-related areas like works of foreign governments. For sure, the PD or copyright-free provisions for government works of certain countries (like the Philippines: {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}) will become invalid here as those government works are eligible for U.S. copyright (see w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 30#Template:Non-free Philippines government). But again, I do not favor a sitwide imposition of U.S. law only policy for areas like FoP and copyright, without proper consultations with Wikimedians from 70+ countries with full FoP up to monuments as well as with Wikimedians from countries that do not copyright their government works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already inconsistent, though. From a legal point of view we have to follow US copyright. It is not an option. Anything else is secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PARAKANYAA so (even if this is not FoP-related but relates to U.S. copyright intervention), what are your thoughts on public domain works of foreign governments like the Philippines? Per Geni at the templates-for-discussion forum at enwiki (who happens to be the creator of the template I nominated), Philippine government works do not benefit PD-USGov as the Philippines is no longer a U.S. dependency or overseas territory, even if those are PD here in the Philippines. In the event of sitwide U.S. law-only imposition, are most {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} files going to be "sentenced to death penalty" because of possibly not in PD in the United States? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, sorry to be late, but I was out yesterday for personal reasons. I just wanted to point out I'm not "WMF representative", but a Community Relations Specialist, i.e. a community liaison for Wikimedia Foundation. My positions are not to be intended as WMF official positions, those come from people who have this kind of power, like the CEO or any of the Directors of WMF departments. Anyway, I noticed relevant people at the Foundation about this discussion, and will let you know if there are news. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF) I stand corrected. I thought you are a representative because of the suffix in your user name (WMF). Any way, the FoP matter should be treated seriously and thanks for reaching it out to the higher-ups of WMF organization. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 Yes, I work for WMF and sometimes I speak on behalf of the teams I assist, like the Structured Content team for the UploadWizard improvements. For this kind of discussion, I keep in touch with other teams, which usually deal with these kind of things. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF) noted. Again, thanks for bringing the FoP matter to the higher-ups in WMF. Mandating U.S. copyright law-only policy on Commons can have far-reaching consequences, even if Wikimedia servers are based in the U.S.. Not only it affects images of many monuments in countries with full FoP like Singapore, Brazil, Thailand, and India, but also PD government works in the Philippines (PD-PhilippinesGov is not synonymous to PD-USGov; U.S. law will treat all post-1990 Philippine government works as copyrighted in the U.S., as per Geni at the enwiki template discussion forum I mentioned above). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Proposal for using US-only copyright law here. We gain incomparably more than we lose if it will happen. Tons of files with buildings from Arabian and post-USSR countries, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and more and more will be restored. Yes, images with modern monuments will probably be deleted, but number of these files are much smaller than with buildings ones. I am filtering a large number of high-quality photos when uploading via Flickr due to FOP problems (90-99% - architecture-related files). FOP in South Africa and the Philippines will probably never be realized, or it will be like in Ukraine, where, despite the numerous efforts of Ukrainian Wikimedians, the government of this country has "pleased" us with "provided that such actions do not have independent economic value" (see COM:FOP Ukraine). Even if it will be introduced, it is not a guarantee that it will last long. Over the past 20 years, only 6 countries have introduced FOP and 0 1 (small Timor-Leste) in the last 7 years. It the other hand, FOP has been abolished in 9 countries over the past 20 years and in 5 over the past 6 years. FOP in Australia and in Chile is now under pressure. What will be next? Abolishment/restrictions for FOP in most (if not in all) of remaining FOP-countries? Юрий Д.К 20:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Юрий Д.К. if you want a massive change, you may want to open a formal COM:RfC in a similar way as Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. This is just a general discussion.
    IMO, while the impact of "nuclear-bombing" all of non-DM images of monuments from those 70+ countries may be insignificant for Wikimedia Commons, it could adversely affect Wiki Loves Monuments by only restricting to pre-1929 monuments, defeating the purpose of the photo competition that Dutch Wikimedians began more than 10 years ago (I think that was in 2011 if I read that correctly). Unless WLM should be axed altogether and replaced with a nicely-named "Wiki Loves Architecture" that is more binding with U.S. law. Do not expect participants to follow filtered lists of monuments in WLM submissions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Юрий Д.К. but you seem to forgot that Timor-Leste introduced FoP in 2023 (see COM:FOP East Timor), coinciding wit h their very first copyright law. Following Portuguese model and not the model of Indonesia (which has no FoP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank. I have updated my statement. But still 5-1 in favor to FOP-abolishment in the last 6-7 years. Unfortunately, Timor-Leste is a very small country and it can't give to as many photos of buildings and monuments... Юрий Д.К 22:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Юрий Д.К. perhaps a user involved in East Timorese images may disagree (ping @J. Patrick Fischer). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I'm not good enough in English to understand this legal discussion.
    However, I disagree with the idea that East Timor has no buildings and monuments that were built after 1929 or that there are only a few pictures of them. Most of the buildings have only been created since then and over 18 years I have collected thousands of free images on Commons, which now illustrate almost 5,000 articles in the German-language Wikipedia and, thanks to the work of other Wikipedians, in other languages. A number of photographers have provided photos that are not otherwise available and the East Timorese Wikipedia community is currently planning photo campaigns in the capital to find activists. If I understand the proposals correctly, my entire work here and the attempts to present East Timor to the world are under serious threat.
    A lot of images found their way into WikiCommons via {{PD-TLGov}}. Other images have been released by the governments of Australia and New Zealand. Almost only advertising images of American soldiers come from the USA. Last year, numerous participants at Wikimania signed a petition asking the government of East Timor to continue this PD for government images under the new law. If the national sovereignty to decide on its own images is no longer accepted, the majority of the images from East Timor will disappear and the petition that was handed over to East Timor's ambassador will become meaningless.
    Please have a look at your ideas. Maybe you get images from France, South Korea and other parts of the first world. Images that are relatively easy to find outside of Wikimedia, for example the Eiffel Tower. In the case of East Timor, WikiCommons is a large repository of free images that even East Timorese and media from the country use. Images that can no longer be found in large numbers under clearly visible free licenses. And the global south is also negatively affected elsewhere. Just to be allowed to upload British AI images and Swiss license plates?
    Never change a running system. It makes no sense to open up new possibilities if you destroy the work that has been done to achieve this. JPF (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What could I do now? (Dili, East Timor)
  • @J. Patrick Fischer images of buildings are unaffected, since the U.S. copyright law grants architectural FoP. It would be identical to the de facto system in enwiki (de facto since it does not appear to be part of the local wiki's policy). Unfortunately, it is mainly the images of post-1928 sculptural monuments of 70+ yes-FoP countries that may be nuked once the FoP policy shifts. Most famous of those that may be going to be slapped for deletions are Brazil's Statue of Christ the Redeemer, Singapore's Merlion statue, Hong Kong's Tian Tan Buddha, and Switzerland's Celestial Sphere. The change in FoP policy may bring frustrations to South African Wikimedians, who have been campaigning to bring FoP to their country just to finally enable Commons to host multiple monuments of recent South African history, including the Nelson Mandela statues. The Copyright Amendment Bill just got passed in their parliament for the 2nd time and is awaiting signature from the President of South Africa. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...or Cristo Rei of Dili, the main and best known sights of East Timor. Theses structures are symbols of many countries. A Wikipedia or Wikivoyage article without them would look incomplete. --JPF (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and cons of mandating U.S. copyright law sitewide[edit]

I'll try to list down advantages and disadvantages of mandating U.S. copyright law as the law to be followed by Wikimedia Commons sitewide, with some references to discussions or inputs if applicable, excluding the possible negative implications to the Wikimedia movements in 70+ yes-FoP countries should U.S. law be implemented as the only law to be respected by the media repository. The list also excludes the possible legal consequences Wikimedia may face in countries known to have anti-FoP and anti-Wikipedia groups like France.

Advantages
  • Commons could be able to host works of architecture from 100+ countries with no FoP, even from the likes of France where commercial licensing of images of French buildings is deemed illegal and prosecutable. Thousands of deleted images could be restored, such as those of Burj Khalifa (🇦🇪), Louvre Pyramid (🇫🇷), Verkhovna Rada (🇺🇦), Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center (🇬🇷), and Lotte World Tower (🇰🇷), since these are free to be exploited commercially under U.S. law. (Refer to: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Ideas wanted to tackle Freedom of Panorama issue).
  • Pre-1929 works of art worldwide could be hosted on Commons (sculptures, etc.).
  • U.S. threshold of originality sets a high bar, so perhaps dozens of logos, title cards, movie posters, and license plates from the likes of U.K., Switzerland, Singapore, China, and the Philippines could be undeleted/hosted.
  • Simplification on cases of old images: only U.S. terms (using COM:URAA if applicable) would now be considered and longer terms of Mexico and Jamaica could be ignored.
  • A.I. art from U.K. and China could be hosted here because U.S. does not recognize A.I. as copyrightable artworks.
Disadvantages
  • Since the U.S. law does not allow FoP for non-architectural monuments, perhaps images of thousands of public sculptures and monuments of 70+ countries built or installed from 1929 onwards could face deletion requests, as these are only free in their countries but not in the United States. (Countries like Singapore, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Brunei, Malaysia, Timor-Leste, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, U.K., Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, and Israel.) This would not only impact copyrighted monuments of those countries, but also monuments that are already PD in those countries but still copyrighted in the U.S. due to COM:URAA. This could negatively affect the scope of Wiki Loves Monuments in those countries. Should FoP implementation in South Africa become successful after the radical change in copyright policy of Commons, then it is virtually useless as Nelson Mandela statues of that country would no longer be welcome here. Also to think of: images of Armenian, Belgian, Albanian, and Moldovan monuments that were restored after FoP was introduced in those countries during 2010s.
  • Using the logic and based on Geni's opinion at w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 30#Template:Non-free Philippines government, then possibly most photographs made by foreign governments like the Philippine government would have to be deleted as the U.S. copyright law does not appear to grant public domain rights to works of foreign governments. {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, long-debated in the past, would face "death sentence" as PD-PhilippinesGov is not synonymous to PD-USGov as the Philippines is not a U.S. overseas territory. May similarly affect photographs licensed through the likes {{PD-IDGov}} and {{PD-NorwayGov}} too. This excludes foreign government works that are explicitly under free-culture CC or copyright-free licenses, like works of South Korean and Japanese governments.

The pros and cons are not exhaustive though. My compilation of the list does not, in any way, change my stance: my opposition to sitewide U.S. FoP or U.S. copyright law-only suggestion still prevails. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added one pro-reason. In many cases, we have kept content made by governments if they are in the public domain in the country of origin. Yann (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann regarding FoP, I still insist that no sitewide copyright policy change should be made, without proper consultations. I forgot one more: WMF must be consulted first (and I think Sannita (WMF) has already aired the FoP concerns to the higher-ups within WMF). That is, alongside consultations with representatives of Wikimedia chapters and user groups that come from 70+ yes-FoP countries. It seems harsh if Wikimedia Singapore peeps suddenly receive notice or news that dozens of non-de minimis images of their famous monument (1960s Merlion) are going to be expunged off the media repository because of suddenly needing to comply U.S. law. It is also reasonable to consult with Wikimedia South Africa first, as they are heavily involved in trying to have adequate FoP introduced in their country, and their motivation to have FoP introduced is for their Nelson Mandela statues and other monuments connected to modern South African history to be finally be hosted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Such a change needs a wide consultation and vote. Actually, I am on the fence here. Yann (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing FoP images of buildings by applying the more lenient US law (rather than whatever stricter law exists in the building's country) is an appropriate question for a vote. It's wholly inappropriate, however, to vote on whether or not we can just choose to ignore US law — that is really only a matter for WMF Legal. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your listed disadvantages make no sense.
  • Whether or not US law applies is not our choice. It does apply. It always applies. We must follow US law on Commons. This is a US-hosted website. (The fact that some visitors come from elsewhere does not remove any obligation to follow US law.)
    Within the context of US law applying, @Jmabel argues that US law allows for (most? some?) pictures of monuments to be posted within the context of Wikimedia Commons for non-commercial use on the theory that this is fair use as long as it's not commercial. Jmabel is arguing that these are non-free media in the US, but that their use is nevertheless justifiable. I find this highly dubious (especially as a blanket position), but it's at least an argument. Note also Wikimedia Commons has no Exemption Doctrine Policy as required by WMF policy, and the FoP "ignore US law for anything that isn't in the US" policy is far too broad to qualify as an eligible EDP.
  • Your point about public domain works by non-US governments makes no sense (and has nothing to do with this issue).
    • US copyright laws categorically exclude works by the US Federal Government from copyright protection. Therefore, if a work is by the US Federal Government, we can say that it's in the public domain under US law.
    • US copyright laws don't categorically exclude works by foreign (or state) governments from copyright protection. Works by foreign governments can be copyrighted in the US. But that doesn't mean they always are. Foreign and state governments can disclaim copyrights, and when this is done, these items are in the public domain in the US. They just enter the US public domain effectively by being dedicated to the public domain.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller: you seem to be ignoring my remark immediately below, posted almost six hours before yours. I don't think this is the first time you have confused the matter of what is legal for Commons to do and what is legal for non-educational, commercial use in the U.S. Of course we are not saying it is optional as to whether Commons obeys U.S. law. As an non-commercial educational site, U.S. law gives us enormous latitude for "fair use". Our policy has been not to use that latitude, but choosing to do so would be perfectly legal (though not necessarily advisable). - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not saying that following US law is optional, but the way that Jwilz12345 has discussed the issue implies that. If not, then there would be no need to pit "advantages" against "disadvantages" because the choice to allow for FoP based on US law for buildings in stricter countries would not be tied in any way to restricting FoP for items not covered by US FoP.
In any case, yes, some (or even most) of these uses on Wikimedia sites may be fair use in the US context — but, as with everything related to fair use, it depends on a bunch of factors. Even with WMF projects being non-commercial, this doesn't mean that every use is necessarily fair use. At least some of these uses are bound to be infringing.
In any case, the WMF, as a rule, wouldn't allow for a fair use exemption this broad (which, to be clear, is a matter of WMF policy and not just US law). So this sort of change would require a change to WMF policy on fair use of non-free content. The merits of such a change can of course be debated, but I just want to make it clear that expanding fair use justifications and allowing for PD-US content to be posted aren't bound together.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller regarding "some visitors", I don't think so. In this link provided by now-blocked 4nn1l2 here, there are more visitors outside the U.S. combined than U.S. visitors. Here are the number of visitors from top 22 countries (with at least 1M visitors) as of this writing:
21M - United States of America
17M - Germany
6M - France
5M - United Kingdom
3M - Russian Federation
3M - Italy
3M - Japan
3M - India
3M - Canada
3M - Spain
2M - Poland
2M - Netherlands
2M - South Africa
1M - Brazil
1M - Australia
1M - Austria
1M - Korea (South)
1M - Czech Republic
1M - Switzerland
1M - Ukraine
1M - Ireland
1M - Iran, Islamic Republic of
---
USA - 21M
Yes FoP - 41M
No complete FoP for sculptures - 20M
It is disadvantageous to most of our visitors (majority from yes-FoP countries) to completely shift to U.S. law just because of the legal obligation as being hosted in the U.S.. Note that the figures given by 4nn1l2 were as of January 2022. (USA: 20M and Germany: 14M) As of this time, new 3M visitors from Germany were added, as opposed to just a million from the US. Assuming the trend continues, this may indicate sometime in the future German visitors will overtake American visitors, making Commons a U.S. media repository site whose majority of its visitors aren't even from the U.S.. (And just an addition, per Hostinger, the most-visited non-social media site in the U.S. is the Amazon, not Wikimedia platforms or even Wikipedia).
Not to mention that majority of legal literatures on FoP are from the Europe, and the 2015 FoP debates and discourse in the EU Parliament were the reflection of it. Completely shifting to U.S. FoP only will ignore the efforts by Wikimedians from UK, Netherlands, Germany, and other yes-FoP EU countries to defend their states' FoP in terms of allowing both buildings and monuments here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the "some" visitors who are not from the US can be most of the visitors on the site. But even if almost none of the visitors to Wikimedia Commons were in the US, we'd still have to follow US law.
Let me give you another example. As you point out, there are millions of visitors from Germany. There are a lot of things that are in the public domain in Germany (because the author died over 70 years ago), but which aren't in the public domain in the US. For example, something published in 1951 by someone who died in 1953 is in the public domain in Germany, but not the US. Some of these things would be wonderful for German viewers to look at, and would be perfectly legal to host in Germany. But we can't just host such things on the German Wikipedia — even if they'd be great illustrations for Germany-based viewers — because the German Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. If the German Wikipedia were hosted in Germany, there would be no problem with such files.
Would it be better (for Germany-based users) to be able to see that wonderful item that's PD-DE but not PD-US? Sure! I totally agree! But it cannot be hosted on a US-based site. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller regarding German Wikipedia, they actually host full resolutions of copyrighted monuments of countries with no-FoP. They do not follow the lack of U.S. FoP for monuments. Examples: w:de:Datei:Chicago Big Bean1.JPG (2560x1920px, which is a substantial resolution no longer fair use under U.S. law) and w:de:Datei:Korean War Veterans Memorial 1171.JPG (2592x1944px). Just like enwiki applying lex loci protectonis thru U.S. law, dewiki applies that too. Not U.S. law though, but the more lenient German law, and German FoP allows images of copyrighted monuments (w:de:Vorlage:Panoramafreiheit). Sure dewiki is not hosted in Germany but in U.S., but dewiki is not made to serve the interests of U.S. visitors, but visitors from Germany as well as most German-speaking countries (many of them, like Austria and Switzerland, have identical liberal FoP for monuments). So your assumption that all Wikipedias should comply with U.S. law is not true in reality. Blindly enforcing U.S. law to these wikis to finally comply their FoP policies to U.S. law may lead to some conflicts within Wikimedia community, which may hinder Wikimedia movements in countries with full FoP for monuments as well as FoP movements in South Africa, Georgia, Ghana, and others where FoP introduction is being discussed, lobbied, or tackled. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia must follow US law. Whether or not they actually do is not relevant to whether or not they must.
Also, fair use has almost nothing to do with image resolution, especially in such cases as these. The "low-resolution" rule is an example of (English) Wikipedia being stricter (in some ways) than the fair use doctrine.
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, including for images of sculptures in "FoP" countries, WMF Legal removed those items. They endorse the idea of changing US law, but, as they say: " While it is true that some of the sculptures in question here are located in countries whose copyright regime conflicts with the U.S’s regime, current U.S. conflict of law principles indicate that U.S. copyright law would apply in evaluating the scope of a copyright holder’s rights." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller so in your POV, should dewiki be compelled to overhaul their existing FoP policy to align with U.S. FoP (even if they don't serve U.S. visitors' interests)? For sure, several images of copyrighted sculptures locally hosted there would not fit to the U.S. fair use standards, since those images can be freely used commercially, and those uses are out of dewiki admins' control.
And lastly, should Wikimedians in those 70+ countries be compelled to accept that thousands of non-de minimis images of their post-1928 monuments would be taken down through this proposed U.S. law-only policy in the name of legal compliance to the copyright law of the United States, even if this may frustrate and dishearten them or may trigger some loss in enthusiasm in conducting Wikimedia movements on (especially on monuments and heritage) in their respective countries? Should the upcoming South African FoP be disregarded too even if that was the legal exception Discott and other South African Wikimedians fought for (since around 2014/15) just to allow hosting of recent monuments of South Africa on Commons? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, French language Wikipedia doesn't the same. It hosts French works of art if the pictures are under a free license, as there would be FoP in France. Yann (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been able to fathom why the German Wikipedia follows German law, and not that of other countries with German-speaking populations, such as, say, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg or Namibia. Or even the United States, where there are over a million people who speak it as a first language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Germany, Austria, Switzerland (not sure about Luxembourg) have generally harmonized their laws in copyright matters, including FoP. So the vast majority of the German-speaking world is under pretty much the same laws on this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: The official de.wp policy, going back to ca. 2010 with similar rules before that, is to follow German, Austrian and Swiss copyright law, and if they differ from each other, the most restrictive one of those (de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Wikipedia richtet sich nach DACH-Recht). Though that is not entirely true, because Austria's very low threshold of originality (as evidenced by several court decisions involving logos) is effectively ignored. --Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that it is okay for a US website to violate copyright on a work of art, provided the text besides the picture is in a language not in English (which is neither native nor official)? Or that they target a country where it's legal (like Sealand or South Sudan, which I pretty sure most torrent sites exclusively target?)--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes I am not saying that the U.S. website violate the copyright on the work of art. What I'm saying is that Commons can retain status quo by hosting monuments of 70+ countries where uses of monuments in copyright is legal (note that {{Not-free-US-FOP}} is in English because it is for U.S. reusers). Commons is a U.S. website in legal terms only but it is an international site in terms of reach and so it should also be able to use FoP of 70+ countries. It will not fulfill its service to majority of our visitors (from 70+ yes-FoP countries) if it were to only comply U.S. law because of legality issues. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above you mentioned the Chicago Bean and the Korean War Monument, not monuments of FOP countries. Commons is a US website in legal terms; therefore it should have to follow the laws, including FoP rules, of the US. If that means it will not fulfill its service, then its service is not legally fulfillable. Moreover, early works by Picasso are legal in the US and the life+50 world (and more than half the world's population is in countries with shorter than life+70 terms); how does it fulfill our service to those parts of the world to not host those images, just because Europeans can't see them?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes they are hosted in full resolutions on German Wikipedia, however. And despite dewiki is hosted in the US (not Germany or Austria or Switzerland), they are following their local-exemption doctrine by allowing unfree sculptures of countries like the U.S.. Those images are in reoslutions that are exceeding usual U.S. fair use standards.
As for Picasso works, those are only legal if the works are in the U.S.. Picasso works outside the U.S. may be at mercy of COM:URAA, unless a work is simultaneously published in the U.S. too (which remained to be seen if those Picasso works outside the U.S. were also simultaneously published in the U.S. too to deny URAA extensions).
Re: service of hosting: it is the hosting of other monuments of Netherlands, Germany, Armenia, Singapore, and other post-1928 monuments of those countries. For sure, some (if not all) Wikimedians in those 70+ countries will resist any attempt to completely shift to U.S. law just to please legal obligations. The impacts on Wikimedia movements in those countries as well as enthusiasm to participate in WLM photo contests are also to be considered. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we spend so much time worrying about the law, stuff like that Mickey Mouse and Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha aren't free in Germany, and then decide not to worry about following the law that legally restricts Commons. It's a farce.
All works published (by Picasso, or anyone else) before 1929 are in the public domain in the US, and all works of Picasso are public domain in China and other life+50 countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes you may have confused. Following D. Benjamin Miller's arguments, all Wikimedia sites, inclusive of Commons and German Wikipedia, should be obliged to follow U.S. law as the law of the WMF servers' host country.
German Wikipedia already hosts many modern monuments that are infringements to U.S. copyright, applying their local EDP which states that only German FoP is to be followed by the wiki site. The Cloud Gate and KRVM images that I were referring too are full-resolution images hosted on dewiki (in direct conflict with the U.S. law).
Regarding Commons, should FoP policy be radically modified to only follow U.S. law, then Picasso's post-1928 public domain works in other countries may need to be deleted, as these are not yet in public domain in the U.S.. Read again the suggestions for Commons to only follow U.S. law and disregard the copyright laws of other countries.
Again, I maintain that the current status quo on FoP policy be unchanged, as this is a very unnecessary debate to begin with. Only following U.S. copyright law in the name of the legal obligation is a disfavor for Wikimedians of 70+ yes-FoP countries pursuing increased coverage of monuments on the media repository; more so, it is a direct insult to South African Wikimedians who were already fighting for FoP to be introduced in their country to finally allow Nelson Mandela statues and other monuments of recent South African history to be hosted here. It is also an insult to Filipino Wikimedians who are trying to have FoP introduced here (yes, here in the Philippines) so that not only buildings can now be hosted but also dozens of Philippine sculptural monuments built after 1970s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confused. The WMF is a US non-profit, running a website in the US. That is the law that it must follow. Cry insult all you want, that doesn't give you immunity from the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One amendment to the above: in terms of the U.S. side of this (vs. the country of origin), it is not a matter of us following only U.S. copyright law, with which I believe our current policies conform. It is a matter of hosting only files that would be OK to use commercially in the U.S. (& FWIW I'd oppose making this large change at this late date.) - Jmabel ! talk 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that non-commercial fair use completely subsumes FoP. That's practically saying we can host photos of any and every painting or artwork, since the fair use rules are pretty disjoint from FoP. That would cut into the commercial value of a book collections of a painter's work, which deeply hurts fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So... how big is our lobby in the USA, pushing for a redesign the USA FoP to a more inclusive one? Serious question: many other countries have been doing this for years, some more successful than others. What is the USA community (not WMF, but all users from the states, and the Chapter and UG we have there) doing?

One BIG downside I see when Wikimedia Commons would change it's policies to US-only, it the move of files back to the local projects - which is already happening for some cases because the Commons-admins way of enforcement of the URAA is changing. I became a Commons admin when all our locally hosted image files were moved to Commons back in 2008, and our local upload function has been (sort of) closed ever since: we direct people to Commons to do their uploads, so their images can be used globally without interference from our side. Commons over the course of the last 15 years has build a lot of experience, knowledge and documentation on all sorts of copyright laws, and the information pages may not always be perfect, but at a higher level and if you know where to look, you will be able to navigate between all the necessary information. This can never be done in a similar way on local projects.
My prediction is that opening the local projects for local uploads again (as we will have to do when the Commons community decides it needs to be US-law-only -of which I am yet to be convinced), instead of collecting all (or: most) files in one Wikimedia Commons, will lead to Commons being less central for all projects, less used by local wiki's, less traffic, less volunteers, bigger backlogs. Local wiki's on the other hand will struggle with which copyright policies to apply and make their own rules - either out of ignorance or because Commons-US-law does not allow for their uploads. Duplication of files will be all around again, copyright knowledge will get scattered, copyright violations will increase. All in all a decision like this is bound to damage our work, damage the good name we have established and lead to way more work - and maybe also more legal complaints and increased forced take-downs, when you look at it from the point of view for the complete Movement instead of just the one project of Wikimedia Commons.

Please, without a legal ruling on a case before the courts: let's not. Ciell (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that experience can go away if Commons is US-only. A whole lot of knowledge about random copyright laws is simply superfluous in that case. Note that that the proposal is not for Wikimedia Commons to change its policies; COM:L has said "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work." since at least 2010, and it seems to be merely a clarification of what the 2007 page said.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciell not to mention that the annual Wiki Loves Monuments competition was not born in the "server host country of Wikimedia". It was born in Europe, starting in the Netherlands in 2010 before expanding throughout Europe the next year (Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments). It would only reach the United States and the rest of the world two years after it was first organized. Most of the noticeable and meaningful Wikimedia movements in recent years are outside the United States. A radical shift to U.S. copyright law can be disadvantageous to many Wikimedia movements worldwide, especially FoP movements and advocacies being made in South Africa, the Philippines, Ghana, Georgia, and (soon) Zambia. It may also spell the end of WLM (and perhaps replaced by something like "Wiki Loves Architecture" or similar, that in my opinion would not be able to broadly document the monumental heritage of the countries). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF Legal published an interesting essay that addresses why, in the world of the internet 2023/2024, we have to look beyond a "one-law applies to all" principle. This might have been a valid approach 15 years ago but the world of the internet and the applicable laws have changed, and more changes are expected in the years to come. The essay explains why the hosting (and governance) of websites is not simply black and white, nor is the balancing act for the legal department that comes with it.
(spoiler: for our projects there is not "one single jurisdiction" that applies or can be applied.) Ciell (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciell I can remember one case that I contributed at w:en:Copyright law of the Philippines#St. Mary's vs. Chinese firm and local partners. Though not related to the Internet and is more of the local Filipino publisher suing a Chinese publisher based in China, one can infer that here in the Philippines, the Philippine copyright law can apply to foreigners who infringe on Philippine works. The regional trial court (equivalent to German district courts; not Supreme Court) opined that Fujian New Technology Color Making and Printing Co. Ltd., despite being a Chinese company, is not immune to the laws of the Philippines. The court said that both China and the Philippines are Berne signatories, so a Chinese who infringed a work of a Filipino is liable to be punished under Philippine (not Chinese) law. Note that the U.S. is also a Berne signatory.
Perhaps (this just a guess on my part), the little-thought possible reason on DMCA Oldenburg case is because Oldenburg himself was a U.S. citizen, and his works are considered made by an American. Again, that's just a guess on my part, and Wikimedia lawyers may have more authoritative analysis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 14[edit]

Exporting Images at Full Resolution from Website[edit]

Apologies if this is the wrong place, but does anyone know how to export International Image Interoperability Framework images from a website at full size and resolution? I would like to upload a booklet titled USAF and Installations and Master and Plans from the David Rumsey Map Collection website, but cannot figure out how to obtain a full-resolution, non-tiled image. I can achieve one, but not both at the same time. (e.g. Full-resolution, but tiled; low-resolution, but untiled) I studied the IIIF URL formatting, but there doesn't seem to be a parameter for resolution.

To address two potential questions:

  • Even though it was not strictly necessary as the booklet is public domain as a under contract for the US Air Force, I contacted the website and they confirmed "my use is permitted". (Further, note that the maps are also available directly from the USAF, but they are unfortunately even poorer quality than the downloaded images mentioned below.)
  • Even when the largest size option on the image page is selected via the export function it does not appear to download a full resolution image.

Alternatively, since there are 269 images in the album, if someone knows an easy way to batch upload the images using a script (or something like that, I'm not really familiar with it) and could do that, it would be greatly appreciated. (My plan was to download, potentially slightly crop to remove whitespace, and upload them.) –Noha307 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noha307: Do you have proof that this document is no longer RESTRICTED?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the USAF page linked above: "The entire collection was declassified in accordance with official guidance by the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA)." –Noha307 (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noha307: Allrighty then, I have uploaded File:Burlington Municipal Airport Preliminary Master Plan v52-2.jpg for you using the dezoomify extension with standard IIIF support, and the GIMP v2.10.0 to convert from png to jpg format.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Excellentǃ Thank you so very muchǃ
A question: Why did you convert to JPG format? I work in the museum field and always understood that best practice is to avoid using it (at least for non-access) due to the risk of artifacting and other problems caused by lossy compression. I presume it is because the file is so large that PNG (or TIFF) would be unwieldy?
Lastly, I really appreciate you pinging me. It makes it so much easier to keep track of these conversations. –Noha307 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noha307: My default filetype for images is jpg for non-fuzzy scaled-down display of photos on-wiki per phab:T192744 (and in this case due to filesize of the png), but I uploaded File:Burlington Municipal Airport Preliminary Master Plan v52-2.png using User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js (doc at User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js, and help at Help:Chunked upload) for you, too. See how they look for you side-by-side in the following gallery:
  • jpg
    jpg
  • png
    png
    •   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noha307: You're welcome! Do you have plans to use either one?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G.: My goal is to try to upload the entire set and then, depending on need and applicability, insert them into the articles for the articles for the various air force bases. –Noha307 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 15[edit]

    Public interiors in Ecuador[edit]

    Do I read the policy correctly that public interiors are covered by FoP in Ecuador? Specifically, I have photographs of frescoes of a living artist which are located inside a city hall building in one of the cities of Ecuador. The building is accessible for everyone at no charge (during the hours it is open). May I upload them on Commons? I am pretty sure if the frescoes were on the outer facade of the building the answer were yes. Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious copyvio patrol bot[edit]

    seeing File:Barbie Headshot.jpg, i think a bot, which screens new uploads that fulfil certain criteria, will be good for commons copyvio detection:

    1. exif contains phrases like getty, Shutterstock, No use without permission, all rights reserved...
    2. wikitext contains such phrases
    3. uploads from users who are newly registered or have low edit counts.

    RZuo (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Commons file upload reject a file whose metadata specifies an incompatible license? Metadata is often missing licenses or is otherwise a mess, but sometimes it will clearly specify a license URL. Glrx (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. For better or worse, file metadata is treated as informational only. Omphalographer (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There used to be one, operated by User:Krd, tagging files copied from elsewhere without a valid license. Yann (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is that statements from the Metadata may change. There are also some Commoners who have "All rights reserved" written in metadata of their photographs, but they release some rights with uploading here, which makes it obsolete. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 16[edit]

    Should some images have huge margins, so they look right in wikiboxes?[edit]

    one of many square election maps
    longest side set to 100px with 100x100px

    I just came across the claim, that some images with vertical motives should be square rather than vertical, "so they can look right in the wikiboxes". (Talk page and file history for context.) I think that can not be right. This idea probably refers to templates, that set the image width, although the intention is to set the longest side of the image. I would say, the obvious solution is to use the correct formatting in the template, and not to add left and right margins to vertical images. Any opinions? --Watchduck (quack) 10:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Watchduck: Please see en:H:PIC#Upright images.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The use case here are templates, where the image could have any format. In case of the Infobox election template (see e.g. 2008 United States Senate elections#Illinois) the quoted argument seems particularly misguided, because it has the map_size parameter (which IMO should be 250x200px). @Jeff G.: Do you see any use case, where it could be necessary to have these margins? --Watchduck (quack) 14:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Watchduck: The use can be for situations when people refuse to make templates that take into account the upright images, when you can't or won't make such templates (yet).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G.: You make this sound like we would need a new kind of template. We just need to replace the wrong image size by the one we actually want. Like this. (Well, actually like this, because width comes before height. The result can be seen here). --Watchduck (quack) 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Watchduck: Only for the states (for example) that should be represented upright (taller than they are high). But yes, custom templates can be modified to account for height, of course with the caveat that the system favors width over height.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get it. Could you give and example, how the system favors Wpx over xHpx or WxHpx? --Watchduck (quack) 09:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Watchduck: The first parameter is width. Scaling with the URL uses width.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose we could have files with different margins, though I'm not quite sure if it's needed for flags.
    We mused about the question with @Yann for map tiles in Category:Swisstopo 1:25'000 map sheets. There are a few tiles that only show part of the area and would otherwise be blank. So to assemble several tiles in a row one would have to write custom code for a each file that hasn't the default size (we currently only have one, but there are a few more in existence, showing different sections of a default area). Enhancing999 (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BSicon
    I agree that this makes sense for image sets where every file has the same format. Certainly no one wants to crop the squares in the BSicon set.
    The flags are just examples for using the WxHpx syntax. I suppose many users are just not aware of it.
    The focus of my question are maps like these, and all the election maps derived from them. --Watchduck (quack) 10:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Watchduck: I would imagine that in order for templates and users to combine standardized sets in ways that make visual sense, they need to be the same size.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends. The files in this set of state maps do not have the same size — nor should they.
    But yes, election maps of the same state should differ only in the colors. It should be possible to use them as imagestacks. (That is what I try to achieve in the Illinois set.)
    But that is not the question. The question is, if there is any compelling reason, that files like this should have these margins.
    By now, this is basically a rhetorical question. There is no such reason. --Watchduck (quack) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Watchduck: Oh, there is a reason, the uploaders used the only tools they had at their disposal instead of following the advice at en:H:PIC#Upright images. Not a compelling reason, but at least a reason.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. --Watchduck (quack) 12:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 17[edit]

    Category:Hawker Hurricane[edit]

    Hello! I welcomed a new user (en:User talk:WendlingCrusader) on english wikipedia who noticed an issue with a duplicate category on commons. That was fixed. He then asked the below, which I have no idea about.

    FYI at Category:Hawker Hurricane there is a sub-category labelled Category:Albion AM463 refueller which contains 10 photos of this vehicle, together with either a Spitfire (2 photos), a Hurricane (5 photos), or a Defiant (3 photos). Whilst it is very interesting, to me it seems slightly off-topic, unless there is a good argument for including a vehicle category on the Hurricane page, and not including it on either the corresponding Spitfire or Defiant pages.

    Can someone help? I will direct him to this discussion. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tbennert: looks like that has already been fixed: Revision of Category:Albion AM463 refueller MKFI (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Download name should always be page name, not SVG title[edit]

    The download name of an SVG will be based on the title in its code, if one exists. This is not practical.

    • Downloading a diagram like this will create a file called Neo4j Graph Visualization.svg.
      There are many online tools, that write their name in the title. (This includes SVG optimizers.)
    • The square version of this map will download as Illinois_Presidential_Election_Results_2020-svg.svg (potentially leading to confusion with this file).
      People often download SVGs, and upload modified versions. The title is not always updated.

    --Watchduck (quack) 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends. If you download a thumb of the SVG, or if you use download buttons, or right clicking a url and using "Save linked file as" or "Save image as" then they should not. But if you open the image directly in your browser and then choose "Save as", then the image name is determined by the browser and you will see this behaviour I think. I'm not sure if there is a good method to easily correct this. Suggestions ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheDJ: You are right, this happens in the browser. But the problem can likely be solved here, by passing the name to the download parameter of the anchor tag.
    <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/OOKM_car_person_reified.svg" download="OOKM_car_person_reified.svg">CLICK</a>
    Can someone try this on a test page? --Watchduck (quack) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that forces a download, what if people just want to view the original image ? (It doesn’t force a download btw, because the download attribute doesn’t work cross site, but wikimedia has a url param ?download that does the same.) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When the link says Download, that is what it should do. Below there is a link that says Original file. (A click on the image will also open the SVG.)
    You mean this might not work, because of "upload.wikimedia.org" vs. "commons.wikimedia.org"? --Watchduck (quack) 19:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I think you are referring to the links provided by the StockPhoto gadget which is unique to Wikimedia Commons ? because of "upload.wikimedia.org" vs. "commons.wikimedia.org" exactly. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked a question on StackOverflow about this. Maybe some CORS magic can help. --Watchduck (quack) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if content-disposition headers can be used here to name the file even in non download mode. Bawolff (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that might be a possibility.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given this some thought, but we'd have to inject content-disposition header when uploading the file to swift, and also change it in swift when moving and create a maintenance script to update all the swift entries. Possible, but not sure if that is worth the effort. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i've made some minor fixes to the stockphoto gadget. Personally I think it requires a full makeover, but i don't have the time for that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category structure for members of bands[edit]

    I am bringing this to VP to see if I can get some consensus for a category structure for members of a band. This has come about because of a discussion at File talk:X, 1980.jpg. The issue is fairly simple in that it seems reasonable to me that photos of band members be kept in Category:Members of band, with the ability to create a subcategory for each band member should there be enough images. This seems to be standard practice, as per Category:Musicians by musical group.

    The dispute arises whether it is reasonable for photos of multiple band members to be placed in Category:Members of band, or should the image go into the band category itself. So for example, the discussion that sparked this call for a wider request for comment was from File:X, 1980.jpg. In my opinion, it would make more sense to include this image in Category: Members of X (musical group from the United States). Now that it has been brought to light that a number of major band have group images in the “Category:Members of…” - example babds include supergroup ABBA with Category:Members of ABBA, AC/DC with Category:Members of AC/DC, the Allman Brothers Group with Category:Members of the Allman Brothers Band, Deep Purple with Category:Members of Deep Purple and ELO with Category:Members of Electric Light Orchestra, amongst others. However, numerous other band categories do not follow this convention, with group shots appearing in the band category itself.

    As there is a genuine disagreement over this category structure, I am bringing this to VP to see if we can gain consensus on what the best category structure should be. My preference is that the obvious meaning of “Members of band” is clearly images of members of the band both in group photos and individually (preferably in their own category). I do t feel it makes much sense to include group photos in the band category itself as you can get bands with numerous of such photos and it tends to unnecessarily fill up the root category even though it seems, on the face of it, that this is the ideal purpose of Category:Members of band. An excellent example is ABBA, which has a lot of group photos, which are currently in Category:Members of ABBA.

    So I ask the wider Commons community for input. Note that this was initially noticed by myself because one Commons contributor took another contributor to COMMONS:ANU over this issue as there was a minor edit war over it - I hope to prevent such disruptive conduct in future through an open discussion with a wider number of contributors so we can gain consensus. It is quite possible that my views are against consensus on this issue, but as it stands it is hard for me to tell as it hasn’t been put to the wider community. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's always better when the categories actually help finding files of members, e.g. Billy Zoom as member of X. Thus one wont need to read the description of every file in Category:Billy Zoom. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fair. So if there was a group photo with Billy Zoom, should this be in Category:Billy Zoom (and the categories for the other band members) alone, or should it be in that category and “Members of band”? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My opinion: once a category of a band becomes too crowded, it needs diffusion. So in case of X I support the current structure with categories for each member and their parental category "Members of X (musical group from the United States)", used only as parental category and not for files. In case a member category is too crowded, there is also a possibility to create subcats such as "Portraits of Billy Zoom", for those who otherwise would need to browse through file descriptions to see which of the faces actually belongs to Billy Zoom. Also, I strongly oppose disregard of COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 11:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The approach appears to fail on the idea that categories should allow to find images of the band. It's not even clear if the band category would still be of any use (we mainly host photos, not audio).
    "Portraits of Billy Zoom" wont allow to find images of Billy Zoom when he was a member of X. (Zoom was a random pick from the category). Enhancing999 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's not even clear if the band category would still be of any use"
    The band category is needed as parental category for whatever is available: "Members of", "Concerts", "Videos", "by year", etc.pp. --A.Savin 11:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Category:Members of xx" (not only bands but also any generic organisation) should be a catcat (contains only subcats (of the individual members) but no files). RZuo (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a recipe to just create a bunch of single file categories. Do we really want that? Probably not. Plus doing that way doesn't make logical sense anyway. I. E. if "Foo" is a member of the band "Bar" then there's no reason a single image of them shouldn't go in "Category:Members of Bar." As there's nothing inherent to such a category that makes it unable to contain files. Otherwise it should be called "Category:Members of Bar by name" or something. That's how it's usually done for similar catcats. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's fine. Why are single file categories bad? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A few of them here and there are fine. They get a little hard to manage and browse through depending on the category and parent though since a single file category is essentially a dead end. A plural category name like "members" kind of insinuates it will contain media related to "members" of the band to. If someone wants to see images of "members" of they band they have to click through to a individual members category, look at the image, be like "Oh, well that's only one member and image. Cool.", click the back button, go to another band members category, see only one image, rinse repeat Etc. Etc. Do that with something like a 20 member Korean pop band and it becomes a lot of pointless clicking for it's own sake. Not to mention Commons:Categories repeatedly says the purpose of categories is to organize and find "files" (plural), not "a file", and it's important to follow policies on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 18[edit]

    watermarks and advertising[edit]

    Some images on here are watermarked, which is fine. I could really care less about watermarks in general. Some of them are extremely obvious and seem to only serve as a way to promote the person or place where the image came from though. For instance the overly intrusive watermark on File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg, which contains the name of the company, their logo, and web URL. All of which are done in a way that seem rather promotional. Especially given that other images on here from the same source don't have such obvious watermarking. Commons:Project scope clearly states that files used for advertising or self-promotion are not realistically useful for an educational purpose. So I don't really see how a file with a watermark like the one on File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg would be in scope. Since it's obviously meant to advertise Bollywood Hungama and their website.

    It seems like other users, mainly @Yann: (but he's not the only one), think watermarks can't be advertising or self-promotion for the purposes of project scope. Including the one in the image from Bollywood Hungama. So I'm interested to know what other people think about it. Are there instances where a watermark can disqualify an image from being in scope due self-promotion and advertising? Or are all watermarked images automatically in scope regardless of how blatantly promotional the watermarking is? Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Adamant1: FYI, as I already told you, there are already nearly 17,000 pictures from Bollywood Hungama, so complaining about one picture seems quite out of place to me. These were not uploaded by Hungama, but by Wikimedia contributors interested by the Bollywood film industry. So yes, they may be indirect advertisement for Bollywood Hungama, but what's your problem with that? Yann (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And like I've already told you and repeated here, most images from Bollywood Hungama don't have the same watermarking. So I think there's a difference between the file I've brought up and the rest of the images from them on Commons. Regardless, it's called an example. I assume you know what that is. I don't really care if the images where uploaded by Wikimedia contributors interested by the Bollywood film industry or whatever. That has nothing to do with watermarking and whether it can serve as a form of advertising or not. You seem unable or unwilling to answer the question without just deflecting for some reason though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is the need for a personal attack now? Yann (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a personal attack. I just want the question to be answered and I don't think your response was adequate or addressed my original comment. It has nothing to do with who uploaded the images or what their interested in. I don't think it's that ridiculous or insulting to expect you to stick to the point of the thread if your going to respond to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some don't have watermark because they were cropped. Otherwise, most if not all have a watermark. If you find some original images without a watermark, it may be a clue that it is not covered by the permission. Please nominate them for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. That has nothing to do with the conversation, but whatever. Just to ask the question again since your ignoring it for some reason, are there instances where a watermark can disqualify an image from being in scope due to self-promotion or are all watermarked images automatically in scope regardless of how blatantly promotional it is? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In some other cases, the watermark was edited out, as the original image has one. Yann (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yann, it seems like a reasonable example of the sort of watermarking he is complaining labour. This does seem intrusive, so I think dismissing him out of hand is counterproductive. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Bollywood Hungama files have an intrusive watermark, but so what? Adamant1 here is complaining for the sake of complaining. They started this thread after I closed this deletion request. IMO this is a typical example of Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. In addition, this comes after Adamant1 made a large number of disruptive DRs about freedom of panorama in Belgium, and I am not the only one to find them problematic. So yes, I dismiss Adamant1's writing as counterproductive. Yann (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the potential resolution here: Bollywood Hungama does not upload files directly to Commons, and they have >17,000 images on Commons. Do you want to nuke all images? Prevent future uploads of a potentially useful source? The current de facto situation is people upload images made by them on Commons, and if someone doesn't like the watermark it can be cropped out/removed with editing tools or AI. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I could care less about Bollywood Hungama or any images related to them. I simply mentioned the image as an example of a watermark that at least IMO is promotional and like I've said most of their images aren't like that. Apparently people are incapable of understanding the question or not making this about Bollywood Hungama even though I've retaliated the question multiple times now and said more then once that it has nothing to do with them. My bad for thinking it would be helpful to include an example of what I was talking about though. Is really that hard to just say if watermarks can be promotional or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: I can't tell what you think is the problem with hosting this image. Would we prefer if it weren't watermarked? Sure. Is it available without a watermark? As far as I know, no. So unless you think it is out of scope, or redundant for all intents and purposes to some other file, there is no issue here. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: Forget the file. It was tangential to the question about watermarking anyway. Its a simple yes or question that doesn't depend on or have to do with any particular file. Can watermarking on an image make it advertising/self-promotion or not per the sentence in Commons:Project scope "files used for advertising or self-promotion are not realistically useful for an educational purpose"? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could imagine a watermark having that effect (e.g. a portrait shot with a blatant watermark across the face, like the ones professional photographers sometimes send out as proofs, precisely to prevent anyone from simply using the proof and not paying them, though I guess we could keep a handful of those precisely as examples of that practice). But it would be a pretty extreme case. - Jmabel ! talk 02:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to deal with watermarked images is to either crop them or use photoshop, GIMP or some other tool to remove watermarks. Often the results are not ideal but better then not having some image. All Wikipedia-compatible licenses allow it. I just tried this tool on File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All are welcome to read and comment upon Template talk:BollywoodHungama#Permission deprecation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 19[edit]

    Bill Cramer's photographs[edit]

    I've encountered a new user, BillCramer, a professional photographer who wishes to contribute low-resolution images from his archives to Wikimedia projects. I've started a conversation with him at enwiki, at his user talkpage en:User_talk:BillCramer. He (and his assistant) have uploaded a number of hard-to-get images of famous individuals, of high quality. Given the issues we're recently encountered concerning David Iliff's images, I'd like to solicit some help and additional voices so that Bill Cramer can contribute without undue difficulty or risk, either to his own intellectual property, or to end users, and so he can appropriately license them and adjust his metadata statements. Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading low resolution files under a free license makes the license also apply to the original file (see Creative Commons FAQ). The only limitation is the access to the full resolution. But if you have access to the full resolution file you can overwrite the low resolution file with it. GPSLeo (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suggested to Bill Cramer that he should verify his account through the VRT process. Yann (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted there, see ticket:2024030210004094 as referenced on File:Mike tyson knocks out tyrell biggs.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    39 images in Category:Photographs by Bill Cramer. If I've missed any, please add them. The biggest issue that I can see is that BillCramer does not appear, from the Wikipedia discussion, to be BC, but his assistant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "The Arabian Kingdom"[edit]

    Can people with interest in category maintenance please contribute their thoughts on CfD: Arabian Kingdom in the 9th century. Some basic knowledge about the Middle East might be required. This CfD is just one example category standing for dozens without any proper parent category like "Category:Arabian Kingdom". I first only encountered a few of those, but then kept finding more and more. The re-categorization of all this content probably has some far-reaching consequences. (In my opinion, "The Arabian Kingdom" is an anachronistic entity that never existed, and all content needs to be moved to "Saudi Arabia", "Arabia" or "Arabian Peninsula" and appropriate sub-categories.) --Enyavar (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Saudi Arabia" is even more anachronistic. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Applies to the whole tree: Category:9th_century_by_country. Some disclaimer could be helpful. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the many categories that this is about, could belong into "Saudi Arabia", for example Category:Natural history of the Arabian Kingdom. Others don't fit in there, just as Jmabel says. "History of Arabia by century", and corresponding subcats seems to me like a good catch-all category for all history of the Peninsula prior to the 20th century. But I wanted to make sure before acting on my own. --Enyavar (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 20[edit]

    Immediate deletion of upload by its own author/uploader[edit]

    Is there any page describing the principles by which an uploaded file should not be deleted immediately by its author/uploader? If so, it would be interesting to know whether such principles should be applied in all wikis, or only within Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena Regina (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

    @Elena Regina: A user can ask for deletion of their files within one week after uploading if they are not used. Yann (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Yann, I repeat the question: Is there any page describing the principles by which an uploaded file should not be deleted immediately by its author/uploader? If so, it would be interesting to know whether such principles should be applied in all wikis, or only within Wikimedia Commons. Elena Regina (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but your question makes little sense, so I will have to default to "no." The assumption would be that most files are not immediately deleted by the uploader. There is unlikely to be any page that describes this as it is a matter of common sense. While an uploader can request deletion of their upload, we would expect that to be the exception rather than the rule. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear From Hill To Shore, your reply does not answer the submitted questions. Elena Regina (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer was "no."
    If you want a different answer then rephrase your question, as it is currently nonsense. If English isn't your first language, I would advise asking your question again in your native language. Good luck getting the answer you seek. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrasing: Is there any page describing the principles by which an uploaded file cannot be deleted immediately by its author/uploader? If so, it would be interesting to know whether such principles should be applied in all wikis, or only within Wikimedia Commons. Elena Regina (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elena Regina: Your question was already answered by Yann. Per Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7, author-requested deletions are generally granted within 7 days of upload, unless the file is in use on a wiki. That is only Commons policy; other wikis have their own local policies about courtesy deletions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Pi.1415926535: No, submitted questions were not answered by anyone yet. Please specify which part of the questions, e.g.: "cannot be deleted immediately by its author/uploader", you do not understand correctly. Elena Regina (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elena Regina authors and uploaders cannot generally delete files by themselves, as this requires special privilege. Your question makes little sense to us, and perhaps by the "XY Problem" principle, you could describe some concrete circumstances or disputes or editors who have raised this concern and precipitated your very specific inquiry here. Without specifics or details, we're unable to comment on such a nonsensical general and hypothetical case. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if it is the case that your mother tongue is not English, please feel free to pose your question in the language where you are most fluent. There is no reason to be constrained by an imaginary "English barrier" here on Commons. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The short answer: Commons:User access levels; and these principles in general are similar across wikis, but in the end it is the wiki-chapter's own decision on how to adapt these principles. The long answer: having looked into your editing history, it seems you would like to know why you yourself are unable to easily delete your own files, and instead have to patiently rely on others to delete them. In simple terms, the ability to delete pages is too powerful for regular users and, as far as I know, there is no safer "limited" version of the deletion ability. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the page see Commons:Courtesy deletions answer your question about the page describing the principles? (note: it is only proposal and formally approved guideline, but describes pretty well the process and reasons). --Zache (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elena Regina Commons (this site) is part of the websites by the Wikimedia Foundation. The purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation is to create and maintain an Enzyclopedia that is accessible to all mankind for free. Very early after creation of this Enzyclopedia it was decided, that images and other media are helpful in making an Encyclopedia. Later Commons was created as the universal repository for media that is used in any Wikimeda project. It is still possible to upload media files to some of the individual projects, but that does only make sense for a very limited number of use cases (fair use in the english language wikipedia is one such use case). These uploads in other projects are best made by experienced users who know about the rules and mostly have no need to have an upload deleted. On Commons on the other hand everyone is invited to upload as much media files as possible, as long as these files are in SCOPE and not COPYVIO. It is not in the interest, that any file that is in SCOPE and not a COPYVIO, is ever deleted. As contributers may become estranged to the project and its goals, contributers are not allowed to delete any image. Only admins can do that and admins do so only after a deletion requests has been discussed and decided or as a SPEEDY if it is absolutly clear, that an uploaded file is in breach of rules or laws. The exception is a courtesy deletion: If you upload a file in error, that you never meant to actually publish anywhere, you can ask for a courtesy deletion within the first seven days after upload. However this may not be granted, for example if you uploaded a public domain file that is within the project SCOPE. This is to protect reusers of media files and the encyclopedia project in general. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be exact. Courtesy deletion can be after any period of time, but under seven days it will be speedy deleted (and by default) and after seven days process is that deletion request will go through deletion discussion. --Zache (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Interwiki notification of deletion requests[edit]

    Does the interwiki bot that posts notices on talk pages of subject pages that display images coming from Commons no longer run? I noticed recently that an article using a media file from Commons, where that file had been nominated for deletion, did not have a notice on its talk page. After checking other language Wikipedias none of the others had a notice either. -- 65.92.247.66 22:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you talking about the Commons deletion notification bot task done by the Community Tech bot that is run from meta.wikimedia.org at meta:Community Tech/Commons deletion notification bot? The bot is run by MusikAnimal (WMF). Unfortunately, the Commons deletion notification portion of its tasks has been offline since 6 June 2023. See phabricator ticket phab:T339145 if you want to track the status of efforts to fix the bot. —RP88 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. -- 65.92.247.66 23:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 21[edit]

    I've done something great.[edit]

    Hi, I'm OperationSakura6144. Now, I've done something great. I've created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available. Now, I will not be dependent on requests I make to everyone in WikiComms. If you're interested in helping me, please go to this category. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions about FoP in UAE[edit]

    I am surprised that not all countries have panoramic freedom. From the standpoint of FoP, can the image of Dubai in this link be accepted by Wikimedia Commons? And what if the image contains only trains? Thanks! --Tim Wu (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See COM:FOP UAE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimWu007 one can argue that the said image does not focus on a specific building or two or even three (which may warrant restrictions by the buildings' designers or architects). IMO, weak allow an image similar to that here ("weak" because I don't know if there is a visual artists' group similar to ADAGP of France that may oppose hosting of modern Dubai architecture on Wikimedia or even Wikipedia sites).
    If an image contains only trains and no intentional focus on any copyrighted building or artwork like public monument, then it is very acceptable here. Trains are not works of fine or visual arts. Though there may be licensing problems if there is substantial advertising artwork on trains, IMO.
    It is rather frustrating that despite being last-updated in around 2021, the UAE law only provides FoP for free uses of copyrighted public art and architecture in "broadcasts" (this implies only traditional media can exploit these landmarks of UAE, not lucrative Internet media that only accept commercial licensing, like Wikimedia sites). That's their law, and Commons need to respect it, even if that means no good images of famous towers of Dubai. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JWilz12345 Thanks for your comment, and I have some few naive questions:
    1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:PICTURES BENOIT TORDEURS Palace Abou dhabi.jpg was kept for architecture is not shown. How do I determine whether a photo of building interior contains copyright contents?
    2. Aedas has posted Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dubai_Metro_Station.jpg under CC BY-SA license, so can I upload other photos of this building (or other Aedas-designed Dubai Metro station buildings... XD) to Commons?
    Best regards, Tim Wu (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimWu007 I renominated the first case as I don't think the claimed main subject, the chandelier, is simple or in public domain. It is certainly artistic and does not appear to have been designed by someone who died more than 70 years ago. Regarding the 2nd one, no. Only Aedas can release images under commercial CC license, so the only way is to import other images of the metro station from the account of Aedas. You cannot upload your images of that metro station, unless the UAE law is changed. You cannot also import images of the station from other Flickr users, except the Flickr account of the architecture firm itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 22[edit]

    Insufficient information at Wiki Loves Folklore images[edit]

    I often come across images from Wiki Loves Folklore where the description says nothing about what is in the picture and no category is indicated. For example File:Madarsa.jpg. The description is

    Logo Wiki Loves Folklore This media has been taken in the country: India

    . The filename could refer to Category:Madarsha Union, but that doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Is there any way to at least ensure that when uploading, the description must be more complete before the upload is accepted? Wouter (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably no, because only a human can determine that, and no other human besides the uploader can view the description before it is uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 09:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every upload must have a description though. If you used the Wiki Loves Folklore upload form it automatically adds the WLF template in the description, which allows people to upload them without writing one themselves. I think this problem could be fixed by moving that template elsewhere, like giving it its own field or moving it outside the info box (like the larger WLF template proper, which is below the licensing field). ReneeWrites (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, I think people not writing sufficiently detailed descriptions or not categorizing (or miscategorizing) stuff is always going to exist to some extent. WLF also says your images should have EXIF data to be eligible for any awards, which these photos lack as well. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReneeWrites this is not only limited to WLF. Similar issues exist in images submitted in other photo competitions like those of COM:UAE in Lens Competition, in which many of the images' descriptions only read as "This illustation is part of the Images from UAE in Lens Competition." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ambiguity of the term "cars"[edit]

    Since there has been a CFD on Category:Automobiles at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Automobiles with no consensus, I don't want to open another CFD to discuss the name. Instead, I want to discuss whether the term "car" is inherently ambiguous, since consensus can change and many of the oppose comments are little more than !votes. As per my analysis of that discussion, many users agree that the term "car" is more common than "automobile" even in the USA. Therefore, it makes sense to use "cars" instead of "automobiles". However, the arguments against this proposal are that the term "car" has several related meaning other than an automobile, that the cognates of the term "automobile" and its clipped form "auto" are common in many European languages, and that the name change would be disruptive for Commons. My counterargument is that although Commons is a multilingual project, English, like in many other domains, is the lingua franca of this project. Many of our categories are named according to the common usage in English. Not only that, if the term "car" is inherently ambiguous, we can stick with the term "motor car". However, the term "motor car" may also be used for Category:Railcars, which is no big deal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at Category:Automobiles by function, I've found that there are already some categories using the term "cars" in their names despite the term being de jure deprecated in Commons. As said before, some users have complained that the name change wod be disruptive for Commons. However, as one can categorize files quickly using Commons:Cat-a-lot, the potential disruption will be more manageable. You can refer to the example of how we move away from the technical term Category:Rolling stock to use the more common term Category:Rail vehicles. We can do the same thing with Category:Automobiles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment Category:Car and Category:Cars both are category redirects through to Category:Automobiles. To also note Category:Cars (Q7238000) and Category:Automobiles (Q6491972)  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sbb1413: I am seeing an argument in search of a problem. What is your issue? What sort of solution are you looking to have? Tell us what is the problem that you are seeing with the categorisation, and how we could be implementing a fix.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the technical term "automobiles" is less common than the term "cars", even in the USA. Many newcomers will be frustrated to find that we use "automobiles" instead of "cars". If we use the term "cars" instead of "automobiles", none but non-English-speaking Europeans will complain about the usage. We can always use {{Translation table}} for such users. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a user from India, I had never heard of the term "automobile" till 2020, when I started to contribute in Commons extensively. I've always used the term "car" outside Commons and I always rent for a car instead of an automobile. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly, I'm one of the older Wikimedians, but I still to some extent have the older connotation of "railroad car", especially when dealing with older material. I agree that it's an archaism now, but if someone referred to "Franklin Delano Roosevelt's car" I would guess that was as likely to mean rail as road. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what I worth, I have already created Category:Railroad cars for rail vehicles carrying passengers and/or cargo. I have used the term "railroad cars" in line with Wikidata and Wikipedia. However, for Category:Automobiles, neither the Wikidata item nor the English Wikipedia article is titled "automobile". The Wikidata item is titled "motor car", while the English Wikipedia article is titled simply "car". English Wikipedia uses "car" for automobiles even though it can have other meanings. Similarly, Bengali Wikipedia uses গাড়ি (gāṛi) for automobiles even though it can also mean bullock carts (গরুর গাড়ি garur gāṛi), horse-drawn vehicles (ঘোড়ার গাড়ি ghoṛār gāṛi) or trains (রেলগাড়ি relgāṛi). As long as the context is obvious, the English word "car" and the Bengali word গাড়ি (gāṛi) would specifically refer to automobiles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will open a CFD on automobiles vs cars if there is no prejudice against it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    a no-no in specifying disambiguation categories[edit]

    in Category:Disambiguation categories we have

    and essentially these are nonsensical.

    Disambiguation is of the word/phrase in whatever, and every, form it is used, so to sub-categorise these is contrary to their purpose of the word/phrase not having a specific meaning [for disambiguation is essentially a label without meaning]. It would also mean that if there was a term that aligns with the disambiguation page that you are going to split it? Change its form? What? We should just appropriately explain the linked categories with suitable explanations.

    I propose that we remove these intermediary categories and align all the subcats to the top-level cat. The reason that I note it here is for that higher level discussion, and that there is no other realistically useful place to have this conversation appropriately.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming that by "the top-level cat" you mean Category:Disambiguation categories, I agree. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like these to be kept. They are useful when someone wants to work on disambiguating a specific kind of topic. They are similar to the subcategories on English Wikipedia in en:Category:Disambiguation pages.
    The subcategories are, as far as I know, all in Category:Disambiguation categories as well; if they aren't, that is easily fixed.
    By the way, it would be nice if you would notify the creators of each of these pages. I created some (although I did so only after others had been created), but there are at least two other people who created some of them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find them very useful, just as they are useful in Wikipedia, too many ships, cemeteries, and churches have the same name. Wikidata should do the same thing, list all the entries for Saint Mary Church or Evergreen Cemetery. Currently we only do this in Wikipedia but in the past the red linked ones were deleted. Commons has entries not in Wikipedia. --RAN (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Support. Disambiguation pages are navigation tools, not content. Time spent placing them into highly specific categories is time wasted. If anything, having all the disambiguation categories on a single level makes it easier to spot the ones which aren't empty like they should be. Omphalographer (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omphalographer: They are all on a single level, or they can be in addition being in the categories being discussed. English Wikipedia doesn't have trouble with the ones they have (and they have many more than this). Each of theirs is in a category for all disambiguation pages as well as in a more specific one, and the ones here can be managed in the same way.
    There's no requirement to create lower-level disambiguation categories for every possible topic, so no one has to do so. People can create the ones they want to have available to work on. Having them grouped into subcategories makes it easier to find them. I really don't see what problem these cause. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Support. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): no one is suggesting getting rid of the disambiguation pages, just that categorizing them like this is inappropriate. For example, if we had a Category:Saint Augustine (which, surprisingly we don't) it should include not only all saints with this name, but also the city in Florida. - Jmabel ! talk 08:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Support The whole point of disambiguation pages is that they cover more than one thing sharing the same name. I agree with moving these pages to the main cat and deleting the subcats. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Crop tool[edit]

    Commons_talk:CropTool#Not_working --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For a replacement, see Commons:Village_pump/Technical#New_tool_for_cropping_and_rotating_images_(proposal). Enhancing999 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 23[edit]

    File extension ".pdf" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (unknown/unknown).[edit]

    When I download a New York Times public domain article from the NYT archive as a pdf, and try to upload it to Commons, I get the error message: "File extension ".pdf" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (unknown/unknown)." I tried reading the file into Adobe and saving it again as a pdf, but I still get the error. Normally I would just convert the pdf to a png and then upload, but I have a multi-page article I do not want break into two pieces. Any solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

    A very non-ideal solution is to take a screenshot, save that PNG (or whatever image) into a PDF, and then upload that. Images of text are generally very inaccessible and not a good idea, but if you are trying to scan it for Wikisource, then at least text would accompany it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard, can you give a link to the article? Maybe I can diagnose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category with all microprocessor models available (flat list)[edit]

    Hi!

    I want to structurize the microprocessor main category with additional subcategories. Would it make sense/is it okay to create a flat list as category with all CPU models? It might help to figure out what models are missing.

    Thank you and greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what people will conclude, but at worst you can create it as a maintenance category. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Latinx[edit]

    Soooo. How do we determine which photos belongs in this category?--Trade (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trade: How do the people who want their photos categorized as such self-identify?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to tell when 1/3 of the photos doesn't even mention the word anywhere Trade (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just having a similar discussion with myself about Category:Orientalism. Both categories are convenient ways for white European's to group different non-whites who are slightly related together, but that kind of thing is also pretty outdated. It also doesn't really work in the real world. No one from Latin America calls themselves "Latinx", just like no one refers to themselves as an oriental. So if it were me, I'd just delete both and categorize the images based on the country, or at least something better. Whatever that is. Although I don't see what's wrong with just categorizing the images based on the country of origin and leaving it there. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: I have seen TV commercials for some sort of "Latinx Awards". Take a look at these search results.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G.: I mean sure, the term exists. I don't think that negates what I was saying or makes it any less problematic though. Its an unfortunate feature of neologisms around race or culture that they only tend to be issues in hindsight years later. Anyway, per this page from the Chicago History Mesuem "“Latinx” is an attempt to be more inclusive of gender nonconforming Latinos, but Spanish speakers have not widely accepted it. The criticisms are that it is difficult to say in Spanish and that people who are used to “Latino” don’t want to change their habit." --Adamant1 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue is a broader one. Since the term “Latino” is still questioned (even by myself) and now we see the spin-off term “Latinx” being dropped on us. This, because Latino is not a race or ethnicity, but allegedly a geographical term. In another discussion people got feisty just attempting to define what a “white” person is. Trust me, attempting to define Latino is worse. I for one don’t identify as Latino, but other people (White American people) identify me as Latino. The same conundrum applies for Latinx. That is why I’ve always preferred the way Wikimedia and other Wikis identify by city/country/continent of origin instead of an identiterian label. And this would especially be a mess in an image-based repository. I oppose any, Latino or Latinx. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trade: We could push the problem down a level with Category:Latinos and Category:Latinas. I would think that anyone who speaks Spanish natively, comes from a country which is majority Spanish speakers, or self-identifies qualifies. Of course, people whose photos are categorized as such may opt out.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By Spanish grammar rules, a photo of one man and six women would be categorized as "Latinos", and we're unlikely to sustain that sort of linguistic correctness on this project. Elizium23 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff G., the most adequate category name would be "Latinos". As as a Latino myself (sort of?), I despise the existence of such an unpronounceable word. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RodRabelo7: I'm guessing you already know this, but in both English and Spanish it is pronounced as if it were "Latinex". - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like it should be about the term or be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing as the subject of File:Mariana Gomez Ruiz.jpg calls herself Latina in an interview i took the freedom to remove her. --Trade (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is going to be so tricky. It's like it would be to separate out "Native American" and "American Indian" or what it would have been in 1968 if you separated out "Negro", "Afro-American", "African American", and "Black American". The terms all refer(red) to the same groups, it is a matter of preferred vocabulary. Our categories should refer to a concept or a thing, not a term (unless the category is about the term). "Latino/Latina" and "Latinx" refer to the same group of people. The latter is an effort to be more gender-inclusive, which some people like and some don't (either on a linguistic basis or a political one). I would not like to see us categorizing actual people, organizations, images, etc. on the basis of which term they prefer for the same concept. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't speak Spanish myself, I heard arguments by Latinos and Latinas who can't identify with the the x suffix because they claim it was not homegrown in any native community but instead invented in an academic ivory tower and is now pushed as a label onto them by (certainly well-meaning) US elites. I don't know - maybe some Latinxes embrace the term, but this seems highly controversial to include as a categorization. --Enyavar (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it originated from LGBT people within the ethnic/geographic/linguistic group, but I agree it has had more adoption outside than in. - Jmabel ! talk 21:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A user is harassing me[edit]

    I posted about it here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#ip_user_making_bad_faith_deletion_requests_and_vandalizing_categories but I am not sure if it was actually the right place to do so. They are doing bad faith deletion requests and also did a fake block on my talk page Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Immanuelle: The correct place would have been Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems [or Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism]]. However, you already got a response at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections, so leave it there. Please, in the future, do not cross-post: there was nothing here that belongs on a general-user forum like the Village pump. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that someone got to you within 30 minutes of your original post. Please, have some patience about getting a response. - Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will avoid that. Sorry about that in the future. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 24[edit]

    Category and location info directly from Upload wizard[edit]

    Hey there! I've launched a campaign for Wiki Explores Bhadrachalam, you can find it here. As a part of this campaign, I've compiled a list of categories where the images we capture might fit. Can we pre-add these categories to the upload form, i.e., by just clicking on the special upload wizard provided in the right side column on that page, can it have respective category already placed in the form. -- iMahesh (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not from that link. But if you provide your own link somewhere, you can use Commons:Upload_Wizard/Fields_prefilling. There is also Commons:Upload Wizard campaign editors who can make upload wizard campaigns. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info about Pre-filling the Wizard. I have created a few of them and linked to my campaign. --iMahesh (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    create a new category[edit]

    Hi, I'm trying to create a new category called "Archeofuturism" for the picture I uploaded, "A_Martian_colony_with_a_medieval_village.jpg," but I haven't been successful. Can someone assist me with this?--Raresvent (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Convenience link: File:A Martian colony with a medieval village.jpg.
    @Raresvent: before getting into your specific question, why is that image within scope? In particular, how is it educational? It seems like a hypothetical imagining of something that certainly does not now exist, and is very unlikely ever to exist. - Jmabel ! talk 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, sorry, it's probably a mistake. Where do you see that the image is within scope?--Raresvent (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raresvent: Please read COM:SCOPE. AI images are essentially personal artworks - they generally lack educational or historical value and most should not be uploaded to Commons. (Because generative AI is simply mimicking elements and patterns from other images without understanding their meaning, it is not equivalent to "artist's renditions" where all details of the image are intentional decisions by the artist, and should generally not be used for illustrations in Wikipedia articles.) I have nominated this image for deletion as out of scope. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Very large batch upload should get some consensus beforehand[edit]

    i think, users who might not be familiar with commons maintenance, should not do batch upload without first getting more opinions or even approval. occasionally i see files getting dumped into major topic categories or left uncategorised.

    is this recommendation valid? i guess it's just an extension or application of Commons:Bots#Permission to run a bot? RZuo (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, How large are you talking about here? Bots need a permission anyway. Yann (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i think anything more than 500 is too much and should seek a consensus. RZuo (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why 500? Msb (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any upload where a human is not individually checking every file name, description, author, date, and categories at the time of upload should be considered a bot edit and treated accordingly. That means community approval - either of the specific upload, or of the user in a discussion akin to a bot request for a approval - to ensure that a plan is in place for properly curating the files.
    Commons has a longstanding issue of uncurated and poorly-curated mass uploads that are equal in scale to bot uploads but lack the same community oversight. This results in large numbers of files with major issues – useless filenames/descriptions/categories, incorrect author/date information, scope and copyvio problems, and/or being placed in overly-broad categories – that the uploaders refuse to fix. There has been general agreement that the problem needs fixing, but no specific policy has been advanced.
    I would prefer a more tailored policy, but as an initial effort, setting an arbitrary limit like "over 500 files needs community discussion first" may be useful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    April 25[edit]

    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=871056906"