This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:
How to use Commons
Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them.
Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after two days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. The latest archive is Commons:Help desk/Archive/2025/05.
I have completed and downloaded images for our historic building. Will these images need approved before they can be viewed for our property before they are posted? And is there a contact telephone number to call for assistance? Thank you
Michelle Lewis Guckercoalco (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, since most work from the 1940s is still copyrighted, probably will need licenses from the heirs who hold the copyrights. - Jmabel ! talk19:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guckercoalco: That doesn't sound right. Verifying an account is normally something you would initiate, not something where you are responding. Did you read the description of account verification at Commons:Username policy? Is this something you already did? I don't see any evidence of it having been, though I guess it could still be in process. Jmabel ! talk03:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How to mass rename/move (files)/delete (redirects, where files are already've been renamed) for IP ~400 objects at least changing obvious email (that is COM:ADVERT) "Media.Krysiak@gmail.com" to "Klub Lewicy" (according to flickr account name it uploaded from) as it's too hard to template it one by one, you know.
Are you talking about deleting revs like [1]? Yes, technically an admin can hide those. I personally am not convinced that hiding them would be a good thing. - Jmabel ! talk20:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel No, there is no need to hide comments on intermediate revisions, what is meant there is to hide it only on the original (first) or any other later revision where the file was uploaded and which, for this reason, is permanently displayed in the table of the "file history" section of the file main page, which is what causes the dissonance due to the requirements of COM:ADVERT, because still being massively (if there's many similar ones exists from same uploader) displaying the advertising both on such file pages and in external search engines' result that display its readable content.
Of course, only if there is a violation in such a comment on the file load.
As for the hiding of earlier images in the history - in this revision example an image was uploaded containing, as only useful, advertising posters with full contact information of two companies belonging to one individual, which is difficult to perceive as anything other than COM:ADVERT, but that was recommended to just blur, which, however, was not done ever, but no way to delete, since the image is ostensibly an example of local architecture. And, based on the expressed doubts about the admissibility of the file (in fact, the nomination for deletion is), if and when the recommendation to blur advertising posters is at least followed by someone, who will create such a new image and upload it as new revision of current file, it is logical, in order not to violate COM:ADVERT, to hide from the history the original image containing full contact information, leaving only the blurred one. Although, considering that over 6 years no one has blurred this data, the file is quite subject to a new nomination for deletion for the same reason, since the violation still remains.
The question here is - how exactly to do both (request to hide the comment on the file upload) and the other (request to hide an earlier upload from the file history)? What templates can be used for this or where to create such a request? 4.242.91.5419:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If someone else thinks this matters, they can take over responding. - Jmabel ! talk20:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Wikkyshor. I agree that the explanation in COM:JAPAN is insufficient in this case, that’s why I don’t think the images are “clear copyright infringement”. It is not clear that “restoration” of utilitarian objects (e.g. planes and engines) are considered “copyrighted work” (著作物) in the Japanese copyright law you linked. Do you know if there are any official statements or court rulings that indicates whether the restored utilitarian objects, particularly those in museums, are subjected to copyright? Tvpuppy (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a legal expert, so I may not fully understand Estimated restoration. However, to the best of my knowledge, there was a notable case referred to as the High Chair Case (TRIPP TRAP), which was decided on 14 April 2015. The case involved a dispute between the company holding the rights to the original high chair and a manufacturer that sold imitations.
Generally speaking, chairs are considered Industrial products. In fact, the court acknowledged that the chair did not fall within the scope of the Copyright Act, but it also concluded that the issue was not about prioritizing either the Copyright Act or the Design Act. Ultimately, the court found that the rights were infringed under the Design Act.
@MaiIn ekual NaMe: you are the uploader. You did not provide any template either indicating a free license or indicating why it would be in the {{Public domain}}. I have no reason to think it would be either of those, so I can't help you beyond saying that you as uploader are the person responsible for knowing why one of these two applies. - Jmabel ! talk05:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am recently trying to find the image is of Tibetan Kache, I found the images but they are in book:- Islamic Shangri-La an image is of 1960, my question is that does these images under {PD-China} copyright or not
Please help me seniors Mr.work-shy (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.work-shy: while that is probably in the public domain in China, it is unlikely that it is in the public domain in the United States. Am I correct that book was first published in the United States? Assuming that was the first time the picture was published, then if copyright was properly maintained in the U.S., it is still copyrighted. See COM:Hirtle chart. - Jmabel ! talk16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I can't make sense of that. Is there some other language where you could say this more clearly than in English, and I can try to get an appropriate person to help you in that language? - Jmabel ! talk03:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble adding the "Artwork" template to artwork that I have uploaded onto Wikipedia. When I type-in {{Artwork, nothing happens. I thought a set of default sub-categories is supposed to emerge, such as Creator, Date, Medium, Dimensions, etc... What am I doing wrong? Steven Seward (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven Seward: I'm a little confused about context here. You say "I have uploaded onto Wikipedia." Is this about an upload to one of the Wikipedias, or to Wikimedia Commons? Also, is this a problem in an upload tool, and if so which (Special:UploadWizard here on Commons, for example), or is this in the Visual Editor (here on Commons, or in a Wikipedia?) or just editing wikitext? Also, the sections of a template are not categories, "sub" or otherwise, they'd just parameters to the template.- Jmabel ! talk19:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jmabel,
I have uploaded four images of paintings to Wikimedia Commons using the upload Wizard. This is my upload page:
I cannot figure out how to add the "Artwork" template to any of these images. From reading about Templates it suggests that I just type in the word {{Artwork}} and the parameters will automatically appear and then I just fill in the necessary information. But that does not happen when I type {{Artwork}}. Can you please guide me on the precise nuts and bolts of adding the Artwork Template? Steven Seward (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UploadWizard inserts the {{Information}} template automatically. The {{Artwork}} template uses many of the same parameters as the information template so you can edit the page afterwards and replace "Information" with "Artwork" there. If you want the specific parameters from the Artwork template you need to type/copy and paste them in REAL💬⬆20:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on an article for EN Wikipedia about a Polish college in the city Jelenia Góra. I would like for the infobox to show the full logo of that college. I believe I cannot make an upload to Wikimedia Commons, however, I believe this pic covers the fair use policy (I hope?). What should I do in order for the picture to appear in my draft and later the finished article?
@Kaworu1992 Hello! On en-WP, you can add such a non-free picture as leadimage, but only when the article is "live", not while it's a draft. So if/when your draft becomes an article, go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard, choose Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I try to upload a new Wikipedia page (text, with photo and links to other pages), I get a message that the file format is not acceptable. I have tried files with extension .docx, .doc, and .docm. What format should I use? StevenTiger (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles belong on Wikipedia, presumably in your case the English-language Wikipedia. If you need help on en-wiki, and cannot work out where to get started, you can ask a question by clicking here. - Jmabel ! talk04:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am making a draft article (hopefully a real one soon) diving deep down into State standardized testing system and wanted to upload a screenshot of a prompt saying that all students must watch a tutorial before the test from the testing website page. I dont know if this is allowed so please help. SVSWIKIPED (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SVSWIKIPED: You don't say what country, but almost certainly if the content can be copyrighted it is copyrighted, and you are very unlikely to get a free enough license for Commons. The key here is going to COM:TOO (threshold of originality), which varies from country to country; since I don't have anything to go on all I can do is point you at that page. - Jmabel ! talk04:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just uploaded my first photo and I wanted to know what an appropriate copyright description would be. On the file page you can see the URL I found the photo on; it is from a Library of Congress collection called Chronicling America. The copyright info section on that webpage says that “the newspapers in Chronicling America are in the public domain or have no known copyright restrictions”. On the upload wizard, I selected “This work is not protected by copyright law”, which opened a series of checkboxes. I didn’t think any of them applied, but I was required to select one, so I checked “Original work of the US federal government” and subsequently removed the US gov tag after uploading. What would have been the appropriate procedure for designating copyright for this file while uploading? Thanks. Edit: Since writing this I have found a higher quality version of the aforementioned file and I plan to delete the existing file and replace it with my new one, so any pointers on errors (copyright or otherwise) in the existing file would be appreciated. NuclearSpuds (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearSpuds: You had also inserted "PD-US-no notice", which may be fine, at least in as much as the newspaper does not have a copyright notice. However, the photos in that page are likely copies of studio photos provided to the newspaper by the subjects or by their parties. It's not clear who the copyright owners were and if the photos were published there with the permission of the copyright owners. If your other version comes from a different source with more information about the photo, that may be better. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick reply @Asclepias. I found no attribution for either photo. The other photo is from a campaign ad in the same newspaper and no attribution is given aside from saying the ad is “authorized by the candidate”. Is this off-limits for Commons? NuclearSpuds (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearSpuds: I suppose that it can be assumed that the campaign had the rights to publish the photo and that on Commons the file should be ok with the template "PD-US-no notice". -- Asclepias (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are reaching out to inquire about the possibility of uploading music files to Wikimedia Commons, specifically those that have been distributed to our radio station, AccuRadio. We have noticed that Wikimedia Commons already hosts work from NEFFEX, and we would like to contribute music from similar artists, such as Relentless Flood, Music from NCS 'NoCopyrightSounds', Babymonster, and Imagine Dragons, among others.
We understand that Wikimedia Commons has strict guidelines and policies in place to ensure the integrity and legitimacy of uploaded content. We have reviewed the rules and regulations, which include:
Licensing: All files must be licensed under a free license, such as Creative Commons or public domain.
Copyright: Only files that are owned by the uploader or are in the public domain can be uploaded, or those for which permission has been obtained from the copyright holder.
Original work: Only original work can be uploaded, and not copyrighted material without permission.
File format: Wikimedia Commons accepts a variety of file formats, but some are not recommended.
File size: There is a maximum file size limit for uploads.
Content policy: Certain types of files, such as explicit or violent content, are prohibited.
Categorization: Files must be categorized correctly using the category system.
Description and attribution: Files must include a description, author or creator information, source, and licensing or copyright information.
Respect for others: Uploads must be respectful of other users and their work.
Compliance with laws: Uploads must comply with all applicable laws, including copyright and privacy laws.
We want to assure you that we will obtain the necessary permissions from the artists and rights holders before uploading any music files to Wikimedia Commons. We believe that our contribution will enhance the platform's music offerings and provide a valuable resource for users.
Please let us know if this is feasible and if there are any additional steps we need to take to ensure compliance with Wikimedia Commons' policies and guidelines. We look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the platform and work with your team.
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons! Thanks for taking your time to understand our policies and guidelines. However, there are a few additional ones and some clarifications:
Username policy. Because your username is an organization/company, we need to verify your identity. This is usually done by sending an email to us, but see here for specific instructions.
Content Policy. Our content policy differs significantly from other websites. We have a project scope to follow besides laws, particularly:
Commons is not censored. Explicit and violent content are allowed, as long as they have a realistic educational use. "Educational" is to be taken broadly, but see our project scope and our nudity policy for details.
Almost everything here, including moderation, are user generated. Although Wikimedia Foundation Inc. hosts the servers and holds the trademarks, almost all policies and guidelines, content, moderation by admins, etc. are made by the community and not the staff/employees.
No warranty. Although you might find valuable content here, Wikimedia Commons makes no guarantee of validity of anything you find here, without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose. See our general disclaimer for details.
Licensing. Note that some Creative Commons licenses are forbidden, particularly any license that contains a NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND) clause. Hence, only CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA licenses are allowed.
Note that I am not an administrator and may not fully understand the policies and guidelines. See the list of administrators to contact to.
"we will obtain the necessary permissions from the artists and rights holders before uploading any music files to Wikimedia Commons."
It is important to note the distinction: files must be released under a compatible open licence; it is insufficient to simply ask for permission "to upload to Wikimedia Commons".
If you are not the rights holder, then we will need evidence that whoever does hold the rights has agreed to this, either on a web page that they (not you) control, or in an email. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On file pages, where do you place templates such as {{Vector version available}}, {{Convert to SVG}}, {{Logo history}}, etc.? I've been solely placing them under the information block beneath the Summary header, but I've seen them placed at the very top of the file page just as often, and I'm wondering if templates should be positioned at one place compared to the other or if it's up to editor preference.
Being such a general question, I've had difficulty in finding answers to this question on the website. If there is a specific answer, I think it would benefit from being clearly stated somewhere unless I am missing something obvious and it already is. — rae5e <talk> 13:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indexing this DjVu on the English Wikisource and it seems like the DjVu won't generate thumbnails, especially on the Commons page where it's blank. Is the file broken? It was imported from the IA, and IrfanView goes through it just fine. Thanks, hope this is the right place! Overthrows (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Overthrows, it appears the thumbnail is showing properly now. This can sometimes happen to PDF/DjVu files, you just have to purge the page multiple times until the thumbnail appears. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Mr.work-shy. You can request a rename by going to the file page, under “Tools”, then select “Move”. A prompt will then appear, which you can enter the new filename and the reason for the rename. This will then generate a request and one of the filemovers will rename the image later on. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot: Looks like it is moving toward deletion, but you seem to have wanted to try to get an appropriate free license. Have you given up on that? I could delete. - Jmabel ! talk17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no - do not delete yet - i'm trying again with help of @John_Cummings
I want to add zoning maps to cities in Orange County. The maps themselves don't have copyrights on them and they are publicly available on their city's websites. The maps exist as pdf files and I cannot directly upload them to the page because they are not my own work. I was going to upload them to the Commons and insert a link, but am unsure if coding them as {PD-US-GovEdict} is appropriate or if I can even upload them to the Commons? For example, I want to upload the pdf zoning map found here: https://www.sanjuancapistrano.org/425/MapsIforgot456 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iforgot456: Hi, and welcome. As that is Orange County, California, the appropriate tag is {{PD-CAGov}}. You may upload the files when you have COM:AP after request at COM:RFR when you think you are ready (once you have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to move this a bit more quickly than 500 edits, but this is literally your first edit on Commons, and you seem pretty new to en-wiki as well, so I think this needs to wait a little. - Jmabel ! talk17:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User Yann claims that information about copyrights are missing, and I dont know why he claims this, because the source itself claims it as commons in my tag, that the pic is from unknown author and pic is more than 50 years old is absolute correct.
User Yann seems to make many times such desctructive claims! Please stop him! I work unpaid for WikiPedia and I have the right that my work is respected! --Martin Mair (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Mair: The 2015 article from which this image is extracted is reproduced in several places on the internet. The information about this image reads like this:
"KGB officers look on as a forensic expert examines human bones extracted from the Bykivnia mass graves. April 1971. Source: Tymon Kretschmer, with permission to publish from Mieczysław Góra, deputy chair of Polish government investigations at Bykivnia. The original is in an unpublished picture album dated April 1971 and called ‘Fotodokumenty mesta massovogo unichtozheniia liudei v period nemetsko-fashistskoi okkupatsii g. Kieva (19-i kvartal Dneprovskogo lisnichestva upravleniia zelenoi zony)’. 66"
The template PD-anon-50 that you used is for exceptional cases only (and has been criticized because it is susceptible to be misused). Its use should be supported by a rationale based on the information about the publication history of the work and the copyright legislation of the country. To use this template on Commons for this image, one would at least need to: A) specify the year when it was first made available to the public, B) conclude that that was more than 50 years ago and C) demonstrate that the copyright legislation of the country of publication does not provide a copyright term longer than 50 years. It seems that this image does not meet those conditions.
If there is no suitable template for a work, the file can be deleted. The first warning message on this file was applied automatically at the time of the upload. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When uploading an image from a website with Creative Commons to Wikimedia Commons,
Where should I write the word "LicenseReview"? (Which site? Where should I write it?)
For example, what should I do if I want to upload an image from the Prime Minister's Office website?
Unlike when uploading a YouTube screenshot, there is no place to write the word "LicenseReview".
::I uploaded an image with a license review attached (written), but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right.
Can you send me a screenshot of what you've actually filled out, like File:Uploading in UploadWizard with YouTube license and LicenseReview.png - Wikimedia Commons?
{{UnDR|reason=I am the original creator of the image and the brand owner of The Chhapai. The file was deleted under criteria F10 and G10, but it is not a personal photo or promotional spam. This is the official logo of a registered fashion brand. I would like to have it undeleted so it can be used in related documentation. The image is self-created and I am ready to relicense it under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Please consider restoring it or guiding me on re-uploading with proper categorization and license.
Thank you. [[User:Kapdewala|Kapdewala]] ([[User talk:Kapdewala|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}
This logo was created by me, Akash Sharma, as part of the branding for The Chhapai. I am the copyright holder and I release this file under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
@Kapdewala: If your name is Akash Sharma, why are you using the username Kapdewala and spamming in support of The Chhapai and your own image? What gave you the impression that spamming our projects was a good idea? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Jeff G.,
Thank you for your feedback. I want to respectfully clarify that my contributions are not intended as spam or mere self-promotion.
While I am indeed the founder of The Chhapai and previously Kapdewala, both have received independent online coverage that verifies their notability and authenticity. Here are some references from third-party platforms:
These articles show that the brand is independently recognized and not merely self-published.
My intention in uploading the logo and image was to provide publicly accessible assets under a free license (CC-BY-SA 4.0) for documentation, not to promote a business. I fully understand Commons' policies now and will gladly follow any instructions to ensure proper compliance.
If required, I can also submit verification via the VRT system or re-upload the image with more context and proper categorization.
I appreciate your time and patience and hope this clears up any confusion. 🙏
I understand this process can be frustrating for experienced editors, but please understand that I’m a new user who’s genuinely trying to learn and follow the right steps.
I did send the required VRT email, but as you might know, it usually takes a couple of days to get a response. In the meantime, I was simply trying to understand what I may have done wrong so I don’t repeat those mistakes in the future.
Instead of feeling helped, I’ve felt blamed, and that’s been disappointing. It would mean a lot to receive a bit of guidance, especially for someone who’s new to how Wikimedia works.
If I came across as spammy, that wasn’t my intent — I was just trying to understand and fix the situation. I’d appreciate any advice on how I can improve my contributions and avoid any unintentional mistakes.
This free media resources page says that of the images in LIFE magazine, there are "Many public domain ones, although with false copyright claims." How do I distinguish which photos fall under legitimate copyright and which are public domain? Thanks. NuclearSpuds (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearSpuds: The detailed photo credits section in each issue of LIFE is usually very good at specifying the authors, sources and copyright owners of all photos in the issue. On the basis of that information, basically apply the usual rules to determine the copyright status of each photo case by case. Copyright can be assumed unless public domain is concluded for a reason: work by government employee, reproduction of work first published before 1930, etc. For issues of 1944 and 1945, also take into consideration List of public domain issues. The line in the page Commons:Free media resources/Photography is strange. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. One more question and I promise this is the last: For the photo credits section, when it lists the name of a photographer without a copyright symbol, (example) does that mean the copyright belongs to the magazine? And as such, does that mean that those photos in the public domain issues are also in the public domain? NuclearSpuds (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general understanding on Commons seems to be that when there is a general copyright notice for the issue of the magazine, it covers the whole contents in the issue, with the exception of advertisements or other excluded items, each of which may or may not have their own distinct copyright notices. The copyright on any particular item may be owned by the magazine or by someone else, but the general notice for the issue is considered sufficient to protect the copyrights of all owners. I'm not sure if the renewal by the magazine of the copyright for the issue has a similar general effect to renew the copyrights on works whose copyrights are owned by someone else. But copyrights on such items could be renewed independently by their respective owners. So, items in the issues without copyright renewals are likely in the public domain if they were made for the magazine, but for copyrights owned by someone else, caution would be to check for copyright renewals by the respective copyright owners. It might be easier to answer if you ask about specific photos and specify in what issue that is, so we can look at the whole context. The specific copyright notice for an agency in this issue was probably a requirement of the agency. Honestly, this question is much beyond my limited knowledge of such subtleties of U.S. copyright. For better answers, you can post the question on Commons:Village pump/Copyright, or we can notify users who can explain that more accurately. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is original artwork by two collaborators (Nick Stern and Ken Hammel). All of the people depicted have been changed. It has political content, i.e, it might be controversial to some audiences. It carries our signatures and we would put it in the public domain (CC0). Ken Hammel (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS- The original we based our drawing on is in the public domain:
The high res version on wikimedia commons, which I cited above, seems not to be in the public domain, when I look at that site. Perhaps the original has been changed by the author in some way? Anyway, our drawing is a parody of the original by Cranach, i.e., is not based specifically on the high res image. Ken Hammel (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Lucas Cranach the Elder died in the 16th century, his work is firmly in the public domain. The "High Res" file had incorrect license claim, which I have fixed. As to if it is ok to upload your parody, there are 2 issues: 1)License. The Cranach work is PD, if you and your collaborator specifically agree to share under a free license, that would be okay for Commons. 2) Scope. Is it in scope for the project - eg legitimately useful to illustrate some educational topic? If so, ok; if not, there are many other places online to share personal cartoons. Thanks for asking. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem about the license; we would relinquish all rights and put it in the public domain.
Your other point is the main issue. It is a political cartoon that criticizes the current US government. In that sense, it could be considered educational, because it addresses current events that a lot of people are talking about. But the opinion expressed will be disliked by some, and what I'm not clear on is whether Wikimedia Commons seeks to avoid getting involved in political controversies. Or whether it considers political content educational.
Maybe the simplest approach would be for you or another editor to look at our drawing. Nick Stern has put it on a Substack page, side by side with the Cranach original:
If it's judged inappropriate, we can just drop the issue, instead of posting it and then having it rejected. But if it meets your criteria, that would be great news. Ken Hammel (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an opinion about whether my post satisfies the criteria under "scope?" One user has marked it for deletion, and I have attempted a rebuttal. Please weigh in if you have some insights. Ken Hammel (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by your "post", but if you mean the file you uploaded, yes I think it is out of scope, as I've said both her and at the DR, which is the correct place to continue this discussion.
To be clear: I am the farthest thing from a fan of Trump, but I do not believe Commons should become a repository of cartoons, memes, etc., unless they are somehow notable. - Jmabel ! talk17:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay to upload a colorized footage from 1896 while mentioning the name of the original uploader?
First off, it seems like you made two threads on the same topic, so I just wanted to confirm that they are the same concern. Wikipedia Commons allows for uploading media that are freely licensed or in the public domain. In the United States, any work that was published in the 19th century is in the public domain. In principle, it is possible that a work is still protected by copyright that is 130 years old, depending on where that work was originally made. So assuming that it is in the public domain in its original place of publication, then it can be published here, as long as it has a plausible educational scope and is in an acceptable file type. All that said, colorizing an older work is a sufficiently creative activity to be covered by copyright in most places, so this newly colored video also has to be in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed. Do you know if the colored video is in fact acceptable on those grounds? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯11:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is "almost never OK," but do read the project page that Jeff linked, which explains this. - Jmabel ! talk17:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an edited picture of Antinous, which I think falls under public domain, plus the SiIvaGunner PFP has been uploaded. Just double checking Gaemr1000 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't uploaded anything to Wikimedia Commons under this account, so I don't know what image you're talking about. Only images which can be shown to be free licensed or public domain can be on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a fair amount of clarification on the copyright status for us to accept it. (1) What is the origin of the image of Antinous (in particular, info that allows us to know the underlying image is really something old enough to be PD)? (2) Why are the modifications to it PD? Are they done by AI (in which case they would be) or might they have been done by a human artist (in which case almost certainly not).
The election of Leo XIV and coverage of his maternal family connections to New Orleans has generated interest in New Orleans history buffs, myself included. I've uploaded some media related such as the church where his material grandparents were married, etc. Is there a set or preferred way of categorizing media for "Family of (someone famous)"? If so, I haven't yet found it. Suggestions? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't overly sweat the naming of a category like this. Anything reasonable, and it can be changed later if needs be. - Jmabel ! talk00:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can i upload the picture of J-36 and J-50 chinese 6th gen fighters, i mean lots of people took a picture of itduring a test flight. Harry-Shaun (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to upload YouTube screenshots with a Creative Commons license, but the spam filter blocks them and I can't upload them.
What should I do?
There are already YouTube screenshot channels with screenshots uploaded, but when I try to upload something, the spam filter blocks it and I can't upload it.
The "YouTube screenshot channels with screenshots already uploaded" mentioned here are "Nihon Chugakusei Shimbun" and "Hatsune Channel".
I have a million things to tell wiki apout & million stories and programs. Is completely different and new for this I don't found a source for my storys & my program's is not like that but I don't know what to do with it. I need a some help to do I have like Thinking Tree have to live in the world and give her products to the world and human Eternium.vio (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Arabic is completely fine for useful contributions, your message does not indicate that you have understood what Commons is, actually. Please read this: Commons:What Commons is not. Furthermore, misunderstanding Wikipedia in general as surrogate for blogs and self-publishing platforms is bound to lead to problems and a blocking of your account. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution-Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0
Au niveau de téléversé d'image est-ce-que je dois sélectionner la partie " Attribution-Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0 " parmi les options ? Semako64 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0
When uploading an image, should I select "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0" from the options?
Does that mean you think Rocks12 designed the font? Because a full font display like this sometimes can be copyrighted in the U.S., even though if it is used for lettering/signage in a more conventional way that cannot. - Jmabel ! talk23:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, in my opinion, but don't be surprised if someone does. As I said, it's complicated. I'm not a lawyer. I know far more about copyright than a random layperson, but this is an area where I'd hesitate to draw the line. - Jmabel ! talk03:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Justjourney: Yes, but not this easily! These are both, at worst, close calls. Generally, we only impose sanctions for repeated and/or blatant copyright violations, disproportionate to the person's positive contributions. We are particularly likely to impose sanctions if people apparently deliberately lie about sources, date, etc. E.g. I can actually recall a case where someone was indef-blocked for a single copyright violation, because when challenged on a claim of "own work" they made up an elaborate story about how back in the 1980s they came to be on a particular film set, what camera they were using, etc., all of which turned out to be a lie. I presume you have no plans to behave that way.
Of course, you could also get in trouble for copyright violations from someone unrelated to Commons for having violated their copyright. We can't protect you from that possibility. - Jmabel ! talk23:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I make the article in Ukrainian Wikipedia about Eiffel 65 2002 single Cosà Restera (In A Song). I wanted to add some pictures. For example the picture of cover of single or the photo in which Eiffel 65 performs this song in live concert (Festivalbar 2002 or else). I`m the begginer and I joined Ukrainian Wikipedia few months ago. What should I do? Can I upload pictures or no, If yes, how can I do this. Thanks. Kystava 6 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the cover of the single is protected because of copyright. In this case , you can't upload this on "Commons".
I don't read Ukrainian, but the Ukrainian Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is at uk:Вікіпедія:Добропорядне використання. You probably want to read that to see if there is a way to upload this locally to uk-wiki.
@Havang(nl): The file itself seems ok. As Ankry observed at the phabricator discussion, the thumbnails display correctly almost everywhere, for example on nl.wikipedia, on en.wikisource, etc., except on nl.wikisource. Instead of speedy deleting immediately, maybe you can try to wait a few days to see if it gets displayed on nl.wikisource also. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably no way to answer your question as stated. If the images in question are ones where you create all nontrivial visual elements entirely yourself and they are within Commons's scope, then you should be able to free-license them and upload them here. Otherwise, no. - Jmabel ! talk01:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandeep Kumar Bind: नमस्ते, और आपका स्वागत है। आप हमारे मिशन से संबंधित सामग्री लिख सकते हैं, न कि COM:NOT/hi द्वारा अस्वीकार की गई सामग्री। ब्लॉगिंग प्लेटफ़ॉर्म की तलाश करें।
Hello @Sandeep Kumar Bind if you wish to converse in Hindi or seek any help, you can approach me at my talk page anytime. I may help you better bcoz of no language barrier. Thank you.
नमस्ते संदीप, यदि आप हिंदी में बातचीत करना या कोई मदद चाहते है, तो आप मेरे वार्ता पृष्ठ पर कभी भी आ सकते है। मैं शायद आपकी बेहतर मदद कर सकूं क्योंकि हमारे बीच भाषा एक बाधक नहीं बनेगीं। धन्यवाद। Shaan SenguptaTalk14:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I did read the rules of uploading to Wikimedia Commons, but it wasn't quite clear to me as much as I thought it would be.
I have done some research whilst being on Commons, and I've searched the topics such as: Khalid, NEFFEX, Alan Walker, Marshmello, etc. and I've noticed that some images are either uploaded on Google as well, YouTube, or other platforms
I was wondering if Commons is fully monitored by the Admin & Moderators, because the rules do mention:
No Logos, CD/DVD Covers, Most Pictures published on the internet. and it makes it clear that "By Default, you can't upload someone else's work".
I want to also make a suggestion that Wikimedia Commons gets reviewed by the staff on the certain topic that I have mentioned, and if you were to search "NEFFEX", there is a logo uploaded to Commons.
Anyways, I was wondering if any of the staff could possibly make it more clear to me on the rules, I have noticed that some people have broken these rules and somehow got away with it, this is a Help Question, as well as a report.
I was recently unbanned via Email Request, and I understand what I've done before was a common mistake, and I won't make it again. I want others to feel like this isn't "Favortisim".
Anyways, if someone can, please explain the rules more clear to me, as well as letting me know if any of the information in my report is inaccurate.
When complete, pages listed here will be archived at Commons:Administrators/Archive. Before casting a vote, please familiarize yourself with the requirements and responsibilities outlined on Commons:Administrators. All logged-in users are welcome to participate in the voting process, although users with limited or no editing history may not be accorded the same level of consideration.
I feel like this is more of a professional tone, what do you guys think?
I'm just a regular user on Wikimedia Commons, but I've been noticing something that's been bothering me lately. There are a lot of people uploading screenshots of stuff that's not really relevant to the wiki, like their desktop wallpaper or a picture of their favorite celebrity (e.g. DJ Marshmello). I get that it might seem harmless, but it's still against the rules and it's cluttering up the site.
I was thinking that it would be really helpful if staff could do a review of some the uploads on Commons (not all since there is thousands and thousands of uploads) and remove any that don't meet the criteria. I know it's a big job, but I'm willing to help out in any way I can. I've been going through some of the old uploads and I've found a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be here. I've been reporting it to the admins, but it's hard to keep up with everything.
I have to admit, I've made mistakes in the past too. I was actually banned from Commons once for uploading a copyrighted image/personal images (I know, I know, it was a rookie mistake). But luckily, Bedivere saw that it was an honest mistake and unbanned me via email request. I've learned from my mistake and I'm being way more careful now. I just want to help make sure that others don't make the same mistakes I did.
Some other things that I think would be really helpful on Commons are:
A better system for reporting copyright violations
More clear guidelines on what types of images are allowed for new people to understand
A way to filter out uploads that are clearly not relevant to the wiki
More admins and mods to help keep an eye on things (unless there is plenty)
Oh, I am? I am so sorry! I am not the most ideal person to be familiar with Wikimedia Commons! I thought me suggesting about the edit would go here, and the stuff I've mentioned under the line was just added for extra, since I had no clue where to put it.
Hello @SageBravura, as @Yann said this isn't the place for this. But no worries. This isn't much of a problem since you acted in good faith. Coming to your concern, we really appreciate feedbacks and suggestions. We have a great system in place to report copyvios. SD nominations are DRs are in place and working effectively. COM:Licensing is in place for all of us to learn what's allowed and what's not. COM:OOS is in place for what's irrelevant here. And quality is always better than quantity. Adminship is a thing which requires experiences and comes with a lot of responsibilities. So its better to have less yet qualified people here. If you still want anything to discuss, you can go to (and move this to) COM:HD. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk14:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it, Shaan! I now understand what great of a System you guys have put in place. Once again, my apologies. I will be sure to discuss other topics or move this to ::Thanks! SageBravura (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello once again, Shaan! I have edited my profile, and was wondering if it is allowed? It's a lot to read, but I would love to have a unique profile.
NOTE: THERE IS NO SELF-PROMOTION! (I am adding this note because I got in trouble when I first joined Wikimedia for that reason.) SageBravura (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SageBravura everything is fine. Just one thing. We aren't staff here. You should refer to us as users or editors or contributors or volunteers. This is a volunteer project where we work bcoz we want to and love to. That's all. Shaan SenguptaTalk16:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a website https://maproom.org which presents images of maps from atlases, mostly published in the 19th century. I used to sell higher-resolution versions of these images, but my sales have dropped to zero. I'm considering donating all the higher-resolution versions to Wikipedia. That's 2484 jpgs, totalling around 70 GB.
My main concern is to minimise the amount of bureaucracy for me. I would not want to have to specify a filename for each image, let alone add it to categories. I can provide access to a database with information (subject, date, source, etc.) for each image.
I anticipate that this will involve more work than any Commons volunteer would want to take on. But if there is a way of managing things, please let me know. Maproom (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, we technically could host ODS files (OpenDocument Spreadsheet, alternative to XLS/XLSX files) and other formats, but we don't because we can't stop people putting viruses and other nasty stuff into those formats. HyperAnd (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should I just use citations with the origin of the file then? the link leads to a place where you download a zip file, where then you extract it and get some weird database file (along with a few irrelevant files). I converted it to excel and wanted to upload it Someonefighter (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Someonefighter: if the licensing issues can be resolved, it could imaginably be put on Commons as tabular data, which is a copy-and-paste rather than an upload of a file (which prevents the virus issues that HyperAnd mentioned above). - Jmabel ! talk02:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure what copyright tag to use because this photo is an official product of the Government of the United Kingdom. Here in the US federal Government photos of such officials are public domain. There was no place to indicate that this is an equivalent - just of a different nation.
--ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A photo of the UMNH, Salt Lake City, Utah, I have photographed and posted on wiki commons. How do I insert it
in the article with the other photographs? Thank you. Constance R ConstanceR (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominate for deletion feature is broken, it stays "Adding template to the file" and its stuck, ArtopiaBoy test it in the now deleted page, but now the fewture is not qorking. 131.226.105.23407:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Some images, such as Sevlid Hurtić CIN.jpg and Lidija Bradara CIN.jpg from the Bosnian Center for Investigative Reporting, have been uploaded locally on to Wikipedia with the Center for Investigative Reporting license. Also, when you go to the very bottom of the website, it says, translated from Bosnian: "Acquisition of content from the Center for Investigative Journalism is permitted with the obligatory reference to the source www.cin.ba". I am now wondering whether this images can be exported to Commons, as it says in the aforementioned images that "If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license". Bakir123 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the last part of your question, the placement of the en.wikipedia redirection en:Template:LicenseReview on the files on en.wikipedia was probably a mistake by the uploader (although not really their fault, see below). The uploader probably wanted to request a license review, similarly as how a license review is requested on Commons with the Commons template Template:LicenseReview. However, the en.wikipedia redirection is a recent creation [2] by a en.wikipedia user and it redirects to the en.wikipedia template en:License migration review, which had a completely different role, relating to somethig from many years ago, and which is not for requesting reviews of new material as the Commons template LicenseReview. The creation of that en.wikipedia redirection to that target seems like a very bad idea, because unsuspecting users will obviously be confused and are likely to use it mistakenly much more often that not. Maybe someone should do something about that on en.wikipedia. But anyway, in short, you can just ignore that redirection when it is used mistakenly on en.wikipedia, as on those files.
Your main question is about telling if the template en:Template:Attribution is an adequate interpretation of the copyright satus of the images and in particular of the permission note at the bottom of the website. The answer is not obvious. But the permission note seems vague, because it is not clear if they want to permit all types of uses and modifications. You can ask that question also at Commons:Village pump/Copyright for more comments.
It's for a Wikipedia draft page I'm working on (this will be usable on Wikipedia if I upload it here, right? Sorry, I'm new to all of this).
I noticed it said no uploading logos at the upload page but the Twitter Wikipedia page has the Twitter logo, so I'm not sure what to do. Do I need to get permission from the owner of wasteof.money? Thanks for any reponses in advance :) cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 16:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it fits our scope! However, do not upload drawings of copyrighted characters, even if you drew them. We need explicit permission from the original artist to release under a free license if so.
Also, personal artwork that doesn't have educational value (i.e. only to show off their art skills, not to illustrate a character/idea/etc.) may be deleted, though we may allow a small number of them as a "profile picture" for their userpage.
Hello. I received photo from owner/initial photographer with copyright, she gave me permission to use it in Wiki commons and after I upload it she will send her permission to VRT (she didn't have Wiki account and she don't want to make it bcs it is too comolicated but she didn't mind to share this photo with public).
Did she need also send original with metadata?
Also is it okay to upload photo with her copyright or I need to crop it out?
Do I need to ask her where she first uploaded this photo and put link in description?
You are asking several separate questions here. I've taken the liberty of reformatting so they do not run into one another. - Jmabel ! talk02:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that the original photographer is "TUKKATA MICKIE" and that is how she wants to be attributed. I've edited accordingly, but please fix if that is wrong.
You had the "permission pending" tag on there twice. I've fixed that and put that in a more appropriate place.
Given that EXIF metadata appears to have been stripped from the version you uploaded, and other photos from this session are on line, yes, she should definitely provide that to VRT to show she was the photographer.
Not sure what you mean about cropping out a copyright. A copyright is an abstraction. Are you talking about some sort of watermark? I don't see any on the uploaded photo.
If this precise photo is already online, the earliest upload should ideally be listed as the source. Otherwise, the source is simply that she provided you the file.
Description seems fine. A category related to where the photo was taken would be good.
More important than any of this: you have not indicated what license is forthcoming, just that the permission is pending. {{Permission pending}} is not a substitute for a license tag, it is a supplement to a license tag.
•There was watermark at photo but I thought it can't be shown so I cropped it out, I asked just in case if it is okay to upload photos with watermark of photographer name at Wiki Commons with photographer permission.
•It first was upload at her Instagram, so I put link to this post now just in case.
•I send her generated letter text that she need to send to VRT team her license stated as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I added license like this at License's photo category or I did it wrongly? Илона И (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Илона И: Much progress here, but the photo you linked on Instagram seems to be a different photo, possibly from that session. Also: just as well to crop out the watermark. Watermarks are allowed, but not encouraged; see Template:Watermark.
@Илона И: I'm sure that if she sends the email, we will get this sorted out. Sorry it was so late in the process that anyone aimed you at Commons:Uploading works by a third party, the document that would have guided you through most of this. FWIW, in the time since that's been written, we have occasion here on help desk to aim several users at that every day. Not sure what we could do to make it more prominently visible.
You certainly should not have been reported to an Administrators' noticeboard, and I hope you noticed that once it was in the hands of the admins there, everyone tried to help you rather than presume you were doing anything wrong for any reason other than confusion. I'm sorry if this put you off of Commons. You were clearly trying to do things right, and you are welcome here. - Jmabel ! talk04:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually right now I don't know what to do. So situation like this. I am in fan group of Kim Seon Ho and when I mentioned that I worked a little bit with Wikipedia they asked me to change his profile photo (current one really not it). So after this was all this bruhahaha with copyright infrigment from my ignorant side but after this one of the fans said that they knew fan with good pictures, I asked them twice if she took it by herself and pressed that it need to be her own photo, taken by herself, they answered Yes. So I contacted her and she gave me her permission. I upload it and instructed her how to answer to VRT and give permission for Use. But after your side asker her for original she said to me that it was capture from Welive so she didn't have original ㅠㅠ.
IDK if it was misscommunication or lost in translation but I asked her before if she took it by herself and in person ㅠㅠ. So now I again need to put this pic for deletion? I am so sorry for all this commotion... Илона И (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Илона И: I'm afraid so. As I wrote in that piece I linked, "Unfortunately, adding third-party work to Commons is one of the trickiest things a user can do here: it raises every issue that might come up in uploading your own work, plus a slew of additional issues." But now that you pretty much understand the process, please do try to track down someone who can and will legitimately give you permission for a good photo they took. - Jmabel ! talk06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Commons:Village pump/Technical#COM:ADVERT 
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Larnaca_Youth_Information_Center,_2011.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1023227908){kind=link}
_Best_Clip.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Best_Clip.jpg){kind=link}
._This_is_the_fourth_courtyard,_and_the_pavilion_in_the_center_is_called_%22Yizhen_Pavilion%22.jpg){kind=link}
Moved from COM Talk:Adminship Requests
