Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have a image (here is the flickr version) that I recieved permission to upload here. The photogropher sent me the high resolution version of the image. He also asked me to include the actual photo taker too. Exactly which one of the upload links should I select? --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
No option for someone else's work that the user owns the copyright to
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Where is the option for cases where someone else has taken a photograph of you and yet you own the entire copyright to it? Please add a section for that. There's not even anything helpful for that yet. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Softlavender: It is unusual for someone to own the copyright of a photo taken of themselves, as the photographer normally gets the copyright automatically unless there is a signed agreement that the person being photographed will also own the resulting copyright. In the former case, you would select "It is from somewhere else" and then specify the photographer's name and his/ her license terms on the upload form. In the latter case, you would select the same options and fill in the same information, but would put your own licensing choice in the License field and create an OTRS ticket explaining that you, the subject, are also the copyright holder, along with any documentation proving this to be the case, and attach the OTRS pending tag to the file. (I agree that this is suboptimal, however.) KDS4444 (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
RE: the 2 above questions/topics
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
i think perhaps it might be useful to suggest that the core problem here is that the upload wizard is TOO NARROW & too specific in how the process "sorts" user's uploads. it doesn't have enough flexibility (yet?) to cover every (reasonably probable) situation & can't meet all user's needs (yet).
i'm a supporter of the concept, but i do hope the wizard-project team/working-group is planning ongoing improvements/revisions...?
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
hello can someone link the proper place to comment on the new wizard- I don't think it handles derivatives of existing commons files very well, I keep having to hand tag a thumbnail into image file descriptions because the wizard doesn't seem to put in links back to the original. 66.220.113.9821:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
separate question from the above
so what's happened to the upload wizard? i can't find a link for it on the uploads page anymore
...unless i'm blind, in which case: could someone please tell me where it is?
Hello, I like the new upload, but it would be a very big help if I could (in one step) assign a category to all of the images I want to upload. Now I have to assign the category to every single image. --Ziko (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
links to the new upload wizard?
how abt adding links to the new upload wizard on the "old form" page & in the header box on this page (pls)
still needs to be added to the boxes (listing forms, talkpages, etc.) @ the top of this talk page; i don't "do" boxes enough to want to try messing with it...
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would like some help determining if the license for this file from ru.wikipedia.org is compatible with Commons licensing, and if so, how to transfer it to commons (for use on en:Victoria Fyodorova. Thanks in advance for any help or pointers. Frank (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Public domain?
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Perhaps it would be helpful if public domain was listed as an option. I wanted to upload a old image that was published in 1920 (US) but none of the options cover this. I would think many images being uploaded here would fall in this category, no? Even Flickr gets it's own option and that has nothing to due with copyright status (I understand why it's there though). Or is PD too misunderstood that it's worth inconveniencing the rest of us? Voxii (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this. Why doesn't the upload wizard add edit summaries/upload summaries? I mean, something like "New file" or "Uploaded file" would be nice. I started using the Wizard recently, and the upload(s) have no summaries. Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
OK, I used this page to upload a file from the Library of Congress, and for a license, I chose the "Original work of the US Farm Security Administration or Office of War Information" option from the pull-down.
It turns out that this option uses the Template:PD-USGov-OWI license, which was deleted a year ago. If I, like the many Commons users who visit the Commons infrequently, hadn't carefully checked the resultant page, and hadn't returned a little while later to see the message left to me by a bot, I may never have noticed that the license was invalid, until after the file was deleted. I wonder how many such deletions have occurred over the past year?
Having said that, I now see that Template:PD-USGov-FSA is still valid. I also see from the deletion log that the reason for deletion was: "(Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect)" Perhaps the deleted template used to redirect to the FSA template, and it was erroneously thought to be redundant? Might it be better to keep the pull-down but point it to the FSA template instead? Thanks, Grolltech (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
need to have an account could be shown more clearly
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
When a contributor is not logged in, it might be helpful if there were a big red box that says something like "You must be logged in to upload. Click here to log in or here to make an account. Rybec (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
They look out of place and as a result draw more attention than anything else on the message, including what they're supposed to be highlighting. I would suggest using a visual style more common with the rest of the site. -— Isarra༆06:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
You have point. I like action arrows as visual cues, but one more in keeping with Commons colours would be better. Maybe we should ask for someone to create one from the arrow in the Commons icon, if this doesn't exist already? Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Upload Wizard how to proceed to get an lb-version of the UploadWizard
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
despite the fact that the translations for the UploadWizard in Luxembourgish (lb) have been made on translatewiki. The German version of the uploadWizzard is displayed instead of the lb-version if you go on Special:UploadWizard if you have lb as interface languange in your preferences. I tried to ask for the impolementation on Template talk:Lang-Upload but this seems not to be the right procedure (I guess this is due to the fact that this template deals with the normal update procedure and not the upload wizard).
I would appreciate any help on how to proceed in order to ask (and obtain) the implementation of the lb-version of the UploadWizard.
I guess you just need to wait for the translation to be imported from translatewiki into the UploadWizard extension, and then for that updated version to be deployed on Wikimedia wikis. This unfortunately tend to takes some time… odder (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Inclusion of Tutorial
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Wikimedia Foundation has funded a video tutorial with multilingual capabilities pending that I support putting on this page. I strongly advocate using the following quote on this page:
Oppose. Firstly, that video is about Special:UploadWizard, notCommons:Upload, so it would be out of place here. Secondly, and I'm sorry to be so critical, but there are multiple problems with the video. For example:
The first thing that happens is that I get a nasty error message in Firefox.
The sound doesn't seem to be working, even when I switch to one of the browsers you think I should be using.
The image is not a good example of the type of illustrations that we need. Good tutorials use good examples.
The image is clearly ineligible for copyright protection, yet you apply a copyright license to it. That's not setting a good example.
The use of categories demonstrated is bad. The categories you use are overly generic, and one is a redirected category that should not be used.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi people :-)
I don't plan to migrate the tool to wikimedia tool labs. The way it was planned don't work anymore, because you need a upload token now. It should be completely new designed, probably as a Gadget, maybe supported by a php script on labs to get the license(s) of the derivative files. This is a quite difficult thing, because MediaWiki stores the License as a template like any template, it's not that easy to automatically detect the license of a file.
So what will happen next? Soon the toolserver will be shut down, then derivativeFX will come to a end. At the moment, I don't have the time to create something new. Maybe someone other? :-)
Greetings,--Luxo (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
As a possible countermeasure against the thousands of potential copyright violations with false claims of {{Own work}} and temporarily ignoring the apparent problems with UploadWizard and MobileUploads, I propose to move the "It is entirely my own work" section one notch below the "It is from somewhere else" or other equivalent section.
Changes:
Where is the work from? (Click on the appropriate link)
Maybe only "or click here", the line MUST NOT get too long, and this is a known poor web design phrase, but I digress. Better no external link icon at all for the…
…alternative…
Go directly to the '''[[Special:Upload|main upload form]]''' or its {{special|upload|uselang|experienced|experienced}} variant.
@Be..anyone: That is the issue with translated templates having the translation source on the "front page", instead of using an /i18n subpage. However, {{TNT|Commons upload tools}} and {{autotranslate|base=Commons upload tools}} do work. -- Rillke(q?)11:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Checking that it works now after two TAs tackled it: {{TNT|Commons_upload_tools}}
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
{{Edit request}}
I am leaving this message to request an update to the upload form, specifically to request that the various licenses made available through this form always include the current CC 4.0 licenses (CC-BY 4.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0). At the moment, several of the licensing options only include licenses up through either 3.0 or 2.0 (i.e., some don't even include the option to license as 3.0, never mind 4.0). 4.0 is the state-of-the-art in CC licensing. We have a go-ahead from the Wikimedia legal team to make 4.0 broadly available— see Wikipedia talk:Contact us for the discussion. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
While we are at it, does anyone know how we can get the default footer of every Commons page which says, "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" to link to the 4.0 license instead of the 3.0 license? Thanks again! KDS4444 (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Done for most languages. The default footer has been updated as well, whether it reflects the change or not is a different story. ~riley(talk)06:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Upload Wizard/Release Rights
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was recently asked to email proof of permission through the OTRS, for a booklet and a graphic that I wrote/designed. I happily complied with the request, and have no qualms with anyone else looking out for my copyright interests. However, it did seem a bit redundant, since I filled out a similar form as part of using the Upload Wizard. For future consideration, should I just assume that filling out the "Release rights" part of the Upload Wizard is not sufficient proof that I am releasing my rights (in accordance with the specific license I've chosen)? Thanks. Bearmo2 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
"Informations"
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
A couple simple grammar/punctuation corrections: In the "Upload wizard" section it reads "Informations such as date and camera position are added automatically (if available in the photos metadata)". It should read "Information such as date and camera position are added automatically (if available in the photo's metadata)". That is: "Information" is a collective noun; the plural form is the same as singular. Possessives in English are formed with an apostrophe-s. -JasonAQuest (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I'm a map author and created several hundert maps for Wikipedia. Complicated maps need at the beginning several corrections base on input from other users. So there are some updates required. Since a few weeks does the function upload new version not any more work. First there was only a warning popping up, that I'm maybe overwriting other user's artwork. This warning is in my opinion unnecessary. Today I discovered that I'm most of the time diverted to the page for uploading a new file, what I actually not want to do. Who is the entity who can fix that? Currently I'm not any more able to make my corrections.--Pechristener (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
The issue is not the license, but the proof that you took the picture. Please upload the original, unmodifed version, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Otherwise it will be deleted after a week. BTW this is the wrong place for your question. Next time, please use Commons:Help desk. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ossen321's article
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why is, "It is from somewhere else" the first option on the list? Shouldn't there be a list of places it can be from before it can be from "somewhere else"? Couldn't that be put in a more appropriate position? Like, maybe at the bottom just before the "I don't know where it's from" option? A loose noose (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Typo
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
How to avoid the renaming step? The upload process seems to change the original ogv extension to ogg. Why does the upload program not keep the original (and correct) file type? Could this video file naming error be possibly fixed?
Geertivp (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Harsh6394: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50KB or <5MP) jpg photo as a new user while leaving the summary intact. The photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you wrote it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller photo, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you took the photo yourself, please upload the full-size original of it, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photo, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such works on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. If you change the summary or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me13:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Preview image
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Most times I am using the basic upload form; when the file is selected it becomes thumb-displayed in the "Source file" box.
When SVG files are uploaded often a problem occurs: the display is performed not by the librsvg but by a renderer like from a browser.
Librsvg renders some things differently, especially when text is embedded! In many cases, the preview looks different from the final view of the uploaded image.
A preview that cannot be trusted is not useful! For SVG it should be changed to a preview rendered by the librsvg.
After always the same troubles, that I needed immediately after the first upload corrective uploads because the SVG image looked not as expected, I developed a workaround:
When the "Edit SVG source code" (#SVGedit) is performed of another SVG file, its code can be replaced for previewing – and there are two renderings, one from the librsvg (and another one from a browser). Subsequent changes of the source code can again be previewed, until librsvg renders an acceptable impression; then the resulting final source code can be copied for the upload, and the "Edit SVG source code" should be cancelled. -- sarang♥사랑08:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Please add wikilinks to some basic information // help pages
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page. Administrators: Please apply <nowiki> or {{Tl}} to the tag after the request is fulfilled.
If this is the main landing page with information about media uploads to Commons (.. and Google did sent me here) it might be helpful to point readers to some other basic help pages, e.g.
It took me quite a while to browse through the (apparently rather unorganized) help pages to find information on how to upload images in the HEIC-format used by Apple (not possible it turns out ..)
Those help pages are in Category:Commons files. I support what you propose but think a single page like Commons:First steps/Uploading files should be linked. However, that page does not include links to the two pages you linked or info on file types and maximum file size so either
I think it would be better to not disable edit requests when they're open so people can find such edit requests and solve them. The image on the right could replace the 2nd image I think if it's not simply removed. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Done--Trixt (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Firstly, that video is about Special:UploadWizard, not Commons:Upload, so it would be out of place here. Secondly, and I'm sorry to be so critical, but there are multiple problems with the video. For example:
Better no external link icon at all for the…
Stale
