Wikipedia talk:Upload/Archive/2008

message: I've written up an idea to try and increase the odds of an uploader adbiding by fair-use regulations.  Feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal or at its bugzilla:12452.  If you could code it, I'd be really appreciative and take all the blame for its output. Mbisanz (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think this could be a good idea. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I have been thinking about this for a while, but since some people are looking at the upload descriptions now, i thought it might be a good time to bring it up. Is it perhaps time to redirect people who want to upload PD (esp. PD-NASA) images to commons a bit more forcefully ? I'm not saying i mind running around all the editors during Shuttle launches to move these images for them to commons, but it seems a little bit pointless. Just tossing up an idea. Alternatively, we might consider adding "notices" to all our PD- templates asking people to consider uploading to commons instead ??? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same should apply to all free images as applies to PD. I don't know if forcing them would be worth it though, because some just wouldn't upload, which is probably worse overall. I've suggested a reinforcement message be placed on their talk page using a bot, something like (or the same as) template:un-c, which I suggested on Wikipedia talk:Uploading images but never got any real response. Richard001 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "forcing" PD images to commons. 

message: Logos are the most common and least controversial non-free images to upload, yet Wikipedia:Upload doesn't even mention them. I propose that we add "logo" to the upload list. The best way to do this will require three edits:
Create MediaWiki:Licenses/en-nonfree-logo with:
*subst:nld|I do not know the copyright licence
* Copyrighted - read WP:NONFREE before using this tag:
** Non-free logo|Logo
Create MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-nonfree-logo with:

{| width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" style="font-size:95%; line-height: 15px; background: #fcf5f1; border: 1px solid #f5d5a5;"
|-
| colspan="2" bgcolor="#f2e1d7"|<big>Uploading a work that is not free content, under a fair use rationale</big> 
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" style="background:#fcf5f1;"|
<big>This page is for uploading logos that are not [[free content]], under rationales that their use in specific Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.  To upload a file from a different source, please return to the [[Wikipedia:Upload|upload wizard]]</big>.
|-
| colspan="2" bgcolor="#f2e1d7"|<big>Please read this important message first</big> 
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" style="background:#fcf5f1;"|
{| width="100%" cellspacing="5" style="background:#fcf5f1;"
|-
| [[Image:Emblem-important.svg|50px|left]]
| align="left" | The goal of all Wikimedia Foundation projects, including Wikipedia, is to contain [[free content]].  Works that are not free content may only be uploaded to Wikipedia if they are covered by [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|Wikipedia's Exemption Doctrine Policy]], which specifies limited conditions under which non-free content can be used.
You should not upload a non-free image if there is a reasonable expectation that a free image does or ever could exist.  Please instead find a free image, persuade the owner of the copyright on the non-free image to licence it under a free copyright licence, or even create an image that is entirely your own work and licence it as free content.
|}
|-
| colspan="2" bgcolor="#f2e1d7"|<big>Why am I here?</big> 
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" style="background:#fcf5f1;"|
Covers, illustrations, posters, movies, stamp and currency designs, web site screenshots, game screens, music videos, and so forth, even promotional pictures and advertisements, are copyrighted, with exclusive rights to use them, to copy them, and to make works derived from them reserved to the copyright holder.  (There are additional restrictions with respect to stamps and currencies.)  Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others — do not upload images that violate others' copyrights.
|-
| colspan="2" bgcolor="#f2e1d7"|<big>What are the limited conditions?</big> 
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" style="background:#fcf5f1;"|
In general, non-free content uploaded under the Exemption Doctrine should be used only when the specific image itself is significant to the article, not merely what it depicts.  The image must be not replaceable by a free content alternative that depicts the same thing.  
In other words, a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself — it is not acceptable to use it to talk about the actress who happens to be in the picture.  (It is possible for a free content picture of the actress to be taken.)
If you are still in doubt, ask at [[Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...]] before uploading the image!
See [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]], [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]], and [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] for a full explanation of the Wikipedia licensing policy.
|-
| colspan="2" bgcolor="#f2e1d7"|<big>Step 1. Choose an appropriate filename.</big> 
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" style="background:#fcf5f1;"|
[[Image:Searchtool.svg|50px|right|]]
* Change the destination filename to something descriptive. Don't use default filenames! 
*:<span style="color:green">Good:</span> XYZ Organization logo.png
*:<span style="color:red">   Bad:</span> IMG0592.PNG
|-
| colspan="2" bgcolor="#f2e1d7"|<big>Step 2. Pick an appropriate entry from the licence selector.</big> 
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" style="background:#fcf5f1;"|
Select the entry in the licence selector that is appropriate to this image.
|-
| colspan="2" bgcolor="#f2e1d7"|<big>Step 3. Supply a description and a "fair use" rationale.</big> 
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" style="background:#fcf5f1;"|
Write a clear description for the image you are uploading in the "edit summary" box.  This must contain:
*Article: the name of the article in which this image is to be used
*Source: the exact source of the image, such as the URL giving the location on the World Wide Web from where you downloaded it
If you do not provide a detailed rationale for the fair use of non-free images, they will be deleted.
|}

This is just a more specific version of the regular MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-nonfree with additional information from Template:Logo fur/doc.
Finally, add
* It is the logo of an [ organization], [ brand], [ product], [ public facility], or [ other item].
to Wikipedia:Upload. This change will bring us one step closer to making sure logos are uploaded with all the necessary information. If there are no major objections, I'll request that these edits be made. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable request, probably should have been done when this page was created. GDonato (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add "logo" to the list 

message: I've only seen this recently. Should we be using it everywhere, or does it make articles look too 'scaffoldy'? Richard001 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace this image 

message: I have just uploaded a new image accidentally over the top of another here :Image:Friends.jpg can someone revert it back to the orignal, I have used rollback but it does not sem to wrk. Thanks. Giano (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done there's a 'revert' button near the image history. You may need to 'flush your cache', as they say without a trace of humour. (CTRL+F5). --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help fast! 

message: Need to add an option for public domain/copyright expired.  TableMannersC·U·T 07:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide the exact code, and if possible a test implementation in userspace, then re-enable the  request. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright expired 

message: From the main upload form, Wikipedia:Upload, is this link:
* It is entirely [ my own work]
Step 2 of that "own work" upload form says: 
:"Step 2. Release your work under a free license, such as the GFDL or CC-BY-SA licenses."
From the bottom of commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#GNU_Licenses is this:
:Please note: The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is prohibitive for print media: in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please dual-license your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like CC-by-sa-2.5 (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily.
So why in the upload form are we suggesting the option of the single GFDL license for images that may be used in print media too? Shouldn't we be recommending the dual licenses so that the images can be used everywhere freely and easily? 
I suggest adding something like the following in section 2 of the "own work" upload form:
:If you don't want to read all the many options and explanations, and just want to know which licenses the community recommends, choose one of the following:
:* : "Copyleft (Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA)"
:* : "All rights released (Public domain or waiver if the PD release is invalidated)"
It is adapted from the lead section of commons:Commons:Choosing a license. 
A lot of people just want to donate their images, but they give up once they see that they may have to spend literally hours figuring out which license, or combination of licenses, to use. 
Here are what the 2 license templates produce:
----

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
]
----

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.  This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
----
The results are similar on the commons. See the results produced by the templates there at commons:MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/ownwork#What are the best licenses for donating one's own images?. 
Some relevant articles with more info:
*Wikipedia:Multi-licensing
*meta:Guide to the CC dual-license
*http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Common_mistakes#Confusing_the_licenses 
*http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Image_copyright_tags --Timeshifter (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the best licenses for donating one's own images? 

message: Please change
* It is entirely [ my own work]
to
* It is entirely [ my own work]
If the user selects that the file is their own work, this will automatically fill in the "Author" field with the uploader's username. This would save a lot of time and prevent loss of author information when images are moved to the Commons. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually thought this had been done already. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatically fill in "Author" field for self-created works 

message: Looking through the upload log, I see that a significant number of users are not reading any of the instructions and just clicking the first item in the list, "entirely my own work". People don't think about whether this is right or not, they think "I want to upload this image, and clicking the first link is the easiest way to get the file onto Wikipedia."
So, please move all the "I don't know" options to the top of the list. This will make them much more visible, and consequently decrease the number of copyright violations that are uploaded. Specifically, please move:
* I don't know who the author is, or I don't know what license applies
* I need help figuring out what the license is
* I need help in understanding image copyright and Fair Use policies
to the very top of the list. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna wait for some discussion on this one before I am willing to do it. GDonato (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's fine. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: GDonato's point about users seeking the simplest way to upload a file is similar to my point here: #What are the best licenses for donating one's own images?. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, 's point :) GDonato (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Sorry about that. I guess I am proving the point about users in a hurry making mistakes. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The "own work" upload interface needs a bit of work, but it looks like it already encourages dual GFDL and CC licensing. The problem I brought up is that users just click the first link without reading the instructions. This causes a lot of copyright violations to be uploaded as "own work". If we make the first link "I don't know", then the users are more likely to click it and realize that they need to read the instructions before uploading an image. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the "own work" upload page encourages dual licensing. Step 2 in the instructions says nothing about dual licenses. The selector menu makes almost no sense at all to a newby unless they have prior knowledge of licenses. They might pick the best license by accident if they are in a hurry and pick the top license! :) I guess this reinforces your point in a way. Somebody decided to put the best choice at the top knowing that people tend to pick the top choice in the menu. Step 2 also does not explain that uploaders wanting to encourage print publications to use their images need to use the dual license options. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move "I don't know" to the top 

message: Please see the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Licenses/en-ownwork#User-friendliness. I've requested that the "own work" license selector be rewritten as follows:
*subst:nld|I do not know the copyright licence
*Non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications allowed as long as others attribute you and share alike
**self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|Multi-license with GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (recommended)
**self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|Multi-license with GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and older
**self|GFDL|GNU Free Documentation License
**self|cc-by-sa-3.0|Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
*Non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications allowed as long as others attribute you
**self|cc-by-3.0|Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
*No rights reserved
**PD-self|Public domain
This is much better than the current "own work" license selector which does a great job of confusing newcomers. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redoing the "own work" selector 

message: Does this really now imply that out of copyright stuff (I have a lot of old ooc scans) has to go to commons not here? --BozMo talk 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not familiar with the exact license your refering to.  But feel free to add it here under that license and it'll be moved over to commons in due time. MBisanz talk 20:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best if you just uploaded it to the Commons in the first place. Otherwise, it's more work for someone else. I'm hoping to change the instructions to walk users through getting an account on Commons (it really isn't very hard). —Remember the dot (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be me confusing our image renaming system with our image moving system. MBisanz talk 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no bot to move images to the Commons, is there? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, there is Wikipedia:Moving_images_to_the_Commons which I confused with Wikipedia:Image renaming. MBisanz talk 05:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I've been working on an improved "own work" interface at User:Remember the dot/Sandbox (feel free to contribute). By the way, do you think it's a good idea to remove the "Permission" field from the "own work" form? Since permission is implicit when uploading your own work, and the user picks a license from the selector anyway, I think it would be a good idea to remove the "Permission" field and avoid confusion. What do you think? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea since anything that can confuse a user, will. MBisanz talk 05:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The "permission" field should stay in my opinion. It is sometimes used. See the discussion in the previous talk section. Also, there is a possible major rewrite of the "own work" upload form that may be implemented. It will have separate form lines for each field of . See previous talk section, and the links from it.--Timeshifter (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of copyright... which licence? Com'n. Stuff where the artist has been dead for more than 70 years in the UK or a similar period elsewhere (e.g. the whole of http://john-leech-archive.org.uk) . The problem is that this "licence" doesn't seem to be on the list. It was I am sure perhaps I am looking in the wrong place. --BozMo talk 07:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should ask at the Commons upload talk page: commons:Commons talk:Upload. It will save you a lot of grief to upload at the commons: commons:Commons:Upload. This may help, too: commons:Commons:Copyright tags. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry been a little while 

message: Please add 'Picture of Someone' or something like that to the list. Because some articles don't have pictures of the person and there isn't an option at the license selection menu that fits.
GTA Ganxtaize (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to determine the license of the picture, not what the picture is of. The first 4 items in the list, as well as "from somewhere else", can all be used for pictures of people. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the protected edit request. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add 'Picture of someone' to the list. 

message: I would like to create a specialized upload form for album covers, like what is currently done for logos. Clicking "cover of an album" would bring users to a page that would look something like this:
* It is an album cover for use
** in [ an infobox about the album].
** in [ a header at the top of the article about the album].
** in [ a section devoted to the album].
** in [ an article about the album's artist, used to identify the artist's work].
** for [ some other use].
The instructions would be what is currently at User:Remember the dot/Sandbox. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but should we pull it to a line only, expand to 6 lines like above would make the upload wizard too long. Vinhtantran (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be on a separate page entirely. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create specialized upload form for album covers 

message: In logo options, please omit the second Source parameter, because if you enter the first Source parameter and leave the second blank, the second will overwrite the first and the result always be like we leave this parameter blank. Please fix it soon. Vinhtantran (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . Sorry for making this oversight. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-template Logo fur 

message: Yes, I know I can edit this page, but I'd break the entire site trying to code it.  A user mentioned that the existing :Template:DVD rationale was ambiguous as to Blu-ray Discs.  So I coded :Template:Non-free Blu-ray Disc cover and :Template:Blu-ray Disc rationale.  Can you add these in?  Its identical wording, just changing the proper noun.  Still drops into the DVD cat cover, but I suspect that once Blu-ray's become more popular a bot can go through and move them around based on these new templates.  Thanks. MBisanz talk 05:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to do this. We don't need yet another copyright tag. Perhaps we could merge the two into a nice generic tag such as "Non-free video cover"? That would handle not only DVD covers, but also the older VHS, new formats like Blu-ray and HD DVD, and future formats as well. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Interesting, there already is one: . Perhaps we should just start using that for everything. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that would have to be edited, since it says "videotape".  I'm a bit worn out today, so I won't tackle the issue of building consensus somewhere to merge these tags.  It must be done as this problem will grow as Blu-ray increases, but I can understand why doing it this way might not be best.  MBisanz talk 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-ray 

message: God this gets more complicated each time. Nice table of what to do's, but unfortunately I do not see an entry for an image with expired coyright. Suggestions and/or addition to the multiple choice table? Sandpiper (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try getting the Commons to add one first, and then we could probably just link to theirs. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright expired 

message: How do I go about migrating a freely licensed image to Commons?--James Bond (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the CommonsHelper, and tag the image with  once it is on the Commons. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help 

message: It has been a while since I last uploaded an image to Wikipedia. This page has improved a lot ever since. Making the users choose the copyright situation before they upload is just brilliant!! --20-dude (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions on how to improve it further are welcome! - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brilliant work on this article!! 

message: I'm currently trying to help somebody who I imagine followed the upload link and tried to upload from Flickr, but because it was a screenshot of a movie it wasn't suitable for commons, which the flickr uploader links to, and so although he provided fair use stuff it's getting deleted there. It's unlikely to come up often, but it could be confusing. --Tombomp (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a start, I've copied over the explanation from the Commons. I changed Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr's protection from full to semi so that others can work on the wording etc. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The flickr uploader assumes it is a free image 

message: Please add the interwiki for :vi:Wikipedia:Tải tập tin lên. Thank you. Vinhtantran (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: In the upload form, when it provides Template:Information, it gives a "Location=" field, but this is not a valid field in the template, causing information to be provided here to be hidden from displaying. The field should be removed immediately from the "Summary" box provided. MECU≈talk 15:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird, I wonder how that extra field got in there...anyway, it's gone now. Thanks for the report! —Remember the dot (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information template used in upload form 

message: After seeing several comments like , would it be possible to include information near the dropdown box on how to add a license tag if the dropdown box doesn't have it? Something like "If the license you wish to select does not exist here, you may wish to try another upload form, or just add the license tag to the Summary box above." Editors don't seem to realize they can just put the license tag in the summary box and it will be fine. Also, in researching this, I noticed the US Government dropdown box only has 1 selection "US Government Source", but it should have many (Marines, Navy, Army, Air Force, NASA, USGS, NIH, USCG, FBI, CIA... and so on). Can someone please add all the valid options here so they get categorized better? Thanks. MECU≈talk 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we just changed the US government form to be a soft redirect to the Commons' US government form? Almost all US government images should go there anyway and they have a nicer form. Plus, with single-user login on its way, it wouldn't be too much hassle to send users to another Wikimedia project. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same argument could be said for all free images here, but when I proposed that back April 2007, Commons balked saying it would overwhelm them and they're not really prepared to handle such a large influx of images and don't have the admins or other users to watch and process and keep bad images out. With that said, I see the Flickr upload page here now just points to Commons, but they have a bot to auto-verify all Flickr images, so that may be why (and the whole license change issue on Flickr). But a year later, maybe Commons is better equipped (or could be with some notice, like another bot to check all "US Gov" images and their source url, similar to a Flickr review program) to handle such things. Perhaps slowly weening and not dump at once would be a better plan. The "own work" should stay as is until Commons is throughly equipped to handle all the "I saved it on my computer, it's mine now." types as well. I would say the "permission" one should redirect to Commons before the US Gov one, since OTRS is well established and handles images here and Commons quite routinely and wouldn't really involve Commons users/admins in doing more work (more images aside). There still isn't a good educational system for images (I'm working on it, you can help!) so "US Gov" is still a little vague to some people (that is, some people don't understand what "federal government" really is and isn't). MECU≈talk 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on how to add a license if not in the dropdown box 

message: Please add interwiki to sl: (sl:Wikipedija:Naloži datoteko). --Smihael (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: We should have a link to another one of these with public domain options, so people can upload PD-old images easily...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm disabling this until a more definite request can be formed - each of these links requires at least one other page to be set up for the information that appears above the upload form, and what appears in the license box. Try discussing this some more, then put the template back up once a consensus has formed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain 

message: Why are materials produced by governments outside of the United States not addressed? —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Material not from the US federal government is most likely not in the public domain and so another form should be used. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember the dot. I just noticed this thread. Why are you frequently dismissive of the ideas of others? Now that you are an admin on the Wikimedia Commons I suggest that you learn to listen more to others. Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. There is almost no way you could know whether "Material not from the US federal government is most likely not in the public domain." Please do not make such blanket authoritative statements when there is little likelihood that you could know how all other governments treat the copyright status of their publications. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Is that true? Is the United States unique among the world's nations in not asserting copyright protection over the materials it produces? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not.  And we do have specific templates for certain government works.  But for the purposes of the upload page, we only use the most likely licenses, and I suspect of all government works being uploaded, the US-federal sourced works represent the overwhelming majority. MBisanz talk 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Most (all?) Commonwealth realms have some form of Crown copyright.  So, no, works produced by those governments are not free, unless they're old enough for that copyright to have expired.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not the United States 

message: * - photographs 50 years starting from the end of publication year, other works 50 years starting from the end of the year, in which the author died
There may be nations that I missed in the list. The reason that some of the license templates are red links is that they were copied from the commons. Wikipedia does not have all those templates, or Wikipedia uses a different template name. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Zimbabwe

message: 
There is a mistake in the link to upload the logo of a brand. The summary on the next page reads...
...
|Source=
3C!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -->
|Used_for=
...
The 3C! should be a < character. -- TIM KLOSKE|TALK 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected 

message: I strongly believe that the summary for a free image...  |Source = self-made should actually read something like |Source = I, <<username>> disclose that this image was created by myself. |Source = Self-made. 
It was my impression that image summaries and furs should be written in clear, concise, plain English sentences. In agreeance?
P.S. I guess "agreeance" isn't a word in Firefox's dictionary. Man this built-in dictionary sucks. -- TIM KLOSKE|TALK 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-made 

message: This wizard is hugely confusing to new users, because none of the licensing options in the dropdown actually allow the image to remain on Wikipedia. Indeed, anyone using this page will virtually guarantee that the image is speedily deleted, even if it the owner of the image was fine with commercial use and modification, or had specifically said to them that it was released under a commercial-use-friendly CC or GFDL license.
The only way I can upload an image that I know is under the GFDL or a CC license is if I say it is entirely my own work, which it is not - therefore I'll never go down that route, and so will never be able to select these licensing options. Only users who "found it on a website" or "from somewhere else" will be given the right options. And yes, I'm aware of the big text below that says "Do you already know the license and are familiar with our image policies?", but that won't do a lick of good when the user has already clicked on a link without reading that far. GreenReaper (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The page absolutely sucks.  It is misleading, the list of options is incomplete, and I didn't even notice the upload form until GreenReaper pointed it out above.  The page implies that the options provided are the only options available.  Also, the whole thing looks like a great big trick question.  The list lets too many image types fall through its cracks.  What about an image that is a modification of another image already on Wikipedia?  Or an image that is a composite of other images on Wikipedia?  What are you supposed to click on for those?  The Transhumanist  20:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Initial problem:  GDonato (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "With permission" doesn't give any good options 

message: at the Administrators' noticeboard.  I'm inclined to unprotecting the Project page (reducing it to semi-protection actually) so fixes/additions/copyediting can be made by editors other than those with administrator rights.  Keeping in mind that anything done can be redone, or undone, are there any strong objections/rationales for why I shouldn't just remove protection?  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the coverage of this page it would be prone to abuse. WP:PROT says that pages which are very visible can be permanently protected, and in this case I think it should be. I would hate for everyone trying to upload an image to see a message from grawp, even if only for a minute or two. 1 != 2 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read the Admin thread, I support reduction to semi-protection for the reasons set out by the transhumanist. We can place the page on our watchlists & up the protection if necessary. There does appear to be work required which TTH is volunteering to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Until 1== 2, would you be more comfortable with a limited duration, say a week, and then re upping the protection? (and of course sooner if it gets madly vandalized).  Three editors (Myself, Transh, and Tagishsimon are volunteering to watchlist.  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I really don't think it is a good idea, and several people at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Upload agree it is not a good idea. There is no reason this cannot be done in a sandbox then put in by an admin. 1 != 2 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page only gets ~10 thousand hits a day.  There are literally tens of thousands of pages that get more traffic than that.  There is no reason this page couldn't be managed through permanent semi-protection, as are all the other pages linked to in the sidebar except Main Page and Wikipedia:Contact us.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are only around 200 pages that get more hits than Wikipedia:Upload. Please see the top 1000 pages listed here: http://stats.grok.se/en/top --Timeshifter (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Be sure to keep an eye on it, or even better use a sandbox and the  template. 1 != 2 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for unprotection has been made 

message: The main problem with this page is that admins, the only ones who can directly edit it, aren't actively improving the page.
Don't expect non-admin editors to propose drafts for this page, or to use proposal templates, etc.  That's inefficient, and this is a wiki.  Most of us like to jump onto a page and fix grammatical errors and such as we run across them.  We avoid extra hoops - there are lots of pages for us to work on without them.
If you don't let editors on this page to improve it, then you should accept the responsibility of improving it yourselves.
The page is confusing, and is poorly written.
Any experienced copy-editor can see the problems with this page.
You need to find some admins amongst yourselves who are good copy-editors, and improve this page so that it is clear and easy to use.
And so that nobody falls through the cracks.
And then you need to support the page with the same tender loving care that editors provide to unprotected pages all over Wikipedia, including the unprotected high-traffic pages listed on the sidebar.  The ongoing support given to this page doesn't come close to that received by those pages.
Good luck.
The Transhumanist  19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without you detailing any changes you would like to see, it is difficult for me to tell what needs improved. After I made the improvements requested in the above sections, I don't really see much else wrong with it, GDonato (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Transhumanist  07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with this page 

message: I started a sandbox page and linked to it from the top of this talk page. 
On the sandbox page "I don't know who the author is, or I don't know what license applies" is currently a redlink. I copied the wiki code from the source view of Wikipedia:Upload.
To fix this problem an admin needs to change the underlying wikilink code at Wikipedia:Upload from 
/Unknown author or license
:to
Wikipedia:Upload/Unknown author or license 
That makes the link transferable to sandbox pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Timeshifter (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Upload/Sandbox]] 

message: Could someone please advise me on why I am not able to upload images?  My account is more than 4 days old.
Melia Nymph (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. More info is needed. What upload form are you using? Please leave the link. Also, what kind of image are you trying to upload? PNG, GIF, SVG, JPG, or what? What exactly happens when you try to upload? What messages show up? Any additional info we need to know? --Timeshifter (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:     If you are familiar with our image policies and already know which license applies, go directly to the upload form.
Semi-protected
Free image? Please consider creating an account or logging in at the Wikimedia Commons and upload there to help create a central repository of free images and multimedia. If you have taken advantage of unified login, then you are already signed up at the commons. Images uploaded to the commons are displayed directly by image links on all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia in all languages. (learn more...)
What kind of work is it?
    * Entirely my own work - I created it, own all the rights to it, and have not used anyone else's work in making it
    * The work of someone else, who has given permission to use it on Wikipedia or it is a work released under a free license
    * A work from a U.S. federal government source (NOT state or local government)
    * A work from Flickr
    * A promotional photo from an advertisement, press kit, or other promotional source
    * The cover of an album or single
    * A cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source
    * A screenshot taken of a movie, TV program, computer game, web site, computer program, music video, or other such source
    * The logo of an organization, brand, product, public facility, or other item.
    * A picture of a postage stamp, or of currency
    * An image from a website
    * Other
    * I don't know who the author is, or I don't know what license applies
    * I need help figuring out what the license is or I need help in understanding image copyright and Fair Use policies
You must be an established user here on the English Wikipedia to upload files directly to this project. If the image you are attempting to upload is free content, please consider uploading it instead the Wikimedia Commons, where it can then be displayed directly on all Wikimedia projects, including here on the English Wikipedia.
Note: For questions or comments about the various upload forms please go to Wikipedia talk:Upload.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melia Jansen (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Can't I Upload? 

message: This seems to be a missing option, falling somewhere in between "screenshot of a computer program" and "cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source" .  I finally picked the latter, which worked fairly well.
The only problem was with the license; there was no choice for "software program" on the licensing dropdown, even though there is an appropriate template in existence.  What I finally did there is pick "game", which added  to the image page. I then went back and manually changed that to  .
So, could someone add "software" as an option to the licensing dropdown to allow  as a choice?
Also, should the Wikipedia:Upload page be changed to mention "software release" or similar as something covered by the "cover or other page" option?
Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: but not changed the main page; software is fairly obviously covered by "other such source" GDonato (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover of a computer program? 

message: Please change opening sentence to "Want to upload a free image?" 82.16.1.141 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: but changed to "are you uploading a free image?". Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested edit 

message: Please change opening sentence to "Want to upload a free image?" 82.16.1.141 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: but changed to "are you uploading a free image?". Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested edit 

message: The note section isn't 100% needed and drives more important stuff down the page I feel it should be removed.Genisock2 (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  note 

message: I am having a hard time deciding if I can upload some old photos of planes from 1910-1914-1920s.  Phots are 80-95 yrs old, plastered in many sites.  Is there a copyright issue?  These particular images are from a aviation website, covering historic planes. http://www.tayyareci.com/digerucaklar/turkiye/preww1.asp.  Please illuminate!  Thanks.--Murat (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe.  Stuff published before 1923 is covered by  if nothing else, and they may also be in the public domain if the author died before 1938. --Carnildo (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thanks.--Murat (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI Photos 

message: I've created my unified account successfully but when I log onto the Commons..or even click on the Upload page as an anon ip, everything in the browser screws up..you still see the original page that you were looking at but links for the new page are invisible until mouseover, only some will show and probably not in the place the designer intended. They are very jumbled and it makes navigation or even trying to ask for help over there very difficult. You end up with a messy overlay that combines pages. I have it open in another browser tab right now and when I switch over from this tab I continue to see this editing page..only links that I hover over will show for the Commons page but not all of them. None of the non-link text shows at all. I just checked and I can login at wiktionary and navigate just fine and have no problem getting to the upload page there. I have no problems here at Wikipedia. Anyone heard of this problem or can help?
Using Mozilla Firefox v3 beta5 on Ubuntu Hardy Heron. Haven't had any problems like this on any website. I'm using the "modern" skin if it matters. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've since experimented using both IE and Firefox for Windows on a Vista Ultimate machine unable to recreate the problem there...but it is still apparently a bug between Firefox, the X server, and Ubuntu. I have screenshots of the problem if interested. Thanks, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! Falling back here from Commons 

message: Why is it still allowed to upload free media to English Wikipedia? Many other projects require that free content be uploaded directly to Commons, so that it is available for everyone. What is the rationale behind not implementing this here? Leptictidium (mt) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Commons has stricter policies, they require images be free in the United States and their country of origin. Wikipedia just requires it to be free in the United States. Many images that are uploaded here locally cannot be uploaded to Commons for various reasons. Except for fair use, this is one of the major reasons why we can't drop local uploads. ViperSnake151 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uploading to Commons 

message: We have 'living people' in the uploads section, yet there is nothing for non-living (dead) people. Why can't this option be added? Biographies make up a significant proportion of our articles (is it 25% or so?) and many of them are of dead people. Why do we have to make it such a right-royal-pain-in-the-arse by not giving such an option when uploading? Richard001 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: on the same line as promotional images as it is a similar concept, GDonato (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images of people 

message: I have a problem with this text: 
:Uploading a free image? Please consider creating an account or logging in at the Wikimedia Commons and uploading it there.
It's not necessary that all free images should go to commons. User-created images that have English text such as maps are not every useful on commons. Blank diagrams/maps such of these should go to commons, and the English ones retained here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Commons certainly doesn't mind hosting them, and placing them on Commons does make them available for other English language projects like Simple Wikipedia and English Wikisource.  MBisanz talk 08:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they do. I read a post a year back that mentioned that text with "English" content was of very little use to the commons project. What was requested is that editors create two versions: the blank version goes to commons, and the one with English text be uploaded to enwiki. And on each image page, the "other images" field is populated to point out the existence of blank/populated images. Ever since then, I have been doing that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since last year, I think Commons has re-defined its scope rather extensively.  Under commons:COM:SCOPE#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project, I'm fairly certain any image with any language text on it would be welcome.  Obviously 2 versions, English and blank would be even better, but no need to excclude images just because they have text on them. MBisanz talk 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Non-language-neutral images are and should be welcome on commons. Apart from the aforementioned other english wikiprojects it is handy to have them as bases for translations in one spot, so that contributors don't have to rummage through other wikis to find them. --Dschwen 03:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks MBisanz and Dschwen :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with text 

message: If indeed images are better served to be in the Wikimedia Commons rather than in en.Wikipedia (because "Appropriately licensed media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons."), then why even upload images to en.Wikipedia at all? Moreover, when clicking Upload file, why shouldn't it simply bring you to the Wikimedia Commons upload page? Kingturtle (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some images that are free by our definition are not free by commons definition (such as some sculptures and some international images) and of course WP permits fairuse for things like logos and album covers, so there needs to be a way to locally upload those images. MBisanz talk 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't want to be wasting anyone's time uploading to en.wiki that will be transfered over to Wikimedia Commons. Is there a list of what should go to en.wiki and what should go to the Commons? Kingturtle (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is free by Commons' definition of free in Commons:COM:SCOPE then it goes to Commons, everything else goes to en.wiki. For simplification, anything GFDL/CC should go to commons.  MBisanz talk 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Hi. I wonder if it's possible or necessary to make MCQ more prominent here. Following a conversation at User talk:Jubileeclipman, I'm guessing that the current link may be difficult to pick out for new contributors. Perhaps instead of linking it in the last question, it might be more prominently displayed near the top with similar language to that currently used at Special:Upload? ("For questions or comments about the various upload forms please go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.") Thoughts?  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MCQ