Commons:Help desk

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

Shortcut: COM:HD

Skip to table of contents | Skip to bottom | 🌐 Help desks for other languages

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.

Ask your question

or

In order to get quick answers consider the following points:

• Have you checked the frequently asked questions, help pages and the help desk archive?

• For licensing and copyright issues, please use the copyright village pump
• For proposing changes to the way Wikimedia Commons works, please use the proposals village pump
• For community-wide discussions, please use the main village pump
• For changing the name of a file, please see our file renaming guidelines
• For matters requiring the attention of an administrator, please use the administrators' noticeboard or contact an individual administrator directly
• For questions about Wikipedia content, try English Wikipedia's "Teahouse"
• For questions not about Wikimedia projects, try English Wikipedia's reference desk

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/2025/10.

For quicker help, join our live chat room. ^webchat

Translate this page

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.

96 años después de la publicación

Buenas,una pregunta en que template se usa para las obras después de 96 años publicado por ejemplo si en algún pais por ejemplo Venezuela pasa al Dominio Público en 2020 y en EEUU pasara al Dominio Público en 2026 (un ejemplo),en cual template se usa si van a estar al Dominio Público en EEUU? AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Una vez que los derechos de autor caduquen en EEUU, podrá usar {{PD-US-expired}}. Obviamente, antes de esa fecha no podremos alojar el archivo. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Pero según PD-US-expired dice:"This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1930.",pero ese sirve para las fotografías antes de 1930. AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Cambiaré en cada año nuevo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Attribution / credit

I'm interested in using some of the photos on this website. Where do I find the name of the author whom I should credit in my work? If these photos are to be used on a video ad, what is the proper way to include attribution in a video? Cula Dalat (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cula Dalat: It is very difficult to use free licensing in a video ad, so it is unlikely you can make this work for the copyrighted free-licensed materials on this site. On the other hand, public domain and CC-zero images on this site should be fine. You might find it useful to read Commons:How to#How do I reuse Commons content?. If you still have questions after that, please feel free to come back with those more specific questions. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Just want to clarify something. According to the CC Attribution Share Alike, "You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially." Does this not mean I can use the image in a video ad? Cula Dalat (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you conform to all terms of the license, which include providing a link to the license and attributing it as specified. In my experience, a video ad would find it very inconvenient to have credits like that. Typically, people who make advertisements find free licenses more trouble than they are worth; instead, they contact the copyright-holder and offer them a paid contract for a license to use their photo without an explicit credit. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I think it should be OK if you include the credits somewhere in the video. And yes, you could use it in a video ad. However, depending on the license of the pictures, you may have to use the same license for your video (in case of Share Alike licenses). Yann (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't use CC-BY-SA unless I was going to release the whole work as CC-BY-SA; the lines about what is okay and not are not clear enough for me otherwise. YMMV, and you certainly can argue that a picture in a video is independent enough of the rest of the video for just the picture to be CC-BY-SA. CC-BY is probably fine; read the license and make sure you follow it carefully, with appropriate attribution and everything. I'd put it on the photo, but you could put it at the end, and 4.0 says "it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." Again, read the specific license (including version), but CC-BY feels workable to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Stenhammar-sibelius-konserthuset-heden crop.jpg

I received information on the status of this image by email from the owner (Gothenburg University Library), which I quote below. I hope this resolves any issue with usage of the image. Please advise. Thanks.

The image of Stenhammar and Sibelius walking outside the Concert Hall in Gothenburg is kept in the Wilhelm Stenhammar archive in Gothenburg university library. This photo is very old and has no existing copyright, so you are free to use it for your Wikipedia-article, of course with information that the original photo is kept in our library.

Sincerly yours Anders Larsson Senior librarian, Dr. phil.(hc) Manuscript department Gothenburg university library www.ub.gu.se

--Byrdmanic (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Byrdmanic: That is not a suitable copyright release, as you have to contact Gothenburg University Library and tell them to contact VRT.

ANOTHERWꞮKꞮPEDꞮAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 20:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That would likely be useless and a waste of time for the uploader, for the library and for the VRT members, given that the library does not own a copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

If the information provided is correct, PD-anon-70-EU could be one proper status template. If possible, it could be useful to find occurences of publication of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Byrdmanic: the problem here is that the way Commons works, we need to know the basis on which it "has no existing copyright". Just the fact that someone thinks of it as "very old" isn't enough: plenty of Swedish photos from 1923 are still copyrighted. For example, any photo taken by someone then in their 20s who lived to be more than 70 would still be copyrighted.

If we can find early publication that fails to credit a photographer, then {{PD-anon-70-EU}} would apply for Sweden; if we discover the photographer and they died in 1954 or earlier, the image is definitely {{PD-old-70}} (but if they died later, it is not yet, and if the date of their death is completely unknown we have to wait until 2044). Also, if we can find publication before 1930, then we definitely can cover the U.S. side with {{PD-US-expired}}. There are a lot of moving parts. It would be great if the Gothenburg University Library knows the answer to any of this, but because they do not own a copyright, Anohthterwikipedian's suggestion about VRT is completely irrelevant. - Jmabel ! talk 03:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Did Commons have another copy of this image, possibly deleted now? There are websites that source the image from Wikipedia in 2015 [1] and from Commons in 2018 [2]. Could the image be from a film? [3]. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for Authorization to Upload Original Scientific Document to Wikimedia Commons

Dear Wikimedia Commons Team,

I am writing to request authorization to upload a scientific document that I have authored, titled “Consideration on a Structural Finding: The Golden Ratio in Free Fall – A Universal Configuration.”

This document presents a reproducible and dimensionless formulation of vertical motion under uniform gravity, revealing the emergence of the golden ratio as the natural solution when initial conditions are scaled using a specific parameter . The result is a universal quadratic equation:

whose positive root corresponds to the impact time , independent of gravitational magnitude. The work includes a proposed experimental protocol and emphasizes the structural and operational meaning of this configuration.

I confirm that I am the sole author and creator of this document, and I intend to publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license (CC BY-SA 4.0), allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.

Please let me know if any additional steps or declarations are required to proceed with the upload.

Sincerely, Mauricio Edmundo Rojas Canales Independent Researcher Arica, Chile Merc202553 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Merc202553: You don’t need permission to upload on Commons. You can just do so. Use this link & follow the instructions.

ANOTHERWꞮKꞮPEDꞮAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 22:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Merc202553. Just going to add to what's posted above by saying that even though you don't need permission per se to upload your own copyrighted works to Commons if you want to release them in accordance with COM:L, you do need to make sure whatever you upload complies with COM:SCOPE. Commons isn't really intended to be a place for uploading random content without much potential for use by others, even if it's released under an acceptable license, and content considered to not be within Commons' scope has ended up being deleted in the past. Commons isn't really a kind of academic paper hosting site where you can "self-publish" your research. In addition, uploading something to Commons doesn't mean it automatically will be OK to use in any of the different language Wikipedia encyclopedias. English Wikipedia, for example, has a policy against what it considers to be original research, which tends to be pretty vigorously enforced, and many of the other language Wikipedias have similar policies. Why do you want to upload your paper to Commons? What are you hoping to achieve by doing so? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

How to use my picture to upload to the page

upload FyiReddy (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That question doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm going to guess you are asking how to take a picture you've already uploaded to Commons and include it in an article on the English-language Wikipedia; for that, see en:Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and illustrating articles/Adding images#Placing an image in an article.

If you meant something else, please come back and ask more clearly. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Oreo cookie

IM trying to use the wikimedia commons to upload a picture of a Oreo cookie but it says there is one already with the same name as the file I was trying to upload. I couldn't change the name since my account is too new. Is there any possible fix for this? (My user is Zakkgamesontwitch) Zakkgamesontwitch (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not have anything on here. Its on wikipedia Zakkgamesontwitch (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

What exact name? The usual solution is to choose a different target name. Did you take a look at Category:Oreo cookies and subcats? . Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

(cross-posted) @Zakkgamesontwitch: Change the name of the file you are uploading, never the one that is already there on Commons! - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Photographer consented to photo being used

Hi all, I have contacted the photographer of a photo (of Leslie Feinberg, for whom it is otherwise incredibly hard to find photos for, especially ones that are credited). She would be okay with her work being displayed on the German Wikipedia page, as long as her name is credited. This, however, is obviously not the same as "permission for anyone to use". Is there any way to upload the photo (for example with a disclaimer of some sort) or should I just leave it be? Thank you in advance Huguito-h (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Huguito-h. You're correct about She would be okay with her work being displayed on the German Wikipedia page, as long as her name is credited. being too restrictive for Commons as explained in COM:LJ. So, unless you're able to get Feinberg to give her COM:CONSENT, the photo shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. Some of the various Wikipedias, though, do allow copyright-protected content to be upload as "fair use"; Commons, however, does not. Those Wikipedias that do allow such content have their own particular policies regarding it; according to meta:Non-free content, German Wikipedia seems to allow such content but only in accordance with de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist. For any information more specific than that, you'll probably need to ask at German Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind explanation! I will make sure to look up the German specificities from now on over there. Huguito-h (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Huguito-h: I recommend reading Commons:Uploading works by a third party. It will steer you right on most such questions. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that great resource. It seems like there is no way to add photos of Feinberg under these rules, as they died in 2014 but none of their images are in the public domain. Huguito-h (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Touring a public site

I took pictures of the breakers today in Newport Rhode Island. Would they be able to be submitted? Marsgram (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Probably! As long as you're willing to share your own photos under a free license and the photos are in Wikimedia project scope (sounds like they are) the photos would be very welcome. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• They would belong in Category:Breaking ocean waves in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

about uploading photos for the competition

HI, I want to know how to upload my chosen photo for the competition and detail info about security and rules. please cooperate with me. EARTHCIPHER ECHO (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EARTHCIPHER ECHO: Which competition? Is it Wiki Loves Monuments or another competition? What details do you need regarding security and rules? ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

how to regain access to my old account

I can not access my old account - eitan f - because the mail I used for my first registration doesn't exist any more. Any help? Eitan Ferman (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You can try askng about this at COM:VPT, but I think you'll need to be able to access your old email account if you want to either reset your password or change your registered email address to something else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You can only access your old account if you still have the password. If that's not possible and if you cannot access the e-mail address linked to that account for a password recovery, then the account is lost. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I do have my password.

But when I am trying to enter, using my name and pass word, the page request a code sent to the old email which I can't get.

Anything I can do? Eitan Ferman (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: Eitan f (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions). @Eitan Ferman: looks like (1) You had this account for a long time, so this is worth solving if we can. (2) You used it here less than two months ago, and used it on he.wiktionary.com as recently as 15 September; I take it you very recently lost that email. Are you also on a different device and IP address (which would make it harder to prove you are the same person)? (3) Is there anywhere you posted identifying information on that account (photo of yourself; actual name; etc.) Don't put that information here, just yes or no. - Jmabel ! talk 13:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there are some. Eitan Ferman (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Have I lost my account forever? Eitan Ferman (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Eitan Ferman: Possibly. (1) Is there any chance you can even temporarily recover access to the "lost" email account? It doesn't even have to be access to the archived email, just to an account of that name so you can receive a confirmation email. (2) Is there any chance you remain logged in on some PC or other device and can make use of that to recover? (3) Failing either of those, you might be able to follow us as described at m:Help:Account_recovery. If you have proof that you are the same person who had the account all these years, they may be able to re-grant access. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

thank you very much Jmabel Eitan Ferman (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Image adding

Hello! I want to add a photo from russian wikipedia to create an english version of a title about a russian chemist (Habib Minachev). How can I do that properly? MeyBoy (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi MeyBoy. Has the image already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? If it has and there are no issues with it's licensing, then all you need to do is add the file's syntax to the Wikipedia article where you want to use it. If, however, the image was uploaded locally to Russian Wikipedia (i.e. it only can be used on Russian Wikipedia), then whether it can but uploaded either Commons or locally to English Wikipedia depends on the image's copyright status. It would be a big help if you could provide a link for the image so that its copyright status can be assessed. Your Commons' contribution history shows you uploaded File:MinachevHM.jpg yesterday as your "own work". Is that the file you're asking about here? If that's the case, then you seem to be misunderstanding some important things about COM:Own work, and the file almost certainly can't be kept under the license you used. If you can provide a link to the Russian Wikipedia article where the photo is being used, perhaps someone can help figure out the file's real en:provenance to assess its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@MeyBoy: all of this would be much simpler if you would link the particular file you are talking about. - Jmabel ! talk 13:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply!

The original russian title where the photo from is here: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%91%D0%B2,_%D0%A5%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B1_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

My guess, it's been taken from this cite for a russian title: https://new.ras.ru/staff/akademiki/minachev-khabib-minachevich/. It's an officaial cite of Russian Academy of Sciences MeyBoy (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The source provided for the photo uploaded to Russian Wikipedia is most likely not the original source for the photo, i.e. that website got the photo from somewhere else, which is why whoever uploaded to Russian Wikipedia did so as fair use. Commons doesn't accept fair use of any type per COM:FAIR. So, unless you trying to argue that the photo should be in the public domain for some reason per COM:Russia, your best option is probably going to be upload the file locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive though, which means you will need to first create an English Wikipedia article about this person before trying to upload any non-free files to use in it. If try to upload non-free photos first but can't use them in a policy compliant way in any articles, the files will likely be tagged for speedy deletion as violating non-free content use criterion #7. My suggestion to you is to focus on creating an acceptable English Wikipedia article about this person first, and then worry about adding images (non-free or otherwise) after you've created the article. You might also want to take a look at en:Wikipedia:Translation, en:Wikipedia:Notability (people) and en:Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Wikipedias in other languages because you're going to need to clearly establish this person meets English Wikipedia's notability guidelines for an article written about him to survive a deletion challenge. You could try asking for help at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia if you don't understand Russian or are not sure about this person's English Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata usage

What is the ideal way to use wikidata to populate the fields of a field description? Because using wikidata automatically populates fields and creates links to things with pages, I assumed it was preferable to manually listing fields. So for example, I assumed that auto-populated, linked "London" was preferable to manually added |city=London. I'd just like to double-check that's correct? Asking admins only. Eievie (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Eievie: I'm sure there is a way to pull it out of SDC, but I don't think it's easy and, honestly, I don't know how to do that myself; on the other hand, you can always use {{Q|84}} in the wikitext to pull directly from Wikidata. That will show as London (Q84) and change its text if someone is viewing in a different language.

Usually, though, the "description" as such is in one or more specific languages. If I wanted to use a link within a {{En}} element used for a description, I'd just use {{w|London}} or [[:en:London|London]]}}, either of which will show as London (with a link to Wikipedia). Similarly (the latter form) for links in other languages. - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Uploading an image & copyright

i want to upload an image of a band and i need help knowing if i can, the one i want to upload was posted on Instagram by one of the old band members (link) but he doesn't state anything about uploading to other sites/copyright, there's this other guy that has pictures of the band (profile) and allows reposts of the images but asks for credit.

Am i allowed to post the Instagram image? if not then am i allowed to upload the other one by the other guy and giving credit? id much prefer to upload the Instagram image because i like that one but i want to make sure i can, thanxxx 0-vs.-1 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, "he doesn't state anything about uploading to other sites/copyright" means you can't upload stuff from there to Commons. The same is true considering the statement "Feel free to repost my show pictures, but please do give credit." "Reposting in the Instagram ecosystem most likely means that you're allowed to share imagery while staying in the Instagram ecosystem (not to other sites). It's especially not a permission to grant licenses for commercial usages, which are mandatory on Commons. So: you can't upload imagery of this band you have in mind, at least not from these Instagram sources.

Please take a look at Commons:Uploading works by a third party, and, for the underlying rules, COM:Licensing. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Naming birds

I recently uploaded a picture of a bird over at [4] but I have no idea what type it is. Is there a way I can get someone to identify and rename it; is the regular "Move file" option a viable venue? Hogshine (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes to both of your questions, Hogshine. I did it: it's a en:Budgerigar. I also took care of the renaming: your image sits now at File:Caged domesticated budgerigar, 2025.jpg. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for all the help Hogshine (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

User talk page

Hello, is it ok/allowed to apply usertalk-archive page for delete..? --2406:7400:107:EAD0:0:0:0:1 02:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but unless it comes from the user themself, or if there is something seriously inappropriate about the page, it is very unlikely to be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

ok, Thank you Jmabel. --2406:7400:107:85F1:0:0:0:1 17:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Tibetean dzi

How to distinguish between real and fake dzi Tonyot Gyaltsen (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tonyot Gyaltsen: Are you asking specifically about photos of them? Probably very hard to tell in some cases.

If your question is more general, you can ask at en:WP:Reference desk/Humanities. - Jmabel ! talk 13:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload a logo designed by a graphic designer I paid

I've worked with a branding agency to create our company's logo. Can I upload it without their explicit authorization or do I need their approval? Sentrycs (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sentrycs: Hi, Who is the copyright holder? By default, it is the author, but in such cases, the contract often specifies that the copyright should be transferred to the payer. Yann (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

If you did not arrange for them to sign over copyright, they might do so as a courtesy, or they might do it for a small fee. Or they might issue the necessary license. In any case, you are probably going to have to go through COM:VRT to have it accepted here on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 14:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

CC BY-NC with exception

If an English Wikipedia article exists for a musical album, I understand that the album cover is allowed to be used in that article so long as the uploaded artwork fits the non-free guidelines. However, I'm curious as to what would happen if the album itself, and therefore also its artwork, was released under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license, with the creator themself authorizing its free unrestricted use on Wikipedia and Commons if it is to be uploaded there, too, along with all other works belonging to them? Would Commons allow it if the exception was stated explicitly and/or communicated through the appropriate channels via private correspondence? Or would it still be denied on the basis that all works disallowing commercial use are forbidden in any form on the website? — rae^5e <talk> 15:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• NC restriction licenses are considered not free enough for Wikimedia Commons. See Licensing for details. The author/copyright holder would need to explicitly authorize a free license (without NC restriction) for it to be allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the author/copyright holder is willing to authorize a license free enough for Commons, see Commons:Uploading works by a third party and COM:VRT for details. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

A license unavailable to the public is not a free license. Either the copyright holders offer a free license or they don't offer a free license. If they offer a real free license, it does not matter if they also offered a non-free license elsewhere. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

How would something like that work? Would they have to re-license the artwork entirely to be under CC BY-SA 4.0 or similar or would it work differently somehow? — rae^5e <talk> 16:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Theki: yes, that is exactly what they would have to do, and if their work has commercial value, I would strongly advise them not to do that with a full album. Free-licensing, say, some 30-second snippets might make a lot of sense, though. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ланцюг у Калуші.jpg

Hello. Please intervene. S. Mochar (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@S. Mochar: What intervention are you asking for? You appear to be entirely in the wrong here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Double standards, I also argued the same way that my photo File:Федій Ганна Степанівна.png was my own work, the same argumentation, but you didn't believe me. I see. S. Mochar (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@S. Mochar: That image was deleted because it was out of scope, not just because of copyright.

ANOTHERWꞮKꞮPEDꞮAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 20:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

seeking printed copy for tthe pdf quran

is there a printed copy of this file whether free or for sale? i am using this pdf file for my quran memorisation thats why i cant use my mushaf.i need the printed mushaf for this pdf. thanks Abubakin $ (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Photos for public museum

Hello! So I'm an experience Wiki editor (see en:User:Zackmann08) but have very little experience with uploading photos. I created page for MOXI, The Wolf Museum of Exploration + Innovation, a local 501c3 museum. On their website, they have photos available that are specifically designed for use by others, under their Press + Media section: https://moxi.org/about-moxi/press-media/. My question is do any of these qualify for use on the commons? Not sure if the status as a museum or the fact that they are listed for use on the website makes them eligible. Thanks in advance for the help! Zackmann08 (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Unfortunately, no, these photos would not qualify for Commons. They would have to assert that the photos can be used by anyone for any purpose, even commercial (the easiest and most common way to do so would be for the photos to be released under a Creative Commons BY or BY-SA license). Photos from press/media pages like that are typically free to use for editorial purposes, but aren't technically free enough to be on Commons. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kevin Payravi: that was what I figured, but thought I'd get a definitive answer. Much appreciated! -- Zackmann08 (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Upload image

Hello! If I take a photograph of the cover of a book published in 2016, is it legal to upload it to Wikipedia Commons? Thank you. SarayOrtiz (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Depends, see Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Book covers. (And it is Wikimedia Commons) --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! SarayOrtiz (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Request by Nadege033

J'ai passé des heures hier soir à télécharger des photos, je ne les retrouve pas sur mon compte nadege033

Je ne sais donc pas si j'ai fait une erreur ou quoi, pour moi tout est trop compliqué pour participer, l'histoire des droits aussi ainsi que la licence, je suppose que tout se fait automatiquement au moment du chargement des photos....mais où sont elles passées, mes 10 photos postées hier le 12 octobre ? je ne sais si je dois continuer sans avis autre que le téléchargement réussi inscrit sur chaque photo postée ? Nadege 033 Nadege033 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nadege033: Bonjour, Vous n'avez pas de photos sur Wikimedia Commons sur le compte Nadege033. Soit vous les avez importées sur un autre projet (Wikipédia en français ?), soit avec un autre compte. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nadege033: Aucune photo n'a été téléversée par le compte Nadege033 sur ce site-ci, Wikimedia Commons (voir vos journaux d'opérations). Le compte Nadege033 n'a apparemment aucune contribution non plus sur les autres sites de Wikimedia. Vous avez peut-être versé vos photos avec un autre compte que Nadege033, ou vous les avez peut-être téléversées ailleurs, sur un autre site. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

OK bon... j'arrête tout avec vous où je ne sais qui finalement....je suis sûre qu'j'étais sur la page du concours puique j'ai suivi la démarche indiquée, c'était clairement écrit.

Merci pour votre réponse, wikimedia c'est fini pour moi. Nadege033 (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Uploading image files that I restored from videogame box covers

Hi, I'm wondering if there's any problem uploading the images I've restored of old video game covers. They're basically photoshopped images of damaged covers. HeavyStoneClouds (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi HeavyStoneClouds. There's some information about this is COM:Packaging. The copyright statuses of the covers themselves is what matters in a case like this. Your photoshopping would be considered a case of either COM:Derivative work or COM:2D copying. If the video game covers are still under copyright protection, you can't upload any photos of them to Commons without obtaining the COM:CONSENT or their respective copyright holders. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you so much for your answer. I checked the info and I think the imagages already uploaded to commons could be updated with higher quality ones. HeavyStoneClouds (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Enderlin wikipedia page

Is it okay if I add the NEXRAD radar files of the tornado to the Wikipedia page? They can be easily obtained from https://unidata-nexrad-level2.s3.amazonaws.com/ Leldon C (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Leldon C: Wikimedia Commons (this site) is a largely separate project from any of the Wikipedias in various languages, so we have no say in what they do or do not find appropriate in any given article.

If you are talking about uploading files to Commons, the big issue would be whether they are, on some basis, either in the public domain or have a free license. Beyond that, all I can really do is to refer you to Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

State seal of Nevada

I am genuinely confused. So, I am a native of the U.S. state of Nevada, a history nerd, and am very good at doing research. I shouldn't need to say all that to also know it is not incumbent upon someone to claim that something doesn't exist. If someone says something exists, they must show that it does. There are two things in the commons that are simply made up. First, the "gold" version of the Seal of the State of Nevada. State law literally has a picture of it NOT being gold. It's blue—one of the two state colors the other being silver. But because some user found it in a 1990s publication by the Centers for Disease Control, apparently I'm wrong. This is absurd on so many levels. I'm offended intellectually and as a Nevadan. It's absurd that someone—well-meaning or not thinks that his evaulation of the situation is so profound that it literally is wrong according to state law. That's insane. Just because Vegas is adult Disneyland doesn't mean people can decide for themselves what is and isn't real here. Secondly, like I said, it's not on me to prove it doesn't exist him to prove it doesn't. I mean, I can show you my birth certificate from the same era as that stupid CDC document and guess what, the CDC made a mistake. And to Nevada has had multiple changes of state flag, but it has never had a flag for the governor. This is just insane and it makes me want to disengage from editing or working with anything to do with Wikipedia/the Commons. Just because @Clindberg says something is a thing, doesn't make it so. This is beyond frustrating. TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @TheYearbookTeacher, I’m not fully aware of the situation, but here in Commons, we keep images based on their educational usefulness (see Commons:Project Scope). So even if something is wrong, not real or doesn’t exist, if there is an educational use for it, then we will keep the image.

Now, is the gold version of the State Seal of Nevada educational useful (in-scope)? Commons policy COM:INUSE dictates that when an image is used by another Wikimedia project, then the image is automatically considered to be educational useful. This means even if we think the image is inherently not educational useful, we still have to keep the image as long as it is used by another project.

Of course, anyone can edit the articles the image is currently in-use and replace it with the more accurate version. If the image is not in use anymore, we can decide whether to keep or delete the image. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

While Commons:Project Scope does allow for non-official or even incorrect images if they have clear educational value, it also requires that description pages be accurate and not misleading. Right now, it is not listed as so, even though it is wrong according to NRS § 235.010(5). That law explicitly prescribes the seal’s coloration—blue, not gold—and includes no recognition of an alternate or historical “gold” version. There is no evidence of any government-issued variant meeting that description.

The claim that this represents a historical seal is not supported by any cited state source or archival material. Unless reliable documentary evidence is presented showing that the State of Nevada ever officially used this version, the file should not be described as “historical.” Mislabeling it so constitutes factual inaccuracy, not educational completeness.

Yes, a file in use is presumed educationally useful—but only so long as it is used appropriately. If its inclusion in articles misrepresents Nevada’s current seal, those usages should be corrected. I have replaced most usages of it, except if @Clindberg may have reverted, which he has done so with regards to my flagging the descriptions of the file as inaccurate—I had gotten it almost completely removed from Wikimedia projects, so this deletion request should be reconsidered on factual grounds given that the author is simply trying to argue a factual point he is patently wrong about.

The objective here is not to suppress information but to prevent misinformation from propagating through the Wikimedia ecosystem. I appreciate the patience and time of all involved in resolving this properly and in accordance with Commons policy on accuracy and educational integrity. TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy Sorry for not tagging you. I apologize for my earlier tone, but arguing with someone over the fact when he's deliberately wrong is difficult. The law, for the record, clearly states, "Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, a colored reproduction or facsimile of the State Seal may only be used if it is in substantially the following colors:" and then has a picture of the seal that is blue, not gold. It cannot be clearer. It's insane to keep going back and forth when he is patently false. TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I imagine this is in regards to 1) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Nevada.svg (closed, but just re-nominated), and File talk:Flag of the Governor of Nevada.svg.

As for 1), the current law of Nevada does have preferred colors, which the file in question does not use. Historically, Nevada law did not always have those preferred colors listed. I have noted this situation on the file's description; there is another seal image which should likely be used most/all of the time elsewhere. It's still useful as a historical depiction, and a free (copyright-speaking) source of a vector which others can use to make other versions. The copyright status of other versions is often murkier, but having a US federal government-authored vector is helpful. Files can be useful in an educational context even if it should not be prominently used anymore. Deletion is an entirely separate question over whether the file should be used to illustrate the Nevada seal (likely not).

As for 2), I have little idea whether there is a such a flag or not, but did post a link to a CRW Flags page which stated that a governor's flag once existed, but is no longer used. I gave a Google Books link as well, though I could not see the actual source. With further looking, it comes from Volume 1 of Raven, a journal of the North American Vexillogical association. They have made their issues available online; Volume 1 is here. That has a detailed history of the Nevada flag here. That barely mentions a governor's flag except for one sentence: Further, Nevada is the only state with two governor's flags, one civil and one military. The citation on that statement is: Las Vegas Age, 7 Dec. 1934; Frederic C. Gale, State of Nevada, Flag of the Governor (Carson City: Governor’s Office, 22 May 1968). The Las Vegas Age is online as well; the Dec 7 1934 issue is at the Library of Congress, and the article is on page 14 of that issue. That does indeed describe a governor's flag. The poster here has removed all categorization on that file in favor of his view. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I've now replaced the file almost everywhere; in some language versions, the image was hidden in some templates; (I couldn't find it on simple.wiktionary.org, so it's still used there), in esWP, User:Nacaru edited the template after my request. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed on simple.wikt. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Модерація нової статті

Доброго дня.

Маю нову статтю - https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0:Svitlana.nobo/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B4_%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B4

Підкажіть, як правильно розмістити її на порталі Вікіпедії? Що потрібно зробити, щоб стаття була опублікована та індексувалась? Svitlana.nobo (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Svitlana.nobo: it looks to me like you meant to ask this question on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Instead, you have asked on Wikimedia Commons. Maybe you are looking for uk:Вікіпедія:Вміст/Портали, but I'm not sure. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:NTV Studio B, 16 November 1990.jpg

The file is a screenshot of the start of the city tv-station in Belgrade, Serbia. For this European country is common sense screenshots not to be protected from being published on social platforms like this. For example, on the Wikipedia page of Pink television on Serbian language, “Пинк (Србија)”, you will find several screenshots from this tv station from the 1990s, without any copyright violation statements. It should be considered that every encyclopaedia needs also some pictures or illustrations, to break the monotony of the text and to make the article more interesting and relevant. The picture above proves that the TV station really broadcast stereo sound. There is barely any other source that could prove this fact, now, 35 years later.

--Majamd (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Majamd: Deleted. TV broadcasts are under a copyright. You are not allowed to upload them here without a permission from the TV. Yann (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring the fact that this TV station is from Serbia and that there are several screenshots from other Serbian tv stations that are labelled as a fair use here on Wikipedia. You have deleted the picture also on serbian Wikipedia which is extremely violent in my opinion. If this continues I will protect and remove all my text on Wikipedia I am author of, because there is a lot of destructive behaviour here and I don’t want to be part of the community where ignorance and destruction rules. Majamd (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Majamd: No, I am not ignoring that. Serbia TV is under a copyright like any other. Fair use is not accepted on Commons. You may upload this locally under a fair use rationale if the project allows, but not on Commons. Please read Commons rules about copyright. Yann (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, @Majamd, as Yann mentioned above, this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. While some Wikipedia projects accept fair use, here in Commons we do not. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Majamd. You might also want to take a close look at the Wikimedia Foundation's wmf:Terms of use and read what's written right above the "Publish changes" button before you click on that button the next time you edit because every time you do you're agreeing to release whatever you post (e.g. the text you add to Wikipedia) under a {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} license. So, while you're still the copyright holder of the text content you've added to Wikipedia, you've released under so a minimally restrictive license that others are essentially free to do with it as these please as long as they comply with the license, i,e, someone can just re-add whatever you decide to remove. -- 21:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Speed up deletion process of an image I uploaded

Hello! An user brought to my attention that an image I uploaded doesn't actually have the copyright I claimed. They marked it for deletion and I agree - that was a honest mistake of mine. Can I do anything to speed up the process of taking it down?

Link to the discussion.

Thanks in advance! Barbalalaika (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Cheerio! Barbalalaika (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to upload a picture of myself taken at Penney's photography studio for pay.

I paid to have this professional photograph paid for my use.

I do not know how to contact Penney's to get the right to use it.

Richard Lavely Laveswiki (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that the photo was taken in the United States, almost always, the copyright is owned by whomever took the photo. Two big exceptions are works by some governments (e.g. almost everything from the American federal government is in the public domain) and works for hire, where you have a contract saying "You make this creative work, but I own the copyright". If those two exceptions don't apply, then it's likely the case that the person from the photo studio owns the copyright. If you can't get that person to verify and license it appropriately, then it can't be shared here. For that matter, the photo needs to have some educational value, broadly construed. Typically, a lo-rez headshot is going to need some further justification for being uploaded here. Is there a particular reason you want this photo on Commons? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Koavf,

Thanks, but in this case the person was an employee of Penney's the department store, so the copyright is owned by the owner of Penney's. Which is a public company, known as JCPenney, Inc. The picture was taken in the 90s before even the internet, as I do not have a user name and a password for their website. So who can I contact to get permission?

Richard Laveswiki (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, that's a work for hire and to Penney's. I bet you'd have a really hard time trying to resolve this, but were I you, I'd try just calling some help line and seeing if they can direct you somewhere and I've found them when I deal with weird bureaucracies like this, I usually ask, "If you were me, what would you do?" and that tends to get some creative and useful answers. Furthermore, the parent company is Catalyst Brands, which may have some kind of phone number you could find to call as well. Seems like a long shot, but not impossible. Additionally, if you are located somewhere near the store, you could ask managers there now if they know who was manager then and maybe play a game of tag to get to the right person? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What Justin says here is largely correct, but the issue of "work for hire" should be made clearer: the copyright was taken by a Penney's employee, in there capacity as such; it is Penney's that hired them and owns the copyright, not you. Plus I doubt anyone in management at a given store can help you at all, but it is imaginable that Penney's would be willing to assign you the copyright for such a photo; the problem is going to be contacting someone who cares to deal with it. They'd almost certainly have to be someone with authority to sign a contract for the corporation. - Jmabel ! talk 02:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say by "that's a work for hire and to Penney's", i.e. Penney's will now own the copyright because it was certainly part of the photographer's contract to give it to them. Thanks for clarifying. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Koavf,

I contacted Catalyst Brand and they respeonded the following.

jcpnews

From:news-sm@catalystbrands.com

To:Richard Lavely MD,jcpnews@jcp.com

Tue, Oct 14 at 4:42 PM

Hi Richard,

Thank you for reaching out! If you purchased the photo when it was taken, you are the rightful owner of the copyright for the image. No concerns on our end for use where you please.

Best,

JCPenney Media Relations

From: Richard Lavely MD <laves@aol.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2:07 PM

To: jcpnews@jcp.com

Subject: Dear Customer Service rep. If you are not customer service rep please forward it on.

You don't often get email from laves@aol.com. Learn why this is important

WARNING :This email originated outside of JCPenney.

DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless the actual email address, not just the display name, is the actual email address that you expect to see. Report any suspicious emails immediately via the Report Phishing button in Outlook, or forwarding to phishing@jcp.com.

Dear rep:

I had a picture taken at JCPenny's way back in the 90s, before the internet even, and it was a professional photograph which I have used many places.

Now I am trying to upload it to wiki and they are telling me I have to have permission from the owner of the copyright.

The store was in Orange CT, and I don't live there now, I live in Behtlehem, PA.

But I need some kind of permission from JCPenny's to use the photograph.

Now I am sure it was taken by an employee as most of the photographs were of little kids for their parents.

If you were me what would you do?

I need to get this resolved because for the internet I use only this photo. It is me in a tux.

Please help me however you can. I include the photos and I did have one for a head shot for media work in NYC.

Very Respectfully,

Richard Lavely MD JD Laveswiki (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually kind of shocking. Unfortunately, the process for proving that you are the copyright owner is sometimes complicated and tricky here. There is a process outlined at Commons:Volunteer Response Team that requires forwarding your email contact to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. I am not a member of that team, so I'm not someone who is competent to tell you more about how it works on the back end. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Koavf,

ok I’ll forward it to them permissions-commons@Wikimedia.org.

if you can let them know that would be great

thanks,

Richard Lavely MD JD MS MPH Laveswiki (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I can provide any value in that process, unfortunately. Genuinely shocked I could help at all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Koavf,

well thanks anyway you did a lot I forwarded it as directed.

where are you in the world? Just curious.

Richard Laveswiki (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm an Indianapolitan, friend. Yourself? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If I posted a photo on somewhere else(reddit in this case) and want to upload it onto commons, is there anything else I need to take into consideration?

(I've asked this question before, but I'll ask again just to be safe)

I've recently posted several photos i myself took on reddit I plan to reupload onto commons;

If I upload it on commons, do i mark it as "This work was created by me and is free to share" or "this work was created by someone else and is free to share"?

I am required to add a link to the reddit post where I first posted it? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If you took it, definitely do mark that you did. If you can also make a comment at the Reddit post saying something like, "I took this and hereby license it whatever", that helps. See COMM:LICENSE if you need to know your options, but most persons would choose "CC BY 4.0". You are not required to add a link at all, but sometimes if someone posts a picture here and someone else is trying to ensure that original media actually is original, he could see that it's already been on Reddit and that may look suspicious. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I assume by "that may look suspicious", Justin means that the lack of an explicit link may look suspicious.

If you can, put the permission on the relevant Reddit thread, from your same account there, and after uploading here, cite that thread in the "permission" field of the {{Information}} template to clarify the situation. (Second best: new thread, same account, link both from "permission field".)

If for some reason you can't do any of that, then you'd need to go through the COM:VRT process.- Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright when the source is defunct

Hello all,

earlier today I asked for the speedy deletion of a picture whose copyright situation I had misjudged. The picture was the thumbnail of Vampetaço. I misjudged it because 1. the original meme belonged to a now deactivated Twitter page - contacting the owner isn't possible, but I genuinely thought all memes were CC0; and 2. The meme always uses a photo which I now understand is always protected by copyright, even if it's the template of memes. However, the copyright holder of this photo, G magazine, isn't active anymore.

Can someone please explain what this entire situation means for the copyright? I am honestly confused but would like to find a replacement for the thumbnail if possible.

Thank you in advance! Barbalalaika (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barbalalaika. The copyright on a creative work does not automatically expire just because its creator has died; copyright is an asset that can be passed on to the creator's heir or some other third-party, and it can continue to be enforced by the "new" copyright holders for a designated period of time after the creator has died before it enters into the public domain. This time period can vary from country to country but for many countries a creative work continues to remain protected for 70 years en:post mortem auctoris (p.m.a.). The same rationale, in principle, applies to works with a corporate author: a company's intellectual property rights don't become void just because the company is defunct. So, assuming that the photo was an original work created by someone working for G Magazine and copyright over it was part of a en:work for hire agreement, whoever now owns the magazine also owns all its intellectual property rights. Any photos whose copyright is "owned" by the magazine can't be uploaded to Commons without first obtaining copyright holder COM:CONSENT.

As for all memes being CC0, that sounds incorrect to me. An original meme could itself be eligible for copyright protection if it's considered to be sufficiently creative; the same meme could also be subject to addition copyright restrictions if it incorporates copyright-protected content created by others, i.e. it's considered a COM:Derivative work. The meme's creator could probably make a claim of en:fair use or en:fair dealing regarding the use of third-party works in their meme, but they don't void the copyrights of others by using their works in the meme. When it comes to derivative works and Commons, Commons' policy requires that the entire work (all its copyright eligible elements) be licensed in accordance with COM:L because Commons' policy doesn't allow the hosting of fair use content per COM:FAIR. So, if you're looking for a replacement photo, you're going to need to find something which is considered to either be within the COM:Public domain or is otherwise released by its copyright holder under a license that meets COM:L. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for the thorough response! I really appreciate your time. So, if I understand correctly: even if the meme was created under fair use or fair dealing AND the meme creator granted it the necessary CC for Commons, I wouldn't be able to upload it because the picture the meme is based on still (currently) lacks the same permission?

I'll think of an eligible thumbnail. This information helps a lot. Thank you again! Barbalalaika (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Commons doesn't accept fair use content but some of the different language Wikipedia's do as explained in COM:FAIR#"Fair use" allowed on some Wikimedia projects. Each project that does, however, has it's own particular policies/guidelines regarding such content, which in many cases is more restrictive than what's required for fair use/fair dealing. English Wikipedia refers to such content as "non-free content", and its policy can be found here, with additional guidance found here. If a particular meme has received significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the local project's notability guidelines, a stand-alone article could be written about it, and a non-free image of the meme could possibly be used in such an article. (A meme that's a derivative work would need to be treated as non-free content on English Wikipedia since it's not 100% free so to speak.)

If, however, another image could be used to replace a non-free one for thumbnail purposes, then the photo doesn't really sound essential to the meme, and it would probably be hard to justify that type of non-free use in terms of relevant policy (paricularly en:WP:FREER), at least on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! Now I understand some aspects of the matter better. I was under the impression that all images within English Wikipedia had to be uploaded to Commons. I didn't consider the possibility of uploading a file outside of Commons (provided all points within the exception policy are met).

I expressed myself badly when I mentioned I'll think of a suitable thumbnail. I do plan on trying to reach out to someone from the former G Magazine, first. Meanwhile, I thought of uploading a Commons image of the person whose photo is used in the meme. But this may not be appropriate if the article's theme is so specific - as you said, the meme itself is the essential part. So it does seem like I could consider the non-free content guidelines you cited, but I'll read the provided links carefully before taking any action. Thank you again for your patience and guidance! Barbalalaika (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Be careful about using images of living persons (regardless of copyright status) in memes when it comes to English Wikipedia because doing so might have issues related to en:WP:BLPIMAGE. In addition, there is already one non-free image being used in the article en:Vampetaço (no comment on whether its use is policy compliant) so trying to justify the use of another one might be hard per en:WP:NFC#Meeting the minimal usage criterion. One non-free example of the meme is might OK, but one is already considered an exception to en:WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files; so, additional examples of the meme will become increasingly harder to justify, if it's even possible to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Very important comment, thank you. I'm very new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning about new guidelines every day (en:WP:BLPIMAGE was new to me). I stumbled upon the article recently and haven't done much editing on it besides (erroneously) adding the thumbnail image. In case the image does meet the non-free criteria (as I mentioned, I'll read about it more carefully when I have time), would you think removing the current non-free image in the article's body in favour of adding the more descriptive, non-free thumbnail would be justified? Barbalalaika (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's non-free content policy tells us to use a free equivalent/alternative for non-free content whenever possible (all things being equal), not only for images but also for text. So, if the choice is between a non-free image and a free image in which both are essentially capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose, policy tells use to the free one. If the discussion is between two different non-free images and one is less non-free than the other, policy again tells (assuming other things are otherwise equal) us to use the one that is less non-free. If the choice is between a non-free image whose en:provenance is clearly established and one whose provenance is a bit sketchy, policy tells us to use the former since there's less potential for problems.

English Wikipedia policy also requires that non-free content be used in at least one article; otherwise, it's eligible for speedy deletion as "orphaned non-free use". So, replacing a non-free image generally means the image is going to end up being deleted unless another policy-compliant use can be found for it. Because of this, sometimes deciding which non-free image to use can be contentious and is something that needs to be resolved through consensus either on the article's talk page or by discussion at en:WP:FFD. I don't know whether that applies in this particular case, but it's something you could propose on the article's talk page before uploading any non-free files if you want to be sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Definitely! That's great, I have a very clear picture of the situation now. Huge thanks again :) Barbalalaika (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The only way something can become CC-zero is that the legitimate holder of the copyright grants a CC-zero license. - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate on this, while CC-0 tries to be an equivalent to the public domain, it's still a declaration by someone who holds the rights and tries to release them into the public domain to the greatest extent allowable by law (in some places, you cannot give up all your rights, such as moral rights). Being in the public domain means that the law does not in principle cover whatever creative work anymore or never did. So while in practice they are very similar, they are not the exact same. For the purposes of Commons and what we do here, the distinction is mostly irrelevant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Mi fotografía en Wikimedia

Hace tiempo subí mi fotografía a Wikimedia, pero ahora no logro abrirla. Cómo puedo verla? Gracias. Lourdes Denis Santana Denisantana (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Vd. no hay ninguna foto borrada en Wikimedia Commons. ¿Quizás en la wikipedia en español? - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

can I upload photos that I sell on photo stocks?

Hello, my name is Elena, and I live in Turkey. I have a lot of photos of historical monuments in Turkey. I'd like to participate in the contest. But I have a question: can I upload photos that I sell on photo stocks? Because my photos are listed on five major photo stocks. Thank you. Mybeautifuluniverse (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mybeautifuluniverse: Yes, though you might want to mark those images as under a free license on one of those major photo stocks. This is so that someone doesn’t look at your uploads, then look at the photo stock source, and then tag your images as a copyvio.

ANOTHERWꞮKꞮPEDꞮAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 23:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mybeautifuluniverse: I'm an admin, and what Anohthterwikipedian says here is not particularly on the mark. There are a few things going on here.

The only way you can post these photos on Commons is to grant a free license, presumably either {{CC-BY-4.0}} or {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. Once you grant that, you are allowing people who conform to those licenses to use those photos for free. This may seriously interfere with your stock photo business model.

Further, it is generally frowned upon here to aggressively pursue damages for copyright violations for photos you have uploaded here, even if people do not conform closely to the license, assuming they have made a good-faith effort. Again, this may seriously interfere with your stock photo business model.

If you are OK with that, given that you have made multiple previous publications of these photos on stock sites, Anohthterwikipedian's suggestion really does not cover the case. Immediately after uploading, you'd need to go through the email-based process described at COM:VRT to clarify that you are, indeed, the copyright-holder, and that you are granting whatever specific license you choose to grant for these particular photos. Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Mistake with uploading a newer version of an image

Hello,
I tried to upload a newer version of File:MAP of PARO 11 (Phitsanulok) EN.svg but it failed.
I think I, I made the mistake of uploading a newer version first and then the older version.
Maybe someone can delete this so called uploaded older version.
I'll try to upload the newer version later. SietsL (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

convenience link File:MAP of PARO 11 (Phitsanulok) EN.svg. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@SeitsL: I don't have time to look closely now, but it looks like you are repeatedly overwriting with the same file, but not clearing the cache so you can see it. Take a look on any other browser or device than the one you have been using. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The upload at 09:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC) does look different. If that version is not what you are seeing, then it is definitely a caching problem. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Erin Meyer

I Uploaded a new photo of Erin Meyer for her account. It said if I wasn’t the photo owner but had permission to pass the link for obtaining permission along to the photo owner. “The creator of this work or their representative must send a consent to permissions wikipedia commons to release this work under a free license within 30 days of your upload. Please use the generator below.”.

We did that but they have been unable to find the name of the photo and approve our upload. Should we just let the 30 days pass and try uploading again having the original owner do so? They asked that as their social media agency we handle but I understand the terms of wikipedia commons to be a little different and want to ensure we follow those to result in the best outcome. Any and all advice is appreciated. The file name as we see it is Erin Meyer NYT Bestselling Author & Culture Expert.jpg ImpactSocial2025 (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@ImpactSocial2025: Hi, Who is "they" in "they have been unable to find the name of the photo"? The holder of the copyright? Did you not tell them the file name? The file name is recorded in the logs of your account. The file, which is currently deleted, is File:Erin Meyer NYT Bestselling Author & Culture Expert.jpg. The upload and deletion logs of the file are there. Do not worry about 30 days, given that the file was deleted already after 7 days apparently for missing a license template. Please do not upload another copy of the same image. The currently deleted file will be undeleted if and when a valid permission from the holder of the copyright is received and a VRT member completes the procedure. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

To build off of what Asclepias wrote, see COM:VRT for more details about the VRT procedure. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Besides the above, all of which I agree with:

1. Not so much for this photo as if you are doing something similar in the future: you may want to know why it was deleted after only 7 days. You missed a step (one that is easy to miss right now because of a problem in the Upload Wizard): if you read Commons:Uploading works by a third party#How they can grant a license (and how you upload) you will see a set of numbered action steps. Currently, the Upload Wizard does not do step 12 itself, and you have to go in and edit to achieve that step. As remarked above, because you did not indicate what license is forthcoming, your file was deleted after 7 days instead of 30. Not an issue at this point: if the copyright-owner goes through VRT, the file can be restored and all will be OK. Just make sure that in their correspondence they refer to the file name as Asclepias gives it above.
2. You listed the author as "QSP Summit". Am I correct that "QSP" here is "Quantitative Systems Pharmacology"? Since that is an organization, not an individual, the VRT (Volunteer Response Team) process is inevitable: an organization cannot have a Commons account, only a person, so even an uploader from within the organization would need to go through the VRT process.
3. The representative of QSP Summit may need to indicate how QSP Summit came to own the copyright, since an organization cannot be a photographer. But that can be sorted out once they (presumably a representative of QSP Summit) begin the email correspondence.

If anything is still unclear, please respond on this thread with your further question(s). Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Catholic Music Composers

Greetings from Uganda, Africa. I'm a Catholic Music Composer, now with more than 100 music works including Compositions, Harmonies and Arrangements. I would like to be put on the list of Raman Catholic Music Composers. How can this be possible??? Regards, Mayambala Kizito, Catholic Music Composer. Mayambala Kizito BM (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what "list of Roman Catholic Music Composers" are you referring to? No such list exists on Commons that I'm aware of. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mayambala Kizito BM: were you perhaps meaning to post this question in the English-language Wikipedia? If so, you will probably want to read en:Wikipedia:Autobiography. Any further related questions probably belong on the English-language Wikipedia, not here on Wikimedia Commons. Use this link to ask a question there. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

VRT release

Hi, when I'm looking at a file on Commons, how can I tell that the process at Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator has been followed? For example, if I'm looking at a professional headshot that the uploader claims as own work released CC-BY 4.0, how can I tell that they've provided a representation to that effect via the VRT process? Is there a template or other metadata I can look at? (Is it just the presence of {{PermissionTicket}} specifically?) Thanks for any help, I know this is a basic question. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Suriname0: Hi, Yes, it is the presence of the template PermissionTicket placed by a VRT member. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If you are asking about a particular photo, and Asclepias answer isn't enough for you to work this out yourself, please link the specific photo here so that someone can evaluate it for you. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Right, although can you give instructions on how to verify that someone was formerly a VRT member? The ticket notices have often been added by a volunteer who is no longer active. For example, what do I check to make sure that User:Mhhossein was VRT? – b_jonas 06:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@B jonas: they are a currently active administrator, so the chance that they would be faking something like that would be close to nil. But you could ask at Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard if you had doubts. - Jmabel ! talk 12:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have doubts about User:Mhhossein in particular, I'd just like to know if there's a simple general procedure how to check when you encounter a VRT ticket template by a user that you don't know yet. – b_jonas 15:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@B jonas: That's a very good question. I don't know the answer but, FWIW, there is at least this. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah! So I have to filter for global rights log instead of user rights log, that's what I hadn't realized. So I go to the Logs on meta, select global rights log, filter for the username with User: prefix in the “target” field, and look for OTRS-member or otrs-member or vrt-permissions. Except this doesn't always seem to work, because https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=gblrights&page=user%3AW.CC doesn't list OTRS/VRT rights for User:W.CC. – b_jonas 20:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't have the answer, that was just one thing to try and that happened to sort of work with your example. A probably more simple way that comes to mind now is to look at the date when the VRT template was placed on the relevant file and then look at the history of the page meta:Volunteer Response Team/Users to find if the user was listed on that page near the same date. To continue with your previous example, it can be seen that the name Mhhossein was added to that page on 1 September 2016 [5] and was removed on 1 September 2021 [6]. That may still be a bit complex for readers who are not familiar with Wikimedia, and the updates to the page may not match exactly the dates when the VRT right was actually added or removed, but I suppose that it can work well enough. You could also ask directly to one of the VRT administrators, who might know of a better method. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Template problem

{{Teilnehmer WikiCon 2025}} includes problematic features: on category:WikiCon 2025§Pages in category "WikiCon 2025" appear 2 pages. Could someone pl. fix it? Thanks --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You may get more appropriate eyes on this request at Commons:Village pump/Technical, which is specifically for "tools, gadgets, or other technical issues about Commons". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mateus2019 and Koavf: I don't think VP/T is necessary, it's a technically trivial template. What isn't clear is its intent, because a series of edits have changed its effect several times without explaining what it is meant to do. Some questions to Mateus:

1. What type of pages is this template meant to be used on? (User pages? Something else?)
2. Besides what it places visually on those pages, what side effects is it intended to have (place those pages in some category? What category?)

Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

1. What type of pages is this template meant to be used on? This is intended is for Commons user ns. --Mateus2019 (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
   1. I've never seen the expression "Commons user ns". May I presume it means "Commons user pages"?
   2. Do I take it that your not addressing question number 2 means this is not intended to categorize the user pages?

Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Point 1 means the namespace "User" on the Commons website. (Aka ns:2, ns:user.) For point 2, the conclusion seems correct, judging from the wording of the initial question. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The template initially categorized in "category:WikiCon 2025" until that category was removed from the template. That change was recent when you asked your question. I suppose you just had to wait a little until the servers updated in consequence. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Negative image on Alfred Vogel

Question: Did something happen to the image to invert it? When en:Alfred Vogel was created in 2016, the image File:Alfred Vogel.tiff was used. It is a negative of a b&w pic. the pic was later moved to an infobox. The article was edited dozens of times until the image was replaced with a positive by user: on their first edit. The longevity of that pic on Alfred Vogal and that it is still being used on a number of other Wikis suggests that something happened to the pic. Did it somehow change from a positive to a negative image? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The image on the English Alfred Vogel article was replaced with File:Porträt von Alfred Vogel.jpg. Adakiko (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This unused image File:Alfred Vogel2.tiff is also a negative. Adakiko (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've opened both images in the freeware IrfanView, where they were both shown correctly and then simply saved them without any special options. Voila, problem solved. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Pushed the wrong button?

A couple hours ago, my Google lens/Tineye/Yandex drop-down menu disappeared, and the appearance of everything changed. I've tried resetting everything to no avail. Did I press "try the new appearance" or whatever that is in the upper left corner? Something happened right after I replied to Yann on the Village Pump a couple hours ago. As of right now Commons is unusable for me. I use the default skin, ajax, twinkle, and visual file change and I have them all checked in my gadgets. Usually I have a drop down menu just above the middle of images that has options for a direct image search with Google Lens or Tineye. I haven't been able to get this back. Geoffroi (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Geoffroi. Were you using the Vector 2010 skin or the Vector 2022 (default) skin? Perhaps check if you still have the “Reverse Image Search” gadget selected in your gadget list?

I have checked the gadget, it does appear in the drop down list and it is working correctly. The only change I observed today is the beta feature "Discussion tools" is now enabled for everyone, but this shouldn’t cause the appearance of everything to change. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: Everything is back to normal now. I was getting a small black mediawiki error popup that said something about not being able to load a gadget. It's gone now. Geoffroi (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

PDF previews

Have uploaded several PDFs lately, for example File:Mario Savio Part 02.pdf, File:On the Road to Bolshevization.pdf, File:Wv-1-7.pdf. However, the previews don't upload. This has been an issue when uploading PDFs for a while and seemingly strikes some PDFs at random while leaving others untouched. Is there a reliable way to remedy this issue? Will it ever be remedied? Would appreciate some clarification. Kingofthedead (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a very common issue with PDFs due to caching. The solution is to purge the page. I have done this and made them appear for me, they likely appear for you and everyone else now, too. There are user tools you can add to make purging easier if you'd like to add one to your interface.

As an aside, please note that files should not have ambiguous or meaningless names like File:Wv-1-7.pdf. See COM:FR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Photo contest

trying to enter photo contest. Unable to make sense of site. Not sure i have an account Heinzokh (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You do have an account and are logged in. You can participate like anyone else. See Commons:Photo_challenge#Challenges_open_for_submission. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Heinzokh: You posted the above using your account so to speak. Are you asking whether you need a special account to participate in the contest? I'm not too familiar with the operation of these contests, but I believe you should be able to upload photos using your "Heinzokh" account, as long as you're a user in good standing (i.e., An example of not being in good standing would be [prior phrase edited for clarity by User:Jmabel] you previously used Commons under a different account that has been blocked for some reason and decided to create another account to circumvent the block just to enter the contest.). Just make sure whatever you upload is in accordance with the contest's rules and also complies with Commons:Licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC); post edit for clarification per below. -- 06:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC), and edited once again to remove attemot at clarification altogether. -- 07:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: some of that makes no sense. Someone who previously used Commons under a now-blocked account would precisely not be a user in good standing. - Jmabel ! talk 06:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct Jmabel and thanks for catching that. Hopefully, things make more sense now. @Heinzokh: My apologies if my original post was confusing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: You still said the opposite of what you presumably meant; I'm taking the liberty of editing accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk 07:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that again. In hindsight, it's probably best to just strike all of that out as being TMI and trying to clarify something that probably doesn't need clarification. My apologies for the confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

My button to contribute is inactive

Hello.

I made several contributions in the past, now my button to contribute is inactive. Can you please help me?

Also, when will I have the possibility to write my own article?

Thank you, Nicolae RomanianEditor1 (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@RomanianEditor1: I'm not aware of anything on this site called a "button to contribute." What exactly are you trying to do?

This appears to be your first edit of Wikimedia Commons, the site on which you are asking this, on this account. I see you've edited the Romanian-language Wikipedia. Maybe that is where you meant to ask this? Wikimedia Commons does not have articles, the Romanian-language Wikimedia does.

When you say "to write my own article", I'm not certain if you mean to start an article, in general or to write an article about yourself. The latter would not be allowed, period. See ro:Wikipedia:Autobiografii. - Jmabel ! talk 03:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. In the left menu, there are several options like Main Page, Contents, Contact us and Contribute. You can click on them, they are clickable. The button Contribute it is not active, clickable, even though in the past it was because I contributed to several articles by clicking on that link. So, this is the question.

About the article, it is not about me, about some other persons and about some topics I would like to introduce. RomanianEditor1 (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Commons does not have (and to the best of my knowledge, never had) a "contribute" button. I suspect you are confusing it with a different WMF site. There is a term "participate" in the UI, but it's just a section header (like "action" and "general"). - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe this is different in different skins? Or it used to say that and since it wasn't an active button I never noticed? - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

How to Ask for a File Removal based on the Trademark Rights

Hello,

We would like to remove one file (logo) from the wikimedia files. We do not own the file, however, we own the Trademark to that logo as we are the company's representatives.

The issue that our logo is on the platform and attached to our brand in Wikidata relates only to the fact that the logo had been badly published with the false rights that we would like to change. Or just to delete the file from the platform.

Please share the information on how we could do this.

Thank you, Volodymyr.popovych00 (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Our general policy is that we delete copyright violations. We don't delete files for trademark problems, see for example File:Coca-Cola_logo.svg, which is not copyrighted, but trademarked. Which file is this question about? There might be copyright problems as well, if this isn't a very simple or text-only logo. --rimshot^talk 15:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

We are writing as representatives of Crowdin OÜ, the company that internally developed and fully owns the Crowdin logo, including all graphic elements and the stylized word “Crowdin”.

Crowdin OÜ holds exclusive copyright over the entire design. The trademark rights for this logo have been registered under the company’s shareholder, Serhiy Dmytryshyn - https://sis.nipo.gov.ua/en/search/detail/1444658/This logo was first published by Crowdin OÜ in our official materials. The file currently on Wikimedia Commons was uploaded by a contributor who did not have the right to publish it under any license, and it was incorrectly released under a free license (GNU FDL). This license does not reflect Crowdin’s copyright ownership.Because the full file — both the graphic elements and the stylized text — is copyrighted and not intended for free distribution, we request that it be completely removed from Wikimedia Commons.

Please let us know if any further information or documentation is required to process this deletion. Volodymyr.popovych00 (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this it? File:Crowdin Logo.png —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is the file we are talking about. Volodymyr.popovych00 (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

If the file is not eligible for copyright, we can (and should) indicate on the file page that it is trademarked. However, as Rimshot explained, while there are limits to how someone can use a trademarked but uncopyrighted file, its presence on a site like this would not violate those limits. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Upload an image to Wikimedia Commons

Hello, I would like to upload a movie poster from the movie "Sepia Cinderella" so I can add it to the corresponding Wikipedia article but I am not sure if I can upload it or if it is copyrighted. The image is from the "RateYourMusic" website. https://rateyourmusic.com/film/sepia-cinderella/ Matt574 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

By definition everything is copyrighted. However in this case I do not see any copyright notice on the poster. So, it is likely in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

But at the bottom of the page, it says Copyright Sonemic Inc. so I am not sure if I can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Matt574 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

By definition everything is copyrighted is simply not true. Ruslik what did you mean to say, surely not what you said?

@Matt574: Sonemic can say whatever they like, but it isn't necessarily true. If this 1947 poster was published in the U.S. without an overt copyright notice, it lost any claim of copyright at the time of publication. See Commons:Hirtle chart for the somewhat complicated details, if you care. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

USGS Image Use

I recently made a wikipedia account and would like to know if i could use it for a page about the RFC Munititons Explosion the website i got the image from is https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ JustANewYorker (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@JustANewYorker: I literally do not understand the question. Could you look at your wording and see if you can say this more clearly? What is it that you want to do? Upload a file to Wikimedia Commons, or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, i was really tired but this is better worded

I recently made a wikipedia account and would ;ike to know if a map from the USGS website would be usable for my article. JustANewYorker (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@JustANewYorker: obviously on Commons I can't tell you whether Wikipedia in some language would consider the map a good one, but in terms of uploading to Commons I believe that should be fine. Anything that USGS itself creates should be public domain; the issue would be if someone outside of the U.S. federal government had made copyrighted contributions. Use {{PD-USGov-USGS}} in lieu of a license. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded a logo today but would like to remove it.

I just uploaded my company logo in the wrong place. I see that the file I uploaded is now "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". However, it is a copyrighted logo and should not be there. I want to use it on my company's page. Can you help? DL548 (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a simple text logo, so it's not a copyright issue. I've changed the license to {{PD-textlogo}}. I've also added the Illinois based company category. What page do you want to use it on? Geoffroi 20:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Geoffroi, Thank you for your help! I'm not sure you're seeing the logo because it's not just text. There's also a blue swoosh element. I want to include it on my company's page that is now in draft form: en:Draft:Videojet Technologies, DL548 (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi DL548. A "simple text logo" is often used to refer to logos with simple shapes (like swooshes) and text because such elements can be things too simple to eligible for copyright protection, and I think that's what Geoffroi probably meant. This is particularly true in the case of US copyright law because the en:threshold of originality that the US follows is pretty high; for example, Commons hosts File:Logo NIKE.svg (i.e. the en:Nike swoosh) because the opinion is that it's too simple for copyright protection under US copyright law. Other countries can have different thresholds of originality, and some are much lower than the US's; in your company's case, though, US copyright law is all that matters to Commons because the US is where your company is based.

As for your company's logo (I'm assuming it's File:Videojet-logo-blue-black-rgb.jpg), if your company submitted an application for copyright protection to the en:US Copyright Office that ended up being approved, then for sure Commons would treat the logo as protected by copyright; without something formal like that, however, it's probably going to be considered too simple to be eligible for such protection and OK for Commons. FWIW, your company might've COM:Trademarked its logo, but that's not the same thing as applying for copyright protection. Anyway, since you uploaded the file within the past seven days, you could try tagging it for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion G7 (you can use Template:db-author for that). You move quickly on that, though, because if seven or more days pass since you uploaded the file, you will need to start a deletion discussion about it as explained in COM:DR instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@DL548: I've added the image to your draft. Geoffroi 22:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

city logo

here is the updated logo of city göppingen.. : https://www.goeppingen.de/site/Goeppingen-Internet-2021/resourceCached/24.2.0/img/logo.svg

the one on the wikiidia page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ppingen is old one.. Zaher.mohsen (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

In scope bypass

A file is required to be educationally useful in order to be hosted on Commons, and photos exclusively used on user pages are considered personal and should be hosted locally. However, there is a big exception to this, being that wikis that don’t support local uploads must have even personal photos hosted on Commons. This means that it is really easy to bypass this rule, as you just have to put your personal photo on any one of these wikis for it to be hosted here. ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN _{wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo} 01:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Anohthterwikipedian Yes, per Commons:Project scope#User pages, what you said above is true. However, Commons requires users to be an active participant on that project, and only small number of these images are allowed. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: Thanks, I just needed confirmation as this wasn’t specifically mentioned there.

ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN _{wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo} 07:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Where is my Mother Tongue Language - Tamil

? Ashokkumar Ganesan (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ashokkumar Ganesan: I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Commons is a multilingual project; you may use pretty much any language here. If you wanted to mark a description (or other wikitext) as being written in Tamil you would use {{Ta}}. If you want to add a Tamil caption to the structured data, that should be done in a manner parallel to any other language.

If by some chance your question is about the Tamil-language Wikipedia, that is ta:முதற்_பக்கம். And if you meant something else, please ask the question more explicitly (including in Tamil if that is easier for you). - Jmabel ! talk 12:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

My Publications like novels

I am a writer. I want to post my written works. The cover pics will be uploaded. How can I do it? I uploaded one but was unsusseccful. Prof. K S Bhardwaj (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome @Prof. K S Bhardwaj, your upload was blocked by the filter because the image size is too small (312x499), usually small image size indicates it is a crop from another image, or it is a copy/screenshot of an image online. If you are the copyright owner of the cover pictures, please upload the images in full resolution. Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

But also: please read COM:SCOPE to see if these are within Commons' scope. If they are not published by a reasonably recognized publisher, most likely they would be considered personal content and do not belong here. - Jmabel ! talk 12:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Problem with loading photos

I'm trying to upload two photos. I'm getting the message: "This action was automatically identified as malicious and has therefore been rejected. If you believe this edit was justified, please contact the administrator and inform them of the situation. A brief description of the abuse rule your action was matched to: LTA 141." These are portraits of an artist I want to include in an article I'm working on about him. I have permission from the photographer, etc., but I don't know what to do. Can someone help me? Adam Jędrusyna (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't mention what upload tool you used, but it is likely to go best with Special:UploadWizard. Please read Commons:Uploading works by a third party before trying, though, because it sounds like you are trying to upload photos you did not take yourself, and that is one of the most difficult things to do correctly; it is very easy to make a mistake that will result in deletion of the photo. If you still have questions after reading that linked page, feel more than free to ask here. - Jmabel ! talk 12:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The problem was disapeared when I wrote author's surname before name. Adam Jędrusyna (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: As an administrator, you may have access to the description of the LTA filters, in this case possibly based on some string of characters, and can evaluate if the case looks like a false positive. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem is solved. Adam Jędrusyna (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: yes, but it was a lot quicker for me to give the answer I gave than to go looking through logs and filters, and it turned out to give the user what they needed. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to upload my research paper on my Wikipedia I'd how can I upload

I Chourasiya Rohit (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chourasiya Rohit: Typically things like this are not in Commons's scope. - Jmabel ! talk 12:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

i want to change a hatefull picture

I need help to edit and publish it Lamia hossen (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lamia hossen: no one is going to be able to give you meaningful help without a far more specific request. - Jmabel ! talk 12:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File Combination

I previously uploaded a portrait File:Andrusyak Vasyl Vasylovych "Rizun".jpg, which is a slightly improved version of the portrait File:Wasyl Andrusiak "Rizun".jpg, but I couldn’t simply upload the new version because I’m not the file uploader. At the time, I didn’t know that it was possible to request an upload of a new version. So, could you please help me make this portrait the new version of that portrait File:Wasyl Andrusiak "Rizun".jpg? S. Mochar (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Opinions may differ on the relevance of overwriting a file, but IMHO in this case it is probably better to leave things as they are. The other file has had its filename for many years. It is in use. That version is also much in use elsewhere on the internet. Some people may prefer to display that copy. Also, your version is from a different source. It could be interesting to have a copy of the uncropped and unretouched photo with its context. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

About uploading images

I downloaded a photo of my brother who is a rugby player from his club's website and I want to upload it on his wikipedia page but im not sure if im allowed Johnshelby1243 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless you can get permsision from the copyright holder for its sue under a suitable licence; sadly not. Please see Commons:Uploading works by a third party. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

English translation from Latin as requested -How do I upload it?

The article at this address requests a translation from the Latin to English. Here is my offered translation of: Cremato eo (corpore), inimici ... remeanti animae veluti vaginam ademerint. Cremeating the body, the enemies took away the sheath of the soul so to speak from returning. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vagina#Latin Linda Seriously (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Linda Seriously: you don't seem to be asking for help in using Wikimedia Commons (the purpose of this page) and offhand I don't see any relevance to Wikimedia Commons. It looks to me like what you want to do is to edit the page in question on the English-language Wiktionary, which should be an option on that page if you are logged in. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Jmabel. I was indeed trying to upload a translation to the Latin page, because there was a request there that indicated that a translation was needed. At the time I didn't have an account. I will try again. Can I come here if I need some help in uploading to that page? Linda Seriously (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Linda Seriously: questions are generally better asked within the web domain that the questions are about. Each wiki has its own methods and policies. - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you publish this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidemeador Davidemeador (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Davidemeador You're on the wrong website now, this is Commons, not Wikipedia. Look at the current version Draft:David E. Meador, there is some guidance with helpful links at the top. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

But not any longer, because it was deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Uploading from Flickr & licensing

Hello, I am a new user on Commons and I have a question regarding uploading pictures from Flickr. Actually it's not a question but rather a case - you see, I've been wanting to upload several albums' worth of pictures, all from the same author, that I think would make a great contribution to Commons and especially for some pages I'm editing on Wikipedia. But there's a problem, they've all been uploaded with a (C) "all rights reserved" license. However, in all of these pictures' descriptions, (and by all I mean all, I checked) they say "Reproduction is allowed with a mention of the source." So is it possible for me to upload the pictures, while crediting the author of course? I should mention that I don't have a way of contacting the author (I do not have a Flickr account). Here's an example of one of the pictures I want to upload. The description is in French, so you might need to translate it.

Here's a list of all the albums I'd like to upload:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fototak/albums/72157642708191795

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fototak/albums/72157642540979634/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fototak/albums/72157642612925264/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fototak/albums/72157642439833775/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fototak/albums/72157642554020114/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fototak/albums/72157642439674515/ Zach1055 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Zach1055 Sorry. As the uploader also says, "Commercial use subject to prior special authorization." And stuff on Commons must be ok for commercial use.

Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses lists licenses that can be used here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks for the help anyway. Zach1055 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Zach1055: Some photos of this flickr account are under free licenses, for example in Category:Files from Fototak Flickr stream. Apparently uploaded to flickr in 2011-2012. Even some of those have the non commercial restriction in their descriptions, and others do not have it, so it can be somewhat confusing. You might find a few other photos that have free licenses but maybe not many and maybe not in the more recent uploads. You will have to look at the license in the flickr page of each photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias Funny thing though, at least two pics in that category, [7][8], are "All rights reserved" now. Not for example [9]. I don't know what to make of that, did the uploader change the tag later or did the flickrbot get it wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Their license history on flickr shows that those photos were under the free license from 2012 until 2021. The template Change-of-license Flickr-change-of-license can be added to their pages on Commons. An interesting detail is that they were copied to Commons soon after the free license was placed on flickr. That suggests that the user who requested those bot uploads to Commons might have contacted the flickr user and asked the permission of the free license for those particular photos. Notifying User:Arbalete. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, you can see license history, never knew that. Still, from the Commons-pov, the "free" license is "no backsies", right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Answering my own question, that's what the template you linked says. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

আমি একটু আগে বিকাশ চন্দ্র রায় নামে একাউন্ট খুললাম

সে একাউন্টে কি তৈরি হয়েছে। এর পরবর্তী ধাপ আমার কি ? বিকাশ চন্দ্র রায় (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The account Bikash Chandra Roy has indeed been created, you just posted this comment with it. I have no idea what you want to do next, perhaps Commons:Welcome will help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Photographs from the 1960s in the UK

Besides Crown copyright, is there any way to figure out if a photograph published in the UK during the 1960s is public domain/appropriate to Commons? StarTrekker (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

See COM:UK. It's a little complex, but as far as I can tell a photograph is going to get at least 70 years from creation, so they will be in copyright in the UK until the 2030s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Textcraft can now be used here in the Wikimedia community!

Textcraft can now be used here in the Wikimedia community! Finally! Dndrnmn1-2Years (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hundreds of duplicate files

Hello, Category:RAA images Den Helder 1905-1940 to be categorised contains 183 files which I believe are all already in Wikimedia Commons. I did not check every single file but the dozens that I did check are all already there. For example Category:Bloembollententoonstelling (Den Helder, 1931). The resolutions of the files are the same but the MB size differs a little bit. Last year I asked the uploader User:MichellevL (WMNL) on her discussion page but I got no response, I now see that 3 years ago someone else had already asked her about it and that she inquired at the Village Pump and that there was no problem if it took some time to fix the duplicates. It's been almost four years now? There might be more duplicates in the 1800+ file parent category Category:Media from Regionaal Archief Alkmaar to be categorised.

A couple of years ago I categorized every single file that has to do with Den Helder. If these duplicates were to be deleted I hope the categorized ones stay so I don't have to redo all the categorization. Larshei (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)