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.

Fred Daniels

l uploaded a jpg file of photographer Fred Daniels 1892-1959 to Commons but it is no showing on his wiki page.Please advise. Stillsforever (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Stillsforever, I’m assuming you are referring to File:Fred Daniels Empire Studio 1945.jpg. The licensing information on the page is unclear to me, but if the photograph is indeed a self portrait by Fred Daniels, then it will still be copyrighted in the UK until 2030 (copyright term is author’s life + 70 years, 1959+70+1=2030). Please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom for more details. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have just read COM:CRT/UK again, and I realised if the image was first published in 2012, as indicated by the uploader, then it would be copyrighted until 2039. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Separately, just uploading to Commons does not place a photo on a Wikipedia page. Probably only about 10% of the files that are on Commons are on any Wikipedia page at all. To place a photo on a Wikipedia page, you have to explicitly edit that page. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

acerca de mi ultimo archivo subido

SUBI UN archivo y por error pulsé alguna opción que no me permite que sea visualizada la imagen en el wikipedia. Esa foto es publica es de mi autoria y es la foto original del distrito de victor larco herrera. No ha otra igual esa es la fiel imagen del escudo original. Ya que el escudo original que fue hecha en pintura ha desaparecido y al menos quise aportar colocando la foto del escudo original y no esos que estan en la pagina que en verdad son falsas. El escudo de eso distrito es uno solo y es precisamente este el original https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=VICTOR+LARCO+HERRERA&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

Agradecere su respuesta a tucamisa@gmail.com

Gracias.

Saludos.

Att. Carlos Miñano Sánchez — Preceding unsigned comment added by TUCAMISA (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

TUCAMISA (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

TUCAMISA: Esta es la única imagen que has subido: [1] (está siendo usada en Wikipedia y se ve perfectamente, a todo esto). No se entiende bien lo que dices ni lo que pides, te sugeriría ser más claro y escribir de una manera más formal y prolija. En lo que a mí respecta, no voy a escribir a ningún correo electrónico, tendrás que conformarte con intercambiar mensajes aquí. Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Strakhov: I think this was about File:Escudo original de Victor Larco Herrera.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

William John Leech

I want to upload more images from the IRish artist en:William John Leech from the 1900s to 1930s, like this one: File:W1500-Leech-Convent-Garden.jpg. Am I right in assuming that as long as the painting is over 70 years old, and on display in a National Gallery (i.e. Public Domain), that I can upload any image of his paintaing to commons? Are there preferred formats of images I should look for (e.g. file type etc.)? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Leech died in 1968. Therefore his works will fall into public domain only in 2039. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: I'm not sure what you meant by on display in a National Gallery (i.e. Public Domain), but a painting or any other copyright eligible type of work being on public display doesn't mean it's within the public domain. The term "pubic domain" has a particular meaning when it comes to copyright: it typically means that a work was either never eligible for copyright protection in the first place (For example, the work is considered to be too simple (i.e. lacking sufficient creative input) to be eligible for copyright protection.) or is no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason (i.e. The work was once protected, but its copyright protection expired after so many years.). Given that Leech was from Ireland, Irish copyright law in addition to US copyright law is what's relevant here, and Commons's policy requires the work be within the public domain under both for it to be OK to host the work. Under US copyright law, the painting probably has already entered into the public domain because of its age (first publication was more than 95 years ago), but Irish copyright law allows copyright protection of creative works to continue on for 70 years after the creator has died (70 years en:post mortem auctoris (p.m.a)). This is intended to allow the creator's estate or heirs to still reap whatever (financial) benefit they can from the creator's work for a specific period of time before the work enters into the public domain due to its age. So, under Irish copyright law, the 70-year countdown, started the year after Leech died (i.e. 1969), and his paintings will copyrighted until they enter into the public domain on January 1, 2039. Up until that point, absent any other reason for his paintings to be considered public domain or unless the COM:CONSENT of his estate/heirs can be verified, any photos/images/scans of his work aren't going to be OK for Commons to host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I was reading the existing commons licensing for that upload and quoting the rationale. Thanks for the full explanation and glad that I checked here first starting any uploads. That is much appreciated ! Is there any non-free basis un which such a painting can be added to his en:WP article? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

​ Different language Wikipedias treat copyright protected content like this differently; some don't allow it at all and some do but only under certain conditions. English Wikipedia does allow what it considers to be non-free content to be uploaded and used, but this use is subject to its non-free content use policy, which is quite restrictive. In general, a representative non-free example of a visual artist's work tends to be allowed as long as all ten non-free content use criteria are satisfied. So, as long as there are no freely licensed or public domain works of Leech to be found, it would probably be OK to upload one of his works as such an example. Ideally, it should probably be a work that best represents his particular style or technique as discussed in reliable sources or is the work that most reliable sources would mention when discussing Leech since such a work would most likely be the easiest to tie in contextually to the textual content of the article.

For reference, the file you linked to above has been nominated for deletion. My guess is that the person who uploaded it in 2017 just mistakenly only considered US copyright law when doing so. That particular file would probably be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as either non-free content (if all ten criteria are met) or maybe even possibly as en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad (if the work is truly PD under US copyright law) since English Wikipedia is only concerned with US copyright law. You might want to ask about the latter at en:WP:MCQ. Now, if you're asking about a different language Wikipedia by chance, you will need figure out whether that Wikipedia allows such content and what its policy is if it does.

Finally, in general, photos of paintings (absent any visible framing or other copyright eligible elements besides the painting itself) taken head-on are considered to be COM:2D copying in which no additional copyright is established for the photo itself (the photo is considered to be a wikt:slavish reproduction); so, the only thing that needs to be considered is the copyright status of the painting; however, if the photo includes a frame, is taken at an offset angle, looks like it involved some creative decision making or includes other copyright works in addition to the painting, then there could be additional copyrights to consider which might complicate things. So, you might want to look at COM:PD-Art for reference for some examples of photos which are considered to be slavish reproductions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC); post edited to add missing word (underlined). -- 21:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response and really appreciated ! Will follow your advice and see where I get to. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Uploading a photo of a painting

Good day,

I want to upload a photo of a painting that is in my possession. It is a painting of my mother in law and it was painted in 1938 by Bert Vermeeren a home painter. I have to answer all kinds of questions during upload. If I answer these questions frankly, it is not allowed to upload. But the reason for that is, that the question I can answer with Yes (Is this your own painting with copyrights) is not asked. How can I upload without it being removed later on.

Thanks in advance.

Kees Cloin KéCie (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi KéCie Physical possession/ownership of a painting doesn't necessarily imply copyright ownership a painting, anymore than physical ownership of an album makes one the copyrigght owner of the album. In most cases, the copyright holder of a painting is the person who painted it. It's entirely possible, however, for the painter to transfer their copyright ownership to another party, but usually some sort of formal documentation is needed to verify such a thing. It's also possible that the painting was part of a en:work for hire in which the painter agreed beforehand to transfer their copyright ownership to whoever was paying them for the work, but once again some sort of formal documentation is needed to verify such a thing. Absent any reasonably veriable claim to the contrary, the copyright holder of the painting is probably going to be considered Bert Vermeeren and then his estate/heirs if he has already died.

If this is the same Bert Vermeeren who painted your mother-in-law's portrait, then his works would most likely be subject to Dutch copyright law and US copyright law. A painting painted in 1938 would still be protected under US copyright law until 95 years after first publication, while a painting painted by someone who died in 1971 would still be eligible for copyright protection for 70 years after the painter died. If we're referring to the same Bert Vermeeren, then in both the US and the Netherlands the painting would still be eligible for copyright protection for several more years and, thus, not really suitable for uploading to Commons, at least to the best of my understanding. If you're referring to a completely different Bert Vermeeren, then perhaps you could provide more information about the painting's en:provenance; knowing more about the painting and who painted it might help someone give you a better assessment of its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for your answer. It is the same Bert Vermeeren. So I know now what to do ;).

Regards,

Kees Cloin 213.134.225.206 14:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Recent changes error

Just updated to 1.44.1 Now “Recent Changes” gives me error:

aOJaJ9JIL4y-StWMKf6nCAAAAnA] /wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hidemyself=1&translations=filter&urlversion=2 TypeError: CCFilters::user(): Argument #7 ($opts) must be of type FormOptions, MediaWiki\Html\FormOptions given, called in /home4/pedsane1/public_html/wiki/extensions/CleanChanges/includes/CCFilters.php on line 28

Other things seem ok. Thoughts? PedsAnesNet (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• @PedsAnesNet: Just updated what to 1.44.1?
• Most likely, better asked at COM:Village pump/Technical. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Will re-post. 🙏 PedsAnesNet (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Images pending deletion

I have been notified that a large number of images I uploaded over a long period are scheduled for deletion. I do not believe any are subject to copyright or are my own work. I now have a visual handicap and cannot easily handle the process to deal with the details required with the few days I have been given. Is there a sighted person who can assist me with this and can the deadlines be extended ? Leonard9ca (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Leonard9ca, you should contact with COM:VRT. and deleted images could be returned, they are not forever gone. now, we can kindly request @Krd to not delete it in short time. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 21:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

and please check: COM:FOP Israel and relevant informations about freedom of panorama. and COM:Copyright. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 21:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Just Another Anonymous User

wants to upload a meme Just Another Anonymous User (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Just Another Anonymous User: unless it is somehow in the public domain or you own the copyright and are willing to provide a free license, please don't upload. You might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Insulting figure

Hello all, I see someone recently uploaded a figure File:Mao_Zedong_Color.jpg for China's respectful Founding leader w:Mao Zedong. The figure uses dark, weird color and is definitely personal attack and insulting. It has already been linked to many language wikipedias. Can we delete it or revert it to earlier versions (if there was), or simply replace it with the figure used in English wikipedia? Thanks Wihwang (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

No comment on the quality. I've started a DR since the original source photo is not clear (and thus possibly copyrighted). (EDIT: It appears to be derived from a 1959 photo. PD in China but not the US.) Abzeronow (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: Thanks. Convenience link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong Color.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

سؤال

كيف ان اشاهد اعمالي عدسة قوريني (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/عدسة_قوريني, Special:Contributions/عدسة_قوريني. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

你們公布的「中華民國憲法」有問題，我不知怎麼上傳我的檔案意見,請教我

我不知怎麼上傳我的檔案,請教我 王果雄 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@王果雄 您好，你是指有關中文維基百科的「中華民國憲法」的問題，還是指維基共享資源（這裡）的某一個檔案有問題嗎？你是想上傳怎麼樣的檔案呢？謝謝。 Tvpuppy (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

您好，我是指有關中文維基百科的「中華民國憲法」有問題，我是想上傳我自己寫的意見，是word檔案。謝謝！ 106.104.102.97 00:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@王果雄 謝謝您的回覆，但不好意思您所指的內容不適合上傳到維基共享資源。所以，請您用「zh:維基百科:上傳」本地上傳到中文維基百科。還有Word檔案（.doc或.docx）是不被接受的，所以請改用PDF檔案(.pdf)來上傳。謝謝。 Tvpuppy (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

您好！我已製作妥PDF檔。在「zh:維基百科:上傳」頁面，沒看到「本地上傳到中文維基百科」訊息，頁面顯示「您還沒有上傳檔案的權限。」請協助。謝謝！ 王果雄 (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@王果雄 不好意思，我不太熟悉中文維基百科的運作，有可能上傳PDF檔需要某些特定權限。抱歉沒能幫您解答問題，但我覺得還是問一下中文維基百科那邊的用戶，他們應該會比較清楚。謝謝。 Tvpuppy (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Artists photograph

I would like to edit the image of the painting and replace it with a photograph of the artist - is this possible? JulesHicks (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@JulesHicks: That sounds like something we do not normally do on Commons. Could you please be more specific? Links to individual files/pages would help. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Botany

Beste mensen, wat is het verschil tussen de twee keuzemogelijkheden bij uploaded foto's? Homoarborea (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Botany

---

Dear all, what's the difference between the two options for uploaded photos?

translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Homoarborea: Hallo en welkom. Welke opties bedoel je? Special:UploadWizard is voor beginners en Special:Upload is voor gevorderde gebruikers. Zie ook COM:FS/nl.

Hi, and welcome. Which options are you referring to? Special:UploadWizard is for beginners and Special:Upload is for more advanced users. See also COM:FS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Import aus der georgischen Wiki-Version

Hier ist ein Bild von Irine Imerlishvili in der georgischen Wiki veröffentlicht. Bei automatischer Übersetzung der Seite scheint mir kein Urheberrechtsschutz zu bestehen. Kann man die Datei in Commons überführen? Oder gibt´s hier Besonderheiten wie bei der englischen Wiki? VG-- Carolus requiescat (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Imported from the Georgian Wiki version

---

[2] Here is a picture of Irine Imerlishvili published in the Georgian Wiki. It seems that there is no copyright protection for the page when automatically translated. Can the file be transferred to Commons? Or are there special rules like the English Wiki? Best regards.

translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Carolus requiescat Hallo und herzlich willkommen. Wenn Sie versucht hätten, die Datei von dort zu exportieren, hätten Sie die Meldung erhalten: „Diese Datei kann nicht in Wikimedia Commons importiert werden, da sie nicht mit einer kompatiblen Lizenz gekennzeichnet ist. Wikimedia Commons erlaubt solche Dateien nicht. Das Problem lässt sich möglicherweise beheben, bedeutet aber höchstwahrscheinlich, dass die Datei nicht kompatibel ist. Bitte lesen Sie die Community-Richtlinien und Diskussionsseiten von Wikimedia Commons zur Lizenzierung. Ich glaube, die Datei wurde fälschlicherweise mit ka:Template:PD-Geo gekennzeichnet, da es sich weder um offizielle Dokumente noch um offizielle Symbole des Staates oder um Informationen zu Fakten und Ereignissen handelt. Darüber hinaus fehlt auch ein Herkunftsnachweis.

Hi, and welcome. If you did try to export it from there, you would get "This file cannot be imported to Wikimedia Commons because it is not marked with a compatible licence. Wikimedia Commons does not allow such files. This might be resolvable, but most probably means the file is not compatible. Please consult the Wikimedia Commons community policy and talk pages about licensing." I think the file was incorrectly tagged with ka:Template:PD-Geo because it is not any of (official documents, official symbols of the state, or information about facts and events). Beyond that, it is also missing evidence of provenance.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Antwort! Ich habe leider keine Kenntnisse des georgischen, weshalb ich nichts verstanden und nur das Logo erkannt hatte. Auch mit den Lizenzen kenne ich mich nicht aus. Carolus requiescat (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Trying to update logo

I run branding for the company that now owns BrightTALK. I am trying to replace the BrightTALK logo on the BrightTALK page, but I've been getting blocked, saying that it can't be uploaded from my domain. The correct logo is at assets.brighttalk.com/images/bt-it-logo.svg?v=1452025 and is visible on the BrightTALK homepage at https://www.brighttalk.com/ -- How can I add the logo to Commons so I can replace it on the BrightTALK Wikipedia page? Cprovancher (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cprovancher: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/290 while trying to overwrite File:BrightTALK Logo.png. The proposal to "Limit file overwriting to users with autopatrol rights" was accepted with many supports and one weak oppose 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC). After an implementation problem in phab:T345896 and testing, Special:AbuseFilter/290 went live with the Disallow action 09:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC). Please read MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-file-overwriting. You may request COM:AP at COM:RFR when you think you are ready (once you have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits); having that should allow you to overwrite. You were not the original uploader to Commons, that was Contentconsumer. You also triggered Special:AbuseFilter/158 by trying to upload a logo with a self-cc-by-sa license as a new user. You indicated it is your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller logo, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including any metadata, using a new filename that mentions the year it was published (because we keep old logos for historical reasons), but if you were not the original logo designer or photographer, that person may need to license it on their official website or social media or send permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. Once you have it uploaded here, you may change the syntax per en:H:PIC on Wikipedia to included it. If you can't get a compliant license, the image may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. 12:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

1. On Commons, we don't overwrite historical logos with new ones. Historical logos are of just as much value here as current ones. However, at File:BrightTALK Logo.png you could helpfully note at what date this logo became outdated.
2. The new logo is very near the threshold of originality for copyright. If you believe it is not copyrightable, you might upload it (under a new name) and use {{PD-ineligible}} as the license and also mark it with {{Trademarked}}. If you think it is copyrightable, then really either (1) a statement that it is under CC BY SA 4.0 should be on the company's own website, which you can site as a source, or (2) a representative of the company can send an email as described at COM:VRT.
3. It might be simpler to leave Commons out of this entirely, and upload the logo directly to the English-language Wikipedia, following the approach described at en:Wikipedia:Logos. If you take that approach, ask any questions on the English-language Wikipedia, because Commons is not involved. - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

How do I upload an image without it being copyrighted. How do I properly use Fair use?

I have this picture of the current TARDIS interior from 2023-2025 and I really wanna put it in. I took it from the "LIVE: 24/7 TARDIS Relaxing Ambiance video the official Youtube channel has but I don't know if I should upload it or not. It's copyrighted but I really wanna put it into the wiki article because it hasn't really been uploaded for a long time. Sammymaster27 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sammymaster27: about "I don't know if I should upload it or not." - You should not. Copyrights stand against it, and Commons does not allow fair use. On the English Wikipedia, it can maybe possible, see en:Wikipedia:Fair use. You will have to ask on EN-WP about relevant procedures. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Uploading images from Pexels, Pixabay, Unsplash or Shopify Burst to Wikimedia Commons

I'd like to upload some images to Wikimedia Commons, but I'm not sure about something and wanted to ask here. Websites like Pexels, Pixabay, Unsplash, and Shopify Burst say that their photos are free to use for personal and commercial purposes, and that there are no copyright issues. (For example Pexels license) Would it be okay to upload images from those sites to Commons, or is that against the rules here? Thanks in advance for any clarification. Vikipediizmir (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are copyright issues with those sites. The Pexels license you linked does not constitute a free license, because it prohibits selling the content without any modifications (Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo or video, e.g. as a poster, print or on a physical product without modifying it first. A free license must permit selling unmodified copies) as well as other restrictions on the What is not allowed? section.

Many sites distort what it means to be "free content", containing booby trapped clauses like narrowly defining "commercial use" deep in their ToS. On the other hand, we use a very particular definition of "free" for our files to differentiate with those non-free licenses. COM:LICENSING lists some well-known free licenses (eg. CC0, CC BY, CC BY-SA, FAL, GPL, Apache, etc.), and if it's not one of those well-known ones, it is a custom license, and the vast majority of custom licenses are non-free. They do exist (eg. Template:Zeno.ru), but the vast majority have non-free restrictions like Wikipedia use only, commercial gain only up to this much USD, etc.

Also, Pexels formerly used the CC0 license, which is a free license, but they changed it on 5 July 2018 to the non-free custom license. See Template:Pexels-Cc-zero. HyperAnd (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The respective Commons templates for those websites have information on what can or cannot be used from them: Template:Pexels-Cc-zero, Template:Pixabay, Template:Unsplash. The websites changed their terms, so it is important to take into consideration the dates mentioned in the templates. There is apparently no Commons template for Shopify Burst. I did not read the whole terms on their website, but it seems that it would depend on what license is associated with each image. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Templates for Categories

​ Hi, I’m linking to a discussion page about templates for categories:

• Template_talk:CatCat#Difference_with_{{MetaCat}}_and_{{ValiCat}}

Perhaps an experienced user could assist here. Thanks --Mrmw (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

File name change

Re: File:Banbury Rings Hillfort in Dorset.jpg

How do I request a name change. It should be Badbury not Banbury? Dr John Wells (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dr John Wells: Hi, and welcome. Please use {{Rename}} as the new first line of the file description page, or use our RenameLink gadget, to request a rename. Click the links for documentation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Add a picture of a living person to the person's page

editing the page of Helen Mason (physicist) en:Helen Mason (physicist) and have found the picture of her on the University of Cambridge's website. How should I put add the picture and cite it as I assume download and upload is not allow as it is not original work Isaac1127 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Isaac1127 That page,[3] as expected, says "© 2025 University of Cambridge" and that is the rule of thumb for any pic you see online. Well, not U of C, but you get my meaning. What you can try if you want, is mailing her something like "If you are interested in providing a picture of you for the Wikipedia article about you, please see Wikipedia:A picture of you" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Uploading works by a third party. If the photo is not explicitly free licensed by the copyright holder, it cannot be on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for asking. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Uploading Image from a trusted source

I'd like to upload the image the contrained in page 166 (second page of the linked document) to a Draft page of a project I'm working on with my group. I was not able to find a copyright license in this source.

Would that be possible, by referencing correctly the source?

Source

Thanks in advanceLIUC.Alessandro (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Assume per default that everything that is illustrative is copyrighted. So, the first idea, the first reflex must be: I can't rip and upload an image I did not author myself from any source.

That said, you're showing us a deeplink to a PDF. That's always somewhat inconvenient to gauge any possible licensing, keyword en:open access. Is this report published on some university server or in a open journal? If yes, provide us with the page where your deeplink is found, because it's always possible that a university workgroup or the like doesn't put a license directly in their paper(s) but instead on their document server. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon and thank you very much for your answer.

Unfortunately I was not able to find the direct source of the PDF document. It does not seem to be uploaded into a university server/website.

I was able to find it uploaded to ResearchGate, but it does not cover copyright licensing.

Would you recommend re-creating the map, basing the coordinates of the caves from those contained in the PDF map?

Thank you again, LIUC.Alessandro (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Raw data aren't protected (with the possible exception of database protection, but that's, IANAL, not applicable in this case, I think). So, producing a new map is a valid option. Please take a look at Commons:Map resources#Where to request new or improved maps in case you want to request technical assistance. There's also the DE-WP de:WP:Kartenwerkstatt (not listed on this Commons page, but at least available for people able to use German). To name a colleague who may provide help: NordNordWest is proficient in tasks related to map creation IIRC. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

Help updating two cosmology graphs

I tried to update File:Look-back time by redshift.png and File:Age by redshift.png for the new furthest observation just confirmed in the past week,[4][5] but my account is apparently too new to overwrite the image files. The new images with the 2025 furthest object are at https://i.ibb.co/HTn7sbnm/lookback-time-by-redshift.png and https://i.ibb.co/xqnw7jPh/age-by-redshift.png respectively. I would appreciate if someone could please upload those new revisions. Thank you! AstroMartine (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@AstroMartine: Or, you could request the ability to edit via Commons:Overwriting existing files.

ANOTHERWꞮKꞮPEDꞮAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 02:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, done. AstroMartine (talk) 02:44, 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 [6] and from Commons in 2018 [7]. Could the image be from a film? [8]. -- 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)

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 [9] 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)

Job

Found a job AB group L.T.D (talk) 22:45, 13 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Penny'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)

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)

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)