Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/09.

Please note:


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:


Search archives:


 
# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 automatic OCR 2 2 Snævar 2022-09-04 09:10
2 What is the difference between a Lido and an 'outdoor swimming pool'? 10 8 Oxyman 2022-09-07 02:20
3 "Quality Imports", could such a system work? 5 3 Donald Trung 2022-09-02 17:21
4 Request 18 4 Ilovemydoodle 2022-09-06 09:17
5 Freedom of panorama - grave of Raisa Gorbacheva 5 2 Graham Beards 2022-09-04 07:37
6 Basel tram question 2 2 Oxyman 2022-09-05 14:51
7 not used Commons in a long time ... is this still something for here? 17 8 Mateusz Konieczny 2022-09-07 18:25
8 Tineye Gadget doesn't work? 6 3 Tet 2022-09-07 12:47
9 Photo of mural depicting work of Le Corbusier in a cartoonesque style permitted? 5 2 MartinD 2022-09-07 11:17
10 Provisional rail tracks and construction railways 6 4 A.Savin 2022-09-07 09:16
11 Commons Anniversary 3 3 Guido den Broeder 2022-09-07 15:36
12 Graphs of Dutch public libraries statistics: what is a suitable category? 1 1 MartinD 2022-09-07 14:51
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

August 28[edit]

automatic OCR[edit]

I am learning how to import books in source using this link... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:How_to_Import_books_from_Internet_Archive_to_Wikisource.webm

after 6:35 minutes the instructor clicks on page number 312 and the OCR'ed text is already visible on the screen. In my case, I need to click on "OCR" button on the toolbar. I just want to know if the OCR works automatically or it needs user's action.

Shantanuo (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shantanuo: The file in the video was allready OCRed. So, when the instructor clicks on page 312, it is looking up the OCR layer in the file itself. Internet Archive does offer OCR in their files, but it is not in all of them, it depends on what the uploader chose at the time. The standard on wikisource is to OCR the whole file, the OCR button is more of an stopgap solution. Anyway, for the future, you are more likely to get an timely response to your wikisource question at wikisource (either your local project or the english wikisource). I only saw your message just now. Snævar (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 29[edit]

View it! Tool
Upcoming View it! tool discussion - for those interested in Wikimedia Commons & structured data - August 31, 2022

A project has been funded by the Wikimedia Foundation as part of the Structured Data Across Wikimedia Work to create a tool called View it! The tool aims to increase the discoverability of images on Commons, give readers and editors access to more images, and encourage contributors to utilize Commons & structured data. Please visit the Meta page if you are interested in trying out the prototype. We are having a demo and feedback session on August 31st at 16:00 UTC, please join us if you wish!

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic, Kevin, & Jamie

August 30[edit]

What is the difference between a Lido and an 'outdoor swimming pool'?[edit]

Swimmingpool Ranomafana I.jpg

was recategorised as a lido. I think that the difference is that the water is not treated (clorified) or heated, but refreshed with big natural water volumes.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And how to classify this one?
Lido is the British term AFAIK, while outdoor swimming pool might be the preferred term in American English. --Rosenzweig τ 08:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Outdoor swimming pool" (or, typically, just "swimming pool," because "outdoor" is the default) is definitely the term in American English. I doubt the average American has ever heard one called a "lido" unless they spent time in the UK. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel I am among them, although I now know the meaning behind the name of the Lido Deck on The Love Boat.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO "swimming pool" is the better choice in any case, because it is unambiguous. This pecular British use of "lido," on the other hand, is sure to confuse European and other non-Anglophone users, because the word lido is borrowed from Italian, and in Italian it always refers to a beach, never to an artificial pool like the one shown in the photo. Choliamb (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a Brit I've never used or heard of the word (other than in the news) but I guess you'd perhaps hear it more if you lived near one maybe, I would describe it as an outdoor swimming pool. –Davey2010Talk 20:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A lido is something with some level of facilities constructed built in the 1930s, when the term was fashionable. The intention and implication was that there was more to a lido than simply swimming, there was also a place to lounge or sunbathe nearby, perhaps with a cafe. This was not always achieved! Grange-over-Sands Lido would be a typical example.
Older and long established outdoor swimming places (Hampstead Ponds, Parson's Pleasure, Clevedon Marine Lake, or Henleaze Swimming Club and Clifton Victoria Baths in Bristol), with varying facilities, weren't called 'lidos' simply because they were too old. Some lidos had almost no facilities other than the water, but this is fairly rare – the Victorian Brit was fond of wild swimming, but not in the '30s.
An important group are those in South Wales, often built by under-employed or unemployed miners on a shoestring budget, and yet they were built (in some numbers). Pontypridd Lido is probably the best known of the recent survivors. Merthyr Tydfil Lido [1][2] is one of the least prepossessing, yet it still called itself a Lido! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So should we eliminate or rename Category:Lidos by country and its sub-categories? In the UK the term seems to have a rather restricted use. And in other countries, it is probably not used at all. In Germany, for example, that type of thing is usually called a Freibad. --Rosenzweig τ 08:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel no need to, provided that we're clear what it means. That may not be the same as the word means in a particular language, and it might not even be the same as the word means in English. But is is clear? Would an English speaker recognise the term lido, even if it was only used in their country in a more restricted manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Broxbourne Lido
Would they even be Lidos if they were never marketed as such? Confusingly there were indoor lidos such as Broxbourne Lido, emphasis here was family fun with a mock beach and a gradual slope into the pool and all the way upto the deep end, also a wave machine and an outdoor bathing area. What the marketing people were trying to say was 'More like a beach than an exercise facility'. Since the term is used very flexibly, it's probably best to use it in the UK on facilities marketed with the term Oxyman (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 02[edit]

"Quality Imports", could such a system work?[edit]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: The proposal is now live at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals.

Currently at the Proposals Village pump there's a discussion entitled "9 - Remove requirement that Quality images be the work of Commons contributors", in it I proposed an alternative where I noted that rather than tearing down the current system, we should probably just construct a new system next to it. To which I wrote: "This way we can preserve the unique incentive for photographers to have their own works be promoted to Quality Images and also create a separate incentive with a whole separate process for "Non-Wikimedia Commons originals" (or however we should refer to imported works). While both "Quality imports" would refer to images and "Quality images" would refer to images imported from somewhere else (the photographer's mobile telephone, laptop, desktop, camera, Etc.) The names would be recognisable enough to let people know which images were created specifically by Commonswiki photographers and which ones were merely imported by Commonswiki contributors from external sources. This would please those that want to keep QI exclusive and preserve the incentives for photographers and it would create more incentives for importers to find high quality images (due to the dopamine rush)."
Later the original proposer, user "Nosferattus" wrote: "Well I spend a lot of time and effort combing through thousands of wildlife images on iNaturalist and Flickr and picking the few that are really high quality to import into Commons. The fact that I can't get these images designated as "quality" and thus more likely to be found by reusers is very discouraging to me. Instead they are just lost in the sea of poor to mediocre Commons wildlife photos. So it feels like a waste of time. Lumping me in with promotional agencies feels even more discouraging. It seems like my contributions here are not really valued." These are actually good points.
However, because the current QI system doesn't really seem to specify that the images need to be uploaded by contributors to the Wikimedia Commons themselves, only that they have to be of contributors this user questioned this alternative system with "And then what happens when a photographer of an image in "Quality imports" creates a Commons account (or is discovered to have a Commons account)? Do we then have a third process for migrating images from "Quality imports" to "Quality images"? Such a system is just neednessly complex, IMO." Though I'm not sure if that's how it works, for example I know that Professor Gary Lee Todd is a Flickr photographer who has provided this website with many thousands of images from museums and archaeological sites but they later made a Commonswiki account to import images from his account that weren't uploaded, does this mean that I can now nominate "my uploads" using Flickr2Commons from this person to QI because he's a Wikimedia Commons contributor?
Personally, I think that creating a separate system that just mirrors the current infrastructure set up for QI (thus not needing much work to be done for it to be set up) could work, but there are doubts, so before proposing it I'd like to get feedback on what this potential proposal should and shouldn't have. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Donald Trung: It's an actual proposal, not a "potential proposal".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: , My bad, I meant to note that there is currently a proposal for expanding "Quality images" to also include non-Commonswiki original works, but I wanted to see if there are any issues with creating a potential separate system entitled "Quality imports" which is separate from the current proposal because it doesn't redefine the current system but creates a parallel system for works originating by non-Commonswiki contributors (like imports from other websites). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support any proposal that makes it easier for users to separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't understand why discussions here are focused on the needs of Commons editors rather than Commons users. Finding good images on Commons is an exercise in frustration even if you know how to navigate our ridiculous category system. Is it any surprise that people would rather pay hundreds of dollars to buy our images on Getty and Alamy rather than getting them here for free? If people are so concerned about retaining and incentivizing editors, they should realize that we aren't going to get any new editors if the site doesn't attract users and the best way to attract users is to make our quality content easy to find. Artisaurus (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've launched it as a proposal, in retrospect the comment about imported works being nominated for QI made little sense. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 03[edit]

Freedom of panorama - grave of Raisa Gorbacheva[edit]

We have several images of the grave of Raisa Gorbacheva. (see File:Raisa Maksimovna Gorbačëva.JPG for example.) Sadly the Russian Freedom of Panorama Law does not allow commercial use of images of statues. What is the status of these images, given that similar ones could be posted because her husband will be buried next to her grave.Graham Beards (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not the grave as a whole is an unfree motif, but the statue. So I think this image is perhaps de minimis, while the rest (4 photos as of now) should be nominated for deletion for sure. Regards --A.Savin 09:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be interested in your opinion of this one
Grave of Nikita Khrushchev Tomb.jpg
. I ask because I have a collection of photographs taken in that cemetery, which I always thought were not acceptable here, Graham Beards (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case IMHO it's not just about the bust, but also the sculptural composition -- the shapes might be creative enough. --A.Savin 20:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I think we need guidance and a clear policy on these Russian memorials. Graham Beards (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basel tram question[edit]

Interior Basel tram 2017.jpg

Because of the timeline (just after File:Basel tram 2017 4.jpg) I thougth it was the same type of tram. However looking at the windows, it is clearly not the Bombardier Flexity 2. Wich tram type is it?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P1130872 10.12.2015 Basel Strassenbahn.jpg
Looks like the central section of a Category:BVB Be 4/6 p 659-686. Though I don't claim to be an expert Oxyman (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not used Commons in a long time ... is this still something for here?[edit]

Hi, In Belgium there is supermarkt active w:en:Makro. It will most likely be closed very soon. Before it closes down I was thinking of making an extensive photo shoot of the inside of a Makro. - Will need permission of the director of that store, will be some work. - Because I have no been active here in a very long time I just wanted to ask of something like this is still welcome here. The idea is to upload a large collection of photos of the store, it's own brand products, to document what a Marko-store is/was in 2022 (before it is gone). - Just for illustration of the Wikipedia articles about Makro the current available photos are enough Category:Makro. The idea is just to document it for potential use later, to archive it. - I do not want to do all this effort if something like this is considered out of scope here. Walter (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a general aversion to showing commercial products. (No Promotion is a strong feeling in the NL and B Wikimedia communities) No one wants to see supermarket selves. It has to be really specific to Makro. Wich uniforms are being used? I never visited the shops so I cant give you advise on what is typical 'Makro' and usefull to document.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been a while since I was in one. Inside there really isn't that much that is typical for Makro. Probably just the signs telling you which products are where and where the entrance, check out and exit is. LeeGer (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that it is the Makro is more of a coincidence. That is just the chain that is now being sold in to its different business unites and as a result it is to be expected that soon 'Makro' will no longer exist. It has a few elements that are special but fundamentally, yes, it is just a supermarket. But that is not really the point. - The point would be to just document how 'a Makro' looked inside. Now is that not especially interesting but there is potential in the future it will be to some. But do document it that has to happen now. - I recently was in a heritage museum where a mock-up supermarket was build from around the 1950's and a bankoffice of a long closed bank. That did give me this idea. It seems to be a good idea. But maybe this is not the place for this, that is way I ask this. Walter (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The products I was thinking of photographing would be of their store brand. That most likely would no longer exist soon. Special for Makro is their huge package volume the sell products in. In a much larger volume package then any other Belgian supermarket open to end customers. Walter (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photos that I think can be interesting are wide angle photos or 180 or 360° photos. This to reflect the "atmosphere" in the store. Wouter (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is going to be to avoid too much that is images of copyrighted product packaging. But, for example, things like a meat or fish section will have much less of that issue; similarly the checkout area. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In think I will continue with this idea. And maybe just upload a small sample now. Keep the rest and wait until 'Makro' does not exist anymore. That will probably make things more easy. Walter (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Walter: Waiting till they are gone will make it harder to get explicit permissions. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean at the level of Wikimedia Commons. - At the level of Makro; the on-duty manager told me to call the store director to ask her permission for this. So if it happens I will have permission at the local store level (or maybe higher up) for an inside photo shoot. Will ask for written confirmation. That is not the issue. - My worries are at the Commons level of being accused to copyright claims or promotion or something like this. If the brand is defunct that risk should be lower. Walter (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe keep the copyright of products and special promotional displays in mind. C.Suthorn (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Walter: The issue isn't "promotion." The issue is having the appropriate license for any of their branding/packaging material that is copyrighted. And that copyright will persist (and be assigned to some entity) after the company/brand is gone. So you want to clear those rights while it is still readily apparent who can license them. - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think their branded stuff is probably worth documenting even if Commons isn't the place where you can upload it. Not everything valuable in this world belongs on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just make all the photos you get a (documented) permission from Makro for. But do not ask at Commnons. Either upload, or upload everything to Flickr and wait for it to be imported to Commons by one of the mass flickr importers - the easier way for you. [it is only, that a direct upload to commons would be cc-by-sa-4.0, but flickr is 2.0] --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: I would not be some sure. It is surprisingly hard to find decent images of for example playground on Commons. The same goes for example for things like bollards, hampshire gates and so on. I just tried to replace this one and failed. And maybe also for supermarket interiors we miss things? That can be useful in 10, 20 or 30 years. Maybe even later for some historians? @Walter: - for me high-quality images of supermarket interior are welcome Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, decent shots of places like this are difficult to come by, for a multitude of reasons. There's plenty of room for improvement in Category:Interiors of supermarkets in general and Category:Interiors of supermarkets in Belgium in particular. If you can get permission, go for it! Focus on wide shots rather than individual products and copyright shouldn't be much of an issue (see COM:DM). --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know what? On next shopping I will try to take some pictures and upload them. @Walter: - thanks for inspiration! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tineye Gadget doesn't work?[edit]

I tried enabling MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleImagesTineye, and it simply doesn't not show in my browser. For reference, I'm using Mozilla Firefox on a Windows desktop, and I'm using the old 2010 Vector interface. Actually, most gadgets don't seem to work. I have the same issue with the QI gadget, I had to manually write my candidates (no votes :() there. Tet (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tet: It works for me in Monobook in multiple browsers on multiple devices.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it somewhere not so obvious? Do I need to click on a button? Tet (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tet: In Monobook, these are tabs along the top of a file description page, like the stock view, edit, and history tabs.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tet In vector, you need to click the "more" button at the top right, to the right of the View/Edit/History tabs. The TinEye gadget should show up there. But if the QI gadget does not work either, you might want to check if your browser is blocking them somehow. --El Grafo (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yea, I found it when Jeff mentioned it where to find it in Monobook styles! Tet (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 05[edit]

Photo of mural depicting work of Le Corbusier in a cartoonesque style permitted?[edit]

I am aware that photos of works by Le Corbusier are not permitted on Commons. But when visiting Ronchamp (the location of Le Corbusier's famous chapel) I saw a mural in the Rue de la Chapelle (just off the Rue Le Corbusier) in Ronchamp. I think it's rather a nice "cartoon" of this building. It is shown on Google Street View, the geolocation is 47.70032, 6.63059, so please have a look. I took a photo of it. Would it be permissible to upload this to Commons, so that readers of the article about this chapel (on 28 Wikipedias) at least have some idea how it looks? Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @MartinD: c - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I can't find your message - unless "c" means something like "correct". ;) MartinD (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @MartinD: I'm so sorry! I meant to use CTRL-C to copy-paste to the edit summary & instead annihilated my content.
      I don't see any way that mural could fail to be copyrighted, and there is no Freedom of Panorama in France, so I think unfortunately we cannot have it on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hi Jmabel, thank you for your clarification. Well, that's clear, we will have to do without a picture then. A pity, as I rather liked this mural.;) Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 06[edit]

Provisional rail tracks and construction railways[edit]

We have Category:Provisional rail tracks and Category:Construction railways. They seem to cover pretty much the same terrain (in some cases, the same subject matter is partly in one and partly in the other), but they are not even close together in the category hierarchy. Does someone have a suggestion how this would best be sorted out? - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't a construction rail track just a possible example of a provisional rail track? Regards --A.Savin 20:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A.Savin: I would think so, but they are currently unrelated in the hierarchy. Of course (pace Oxyman), the emphasis on track in the former makes this a little tricker. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Provisional rail tracks" implies a track constructed for some test purpose, involving an eventual railway line. "Construction railways" are quite distinct: they're railways (probably temporary) built to support the construction of something, probably not railway related at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well Category:Trench railways and demonstration railways such as Category:Decauville Railway Tien-Tsin–Tshing-Yang would be examples of temporary railways. But the problem here seems to be that one category focuses on the tracks, the other about the whole railway including rail vehicles, bridges earth works etc. A possible way to bring the two together would be to create a subcat of both the categories called something like Category:Construction railway tracks. I find the use of the word Provisional here confusing as it could mean laid tentatively, conditionally or probationary with a view to becoming permanent, but the category description states it means temporarily Oxyman (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is what I actually thought of. Creating Category:Construction railway tracks as a subcat of both Category:Provisional rail tracks and Category:Construction railways would solve this. Regards --A.Savin 09:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 07[edit]

Commons Anniversary[edit]

Rose de Damas Brussels.jpg

Commons turned 18 today, so some sweets for the occasion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, and thank you for the sweets! MartinD (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice! And still going strong. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graphs of Dutch public libraries statistics: what is a suitable category?[edit]

I've made some graphs of statistics concerning Dutch public libraries, not specific ones but aggregated national numbers. What would be a suitable subcategory? I'm thinking of "Statistics of libraries in the Netherlands", would that be OK? Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Statistics of libraries in the Netherlands looks like a valid name. It could have Category:Economic statistics for the Netherlands and Category:Libraries in the Netherlands as parent categories. De728631 (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedure for Uploading an Image on Behalf of Another Person[edit]

Someone I know would like me to upload an image to the Commons on her behalf. She is the copyright holder for the image. Isn't there some way to do this whereby I upload the image and the copyright holder submits a proper copyright release form to the Commons? Can someone point me to the legally correct way of handling this situation? Thanks! Nolabob (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way to go is described on VRT. I hope you will succeed. Ellywa (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the information. Nolabob (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright holder of a business letter from 1964[edit]

Is the recipient of a business letter from 1964 the copyright holder of that letter? I realize the recipient is the owner of the physical copy of the letter, but it is not clear to me that this is the same as being the copyright holder. This is in the United States. Thanks in advance for the clarification on this. Nolabob (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nolabob: In this case, the copyright holder is either the company that employed the person that wrote the letter at the time, or the writer themselves if they were a freelancer or the business owner. By any means, the recipient is never the copyright holder of a letter. Anyhow, since this is from the US, the letter is in the public domain unless it includes an explicit copyright notice (which is most likely not the case). So you could use {{PD-US-no notice}} as a licence for uploading a scan or faithful photo of the letter. De728631 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I am understanding correctly, in the United States, the letter is in the public domain (and therefore can be uploaded to the Commons) unless it is has an explicit copyright notice. Correct? Thank you! Nolabob (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's it. Unless there is a notice like "Copyright Foo Inc., 1964" or something similar included, you can upload it here. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nolabob: that would not be true for a letter written now, but it was for one written in 1964. See Commons:Hirtle chart. - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you to you both for the clarification. Nolabob (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why it necessarily need a copyright notice. In w:Salinger v. Random House, Inc., there doesn't seem to have been even an attempt to claim that Salinger's letters to his publishers needed a copyright notice. Letters would generally be unpublished and not needing a copyright notice until if and when they were published, a requirement that stopped being needed in 1989.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 08[edit]