This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. I think we can close this. --Enhancing999 (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Are .ogg files no longer supported on Commons? I tried to rename an OGG file, and the interface forced an extension change to OGA as part of the move. I've tested the interface response to other attempted moves, and it auto-forces a change to the file's extension from OGG to OGA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I finally got around to doing some work on the timed text page logic and some of the points brought forward by people like @RZuo and @Jidanni. I plan to do further work as time permits me. I figured it was a good time to share some of the improvements that have recently been made in TMH.
There is now a File tab on TimedText pages, pointing you back to the corresponding file.
The TimedText tab is now either red or blue depending on if there are any subtitles
Several issues with redirects of either the file and/or the timedtextpage have been clarified with additional warnings
Error/warnings are no longer in the title of the page (we stopped doing this in the rest of MediaWiki quite some time ago, but TT was lagging behind)
Subtitle pages that don't have a corresponding file now show an error on the page.
Adding/deleting subtitle pages now purges the cache on Commons, so that pages using the video should show up with the right list of subtitle languages faster (global usage purging still to follow)
Moving a file should now re-queue the transcoding for the new files (this still needs to be tested on Commons, in case anyone wants to volunteer).
When you open the player on the file page of the file in question, you no longer get the Info button in the toolbar (you are already there).
bvibber has run the script to generate the streaming variants of all files, which means that videos should now work natively on all (supported) iOS devices and no longer require the javascript decoder.
WMF is preparing to move all transcoding into a separate transcoding Kubernetes service. No one should notice anything about this, but it will make it easier in the future to update the software pipeline and add capacity.
There is a lot more work to do, and progress is slow, but I hope that sharing this motivates people to keep working with audio and video. I'm always willing to listen and to file tickets, just know that often it will take me considerable amount of time to get around to more complex issues. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that all the pics in this category are watermarked. Is it possible to mark them as watermarked by a bot?--Carnby (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I noticed while browsing the English Wikipedia that this image is the wrong way around: life should be the broadest category and species the narrowest. Looking closer, the image was made to be the wrong way around about two or three days ago. Can someone fix this? 76.212.74.24304:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I came across a tool called Glamorgan on Toolforge. If Commons has stats showing how many times articles with images are viewed, why not show these stats on every file page? --iMahesh(talk)03:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@IM3847: Why would we want to? Every additional piece of code added to a page makes it longer to load, and adds more cycles to the servers processing. There are plenty of scripts around that can through up stats for pages for those specifically interested in that aspect. For instance I can say that when I looked at this page its data is 172,899 revisions since 2004-09-07 (+5 minutes), 10,829 editors, 3,347 watchers, 30,651 pageviews (30 days), created by: Grunt~commonswiki (128) · See full page statistics plus from wikidata Wikidata: Project:Village pump (Q16503), central place for discussions about a wiki; page (usually with subpages) used to discuss technical issues, policies, and operations of a Wikimedia wiki Aliases: Travellers' pub, Simple talk, Travelers' pub, Wikipedia:Village pump, Wikiversity:Colloquium, Wikisource:Scriptorium, Wikiquote:Village pump, Wikibooks:Reading room, Wikinews:Water cooler, Wiktionary:Beer parlour, Wikidata:Project chat, Commons:Village pump, Project:Current issues, Meta:Babel, Wikispecies:Village Pump. Though all of that takes time to generate and comes after I load the page. These scripts I load that load that data I have run on every WMF page I view, or I can set them per wiki. Most others wouldn't give a toss about that information, and I only look at it some of the time. We all fall somewhere on spectrum. — billinghurstsDrewth04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
GLAMs would probably appreciate stats for files they upload. As there's really no way of them knowing what impact their uploads have or where to put their focus. I have the same issue myself BTW. I much rather spend my time uploading images from a particular area that people are actually going to view and use, versus just wasting my time throwing darts at a board in the hopes someone somewhere is getting something out of my contributions. And yes, you can kind of do that with the "Page views for this category" template, but it's not really granular enough to be super helpful. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Billinghurst, Thank you for the information about load time; I hadn't considered that aspect. When hosting outreach activities in our country, we found that the primary concern among photographers was the lack of analytics on Commons. They were keen to understand the impact of their images, particularly in terms of views received. During our sessions, we realized that it would be very helpful to display the number of views an image has received at the top of the file. If this slows down the page load, we could consider adding a button labeled "Page Analytics" at the top. This button would only load the analytics if clicked. Unlike page view statistics, which users must manually enable, these Page Analytics could be viewed by anyone. We believe that this feature could have a significant impact on new contributors in countries like India, where there's a large number of photographers but less quality content on Commons. -- iMahesh(talk)09:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 and IM3847: There are links to individual statistics for every page to look at views, etc. from each page's history. If there are suggested links to be added via those pages then we can look at those. We also have xtools through WMF cloud which does analysis on page level. For overarching statistics, that has predominantly been something coordinated by/thru WMF as they have access to the big number crunching. It is usually something holistic for WMF, rather than at the miniutiae. I would suggest looking at https://wikitech.wikimedia.org and https://stats.wikimedia.org and https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ for some of the opportunities to look/play with data. Your people have the full opportunity to do their own analyses. — billinghurstsDrewth02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 @Billinghurst There is specifically for GLAMs the BaGlama2 tool. It shows for a category - for example "Images from the Hogwarts historic wizardry archive" - how often each image was viewed in which articles on the different WM projects for every month. Only: the tool stopped working more than a year ago. I brought this up in german wikipedia "Reparatursommmer" and @Magnus Manske claimed the project to repair. He made some changes and now the tool is displaying info again but all new data is "zero". So there is a tool aimed at GLAMs to show them how their content is actually used - but is does not work for over a year now. Oh well, maybe i can bingewatch some old films at wikiflix instead - that seems to actually work. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes @Billinghurst: We have tools for project views, but they didn't cover the views of images as good as this GLAMorgan. Having a tool that displays this data for an individual page directly at the top of the page would be preferable, similar to Xtools. Since Xtools adds load to the code running the page, this Image View Analytics could be implemented as a button. It would only activate if users click on it, ensuring that it doesn't impact page load unnecessarily (or) Xtools on Commons can display the number of views image got on Wikipedias and other sister projects. As of now it only shows views directly through Commons. This will also provide the user with his impact on Commons. Any thoughts on this? @C.Suthorn: & @Adamant1: --iMahesh(talk)02:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@IM3847: If added to Xtools, please make it optional and off by default, as I fear a large performance hit if we use it on everything in filespace and categoryspace. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
There's no reason it couldn't be a user setting that has to be enabled and/or just display the stats in the list of their uploader. I don't think it needs to be displayed on every page or in every category though. Especially if people can't toggle it off if they want to. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I agree! Adding a toggle for upload statistics would give users more control over their experience on the platform. Placing it either on the file page or the user uploads page sounds like a great idea to ensure easy access without cluttering other areas of the interface. --iMahesh(talk)12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
We already do indirectly. There is an "page information" link on file description pages. It leads you to a page that has a link to "Mediaviews Analysis" at the bottom. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguating two creators with the same name and profession
@From Hill To Shore: I recommend years of life. Too many father-son combinations and common names to try and use occupation. Lots of them from the Wikisources have been done that way. They are typically not front facing, and are aligned with categories so that is sufficient to identify them. — billinghurstsDrewth01:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Presumably the two workarounds are overt cat sorting and numbering like "001", "002", … "009", "010", etc. Both of these would still be fine if we turn on numerical sorting. @Enhancing999: are you aware of something that would break? - Jmabel ! talk14:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 My understanding is that Commons has never made widespread use of dewiki-style sortkey hacks. Dewiki uses a number of :s in front of the number, such as #:::100 Coco and #:9 Tage wach to get 100 Coco to sort after 9 Tage wach. Commons typically has used leading zeroes for this, and leading zeroes don't need to be changed because they do not affect the sort order in numeric sort. It looks like there are some categories on Commons using dewiki-style sortkeys, but I don't expect it to be common. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A lot of "Old maps of..."-categories include sortkeys by year (like "Category:19th-century maps of Silesia|1876"), but that's not something that will break if numerical sorting gets enabled. Another method of sort-key-ing that is often employed (not just by me) is to place a space before the key (like "Category:Book name| ") so that the file with a title page is displayed as the first one in a category of page scans. Some other people use ".", "+" or "*" for much the same effect. These sort-keys should be respected by the new setting, too. --Enyavar (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
One thing to note is that this will change the format of the sortkey returned by mw:API:Categorymembers and the cl_sortkey field of the mw:Manual:categorylinks table. That will be a problem if any software is making (unwarranted) assumptions about the format of those rather than using the corresponding sortkeyprefix. Another possible downside is that items whose sort keys begin with digits will appear under a single 0–9 heading rather than under separate headings for each leading digit. I don't think either of those is a big enough problem not to make the change. --bjh21 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Support I would love this. Would this apply to filenames as well? I've been adding DEFAULTSORTs to them this entire time, which is not ideal. ReneeWrites ([[User talk:|talk]]) 12:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we need to propagate a bunch of formal rules, but obviously if you can avoid spoilers, avoid them. - Jmabel ! talk08:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This may need some discussion as it involves removal of the template from hundreds of tagged files once it is converted to becoming a category-exclusive template. A suggested replacement may be {{De minimis}} but it is too general and also includes uses in images that may incidentally or trivially show album covers, book covers et cetera. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a pretty big change. You should probably should post a note on the talk page for {{NoFoP-Russia}} pointing to this discussion. In principle I think your proposal is fine. If you switch it to category use only, the template should definitely be modified to show a red usage error note in file namespace, as it will probably take some time before users familiar with the current template behavior adapt to your change. In addition, if you want to do this you should commit to going through the existing uses of the template in file namespace and either: (1) nominating for deletion cases depictions of copyrighted artwork and sculptures that are not de minimis, (2) replacing {{NoFoP-Russia}} with {{De minimis}} where the depictions of copyrighted artwork and sculptures are de minimis, or (3) removing {{NoFoP-Russia}} where any depiction of copyrighted works is entirely trivial. —RP88 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
For a few weeks I've noticed a bombing of pretty crappy tag-depicts on hundreds of files in my watchlist. [2], [3]. How does this benefit the project? ¿Hay alguien a los mandos? Is this "campaign" completely machine-guided? Is structured data intended for generic tags? Strakhov (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
they go by different design. isa is more like a tool for tagging depicts for related files consecutively. its depicts interface looks just like the one on commons pages, so it depends on the user to find the suitable item.
Hi, From which country is this picture? Categories seem contradictory: Albanians in Croatia taken by a Czech photographer. Yann (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
With the current details it will be difficult to say. Modern day Czech Republic and Croatia were part of Austria-Hungary in 1900. Modern day Albania was in the Ottoman Empire at the time. Ethnic groups with no national boundaries were likely spread around the region. It could be an ethnic Albanian family that was living in Austria-Hungary or a photographer from Austria Hungary may have been travelling in Ottoman lands. A Google translation of the source page isn't much help; it says the photographer travelled a lot and took pictures in multiple countries around Europe until he married and settled down in 1898. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
My comment was from the perspective of what is visible in the image and stated in the source. Beyond the file name chosen by the uploader, there is nothing to say that these are Albanians in a specific location. The uploader may have had access to additional source information to choose that name. On the other hand, there is nothing to support Yann's suspicions of a contradiction. It is entirely plausible for the three factors of an ethnic Albanian family living in the vicinity of modern Croatia and being photographed by an ethnic Czech photographer (who the source says was known to travel around the region) to have occurred. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jedudedek: at first? (Probably the image was taken by the Czech photographer, there is an Albanian mother and it was taken in a vicinity of a place called Rjeka. – I doesn't have to be Rijeka, Rjeka means "river" in Southern Slavic languages, so it can mean many places.) — Draceanetalkcontrib.21:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Guidelines for who can create templates and under what circumstances
Hi. I was wondering, are there any kind of guideline or guidance on who can templates and under circumstances they can be created for? I ask because there's an editor with only 60 edits who created a template recently for a fairly niche subject area. Which seems like an extremely low amounts of edits to be creating templates at this point. Especially considering the oddly specific thing they are creating it for. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no hard and fast rule, and there shouldn't be. A template expert from Wikipedia could easily and appropriately have the creation of a template be their first edit on Commons.
@Jmabel: Yeah well, I was trying to keep it as a general question since I already have a couple of other rather personal discussions going on. That said, it's Template:Four stamps block (type 1). I asked the user who created it what the purpose of it is but they haven't replied. I can't image a template being necessary or useful for something that niche though. Mostly it just seems like a way for the user to push their own personal, preferred way of doing things on everyone else since it appears to be very German specific, but can still be used on other images of "Four stamps block (type 1)"s. Whatever those are. One of the issues I have with the template is that there are no hard and fast standards for stamp classifications and they can be different depending on the country or culture. So having a template for "Four stamps block (type 1)"s seems kind of pointless to begin with whatever the user's motivation for creating it was. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: my remark was entirely addressed to the general question, not the specific case. If there is a problem with a particular template, that is a completely different matter than whether you should need a particular number of edits to make a template. - Jmabel ! talk17:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I have checked back through the archives and the only topic of yours that was flagged for archiving manually (by me in that instance) was where you had posted duplicate messages. The duplicate was prioritised for archiving while the other would remain open. However, all topics get archived automatically if there are no new comments for a period of time. So, most of your topics were archived automatically because the conversations ended. From Hill To Shore (talk)`
@OperationSakura6144: I've been traveling for 5 weeks, so I'm only just getting back ere but it looks to me like you've singlehandedly decided there is a problem and that you have the solution, and repeatedly hectored people to get on it immediately, without any step of building any consensus beyond yourself that it is even important. It does not surprise me that no one is jumping to drop what they are doing to help you. - Jmabel ! talk20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I have tried COM:DL, but it didn't help me because it states: "No replacement of images in other formats with SVGs. To avoid World War III, CommonsDelinker will ignore a command to replace an image if the new image is in an SVG format and the original is not." which is absurd. Why would WWIII happen just because by replacing images of old format with vector images?! OperationSakura6144 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Let me explain. I couldn't edit the English Wikipedia because my IP address got blocked there, because they thought me as a proxy/VPN user. I've made appeals to unblock but all failed, because the people in the English Wikipedia still think me as a proxy/VPN user. Now, I'm expecting you to do this thing for me. Do it if you can or ignore it. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Making CC BY-SA 3.x/GFDL files available under CC BY-SA 4.0
Apropos of this discussion I ask myself what I can do to make it easier to (re)use my files and photographs correctly. Some of them are still licensed under GFDL + CC BY-SA-3.0 just because this combination was the suggested default licensing when I uploaded these files. I would like to allow people to use all/most of these files under CC BY-SA 4.0, too. What is the correct way to achieve this? I do not want to remove/replace the old licenses (a) because I guess that would be problematic from a legal point of view and (b) because this would confuse people who already use one of these files under such a license. Can I just add CC BY-SA 4.0 as an additional option, preferrably by using {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|cc-by-sa-4.0|migration=redundant}}? Or is there a legal or technical problem when I add that additional license now? Thank you very much for your input! – Aristeas (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
If you are the owner of the copyright to a file you are free to add additional license choices, if you so choose. Your suggested wiki markup is fine. You're probably aware, but for clarity, the reverse is not true. The Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, you can't, for example, tell a user who previously obtained your file under the terms of CC BY-SA-3.0 that if they want to continue using it they must use it under the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0. —RP88 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
That’s great. Thank you very much for your input, RP88! Yes, I am aware that CC licenses are irrevocable (this is what my loose wording “would be problematic from a legal point of view” wanted to say). – I posted the question here because it was stimulated by the aforementioned VP discussion and I thought that it would be of interest also for other contributors who still have GFDL + CC BY-SA-3.0 or even CC BY-SA-2.x files; sorry if my wording was too vague and personal. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Aristeas: I use the following: I agree to [[w:Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages (which are licensed under the [[w:GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]] 1.2 only), as described below along with all future CC-BY-SA licenses:
:::{{self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|migration=redundant}} — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That’s another excellent solution, thank you very much! So people can choose which solution fits them better.
BTW, I have learned that it is even possible to write {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}. This is useful if somebody wants to publish a file explicitly under any CC BY-SA license. Personally I feel a bit uncomfortable about this because it seems a bit odd to me to allow the use even of not-yet-existing licenses; therefore I would prefer Jeff’s code which explicitly mentions the versions of the license. But if one really wants any CC BY-SA license, cc-by-sa-all is the shortest and most general solution.
As a sidenote, Jeff’s code example shows that my lengthy {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|cc-by-sa-4.0|migration=redundant}} can be abbreviated to {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0|migration=redundant}}. This also results in a more compact display: instead of creating a separate box for every version of CC BY-SA, the template geneates a single box which mentions all versions. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
These are two Eucharistic miracles for which there are numerous versions from the Middle Ages. In both cases, an individual steals a consecrated host to enhance their honey production/fishing. Each time, a miracle occurs: the bees build a church of wax around the host/the fish bring back the host to the priest. Identifying the saint depicted would provide further information. Ayack (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
We're having a discussion at the Technical Village Pump about a new tool for detecting logos. Our intention is for you to discuss if it could be of use for the community and then, if consensus is reached, to integrate the tool in UploadWizard, in a way that would be beneficial for moderation workflow. If you're interested in the topic, please have your say! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
COM:FOP in the Netherlands?
I was reading up on FOP in the Netherlands, which allows photos in "public spaces", and specifically excludes interiors of museums. Yet almost every Dutch museum has an interior subcategory that all taken together contain thousands of photographs. Am I missing something here? Shouldn't those pictures be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.97.65.18 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
If the objects are public domain and if the photographs of public domain 3D objects are freely licensed, I don't see an issue. Although sometimes things just fall through the cracks so if you find a particular object that isn't PD, feel free to start a DR of that file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow@212.97.65.18: if the radical change in FoP proposal (as seen in the thread above) pushes through, then the Netherlands FoP is going to be disregarded (only U.S. FoP now), so this question on Dutch museums is pointless now. Some artworks in those museums may be P.D. in the Netherlands but must be deleted because they are still copyrighted in the U.S. (those post-1928), so again the IP user's concern may be of no use very soon. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)21:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: You seem to be arguing that because some people are having a discussion that shows no sign of reaching consensus, and hasn't even reached the level of a formal proposal, it is pointless to concern ourselves with current policy for a matter that would be unaffected by the outcome of that discussion. It would be unaffected because this matter has nothing to do with FoP (there is no indoor FoP in the Netherlands) and both under the current policy and the proposed policy, when FoP doesn't come into play we don't host artworks that are copyrighted in the U.S., regardless of their status in the country where they were photographed. And, yes, that is hard to follow—in fact, it adds up to nonsense—but I think it is an accurate paraphrase of what you said. If you think I'm wrong here, please be specific about how. - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel just one expression of my apparent frustration on what is happening here, that the status quo that has kept the project's FoP policy relatively intact and favorable to more visitors (more visitors are from countries with FoP than those with no FoP) is going to be shattered into pieces in an instant, by the desire to comply legal obligations and the desire to use "shortcut" approach in hosting Burj Khalifa pictures and other images of buildings from no-FoP countries. In fact, the events here may force me to recalibrate my Philippine FoP advocacy, because even if it becomes introduced here (let's say around 2025 or 2026), Philippine FoP is going to be disregarded by Commons anyway. Even Philippine-language Wikipedias cannot benefit Philippine FoP (following the arguments of D. Benjamin Miller) because those are not hosted here, but in the United States. My apology if I made some comment on this thread out of apparent frustration. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I'm (relatively) glad to hear that is mostly just frustration, but I really can't imagine why you think a position advocated by about three people (at least one of whom apparently can't distinguish between what is legal for Commons and for a commercial site), is assured of carrying the day, especially when it would represent a change from a policy that has stood for just shy of two decades. Please, when people come here with a question about current policy, don't confuse them with the fact that things might change. Things always might change, in any direction, but this was really more of a "help desk" type of question, and should have been handled accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk04:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The WMF has (rather good) lawyers. If they believe major, longstanding Commons policy were illegal, we would long since have heard that from them. - Jmabel ! talk04:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel noted. But I would rather not post at Help Desk. I would rather let a major RfC page (standalone page just like the debate that eventually led to the creation of {{Not-free-US-FOP}}) be started and I would reiterate my stance there. WMF peeps may also chime in on that potential RfC. Not appropriate to post at Help desk at this moment since I am aware of "forum shopping" infraction. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: no, no, I was saying that 212.97.65.18's question was basically a help desk question, and we should not confuse people who ask for simple help with a bunch of meta-issues. - 04:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
A talk page entry at Wikipedia here brings up an issue with a POV image description. Any ideas what to do about this would be appreciated, thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm just passing through at the moment, but at the very least add {{Fact disputed}}. I believe that the word "terrorists" and its Hebrew equivalent should be removed from that page entirely. I have rarely seen a less appropriate description anywhere. (Probably more to be done than that, but I'm on my way out a door.) - Jmabel ! talk07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I've now added a "fact disputed" tag with the note, "It should be needless to say that the IDF's characterization of the hospital as a "terror headquarters" is contentious at best, and the notion that everyone killed or arrested was terrorist is absurd." - Jmabel ! talk08:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
remove that bullshit completely and replace it with the description of whats in the image which in this case is the name of the said Hospital and if they persist, then we no longer accept images from them at all. Just because the image is released freely doesn't mean we should use it if its used for their own personal propaganda...we now need to check every images uploaded from that site to see if the description for every image uploaded isn't more propaganda. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral (even though we aren't but we need to continue with that "facade" or we will no longer be recognized as a neutral and reliable source).... Stemoc12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Commons does have a NPOV policy, which includes neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible. There are a few ways to do so: remove the contentious claims or attribute the claims to the IDF. In this case, I'd be inclined to remove the claims, since they are only there for context and do not actually describe anything in the image itself. In fact, nothing in the description describes the actual image. I see what looks like a tank and a damaged medical building. Oddly, I can't find an image oF Shifa Hospital that looks like that (the curved facade, etc.) -- are we certain that's what's in the frame? There's no caption in the source document. Also, we should probably ping the uploader, MathKnight. — Rhododendritestalk | 19:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
noticed he has been pushing this propaganda (for a better word) for a while now even making such claims on other wikis including enwiki and i can see he is a sysop on the Hebrew wiki thus his bias. I remember we banned a few Russian posters last year when they were doing the exact same thing during the Ukraine-Russia conflict by pushing the Russian agenda and yes a lot of those images added by him have the same biased description. This needs to be fixed ASAP IMO and i generally don't care what the VRT ticket allows because we need to uphold our own NPOV policy first. I'm in favour of blacklisting that website if every description listed on their images is blatant propaganda and bullshit... Stemoc22:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
since the user is still actively editing hebrew wiki and made edits to enwiki even after this discussion was brought up and hasn't posted here, one can assume he doesn't care...I propose we delete the description of every image related to this current war, english and hebrew and maybe start a discussion on blacklisting the IDF website and removing all their images from commons. We can't have 2 standards for when russian editors do this and another set for Israeli ones and also ban MathKnight from commons. We cannot have propaganda pushing people actively promoting disinformation on commons as images here get used across wikimedia wikis... Stemoc00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Stemoc: I'm about halfway with you. No reason not to accept the images, we can just rewrite titles and descriptions.
He's not required to respond to a discussion on the Village pump, but you can start one at COM:AN/U and notify him accordingly. If he won't agree there to stop POV-pushing then, yes, some sanction is in order (at least a topic ban, maybe more). - Jmabel ! talk13:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: regarding the building with curved façade, it seems to be located just across the road (31.5236°N, 34.4421°E), but is itself probably not part of the hospital. The vehicle and shed in the foreground do seem to be situated on the hospital grounds. I've added the camera coordinates to the file page as accurately as I could deduce from aerial imagery. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I think those two edits of mine should sufficiently address the problem, and would suggest doing the same on other files with similar issues (Israeli, Russian, whatever). - Jmabel ! talk14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the image descriptions should only pertain to what they show. It's an armored vehicle in front of the ruins of a destroyed hospital. You could also mention the Al-Shifa raid the vehicle was involved in, resulting in the ruined hospital. There are no 200 deaths and 500 arrests in that image (numbers that aren't even independently verified).
I'm also iffy on letting the non-NPOV description stand even if it's with a disclaimer; placing undue value on the original uploader's description is not something we do in any other area of Commons, and if we treat this as if it's official policy it's one that's very easy to abuse. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Potential identification issue with photos from commanster.eu
From what I'm aware, many pictures of species from James Lindsey's Ecology of Commanster website were uploaded to Commons way back in 2007-2009 or so. These are all listed in the category Category:Pictures by James Lindsey (as well as Category:Nature of Commanster and its subcategories). However, I've been discovering over the last few months that with regards to insects at least, at least some of them in Lindsey's photos have been misidentified: it turns out that Lindsey's website now gives different identifications for these insects, but for the most part they have not been updated on Commons correspondingly. So far that I've seen, some of the new IDs for Lindsey's photos are consistent with other photos ID'd as the same species on external websites and other photos uploaded to Commons, so they seem to be correct as far as I can tell.
In each case, I found the website's current ID for each insect by simply reverse-searching the images on Google, clicking "Find image source", and looking for a commanster.eu web page that has the same image if its available.
A few other notes I should make here:
Because these images are so old, they not only may be the oldest images available on Commons for many species, but they have also often been used as representative images for these species in Wikipedia (regardless of language), Wikidata and Wikispecies. They also may be representative images for genera, subfamilies, families, etc.
I believe this issue probably applies to far more than just the dozen or so insects I've spotted misidentifications in so far: the commanster.eu website has a Caveat page warning about identification errors, particularly for arthropods and fungi. This means that the IDs given by Lindsey for some groups of organisms are not reliable, and therefore many of his images of those groups uploaded to Commons could have wrong IDs and need renaming.
So, I need other users to help double check photos from commanster.eu uploaded to Commons, correct them if needed, and also fix references to them across Wikimedia. Like Lindsey himself, I don't have any expertise in any field of biology either, not even in insects particularly (despite how often I edit pages to do with them). Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks for the suggestion. While I did originally make this with insects in mind, half way into writing the start of this discussion I started wondering if this issue goes beyond insects to other arthropods and maybe even plants/fungi, since the photos from Lindsey's site also includes those. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Do we have a bot that could fix it? It would be easier if the images had an image number and would link directly to the source. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Quite a few of these photos appear as the main image on Wikidata or Wikipedia pages. Those should be our first priority. I'll see if I can throw together a script. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Reminder that the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin begins a week from now, with the intention of adopting the meta:Movement Charter. I'll be there to represent Cascadia Wikimedians but I have their permission to represent concerns from the Commons community, so if anyone has something they want me to bring up, please let me know.
The main concern I intend to bring on behalf of Commons is that (1) the proposed governance structure is overly tilted toward affiliates and hence is almost guaranteed to under-represent those whose participation is strictly online, which I believe is the case for the majority of Commoners. The other concerns I intend to bring up (a bit more peripheral to the formal agenda, but I believe that a lot of the people to whom this concern needs to be brought will be there) are that (2) WMF's technical support and development priorities for Commons have too often been driven by what someone at WMF thinks would be nifty and too little by what the Commons community actually wants or needs and (3) the development approaches of that team have been insufficiently agile, not even approaching the agility of our volunteer developers. On that last, it seems that no feature, no matter how trivial, can happen with less than half a year elapsing between request and completion, and that even simple bug fixes can take months. Also, that when it becomes dead clear that they are going the wrong way (e.g. the ill-fated "suggested edits" on the Android app [and, by the way, I see that page has not been updated to indicate that this was a failure and has been turned off]), it can take literally years for them to turn around, not to mention multiple person-months of paid staff time to perform a formal study to come to confirm the Commons community's uniform feedback that this "feature" was a liability.
Are there other concerns I should equally be bringing in? Does anyone strongly disagree with any of these three? - Jmabel ! talk19:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Your points are very valid. Another issue is that is does not seem like anybody from the technical team is formally assigned to go through items like the "Village pump/Technical" on Commons. Questions can remain unanswered for long periods of time. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
About (3): a request to WMF can be answered with: "this is not in the budget of the current business year, we have to wait for the next business year". Maybe there should be an accrual for unexpected software projects.
I have learnt that WMDE has 160 paid employees and I feel a discrepancy between the high number of employees and the little visible results of their work. I don't know the figure for WMF, but maybe it's similar there? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Allegedly WMF had ~700 employees at the start of 2023 (however they laid off some since then. Possibly they also have not been replacing some of the turn over so it might be lower now). I don't know if i would say lack of agile is neccesarily the problem - teams are reasonably agile within their assigned domains. The part that is problematic is anything between the cracks of assigned domains is utterly ignored, and the cracks are very large. Bawolff (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel,
as member in the drafting committee I will also be in Berlin next week, and I would be very happy to talk through the concerns you see in the current Charter draft - and maybe those of others here in the Village Pump as well - and see how we can improve the Charter. As it is proposed now the minority of the Global Council will come from affiliates, and even in affiliates there are a lot of volunteers that come from the projects and hold board positions, but that does not mean there isn't room for improvement and an even better representation from across the communities and online projects. Looking forward to have our conversation in person! Ciell (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell: I very much look forward to having a chance to talk. I'm arriving Wednesday, roughly mid-day. When are you arriving? Can we set up a time to talk? Feel free to contact me more privately (you can email through my account here). - Jmabel ! talk19:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I will be arriving on Tuesday because the MCDC has 2 days of preparation in Berlin ahead of the Summit. We are all in the same hotel though, and will walking around throughout the Summit to answer questions and hear your feedback, so I am sure we'll have plenty of time to talk. Wishing you safe travels! Ciell (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought about creating cats like "Microprocessors by year (of release)" or "Video cards by year (of release)" to make it easier to find processing units in less or more recent years. Does it make sense to create those cats (with subcats like 2024 microprocessors etc.).
I think the "of release" is necessary based on the other year categories we have on this site, you will end up with cats full by date taken, template or not Oxyman (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I notice that in the examples you give the we are just recreating original artwork (by scanning etc) rather then creating new images, I have a preference for a reasonably descriptive cat name, But I am prepared to concede I may be wrong on this occasion, I'm not overly concerned about this, so go ahead and do what you think best Oxyman (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I did some research and the year is usually linked with the year of completion for buildings, and films by year for example refer to the date when they were shown in cinemas. TLoZ: Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild were developed over 6 years or so. Similar cases are in Category:Introductions by year, Category:Buildings by year of completion. I assume that people will look in "2023 microprocessors" for CPUs that were released in 2023 (and available in markets, shops etc.; similar to the cases mentioned above). If we want to pick up "different years", then they could be added to the category name. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
You'll need to be pretty specific about what "year of release" means here. Does it mean:
The year that the exact microprocessor seen in the photograph was manufactured?
The year that the manufacturer first sold microprocessors with that part number, speed, and package?
The year that the manufacturer first sold microprocessors with that part number?
The year that any manufacturer first sold that microprocessor?
The year that any microprocessor in the overall family was first sold?
The year that any microprocessor using that CPU architecture was sold?
For example: here is a photo of a Rockwell R65C02J3. According to its date code, it was made in 1987. Rockwell produced the R65C02 starting in 1983; for the sake of argument, let's also imagine that they only produced the J3 variant (3 MHz, plastic PLCC) starting in 1985. The 65C02 is a variant of the 6502, which was released in 1975. Given all of this information, what would its "year of release" be?
Is there any reason that information can't just be a note in the category itself instead of being included in the name of the category though? Generally we are suppose to following naming conventions for other categories, and as I've pointed out already other category names don't contain "(of release) or whatever and seem to get along perfectly fine without it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Categorisation - this discussion needs wider input
Hello, I recently protected File:X, 1980.jpg due to counterproductive edit-warring after the issue was reported on AN. There is an ongoing discussion at File talk:X, 1980.jpg#Category discussion which requires your input. A reasonable outcome of this dicussion would most likely solve this issue and we won't be having same issues again and again. Please do participate in the discussion and share your thoughts. Best regards, ─ Aafī(talk)08:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Do I read the policy correctly that public interiors are covered by FoP in Ecuador? Specifically, I have photographs of frescoes of a living artist which are located inside a city hall building in one of the cities of Ecuador. The building is accessible for everyone at no charge (during the hours it is open). May I upload them on Commons? I am pretty sure if the frescoes were on the outer facade of the building the answer were yes. Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I see no explicit restriction in Ecuador FOP for public interiors like in German FOP: For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance. So, OK in my opinion for Ecuador public interiors here. Юрий Д.К15:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I welcomed a new user (en:User talk:WendlingCrusader) on english wikipedia who noticed an issue with a duplicate category on commons. That was fixed. He then asked the below, which I have no idea about.
FYI at Category:Hawker Hurricane there is a sub-category labelled Category:Albion AM463 refueller which contains 10 photos of this vehicle, together with either a Spitfire (2 photos), a Hurricane (5 photos), or a Defiant (3 photos). Whilst it is very interesting, to me it seems slightly off-topic, unless there is a good argument for including a vehicle category on the Hurricane page, and not including it on either the corresponding Spitfire or Defiant pages.
I am bringing this to VP to see if I can get some consensus for a category structure for members of a band. This has come about because of a discussion at File talk:X, 1980.jpg. The issue is fairly simple in that it seems reasonable to me that photos of band members be kept in Category:Members of band, with the ability to create a subcategory for each band member should there be enough images. This seems to be standard practice, as per Category:Musicians by musical group.
As there is a genuine disagreement over this category structure, I am bringing this to VP to see if we can gain consensus on what the best category structure should be. My preference is that the obvious meaning of “Members of band” is clearly images of members of the band both in group photos and individually (preferably in their own category). I do t feel it makes much sense to include group photos in the band category itself as you can get bands with numerous of such photos and it tends to unnecessarily fill up the root category even though it seems, on the face of it, that this is the ideal purpose of Category:Members of band. An excellent example is ABBA, which has a lot of group photos, which are currently in Category:Members of ABBA.
So I ask the wider Commons community for input. Note that this was initially noticed by myself because one Commons contributor took another contributor to COMMONS:ANU over this issue as there was a minor edit war over it - I hope to prevent such disruptive conduct in future through an open discussion with a wider number of contributors so we can gain consensus. It is quite possible that my views are against consensus on this issue, but as it stands it is hard for me to tell as it hasn’t been put to the wider community. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That’s fair. So if there was a group photo with Billy Zoom, should this be in Category:Billy Zoom (and the categories for the other band members) alone, or should it be in that category and “Members of band”? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
My opinion: once a category of a band becomes too crowded, it needs diffusion. So in case of X I support the current structure with categories for each member and their parental category "Members of X (musical group from the United States)", used only as parental category and not for files. In case a member category is too crowded, there is also a possibility to create subcats such as "Portraits of Billy Zoom", for those who otherwise would need to browse through file descriptions to see which of the faces actually belongs to Billy Zoom. Also, I strongly oppose disregard of COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin11:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The approach appears to fail on the idea that categories should allow to find images of the band. It's not even clear if the band category would still be of any use (we mainly host photos, not audio).
"Portraits of Billy Zoom" wont allow to find images of Billy Zoom when he was a member of X. (Zoom was a random pick from the category). Enhancing999 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"It's not even clear if the band category would still be of any use"
The band category is needed as parental category for whatever is available: "Members of", "Concerts", "Videos", "by year", etc.pp. --A.Savin11:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"Category:Members of xx" (not only bands but also any generic organisation) should be a catcat (contains only subcats (of the individual members) but no files). RZuo (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That seems like a recipe to just create a bunch of single file categories. Do we really want that? Probably not. Plus doing that way doesn't make logical sense anyway. I. E. if "Foo" is a member of the band "Bar" then there's no reason a single image of them shouldn't go in "Category:Members of Bar." As there's nothing inherent to such a category that makes it unable to contain files. Otherwise it should be called "Category:Members of Bar by name" or something. That's how it's usually done for similar catcats. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
A few of them here and there are fine. They get a little hard to manage and browse through depending on the category and parent though since a single file category is essentially a dead end. A plural category name like "members" kind of insinuates it will contain media related to "members" of the band to. If someone wants to see images of "members" of they band they have to click through to a individual members category, look at the image, be like "Oh, well that's only one member and image. Cool.", click the back button, go to another band members category, see only one image, rinse repeat Etc. Etc. Do that with something like a 20 member Korean pop band and it becomes a lot of pointless clicking for it's own sake. Not to mention Commons:Categories repeatedly says the purpose of categories is to organize and find "files" (plural), not "a file", and it's important to follow policies on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal affecting FoP Chile
The proposal, though not yet passed and is still being discussed heavily, may affect Commons' ability to host Chilean monuments (unsure if it would be retroactive or not). Right now, Wikimedia Chile chapter is rigorous in opposing one part of this proposal. (source1, source2)
Informally known as "Balmes law", the proposal has one part (Article 5 according to source2) which makes it mandatory the need for remuneration to artists for images of artistic works found in public spaces that have been used for profit-making or lucrative purposes. Wikimedia Chile opposes this as this will hinder Spanish Wikipedia's ability to illustrate articles of contemporary monuments of Chile. It is uncertain if this could affect architecture too, since the proposal is relatively vague.
We should really just revolt at this point and allow for non-commercial licenses since that seems to be the direction a lot of countries are going in with freedom of panorama laws recently. Otherwise we are needlessly screwing ourselves out of hosting images from a large part of the world. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 unsure if that will sit well with many of the peeps within Wikimedia Foundation (I'll ping here @Sannita (WMF): who started major FoP discourse recently, for their inputs). It will be a major overhaul of the policies of both Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia Foundation. The policies are anchored on the Definition of Free Cultural Works (which essentially prohibits non-commercial content).
Unless, WMF will make a statement about the purported failure of free culture and finally embrace non-commercial licenses like CC-BY-NC-ND and CC-BY-NC. One more far-reaching consequence of this overhaul is to finally force Creative Commons organization that both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA should be invalid in images of all modern architecture and public monuments of no-FoP countries, and that only the NC-type licenses must be used for that. This means, CC licenses can be revoked for images that show these public landmarks of these countries. All of these is assuming we will start embracing non-commercial content. Sounds convincing to stop deletion requests, but may be detrimental to free culture missions by both Wikimedia Foundation and Creative Commons organization. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
At least copyrights laws of majority of post-USSR countries also prohibit mass usage of photos of copyrighted monuments, so it not only non-commercial clause which should be taken into account. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko ah yes. It seems one nuisance in restricted FoP laws. If the quoted text at COM:FOP Kazakhstan is correct, then it also means non-commercial images of their copyrighted monuments and buildings are also not allowed to be freely disseminated (note the conjunction "or" instead of "and", separating non-commercial condition from the main object condition). Ping @Adamant1: for attention. Also, a substantial number of countries lack FoP altogether, such as our country as of now, Burma/Myanmar, Indonesia, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, Palestine, and Afghanistan from our continent. No FoP makes legality of very wide distributions of images, regardless if there is commercial intent or not, questionable too, IMO. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)16:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Adamant1, I think I may not agree – for now – the possible proposal for a far-reaching policy change for both Commons as well as WMF. Embracing NC FoP and allowing NC licenses may complicate several things. This is in addition to possible conflict with the free culture movements that both WMF and CC orgs promote. It may also open up one critical question: "What is the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, if their licensing policy is now similar to Flickr and other stock media sites?" That is, assuming we are now embracing NC-type licenses. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)16:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are not invalid for photos of structures in countries with noncommercial FoP. The photographer's license release allowing commercial use is still valid; it is merely encumbered by additional restrictions from the architect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠16:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@King of Hearts at least from a major critic of Wikimedia as well as most American social media sites (ADAGP of France), those two licenses are not legally compatible to French buildings and monuments. Refer to their presentation to the EU Parliament in 2015, which includes harsh litanies against Wikipedia (they do not differentiate Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, seemingly lumping both projects as a single community). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)16:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I may want to add that there are few instances of photographers getting entangled in lawsuits against commercial reusers. Former Marine John Alli, who was the author of the photograph of the (in)famous Korean War Veterans Memorial, got dragged in the Gaylord v. United States case. Unlike US Postal Service, though, a settlement was immediately reached between the Alli and Gaylord, in which any further sales of his images would always include 10% royalty to the sculptor. (source) JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)16:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 and EugeneZelenko: All I'm saying is that a photographer may choose a license like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and it will have the same effect as CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-SA respectively. In other words, I'm saying that JWilz12345's statement that "only the NC-type licenses must be used for that" is incorrect. A CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license on a noncommercial-only structure is valid in the sense that the photographer cannot sue a reuser for use in line with the CC license (no matter if the use is commercial or noncommercial), though of course the architect can sue for commercial use. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: If Diliff takes a CC-BY photo of a building with no commercial FOP and a hypothetical reuser reuses that photo for commercial purposes without attribution, both Pixsy and the architect can sue that reuser. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Correct, but Diliff being able to sue is due to the lack of attribution, not due to the noncommercial nature of the building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I don't think they would necessarily have to conflict with each other as long as we are up front about it through proper licensing templates and whatnot. Regardless, there's a difference between the project as a whole following a certain standard or philosophy and how we treat individual files. Its not like there aren't any restrictions on reuse already either. For instance attribution requirements. You could argue the same applies the instance of this being a censorship free platform but still not hosting certain that violate the law. Say I'm a person who wants to use an image of a monument as part of a school project in a country that doesn't allow for commercial usage, which would otherwise be totally fine. How are the project goals or my needs being met by Commons not allowing for non-commerical licenses? I'd argue that's probably most of the reuse on here to BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Source-country copyright is actually a made-up Commons-internal rule. The WMF does not specify where content must be freely licensed (other than the US for legal reasons). So there is no reason why, from a legal and WMF policy perspective, Commons can't just be like English Wikipedia and follow only US law. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I would support using US law only for FoP issues. That would at least allows us to have pictures of buildings and pre-1929 art worldwide, whatever is the local law. Then each project can decide to use the pictures or not. There would be nothing really new here, only an enlargement of current policies. Some projects already don't use Commons in some cases, and apply stricter rules (German language WP doesn't use Mickey pictures and films, etc.). Yann (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: What US law has to do to monuments and buildings located in other countries? And also this double-edged sward - what about countries where freedom of panorama is less restrictive then in US? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
> And also this double-edged sward - what about countries where freedom of panorama is less restrictive then in US?
It's not actually a double-edged sword, because what Commons does now is unlawful. Commons is hosted in the US, and thus US copyright law must be respected, always. The fact that Commons allows for FOP uploads on the basis of non-US law has no real basis, legally. It's copyright infringement.
The current position of Commons on FoP in non-US countries can be summarized as follows.
Where the country is stricter than the US (no FoP), prohibit adding FoP images.
This is totally legal, but, in my opinion, a bad restriction.
Where the country is more lenient than the US (allows for FoP with non-building items), ignore US law and allow uploads of these items.
By allowing this, Commons (hosted in the US) is breaking US law.
All images that aren't free in the US cannot legally be hosted on Commons. There's no exception for "foreign freedom of panorama" in US copyright law. You seem, @EugeneZelenko, to accept the assumption that @JWilz12345 argues for — that this is a choice about whether we will be bound by the source country's law alone or US law alone.
But, as @King of Hearts and @Yann point out, this is not the choice we have. We must apply US law, and we have chosen to apply other laws on top of, not instead of, US law.
We can adopt standards that are stricter than what US law allows, but we legally cannot adopt more liberal standards. The fact that this means South African or Brazilian or German campaigners' work "goes to waste" is perhaps unfortunate, but we cannot just choose to ignore US law. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: @D. Benjamin Miller: "Commons (hosted in the US) is breaking US law." you seem to be making the assumption that use here on Commons is commercial, which it is not. If we publish an image of (for example) a modern statue in Germany, it is likely that it could not legally be commercially used in the U.S., but our own hosting of that image would almost certainly be considered fair use for an educational purpose, even if our site doesn't explicitly make that claim on each such page. Most online fair use for educational purposes in the U.S. is not explicitly called out on the relevant sites, but that doesn't make it any less legal. - Jmabel ! talk00:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Commons is commercial. But the US has no "non-commerical" freedom of panorama provision. Sure, some uses will be justified by fair use, but that depends on the specific use. It's hard to believe that at least some of those examples are not fair use. Most online "fair use" is not actually really fair use, but just a case of copyright not being enforced. In any case, Commons doesn't accept fair-use rationales, and doesn't accept "the copyright isn't being enforced" as a justification to host something either. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
US FoP-only or US law-only proposal
@King of Hearts and Yann: I would rather oppose immediate overhaul of Commons' FoP policy to only respect U.S. law just because Wikimedia Foundation's main servers are in the U.S. (even if there are also servers in Singapore and elsewhere), in an identical rule as being enforced on English Wikipedia (although the practice on enwiki is not yet an official policy). This matter was brought up by @D. Benjamin Miller: at FoP talk page before. See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Ideas wanted to tackle Freedom of Panorama issue for the very looooong debate involving me and D. Benjamin Miller. WMF representative Sannita (WMF) themself is cold on the idea of applying U.S. law blanketly on Commons while disregarding all other countries' laws, and for a good reason (Commons will potentially face trouble in front of French authorities and anti-Wikipedia group ADAGP). Other than that, I do not agree to a premature change to U.S. law-only policy sitewide, because:
This may impact Wikimedians in countries with adequate FoP like Singapore and Brazil. Images of Christ the Redeemer statue and Merlion statue may become major targets of mass deletions as these are unfree in the U.S.. Expect stiff opposition from Wikimedians in U.K., Singapore, Brazil, and other 70+ countries with adequate FoP including sculptural monuments.
This may put all FoP efforts by Discott and other South African Wikimedians to waste as the soon-to-be-implemented South African FoP may become invalid on Commons; the only motivation for them to pursue FoP advocacy is for Commons to be able to host post-1990 monuments of Nelson Mandela and other monuments connected to South African culture and post-colonial history.
This may discourage FoP movements globally including an initiative that both Reke and Buszmail plan to commence, for "ESEAP" Wikimedia region (East, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific), since there may be no more reason for such movements if only U.S. FoP would be followed by Commons.
@JWilz12345 Your point about South Africa doesn't make much sense to me. All uploads on Commons already have to follow US copyright in addition to their country of origin, no? They couldn't upload the statues here either way, because they will be copyrighted in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA: Theoretically (i.e. in terms of what the law prescribes) yes, but practically (i.e. in terms of what is actually followed on Commons) no, as D. Benjamin Miller describes above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA kindly look at dozens of Merlion statues here. The famous icon of Singapore is legally not free in the U.S.. Still, a mass deletion of 99% of those images (perhaps 1% may be de minimis) is a dagger at the hearts of Singaporean Wikimedians and Wikimedians who shared images of the monument here. Are you in favor of totally nuking out all of non-incidental Merlion statue images? JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Like what Jmabel said, Commons itself does not make profit from the images (technically, not illegal). It is the American reusers' possible commercial use of the images of post-1928 Singaporean/Brazilian/German (and in the future, South African/Philippine) monuments that may be illegal, and this is alleviated by the tag that you called "dubious". But Commons is aimed to be multilingual and international and is aimed for all users and netizens globally, not just American users and netizens, notwithstanding that WMF is hosted in the U.S. (but in fact, WMF is not wholly hosted in the U.S.). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)01:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It aims to be, but is (commons at least) hosted in the US. That is the legal reality. And IIRC the non commercial clause with FoP doesn't apply in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 Well it's illegal. The project could get sued for that. I'm not going to suggest we mass delete every file but it is an issue, yeah.
And again, it's irrelevant to the problem. Hypothetically making it so we ignore FoP rules that are higher than America's does not, strictly speaking, mean we have to ignore that which is lower. Theoretically we could do both. It's not bending the rules any more than we already are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I really doubt this will happen, but I would support applying US law only for FoP issues, and just put a warning like the German projects use. We already do that with PD-Art stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA if you want to have U.S. copyright law as the only law to be honored here, then applying it only to FoP does not make sense. It only creates inconsistency as other works, like PD-government works of other countries, are not legally OK to be hosted in the U.S.. You may want to apply it to all other copyright-related areas like works of foreign governments. For sure, the PD or copyright-free provisions for government works of certain countries (like the Philippines: {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}) will become invalid here as those government works are eligible for U.S. copyright (see w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 30#Template:Non-free Philippines government). But again, I do not favor a sitwide imposition of U.S. law only policy for areas like FoP and copyright, without proper consultations with Wikimedians from 70+ countries with full FoP up to monuments as well as with Wikimedians from countries that do not copyright their government works. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It's already inconsistent, though. From a legal point of view we have to follow US copyright. It is not an option. Anything else is secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA so (even if this is not FoP-related but relates to U.S. copyright intervention), what are your thoughts on public domain works of foreign governments like the Philippines? Per Geni at the templates-for-discussion forum at enwiki (who happens to be the creator of the template I nominated), Philippine government works do not benefit PD-USGov as the Philippines is no longer a U.S. dependency or overseas territory, even if those are PD here in the Philippines. In the event of sitwide U.S. law-only imposition, are most {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} files going to be "sentenced to death penalty" because of possibly not in PD in the United States? JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, sorry to be late, but I was out yesterday for personal reasons. I just wanted to point out I'm not "WMF representative", but a Community Relations Specialist, i.e. a community liaison for Wikimedia Foundation. My positions are not to be intended as WMF official positions, those come from people who have this kind of power, like the CEO or any of the Directors of WMF departments. Anyway, I noticed relevant people at the Foundation about this discussion, and will let you know if there are news. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF) I stand corrected. I thought you are a representative because of the suffix in your user name (WMF). Any way, the FoP matter should be treated seriously and thanks for reaching it out to the higher-ups of WMF organization. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)23:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF) noted. Again, thanks for bringing the FoP matter to the higher-ups in WMF. Mandating U.S. copyright law-only policy on Commons can have far-reaching consequences, even if Wikimedia servers are based in the U.S.. Not only it affects images of many monuments in countries with full FoP like Singapore, Brazil, Thailand, and India, but also PD government works in the Philippines (PD-PhilippinesGov is not synonymous to PD-USGov; U.S. law will treat all post-1990 Philippine government works as copyrighted in the U.S., as per Geni at the enwiki template discussion forum I mentioned above). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Support Proposal for using US-only copyright law here. We gain incomparably more than we lose if it will happen. Tons of files with buildings from Arabian and post-USSR countries, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and more and more will be restored. Yes, images with modern monuments will probably be deleted, but number of these files are much smaller than with buildings ones. I am filtering a large number of high-quality photos when uploading via Flickr due to FOP problems (90-99% - architecture-related files). FOP in South Africa and the Philippines will probably never be realized, or it will be like in Ukraine, where, despite the numerous efforts of Ukrainian Wikimedians, the government of this country has "pleased" us with "provided that such actions do not have independent economic value" (see COM:FOP Ukraine). Even if it will be introduced, it is not a guarantee that it will last long. Over the past 20 years, only 6 countries have introduced FOP and 01 (small Timor-Leste) in the last 7 years. It the other hand, FOP has been abolished in 9 countries over the past 20 years and in 5 over the past 6 years. FOP in Australia and in Chile is now under pressure. What will be next? Abolishment/restrictions for FOP in most (if not in all) of remaining FOP-countries? Юрий Д.К20:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
IMO, while the impact of "nuclear-bombing" all of non-DM images of monuments from those 70+ countries may be insignificant for Wikimedia Commons, it could adversely affect Wiki Loves Monuments by only restricting to pre-1929 monuments, defeating the purpose of the photo competition that Dutch Wikimedians began more than 10 years ago (I think that was in 2011 if I read that correctly). Unless WLM should be axed altogether and replaced with a nicely-named "Wiki Loves Architecture" that is more binding with U.S. law. Do not expect participants to follow filtered lists of monuments in WLM submissions. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)21:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank. I have updated my statement. But still 5-1 in favor to FOP-abolishment in the last 6-7 years. Unfortunately, Timor-Leste is a very small country and it can't give to as many photos of buildings and monuments... Юрий Д.К22:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not good enough in English to understand this legal discussion.
However, I disagree with the idea that East Timor has no buildings and monuments that were built after 1929 or that there are only a few pictures of them. Most of the buildings have only been created since then and over 18 years I have collected thousands of free images on Commons, which now illustrate almost 5,000 articles in the German-language Wikipedia and, thanks to the work of other Wikipedians, in other languages. A number of photographers have provided photos that are not otherwise available and the East Timorese Wikipedia community is currently planning photo campaigns in the capital to find activists. If I understand the proposals correctly, my entire work here and the attempts to present East Timor to the world are under serious threat.
A lot of images found their way into WikiCommons via {{PD-TLGov}}. Other images have been released by the governments of Australia and New Zealand. Almost only advertising images of American soldiers come from the USA. Last year, numerous participants at Wikimania signed a petition asking the government of East Timor to continue this PD for government images under the new law. If the national sovereignty to decide on its own images is no longer accepted, the majority of the images from East Timor will disappear and the petition that was handed over to East Timor's ambassador will become meaningless.
Please have a look at your ideas. Maybe you get images from France, South Korea and other parts of the first world. Images that are relatively easy to find outside of Wikimedia, for example the Eiffel Tower. In the case of East Timor, WikiCommons is a large repository of free images that even East Timorese and media from the country use. Images that can no longer be found in large numbers under clearly visible free licenses. And the global south is also negatively affected elsewhere. Just to be allowed to upload British AI images and Swiss license plates?
Never change a running system. It makes no sense to open up new possibilities if you destroy the work that has been done to achieve this. JPF (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
What could I do now? (Dili, East Timor)
@J. Patrick Fischer images of buildings are unaffected, since the U.S. copyright law grants architectural FoP. It would be identical to the de facto system in enwiki (de facto since it does not appear to be part of the local wiki's policy). Unfortunately, it is mainly the images of post-1928 sculptural monuments of 70+ yes-FoP countries that may be nuked once the FoP policy shifts. Most famous of those that may be going to be slapped for deletions are Brazil's Statue of Christ the Redeemer, Singapore's Merlion statue, Hong Kong's Tian Tan Buddha, and Switzerland's Celestial Sphere. The change in FoP policy may bring frustrations to South African Wikimedians, who have been campaigning to bring FoP to their country just to finally enable Commons to host multiple monuments of recent South African history, including the Nelson Mandela statues. The Copyright Amendment Bill just got passed in their parliament for the 2nd time and is awaiting signature from the President of South Africa. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
...or Cristo Rei of Dili, the main and best known sights of East Timor. Theses structures are symbols of many countries. A Wikipedia or Wikivoyage article without them would look incomplete. --JPF (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Pros and cons of mandating U.S. copyright law sitewide
I'll try to list down advantages and disadvantages of mandating U.S. copyright law as the law to be followed by Wikimedia Commons sitewide, with some references to discussions or inputs if applicable, excluding the possible negative implications to the Wikimedia movements in 70+ yes-FoP countries should U.S. law be implemented as the only law to be respected by the media repository. The list also excludes the possible legal consequences Wikimedia may face in countries known to have anti-FoP and anti-Wikipedia groups like France.
Advantages
Commons could be able to host works of architecture from 100+ countries with no FoP, even from the likes of France where commercial licensing of images of French buildings is deemed illegal and prosecutable. Thousands of deleted images could be restored, such as those of Burj Khalifa (🇦🇪), Louvre Pyramid (🇫🇷), Verkhovna Rada (🇺🇦), Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center (🇬🇷), and Lotte World Tower (🇰🇷), since these are free to be exploited commercially under U.S. law. (Refer to: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Ideas wanted to tackle Freedom of Panorama issue).
Pre-1929 works of art worldwide could be hosted on Commons (sculptures, etc.).
U.S. threshold of originality sets a high bar, so perhaps dozens of logos, title cards, movie posters, and license plates from the likes of U.K., Switzerland, Singapore, China, and the Philippines could be undeleted/hosted.
Simplification on cases of old images: only U.S. terms (using COM:URAA if applicable) would now be considered and longer terms of Mexico and Jamaica could be ignored.
A.I. art from U.K. and China could be hosted here because U.S. does not recognize A.I. as copyrightable artworks.
Disadvantages
Since the U.S. law does not allow FoP for non-architectural monuments, perhaps images of thousands of public sculptures and monuments of 70+ countries built or installed from 1929 onwards could face deletion requests, as these are only free in their countries but not in the United States. (Countries like Singapore, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Brunei, Malaysia, Timor-Leste, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, U.K., Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, and Israel.) This would not only impact copyrighted monuments of those countries, but also monuments that are already PD in those countries but still copyrighted in the U.S. due to COM:URAA. This could negatively affect the scope of Wiki Loves Monuments in those countries. Should FoP implementation in South Africa become successful after the radical change in copyright policy of Commons, then it is virtually useless as Nelson Mandela statues of that country would no longer be welcome here. Also to think of: images of Armenian, Belgian, Albanian, and Moldovan monuments that were restored after FoP was introduced in those countries during 2010s.
Using the logic and based on Geni's opinion at w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 30#Template:Non-free Philippines government, then possibly most photographs made by foreign governments like the Philippine government would have to be deleted as the U.S. copyright law does not appear to grant public domain rights to works of foreign governments. {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, long-debated in the past, would face "death sentence" as PD-PhilippinesGov is not synonymous to PD-USGov as the Philippines is not a U.S. overseas territory. May similarly affect photographs licensed through the likes {{PD-IDGov}} and {{PD-NorwayGov}} too. This excludes foreign government works that are explicitly under free-culture CC or copyright-free licenses, like works of South Korean and Japanese governments.
The pros and cons are not exhaustive though. My compilation of the list does not, in any way, change my stance: my opposition to sitewide U.S. FoP or U.S. copyright law-only suggestion still prevails. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I added one pro-reason. In many cases, we have kept content made by governments if they are in the public domain in the country of origin. Yann (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Yann regarding FoP, I still insist that no sitewide copyright policy change should be made, without proper consultations. I forgot one more: WMF must be consulted first (and I think Sannita (WMF) has already aired the FoP concerns to the higher-ups within WMF). That is, alongside consultations with representatives of Wikimedia chapters and user groups that come from 70+ yes-FoP countries. It seems harsh if Wikimedia Singapore peeps suddenly receive notice or news that dozens of non-de minimis images of their famous monument (1960s Merlion) are going to be expunged off the media repository because of suddenly needing to comply U.S. law. It is also reasonable to consult with Wikimedia South Africa first, as they are heavily involved in trying to have adequate FoP introduced in their country, and their motivation to have FoP introduced is for their Nelson Mandela statues and other monuments connected to modern South African history to be finally be hosted here. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)10:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Allowing FoP images of buildings by applying the more lenient US law (rather than whatever stricter law exists in the building's country) is an appropriate question for a vote. It's wholly inappropriate, however, to vote on whether or not we can just choose to ignore US law — that is really only a matter for WMF Legal. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Both of your listed disadvantages make no sense.
Whether or not US law applies is not our choice. It does apply. It always applies. We must follow US law on Commons. This is a US-hosted website. (The fact that some visitors come from elsewhere does not remove any obligation to follow US law.)
Within the context of US law applying, @Jmabel argues that US law allows for (most? some?) pictures of monuments to be posted within the context of Wikimedia Commons for non-commercial use on the theory that this is fair use as long as it's not commercial. Jmabel is arguing that these are non-free media in the US, but that their use is nevertheless justifiable. I find this highly dubious (especially as a blanket position), but it's at least an argument. Note also Wikimedia Commons has no Exemption Doctrine Policy as required by WMF policy, and the FoP "ignore US law for anything that isn't in the US" policy is far too broad to qualify as an eligible EDP.
Your point about public domain works by non-US governments makes no sense (and has nothing to do with this issue).
US copyright laws categorically exclude works by the US Federal Government from copyright protection. Therefore, if a work is by the US Federal Government, we can say that it's in the public domain under US law.
US copyright laws don't categorically exclude works by foreign (or state) governments from copyright protection. Works by foreign governments can be copyrighted in the US. But that doesn't mean they always are. Foreign and state governments can disclaim copyrights, and when this is done, these items are in the public domain in the US. They just enter the US public domain effectively by being dedicated to the public domain.
@D. Benjamin Miller: you seem to be ignoring my remark immediately below, posted almost six hours before yours. I don't think this is the first time you have confused the matter of what is legal for Commons to do and what is legal for non-educational, commercial use in the U.S. Of course we are not saying it is optional as to whether Commons obeys U.S. law. As an non-commercial educational site, U.S. law gives us enormous latitude for "fair use". Our policy has been not to use that latitude, but choosing to do so would be perfectly legal (though not necessarily advisable). - Jmabel ! talk23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You are not saying that following US law is optional, but the way that Jwilz12345 has discussed the issue implies that. If not, then there would be no need to pit "advantages" against "disadvantages" because the choice to allow for FoP based on US law for buildings in stricter countries would not be tied in any way to restricting FoP for items not covered by US FoP.
In any case, yes, some (or even most) of these uses on Wikimedia sites may be fair use in the US context — but, as with everything related to fair use, it depends on a bunch of factors. Even with WMF projects being non-commercial, this doesn't mean that every use is necessarily fair use. At least some of these uses are bound to be infringing.
In any case, the WMF, as a rule, wouldn't allow for a fair use exemption this broad (which, to be clear, is a matter of WMF policy and not just US law). So this sort of change would require a change to WMF policy on fair use of non-free content. The merits of such a change can of course be debated, but I just want to make it clear that expanding fair use justifications and allowing for PD-US content to be posted aren't bound together.
@D. Benjamin Miller regarding "some visitors", I don't think so. In this link provided by now-blocked 4nn1l2here, there are more visitors outside the U.S. combined than U.S. visitors. Here are the number of visitors from top 22 countries (with at least 1M visitors) as of this writing:
21M - United States of America
17M - Germany
6M - France
5M - United Kingdom
3M - Russian Federation
3M - Italy
3M - Japan
3M - India
3M - Canada
3M - Spain
2M - Poland
2M - Netherlands
2M - South Africa
1M - Brazil
1M - Australia
1M - Austria
1M - Korea (South)
1M - Czech Republic
1M - Switzerland
1M - Ukraine
1M - Ireland
1M - Iran, Islamic Republic of
---
USA - 21M
Yes FoP - 41M
No complete FoP for sculptures - 20M
It is disadvantageous to most of our visitors (majority from yes-FoP countries) to completely shift to U.S. law just because of the legal obligation as being hosted in the U.S.. Note that the figures given by 4nn1l2 were as of January 2022. (USA: 20M and Germany: 14M) As of this time, new 3M visitors from Germany were added, as opposed to just a million from the US. Assuming the trend continues, this may indicate sometime in the future German visitors will overtake American visitors, making Commons a U.S. media repository site whose majority of its visitors aren't even from the U.S.. (And just an addition, per Hostinger, the most-visited non-social media site in the U.S. is the Amazon, not Wikimedia platforms or even Wikipedia).
Not to mention that majority of legal literatures on FoP are from the Europe, and the 2015 FoP debates and discourse in the EU Parliament were the reflection of it. Completely shifting to U.S. FoP only will ignore the efforts by Wikimedians from UK, Netherlands, Germany, and other yes-FoP EU countries to defend their states' FoP in terms of allowing both buildings and monuments here. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure, the "some" visitors who are not from the US can be most of the visitors on the site. But even if almost none of the visitors to Wikimedia Commons were in the US, we'd still have to follow US law.
Let me give you another example. As you point out, there are millions of visitors from Germany. There are a lot of things that are in the public domain in Germany (because the author died over 70 years ago), but which aren't in the public domain in the US. For example, something published in 1951 by someone who died in 1953 is in the public domain in Germany, but not the US. Some of these things would be wonderful for German viewers to look at, and would be perfectly legal to host in Germany. But we can't just host such things on the German Wikipedia — even if they'd be great illustrations for Germany-based viewers — because the German Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. If the German Wikipedia were hosted in Germany, there would be no problem with such files.
Would it be better (for Germany-based users) to be able to see that wonderful item that's PD-DE but not PD-US? Sure! I totally agree! But it cannot be hosted on a US-based site. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller regarding German Wikipedia, they actually host full resolutions of copyrighted monuments of countries with no-FoP. They do not follow the lack of U.S. FoP for monuments. Examples: w:de:Datei:Chicago Big Bean1.JPG (2560x1920px, which is a substantial resolution no longer fair use under U.S. law) and w:de:Datei:Korean War Veterans Memorial 1171.JPG (2592x1944px). Just like enwiki applying lex loci protectonis thru U.S. law, dewiki applies that too. Not U.S. law though, but the more lenient German law, and German FoP allows images of copyrighted monuments (w:de:Vorlage:Panoramafreiheit). Sure dewiki is not hosted in Germany but in U.S., but dewiki is not made to serve the interests of U.S. visitors, but visitors from Germany as well as most German-speaking countries (many of them, like Austria and Switzerland, have identical liberal FoP for monuments). So your assumption that all Wikipedias should comply with U.S. law is not true in reality. Blindly enforcing U.S. law to these wikis to finally comply their FoP policies to U.S. law may lead to some conflicts within Wikimedia community, which may hinder Wikimedia movements in countries with full FoP for monuments as well as FoP movements in South Africa, Georgia, Ghana, and others where FoP introduction is being discussed, lobbied, or tackled. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia must follow US law. Whether or not they actually do is not relevant to whether or not they must.
Also, fair use has almost nothing to do with image resolution, especially in such cases as these. The "low-resolution" rule is an example of (English) Wikipedia being stricter (in some ways) than the fair use doctrine.
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, including for images of sculptures in "FoP" countries, WMF Legal removed those items. They endorse the idea of changing US law, but, as they say: " While it is true that some of the sculptures in question here are located in countries whose copyright regime conflicts with the U.S’s regime, current U.S. conflict of law principles indicate that U.S. copyright law would apply in evaluating the scope of a copyright holder’s rights." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller so in your POV, should dewiki be compelled to overhaul their existing FoP policy to align with U.S. FoP (even if they don't serve U.S. visitors' interests)? For sure, several images of copyrighted sculptures locally hosted there would not fit to the U.S. fair use standards, since those images can be freely used commercially, and those uses are out of dewiki admins' control.
And lastly, should Wikimedians in those 70+ countries be compelled to accept that thousands of non-de minimis images of their post-1928 monuments would be taken down through this proposed U.S. law-only policy in the name of legal compliance to the copyright law of the United States, even if this may frustrate and dishearten them or may trigger some loss in enthusiasm in conducting Wikimedia movements on (especially on monuments and heritage) in their respective countries? Should the upcoming South African FoP be disregarded too even if that was the legal exception Discott and other South African Wikimedians fought for (since around 2014/15) just to allow hosting of recent monuments of South Africa on Commons? JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)07:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
FYI, French language Wikipedia doesn't the same. It hosts French works of art if the pictures are under a free license, as there would be FoP in France. Yann (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I have never been able to fathom why the German Wikipedia follows German law, and not that of other countries with German-speaking populations, such as, say, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg or Namibia. Or even the United States, where there are over a million people who speak it as a first language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Germany, Austria, Switzerland (not sure about Luxembourg) have generally harmonized their laws in copyright matters, including FoP. So the vast majority of the German-speaking world is under pretty much the same laws on this. - Jmabel ! talk19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: The official de.wp policy, going back to ca. 2010 with similar rules before that, is to follow German, Austrian and Swiss copyright law, and if they differ from each other, the most restrictive one of those (de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Wikipedia richtet sich nach DACH-Recht). Though that is not entirely true, because Austria's very low threshold of originality (as evidenced by several court decisions involving logos) is effectively ignored. --Rosenzweigτ22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that it is okay for a US website to violate copyright on a work of art, provided the text besides the picture is in a language not in English (which is neither native nor official)? Or that they target a country where it's legal (like Sealand or South Sudan, which I pretty sure most torrent sites exclusively target?)--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes I am not saying that the U.S. website violate the copyright on the work of art. What I'm saying is that Commons can retain status quo by hosting monuments of 70+ countries where uses of monuments in copyright is legal (note that {{Not-free-US-FOP}} is in English because it is for U.S. reusers). Commons is a U.S. website in legal terms only but it is an international site in terms of reach and so it should also be able to use FoP of 70+ countries. It will not fulfill its service to majority of our visitors (from 70+ yes-FoP countries) if it were to only comply U.S. law because of legality issues. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Above you mentioned the Chicago Bean and the Korean War Monument, not monuments of FOP countries. Commons is a US website in legal terms; therefore it should have to follow the laws, including FoP rules, of the US. If that means it will not fulfill its service, then its service is not legally fulfillable. Moreover, early works by Picasso are legal in the US and the life+50 world (and more than half the world's population is in countries with shorter than life+70 terms); how does it fulfill our service to those parts of the world to not host those images, just because Europeans can't see them?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes they are hosted in full resolutions on German Wikipedia, however. And despite dewiki is hosted in the US (not Germany or Austria or Switzerland), they are following their local-exemption doctrine by allowing unfree sculptures of countries like the U.S.. Those images are in reoslutions that are exceeding usual U.S. fair use standards.
As for Picasso works, those are only legal if the works are in the U.S.. Picasso works outside the U.S. may be at mercy of COM:URAA, unless a work is simultaneously published in the U.S. too (which remained to be seen if those Picasso works outside the U.S. were also simultaneously published in the U.S. too to deny URAA extensions).
Re: service of hosting: it is the hosting of other monuments of Netherlands, Germany, Armenia, Singapore, and other post-1928 monuments of those countries. For sure, some (if not all) Wikimedians in those 70+ countries will resist any attempt to completely shift to U.S. law just to please legal obligations. The impacts on Wikimedia movements in those countries as well as enthusiasm to participate in WLM photo contests are also to be considered. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why we spend so much time worrying about the law, stuff like that Mickey Mouse and Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha aren't free in Germany, and then decide not to worry about following the law that legally restricts Commons. It's a farce.
All works published (by Picasso, or anyone else) before 1929 are in the public domain in the US, and all works of Picasso are public domain in China and other life+50 countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes you may have confused. Following D. Benjamin Miller's arguments, all Wikimedia sites, inclusive of Commons and German Wikipedia, should be obliged to follow U.S. law as the law of the WMF servers' host country.
German Wikipedia already hosts many modern monuments that are infringements to U.S. copyright, applying their local EDP which states that only German FoP is to be followed by the wiki site. The Cloud Gate and KRVM images that I were referring too are full-resolution images hosted on dewiki (in direct conflict with the U.S. law).
Regarding Commons, should FoP policy be radically modified to only follow U.S. law, then Picasso's post-1928 public domain works in other countries may need to be deleted, as these are not yet in public domain in the U.S.. Read again the suggestions for Commons to only follow U.S. law and disregard the copyright laws of other countries.
Again, I maintain that the current status quo on FoP policy be unchanged, as this is a very unnecessary debate to begin with. Only following U.S. copyright law in the name of the legal obligation is a disfavor for Wikimedians of 70+ yes-FoP countries pursuing increased coverage of monuments on the media repository; more so, it is a direct insult to South African Wikimedians who were already fighting for FoP to be introduced in their country to finally allow Nelson Mandela statues and other monuments of recent South African history to be hosted here. It is also an insult to Filipino Wikimedians who are trying to have FoP introduced here (yes, here in the Philippines) so that not only buildings can now be hosted but also dozens of Philippine sculptural monuments built after 1970s. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I am not confused. The WMF is a US non-profit, running a website in the US. That is the law that it must follow. Cry insult all you want, that doesn't give you immunity from the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
One amendment to the above: in terms of the U.S. side of this (vs. the country of origin), it is not a matter of us following only U.S. copyright law, with which I believe our current policies conform. It is a matter of hosting only files that would be OK to use commercially in the U.S. (& FWIW I'd oppose making this large change at this late date.) - Jmabel ! talk14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that non-commercial fair use completely subsumes FoP. That's practically saying we can host photos of any and every painting or artwork, since the fair use rules are pretty disjoint from FoP. That would cut into the commercial value of a book collections of a painter's work, which deeply hurts fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
So... how big is our lobby in the USA, pushing for a redesign the USA FoP to a more inclusive one? Serious question: many other countries have been doing this for years, some more successful than others. What is the USA community (not WMF, but all users from the states, and the Chapter and UG we have there) doing?
One BIG downside I see when Wikimedia Commons would change it's policies to US-only, it the move of files back to the local projects - which is already happening for some cases because the Commons-admins way of enforcement of the URAA is changing. I became a Commons admin when all our locally hosted image files were moved to Commons back in 2008, and our local upload function has been (sort of) closed ever since: we direct people to Commons to do their uploads, so their images can be used globally without interference from our side. Commons over the course of the last 15 years has build a lot of experience, knowledge and documentation on all sorts of copyright laws, and the information pages may not always be perfect, but at a higher level and if you know where to look, you will be able to navigate between all the necessary information. This can never be done in a similar way on local projects.
My prediction is that opening the local projects for local uploads again (as we will have to do when the Commons community decides it needs to be US-law-only -of which I am yet to be convinced), instead of collecting all (or: most) files in one Wikimedia Commons, will lead to Commons being less central for all projects, less used by local wiki's, less traffic, less volunteers, bigger backlogs. Local wiki's on the other hand will struggle with which copyright policies to apply and make their own rules - either out of ignorance or because Commons-US-law does not allow for their uploads. Duplication of files will be all around again, copyright knowledge will get scattered, copyright violations will increase. All in all a decision like this is bound to damage our work, damage the good name we have established and lead to way more work - and maybe also more legal complaints and increased forced take-downs, when you look at it from the point of view for the complete Movement instead of just the one project of Wikimedia Commons.
A lot of that experience can go away if Commons is US-only. A whole lot of knowledge about random copyright laws is simply superfluous in that case. Note that that the proposal is not for Wikimedia Commons to change its policies; COM:L has said "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work." since at least 2010, and it seems to be merely a clarification of what the 2007 page said.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell not to mention that the annual Wiki Loves Monuments competition was not born in the "server host country of Wikimedia". It was born in Europe, starting in the Netherlands in 2010 before expanding throughout Europe the next year (Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments). It would only reach the United States and the rest of the world two years after it was first organized. Most of the noticeable and meaningful Wikimedia movements in recent years are outside the United States. A radical shift to U.S. copyright law can be disadvantageous to many Wikimedia movements worldwide, especially FoP movements and advocacies being made in South Africa, the Philippines, Ghana, Georgia, and (soon) Zambia. It may also spell the end of WLM (and perhaps replaced by something like "Wiki Loves Architecture" or similar, that in my opinion would not be able to broadly document the monumental heritage of the countries). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)13:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WMF Legal published an interesting essay that addresses why, in the world of the internet 2023/2024, we have to look beyond a "one-law applies to all" principle. This might have been a valid approach 15 years ago but the world of the internet and the applicable laws have changed, and more changes are expected in the years to come. The essay explains why the hosting (and governance) of websites is not simply black and white, nor is the balancing act for the legal department that comes with it.
@Ciell I can remember one case that I contributed at w:en:Copyright law of the Philippines#St. Mary's vs. Chinese firm and local partners. Though not related to the Internet and is more of the local Filipino publisher suing a Chinese publisher based in China, one can infer that here in the Philippines, the Philippine copyright law can apply to foreigners who infringe on Philippine works. The regional trial court (equivalent to German district courts; not Supreme Court) opined that Fujian New Technology Color Making and Printing Co. Ltd., despite being a Chinese company, is not immune to the laws of the Philippines. The court said that both China and the Philippines are Berne signatories, so a Chinese who infringed a work of a Filipino is liable to be punished under Philippine (not Chinese) law. Note that the U.S. is also a Berne signatory.
Perhaps (this just a guess on my part), the little-thought possible reason on DMCA Oldenburg case is because Oldenburg himself was a U.S. citizen, and his works are considered made by an American. Again, that's just a guess on my part, and Wikimedia lawyers may have more authoritative analysis. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
_-_c._1367-1381_-_02_(detail).jpg/220px-Jaume_Serra_-_Predella_of_the_Retablo_of_the_Virgin_from_the_Monastery_of_Santa_María_de_Sigena_(Huesca)_-_c._1367-1381_-_02_(detail).jpg)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Support. There have been (at least) two previous discussions of this, at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/05#Numerical sorting in categories and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/11#Numerical sorting. Neither of them reached a consensus in favour, but neither came up with any strong reasons not to do it. For me, not having to put leading zeroes in sort keys would be a definite improvement, so I'm in favour.![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A1923-02-24%2C_La_Esfera%2C_Maternidad%2C_Sancha.jpg&diff=866488781&oldid=746690065){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A1903-09-12%2C_Blanco_y_Negro%2C_Una_ciudadana_del_93%2C_Pedro_S%C3%A1enz.jpg&diff=866491474&oldid=746442840){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_c._1367-1381_-_02_(detail).jpg)
_-_c._1367-1381_-_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
_Eu_Tong_Sen_Street_2024-02-08.jpg)
