Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

PD-simple videos

Is there any examples of this? Trade (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Webdriver Torso videos have been uploaded under both PD-shape and PD-algorithm. Some of the SMPTE color bar videos as well. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2025-06

Volunteer staff changes

In May 2025, 1 sysop and 1 checkuser were elected. Currently, there are 179 sysops and 5 checkusers.

Other news

  1. ↑ https://tvpworld.com/86161179/poland-to-ban-photography-at-over-20000-sites-under-new-national-security-law
  2. ↑ https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7784/Artykul/3512109,poland-bans-photography-of-military-and-critical-sites-sets-fines-and-jail-terms-for-violators
  3. ↑ https://www.army.mil/article/284641/polish_news_translated_poznan_april_15

Edited by RoyZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Brazil: National Archive Publishes Documents on Nearly 900 UFO Sightings (incl photos)

The release was reported on early here. Seems like it's PD; Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil. Could somebody upload these? The link describes how to get to the documents. When registering, make sure to select foreigner and to fill out the required fields; it seems like the password can't contain special characters. I can't get through to the documents; maybe it's because HTTPS is disabled (?). The documents including photos are in the ARQUIVO DIGITAL tab.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Public access does not equate to being freely reusable even in commercial reuses. One red flag I see based from the article: "In addition to browsing the files and materials, internet users can also contribute to the archive themselves by sending content to the email address supra_normalizacao@an.gov.br. Another option is to submit documents in person to the main office of the National Archive, located at Praça da República 173, in downtown Rio de Janeiro." This means it's a remix of images under the stewardship of the authorities and images that were submitted by private citizens. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Didn't imply that. I think it's licensed {{PD-BrazilGov}} and was told it's public domain. That people can submit new content doesn't mean the old content they collected isn't PD, the new content can be excluded albeit I'm not sure if by sending it to them one is licensing it PD and it does seem like new content is not included currently in the release (it may get added later though). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
How may one tell the difference between old and new?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
The data in the date field. Also things like this: "Nome(s) do(s) Produtor(es) Nome: Ministério da Defesa (Brasil). Comando da Aeronáutica". Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: They don't like Google's plussed addressing or birthdates older than 2015. "Registration is not possible without a CPF" per Google Translate of https://sian.an.gov.br/sianex/consulta/problemas-com-acesso.asp but I don't have a CPF and https://faq-login-unico.servicos.gov.br/en/latest/_perguntasdafaq/contaacesso.html has "net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
One needs to check foreigner for not having to enter a CPF; that is the right toggle box at the top of that page section iirc. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Need help properly formatting image descriptions to show publisher and photographer

Hi all

I'm helping a UN agency upload some photos to Commons, I would like to know the correct formatting for the descriptions which should include two parts:

  1. Credit to the agency, the agency itself holds the copyright (which is defined in the contracts as far as I understand)
  2. The photographer

What is the correct way to include both of these pieces of information? Should I just include both in 'Author'? E.g Author = UN Agency name, photographed by Name of Photographer

or should the UN Agency name be the name of the 'source' with a link to the original image?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In the information template I would put the photographer as author and the organization as source. In the license template you can then define the required attribution. For example "organization / photographer" or just "organization", depending on the agreements with the photographer. GPSLeo (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Just to be clearer about "In the license template you can then define the required attribution," for example, {{cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution=the UN agency in question}}. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Probable another term for FoP

"Public place exemption" appears on pages 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, and 193 of the report on architectural copyright by former US Copyright Office director Ralph Oman, dated 1989. Should we consider this as another term for Freedom of Panorama (which in itself is a literal translation of the German term panoramafreiheit)? For example, regarding Senegal (page 187):

Article 1(vii) protects "architectural works, including both plans and models and the building itself." Article 14 provides the usual public place exemption.

I'm thinking of adding this term on the relevant enwiki and tlwiki areticles, but I am seeking second/third opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the term being mentioned outside of this report. It may just be jargon like the term "copyvio" as a shorthand for copyright violations. VTSGsRock (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Haven't researched it myself, but I would agree with VTSGsRock: If the term "Public place exemption" isn't really used outside of this specific report, it's probably not worth mentioning. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Locking image page

To prevent vandalism, can this file of Donald Trump's official portrait be locked? Thank you. File:Official_Presidential_Portrait_of_President_Donald_J._Trump_(2025).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomUserGuy1738 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@RandomUserGuy1738: Where's the metadata? How can we be sure Daniel Torok took it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
 Question Did you upscale the photo and revert a user's edit who tried to restore the previous version? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:President.az vs. FoP

The president of Azerbaijan seems to really like traveling his country and being photographed while doing so, and his website shares those photos under a Creative Commons license (license text from the website: The are no restrictions on the full or partial use of textual, photographic, video and audio material featured on the official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan by the media outlets, internet resources and information carriers. This also applies to television channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, scientific publications and encyclopedias (including online encyclopedias).All materials on the website are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.). That's what {{President.az}} is for. However, unfortunately Azerbaijan has no Commons compatible FoP regulations (see COM:FOP Azerbaijan), which leads to a lot of DRs for photos that are sourced to the president's website (and there are still plenty of files that have not been nominated yet but probably should, e.g. File:Aghdam Mugham Center - 01.jpg and Category:Ilham Aliyev arrived in Aghjabadi district for visit). So, my question is, how to go about this problem? I guess the photos must be deleted even if the president licenses them as cc-by-4.0, but shouldn't we at least add some text blurb to the President.az-template to make uploaders aware that the presidential license does not overrule the country's lack of FoP? There are often dozens of DRs listed per day that are all a result of President.az-files ignoring FoP. Nakonana (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support the suggestion. This is similar to the notice on {{PD-Highsmith}}, it is appropriate to add notice to that template, considering that the President seems unaware of the single clause in their copyright law concerning non-commercial use of copyrighted public landmarks of their country. We should also start adding such "blurbs" to some high-use PDGov or CCGov templates from countries with insufficient FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged Commons is not censored. Regardless of propaganda involved, if the images have forseeable use, on-wiki or off-wiki, then those are in scope, provided that there are no derived images of copyrighted monuments and landmarks from that country (as long as no-commercial FoP still prevails in that country). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: - true, but we must also have regard to Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host. The thousands of images uploaded by agents acting on behalf of the President suggests that there is a dire shortage of storage space in Az. Who would have thought that an oil-rich state could not afford a few servers? How sad that a head of state should have to resort to such methods. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged it is not our matter to question the status of internet hosting in Azerbaijan. At least, highlighting the no-FoP problem using the blurb may (hopefully) convince their legislature to align FoP to the international norms if they wish (at least to align their FoP to the standards of one of their three European allies: Hungarian FoP, Serbian FoP, or Russian FoP, with the first two granting full unrestricted outdoor FoP while the last only allowing unrestricted architectural FoP).
We do routinely host US military images showing US Armed Forces etc. conducting activities overseas, like here. See, for example, images under Category:Altavas and Category:Bongao. I don't think hosting government images with clear image promotion overseas (regardless of whoever was their uploader/importer here) is a problem for us. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Do we have the same issue with US government pictures? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Numerous times, see Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial-related deletion requests/deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged it is not our matter to question the status of internet hosting in Azerbaijan. At least, highlighting the no-FoP problem using the blurb may (hopefully) convince their legislature to align FoP to the international norms if they wish (at least to align their FoP to the standards of one of their three European allies: Hungarian FoP, Serbian FoP, or Russian FoP, with the first two granting full unrestricted outdoor FoP while the last only allowing unrestricted architectural FoP).
We do routinely host US military images showing US Armed Forces etc. conducting activities overseas, like here. See, for example, images under Category:Altavas and Category:Bongao. I don't think hosting government images with clear image promotion overseas (regardless of whoever was their uploader/importer here) is a problem for us. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
None of those say anything about "dire shortage of storage space in [USA]", a "state [that] could not afford a few servers" or "a head of state [having] to resort to such methods". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah. I thought you are referring to similar cases of publicly-licensed government images (PD / CC-licensed) containing no-FoP infringements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I can see that you made it look like that was what I was asking by changing the indentation of my comment, and moving it away from the post to which I was replying. DO NOT EVER DO THAT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Because your indentation is making things confusing. The topic is mainly about the FoP issue; Laurel Lodgewood's "propaganda" concern is not the main issue here (which I already addressed: COM:NOTCENSORED). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
My indentation was correct. If you don't understand that, you have no business editing or moving my, or anyone else's, comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Noted. My apologies.
I won't comment on any debate concerning COM:NOTCENSORED vs. potential propaganda government images from Azerbaijan, USA etc ever again. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Drop this passive-agressive nonsense. You can comment on whatever you want. Just don't mess with other people's comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I've restored the indentation.
But again, I won't comment on Laurel lodgwood's 2nd (and non-essential) concern from now on. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
...and left my subsequent comment mismatched with the one it was replying to.
What parts of "DO NOT EVER DO THAT", "you have no business editing or moving my, or anyone else's, comments" and "Just don't mess with other people's comments" do you not understand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand, but I'll not change any indentation for now on.
Also, I won't argue with Laurel lodgwood's one-sided perspective on propaganda claims vs. President-az content, even if it is subjective and can be applicable too to thousands of US-military image files that we currently host. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.
Before things go off-topic even further and things end up on an admin board or something, I'll be bold and declare the section as resolved, because my concerns about the template have been addressed. And if there are other issues that need to be discussed, I suggest to open new threads on them. -- Nakonana (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/06&oldid=1042595822"