Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/06

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.

• User:Ziv was elected sysop (31/2/0) on 20 May.
• User:Lymantria was elected checkuser (41/2/0) on 22 May.

Other news

• Poland banned photography at over 20,000 sites (over 90% of which are civilian infrastructure) under new national security law. See also Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Poland bans photography of military and critical sites, including bridges, tunnels, viaducts, port facilities and the National Bank.

---

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)

• Support abd I also think that much of the President's uploads are puffery / propoganda / politicking / self advertising. Should it be reined in? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:28, 8 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)

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)

Word and cat for

"floor directory" of buildings? the plaques or maps listing what's on which floor. Category:Floor_plans is for a flat map of a certain floor? RoyZuo (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

"Floor directory" seems as good a name as any. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Source for engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne

I've often come across the images in this category[1], nice engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne in the public domain. They seem to have been uploaded by Tarawneh back in 2006 from this website:[2] But looking at them now, they seem like they must exist somewhere in higher res so they can be updated, but neither the website nor Commons give any actual source for them, though they appear to have all been published in the same work, probably a book. Anyone know what that could be so higher res versions could be found on Archive.org or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Published in The Century magazine, see for example there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, how did you find it? And I guess the images there are fairly easy to download? Also found an Archive.org version here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A bio of Castaigne somewhere mentioned his work about Alexander for The Century. I looked for a collection of the magazine. I don't know about downloading works from hathitrust, but there is a download button and Commons has a few thousand files from there in Category:HathiTrust book. That site has four copies of the same volume of the magazine, from different sources. You could look if there are differences in quality. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Review

Everything they post to EN Wikipedia has copyright concerns

User talk:Kharbaan Ghaltaan

Special:Contributions/Kharbaan Ghaltaan. Moxy (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like this should be moved here or here. Not sure what you're asking though and I checked one file the user uploaded and it has the license specified (CCBY). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated or edited images of graphics cards (again)

Unfortunately, we have many new images of NVIDIA hardware that is obviously influenced by AI, making the pictures inaccurate (with PCBs like shown, the cards would never have entered the market). We had this issue before: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/10/17#Files found with Special:Search/marcusburns1977. The files may also be potential subject to copyright violations. How to proceed in this case? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This feels like some sort of weird AI-assisted copywashing (slopwashing?) - it's extremely suspicious that all of these files are being uploaded to DeviantArt by multiple different brand-new accounts with no other activity, shortly before being imported to Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and the arrangement of the components and the components themselves look deformed :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the images were added to Wikipedia articles immediately after upload. So there's really nothing we can do about it on our end since admins on here are hardliners about not deleting in images that are in use on other projects. Otherwise, I'd suggest nominating them for deletion. But it's not really worth it considering the attitudes around in use files and AI-generated images on here. Better to just let people use Commons as a launching pad for spreading obviously fabricated nonsense to other projects I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Or just wait until these are removed on Wikipedia or point the issue out there. The admins aren't hardlines, we just shouldn't overstep important policy. One can also start DRs before. The hyperbole, lamenting and riling up is excessive/not needed. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, we were told to disengage and I wasn't talking to you. Don't respond to me when I'm writing message to other people. I don't care about or want to hear your opinion about this or anything else. It shouldn't be that hard for you to drop it and stop responding to me every time I make a comment about AI on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you were told that. Maybe soften your language, like not calling admins hardliners on a policy when policy is made to be adhered to and when that's not the case. Or not rile up people by claiming there was a huge problem when people could just simply remove these images from Wikipedia and start a DR even before that's done? If people want to cause some friction in Commons and get policy changed and undone, all they seem to need to do is upload some obviously bad problematic AI images and make it appear is if there was some huge problem.

@PantheraLeo1359531 How to proceed in this case? As usual, by filing deletion requests. In this case I'd suggest also making a thread on Wikipedia on some relevant discussion place there or multiple at the article talk page(s). Prototyperspective (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anyone "riled up" here. Nor was anything about my comment meant to claim there was a huge problem about anything. There are certain administrators and users who take a rather hardline stance when in use and/or AI-generated images are nominated for deletion. You clearly have a problem with facts though. But maybe disengage now. This isn't a debate even if your trying to turn into one. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Common sense. Images used in other projects can't be deleted from Commons, and that's very good as it is, but images shouldn't be in use only for them not being deleted from Commons. In fact, those images, if unused, could perhaps even be kept in Commons as showcase of AI-generated images of graphics cards, but make not any sense in Wikipedia articles about graphic cards.

AI should never be used to illustrate things already existing in the real world that have freely licensed or public domain photos available. Even without AI, an image manually drawn by a user (using software, or by hand), that doesn't add anything to what a photo would show, would be rejected in the same context for sure. Once this is solved, the discussion about whether they are or not in scope in Commons can begin. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

If these images are derivative work copyvios - which seems likely, someone just needs to find a few examples of the source images - they can and will be deleted on Commons. COM:INUSE does not trump COM:LICENSING. Omphalographer (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that you mention it the various policies in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter would probably apply to at least a few of these images. I'm not sure how copyrighted bland photographs of products that don't contain logos or the like are though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: Not sure how to go about this, since a real photo of an item shot with transparency or from the same angle with a plain background could easily end up looking identical, regardless of whether it's a derivative or simply a new work based on the same product. That said, File:TITAN RTX NVIDIA.jpg appears to be an AI-generated carbon copy of the first two product photos shown on Amazon. But again, someone could take a legitimate photograph of the same item from the same angle and produce a visually identical result. I'm unsure how we’re supposed to determine whether any copyrightable differences exist—or don't. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Upon a closer look, I strongly suspect this is the same user as previously. At least one of their images (File:480 GTX PC.png) is virtually identical to one uploaded by marcusburns1977. Omphalographer (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I filed a sock report on Wikipedia. Someone else is going to have to do it on here though since I'm topic banned from administrator boards on here. But their clearly the same user. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the Wikimedia Foundation office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

• File:Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti.pdf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message on first login attempt

From some time ago, I get an "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message every time that I log in to Commons or any other WMF project, such as Wikipedia. Then, when I enter the same password and the captcha that is shown, login is succesful. I don't know if this is a general problem or it's because there has been some brute force attempt against my account. If it's this last case, it's good to know that WMF has good systems in place to prevent worse things from happening, but the message "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" is not correct (the password IS the correct one; in fact, it always works at the second attempt when using the captcha), and can be a bit scary when you're sure that you are using the right password (I think it should be replaced by a more precise message, when it's the case of access with improved verification through a captcha).

Note: it happens approximately since the day that I became "extendedconfirmed" in English Wikipedia, but I think it's not likely to have any connection. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you try it with different browsers/computers, and did the nature of this error changed? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I always tried from the same computer, and it only has one browser installed. I must say that I always use private browsing, and the problem only happens the first time that I log in at each private browsing session (that is, if I log out and then log in again, there is no problem). Coincidentally (or not, if something was detected and fixed, or if hypothetical hacking attempts ceased), just now, I've logged in succesfully at the first attempt for the first time since this started happening to me.

Of course, I have no problem in using the captcha. If there have been repeated failed login attempts by attackers (naturally, I don't know if it's so), it's the right way to prevent this from becoming much worse. But, in that case, the message should be something like "We want to be sure that you are not a bot, please enter your password again, and also the captcha shown below", not "incorrect password", because that's not true. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It's tricky sometimes. In some cases, the server lags, and patience is needed. Sometimes, there are issues with different browsers (as they have different settings that may interact in an undesired way), etc. :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Who knows the reason, but I didn't change browser (other than, maybe, version updates), computer or settings just before it started happening. It happened again to me just now. I have no problem: now, I know that I must enter the password twice, and use a captcha, that's all. But, before one is aware of that behaviour, the message that the password is not correct is a bit frightening when you are sure that it is. Well, even thinking about the worst case, I know that my contributions will remain there, and it's possible to begin again from scratch, if needed. No need to panic. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a subject for Commons:Village pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, it sounds like a part of this already existing subject. I'll comment there. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo from 1918, photographer died in 1976 - is it public domain?

I've done a bit of biographical sleuthing about a photographer named Clara Louise Petzoldt (1878-1976) and I see that one of her photos was uploaded here: File:KatherineEmmet1918.jpg. My question is - is that photo really public domain? It's from before 1930, but the photographer died in late 1976, about 48 years ago, which is within the 75-year copyright window. So is this image really public domain? I'd like to know this, since it affects what images I might choose to upload as public domain in the future. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Theatre Magazine was published in New York so USA copyright law applies and the image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  So it's the case that any image published in the US before 1930 is public domain, even if the author died less than 75 years ago, correct? Peter G Werner (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, if it was originally published in the USA. (Older US copyright laws were based on registrations and publications, not death date of author.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Create a Wikidata entry for Clara Louise Petzoldt. You can add in your research there. You can add in her Familysearch ID L7K3-7BT and Findagrave ID 280396473. --RAN (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Clara Louise Petzoldt (Q134710870)

  Creator:Clara Petzoldt

  Glrx (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; answering the original question) Yes, if a photograph was published in the United States before 1930 it is public domain in the US and, if no other countries are involved, it can be uploaded to Commons. The longer answer is Commons:Hirtle chart. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q808483

Can someone fix the date for the image displayed. --RAN (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

done. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting further input for Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05/Category:Survey studies inquiring input of subjects-relevant groups

There is some debate being had on the following CFD. Could I please ask for further people to have a look to see if they can provide some feedback? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Category description is as follows: This category contains media from scientific studies which have conducted surveys of people relevant to the subject(s) of the study. and the category contents may make it clearer. Concrete suggestions for other cat titles are very welcome. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Please vote for new admin

Hello community, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to vote for a new administrator, Chem Sim 2001, at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Chem Sim 2001 (2). Your vote is critical to make Commons work better in the future. The poll ends in three days so please take your time when available to cast your precious vote.

Please do not reply to this message. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 02:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the vote. The result is successful.

I would like to apologize that the use of the wording for in the title may confuse users, that I am suggesting that they vote to  support the user aforementioned. I will change the title of similar ones next time to be more neutral, using links to RFAs or similar instead. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 05:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Merging files

Hi, would anyone be able to help me with merging some files? I did find the Merge Template, but could do with a bit of guidance (or if someone's particularly kind, for them to do it) especially with any re-directs that will be needed.

Files are: Monet - La Falaise à Fécamp, 1881 to be merged into La Falaise à Fécamp - Claude Monet - ABDAG003046

There's also: Henry Hugh Armstead - Playmates - ABDAG004807 and Playmates - Henry Hugh Armstead - ABDAG004807 to be merged into Playmates - Henry Hugh Armstead - ABDAG004807

Let me know if you need to know anything else. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBulfin (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@FBulfin: First a side remark: You are not forced to use external links for internal sites, just use wikisyntax (note the colon at the beginning in wikitext preventing the image display, but presenting the link). I will use it below for your first two cases:

• Both files displaying the same painting by Claude Monet – File:Monet - La Falaise à Fécamp, 1881.jpg and File:La Falaise à Fécamp - Claude Monet - ABDAG003046.jpg are undoubtfully to be merged. For future requests see COM:HMS, here COM:MERGE (but the same page is also for splits: COM:SPLIT). The actual request can be added on the lower part of the page (or COM:HMSR), but I am going to do it this time myself just after my answer.
• The three images displaying a statue created by Henry Hugh Armstead are not to be merged! Same object does not mean same image.

— Speravir – 01:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Speravir Thanks very much for this! I'll take a note of the links you shared for any future instances. They're much clearer than the merge template I found. FBulfin (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re welcome. If you know what it is for, e.g. by your additional notes, you just can save the link COM:HISTMERGE or the full actual link instead of the three others, then you land on top of that page. — Speravir – 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Forgot it, hence separate: Pinging FBulfin. — Speravir – 22:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Some images not displaying for quite some time

I am having problems with some images not displaying. Seems to be happening just randomly. If I try and try and try, after many minutes they display. Is there currently a technical problem with the server(s) delivering images? Or am I the only one having this problem? Nurg (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Might be related to this issue. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, likely the same problem. Nurg (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any way to automate the uploading of these images?

Can these image be uploaded using some automation: https://conservation.academie-architecture.fr/fonds/fondsanciend Click on the first blue link on the right and scroll down to see the images on each page. Each blue link will bring you to a page of image of French architects.They all meet {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-1996}} RAN (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Batch uploading, a page that probably needs to be made more visible somehow, e.g. needing more contributors who do these batch uploads. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

They are probably in the public domain. However they can't be qualified of "no author disclosure". The photographs in most recueils are attributed to Ch. Blanc and Th. Truchelut. Commons does not have a death year for Truchelut, but PD-old-assumed can work for photos from before 1905. Is Ch. Blanc the engraver? The recueil in the first link has attributions to more photographers: "Th. Truchelut, Ch. Reutlinger, Ch. Lemayrie, P. Nadar, Bingham, P. Petit, E. Pirou, etc." Their works seem comfortably in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Letterform Archive

This article is about a new online archive that might be worth mining for copyright-expired and PD-ineligible material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)