Talk:Wikimedia Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Restrictions on Use

"Licenses that are acceptable include the GNU Free Documentation License, Creative Commons licenses with no restrictions on use, and the public domain."

For CC'd content, does this include the ShareAlike clause?

As I understand it, all CC licenses are acceptable except those forbidding commercial use and/or the creation of derived works. The underlying principle is that there shouldn't be any restrictions on use for any purpose. So cc-by and cc-by-sa are both acceptable, the share-alike clause is not required, if that's what you're asking. All of this should be explained in more detail on the Commons site. --MarkSweep✍ 12:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
According to Commons:Licensing, this is in fact the case. (Very clearly spelled out.) Sorry for being a bit lazy in finding this. Thanks!

[edit] Moving images to the Commons

This discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons. --MarkSweep 08:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where is the info on coyotes

[edit] Coyotes

Do you have more information on coyotes?

try the Coyotes article. Thryduulf 00:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
What a random question!


[edit] Wikimedia Commons Logo

Could somebody write a short piece about the logo, its symbolism etc?

The logo was created by Reidab, originally as a submission to the Wikinews logo contest (one among several designs he made for that purpose). [1] I suggested to Reidab that he should submit it to the Commons logo contest instead, as I thought it was much more appropriate there. So, the Commons symbolism is accidental, though I've always interpreted it as "people putting something into a central repository (many arrows), to be used in a larger context (single big arrow)."--Eloquence* 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The logo is an implosion atomic bomb, right? Astroview120mm 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image link question

How do I link to an image on the commons if theres a file with the same name on wikipedia? for instance Image:Fahd bin Abdul Aziz.jpg is different to the one on the commons - [2] but with the same filename Astrokey44 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If by "link" you mean "use", this is not currently possible. See Mediazilla:2717. If you really just want to link, use the commons: Interwiki prefix, e.g. commons:Image:Popcorn02.jpg.--Eloquence* 01:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I miss any information about the fight of joseph beuys against the ministery of Nordrhein-Westfalen,because the minister want to push him away from the Kunstakademie like the Nazi has done with paul klee.you can find information on it in the magazine "Der öffentliche Dienst",where you can also find a decision of the Bundesarbeitsgericht-The minister lost the case and beuys was winning,because it was unlawfull what the government of SPD has done against beuys.

[edit] Curious about Commons?

This is probably not fit for the article proper, so I'll put it here. If you're a Wikipedian who's interested in getting to know the Commons, have a read of Wikipedia:Commons, which provides some guidelines and comparisons with Wikipedia. pfctdayelise 11:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patent images and copyright

I found a patent that describes a piece of equipment I'm doing an article for. The patent has an image that would be good for illustrating the article, and it's from 1876 (very old). Would that image be acceptable to upload? I don't know if being more than 100 years old means the picture is copyright free. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sociotard (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 January 2006.

I think so. Appropriate tags might be commons:Template:Patent or if it's a US patent, commons:Template:PD-US-patent. or maybe just plain old commons:Template:PD-old. Whichever tag you use, be sure to explain your reasoning for choosing it. pfctdayelise 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons CD is a VERY VERY VERY bad idea

I see that an initiative is in place to create a CD from commons graphics. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Commons&direction=next&oldid=55199121

This is a very, very, very bad idea. It defies everything wiki. It's one thing to see your work transformed before your eyes. It's quite another to privatize it. Further there is arrogance in its implementation by hijacking wikipedia commons.

I no longer trust Wikipedia Commons and will no longer post pictures to it and may even withdraw pictures I have posted to it. The damage has been done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download

Americasroof 13:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you quite misunderstand. The proposal was to put this article onto a CD version of Wikipedia. That's all. As it is, I suggested they remove it, because this is not a very vital article. At any rate I don't know what your opposition to the CD format is. They don't make it CD-only, they simply sell a CD to anyone who wants to buy one (without hiding the fact that it's still available freely). In many parts of the world bandwidth makes viewing Wikipedia (and definitely the Commons) a nightmare. For these people a CD format is a trillion times more convenient and useful. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the slippery slope that occurs when you start selling Wiki. Lots of people donate vast amounts of time working on the project with no hope of compensation. Part of the addiction is seeing your work evolve. You do not get that feedback if its on CD. Further, while folks are giving away material to the commons there's some feeling of control that the work is mostly going to be applied to wiki articles only. Once you start selling Wiki even if it's for a trivial price you're down the slippery slope. There's a perception that graphics given away as free could be turned into for profit projects. As we've seen with other nonprofit projects such as skype and flickr, wikipedia is probably worth billions of dollars if it were sold. The CD -- even if its intention was purely honorable -- would appear to be the first marketing move. To me the damage is done.Americasroof 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well indeed the damage is done because the German Wikipedia has been selling a CD for donkey's years, and apparently the sky hasn't fallen in over there. We're just catching up!!
Allowing commercial use is an extremely strong part of the Wikimedia licensing philosophy. The GFDL and all licenses that commons: accept explicitly allow commercial use, i.e. you can sell it.
You might be interested in this post from Jimbo: [3] --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The points are now made. Americasroof 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid question

I admit to being new at dealing with commons, but find several good and useful images, including featured images, in other languages are not available for the English wikipedia. How would I go about copying an image from a foreign language wikipedia or commons for use on the English language side? Badbilltucker 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the only stupid question is the one that goes unasked. In other words, none of us were born knowing this stuff; if you don't ask, you can't learn. I'm no expert here, either, but in looking around you might find Template:Information helpful. It seems to me that all that is necessary is that the image(s) you want to upload here be properly licensed. They may be used on the other wikis under licenses that wouldn't qualify them for inclusion in the Commons. Information about licenses that are used in the Commons are at [][Commons:Licensing]].—Chidom talk  18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If the image is uploaded at the Commons, you can use it here already as if it was uploaded here! So you don't need to do anything at all. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Talk%7EWikimedia_Commons_564c.html"