Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

BetacommandBot has been active lately tagging a bunch of images bearing the {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} tag as orphaned non-free images (such as Image:Edit.JPG, for example), despite the fact that these images are used on pages in the Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces. Many of these are screenshots of Wikipedia glitches, proposals for new layouts, or similar. Are we really claiming that these images are unfree simply because they happen to contain the Wikipedia logo? We consider images such as Image:Day114ftimesquareef.JPG free even though they incidentally contain many non-free logos. —Bkell (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• As I've pointed out before a) Commons accepts them[1] and they only take free media and b) the Foundation has promised to work on a policy incorporating the logo but hasn't done it yet[2]. It's silly for us to not take images that Commons accepts. I personally suggest removing the category non-free media from such images, it would take them off the bot's watchlist. They're already in the copyright by wikimedia category, which is the right category for them. -N 03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While we could make the decision to delete them all just to spite the Foundation for its silly decision to regard them as non-free content (which would be sure to create lots of drama), I agree with N, and think that we should remove {{Non-free media}} from {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} (because the former's transclusion list is what BetacommandBot goes off of), so I have gone ahead and commented it out. --Iamunknown 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have raised a question here about how to handle images which are probably, but not certainly, in the public domain. I'd appreciate any feedback there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I received a note from an IP address and no instructions. Is this a Wikiproject? Who are the members and under what authority do you operate, like a list of guidelines you could point me to or something? Thanks for any clues. -Susanlesch 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry if this is a FAQ. Could you please give me a list of all media that I uploaded that you think could be disputed? I have uploaded a bunch of images to Wikipedia since I started editing a little over one year ago. I will be happy to deal with them in a batch. I try very hard to ask for the rules and follow them and don't have any idea what images you think should be disputed, or how to assemble that list, or I would do this myself. -Susanlesch 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone through all your images, but Image:Restored-PDP-1.jpg seems replaceable per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Anybody could go to the museum and take a picture. No need for a non-free content image here. Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nice of you, Garion96. I tagged it db-author. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Terminal medford airport.jpg I'm guessing its somebody whose new to copyright stuff and doesn't quite understand it. Jason McHuff 06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_August_28#Image:Bob-Mould-press-photo-2005.jpg, when will I receive a reply from the Communications Committee? Thank you. -Susanlesch 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog of 40 days :( Anyway, I searched for you, and I cannot find anything with Bob Mould in it in permissions-en. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan (talk • contribs)

As an administrator, I'm totally unclear on how this page should be processed. The instructions for adding an image are very detailed, but there are few instructions for dealing with the images in the holding cell. Of course, I have some idea (e.g. some can be deleted on various WP:CSD grounds, others go to WP:IFD, etc.). But there's nothing on, for instance, when and how I should remove a log page (like Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 14). Some better direction would help remove the backlog, in my opinion. Superm401 - Talk 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I do it. When I think it's unfree I delete it. When I don't think so I simply remove the tag from the image page. When there is a large discussion on the image page I say that I kept or deleted the image, when kept I copy the discussion to the image talk page. I wouldn't go to IFD, that is just double process unless you want another or more opinions. CSD criteria shouldn't come up often since if an image is a blatant copyvio it doesn't belong on this page anyway but should already be deleted per WP:CSD#G12 or listed (if assertion of permission) on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Garion96 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't images that are "clearly" non-free but licensed as PD-self or similar, be tagged for speedy as opposed to be listed here? Lara❤Love 15:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, if it is a clear copyvio it should be speedy deleted. If there is an assertion of permisson it should go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, for other cases PUI. Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets (talk · contribs), an editor with a history of questionably self-tagged images, has come up with a novel theory to defend his images from deletion here. Relying on the language at WP:PUI that states "Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license", he asserts that images with free license tags can be unlisted regardless whether the propriety of the tags is disputed. In my view, this interpretation can't be correct, as the statement at the top of WP:PUI indicates that "This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information." Indeed, one of the primary uses of WP:PUI is to discuss images with dubious free licenses. Free license tags cannot insulate an image from scrutiny. Does anyone agree with him? Does anyone agree with me??

The deletion discussions are at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 25, and most of the discussion between Sfacets and me is here. BTW, Sfacets was just blocked for 72 by another admin, so any questions for him should be left on his talk page. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Image:Arafat & Yassin 1997.jpg has been on the list for over 14 days and the discussion has not been closed. I'm not very familiar with this wikifield, so I'm not sure if this is very common. The image is not free, however the fair use rationale for its placement in the Yasser Arafat article is valid. --Al Ameer son 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a relatively small point, but I changed the text of the header to note that speedy-able images can be deleted per criterion I9, rather than G12. I know that general criteria apply to all namespaces, but when you click on the wikilink to G12, the CSD page points you to I9. I eliminated the middle man. If that's a bit too bold, someone feel free to revert it. Cheers! Esrever (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How long should an image be listed here before it should be delisted? Sfacets 10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing should be "delisted". If satisfactory copyright information isn't provided within two weeks, images are deleted. --B (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we come up with some manner to consistently mark those images that are "cleared" or "resolved"? It's pretty clear with the redlinks that an image has been deleted, but for the others, it would be nice to be able to go to archive page and see that all of the bluelinks have been dealt with and not just simply overlooked. A couple of options would be like this example Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 7. Another way to do this would be this way Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 15. Don't have much preference, but either way, a note on the "keep" would be handy! SkierRMH (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: This Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 22, IMHO, is not a good way to do it. SkierRMH (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The United States Environmental Protection Agency says on their web site that their logo (which is at Image:Environmental Protection Agency logo.svg) is protected. Specifically [3] says "We tightly limit the use of our logo and seal, and formal permission is required for organizations other than federal agencies." and [4] says "EPA Order 1015.2A (December 27, 1978), provides directions for use of the seal as the Agency Identifier, and prohibits reproduction and/or use of the symbol for commercial purposes.". Can they do that to a US Fed Gov work? The image is from the Commons but I am bringing it up here as I don't have an account there. Jason McHuff (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not copyrighted (since it's a U.S. government work), but it has trademark and similar protections. Thus, we try to avoid such logos (except possibly on the organization page) as much as possible, and they're definitely not appropriate for Commons. Superm401 - Talk 07:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Note for posterity: Where there's a conflict, US Copyright law clearly trumps any notice on a US government website. (Similarly, a state constitution clearly trumps any notice on a state website; see Template:PD-CAGov.) Logos, such as the FBI logo and the seal of POTUS are welcome on commons. example/evidence--Elvey (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey everyone - I've noticed when processing images listed here that frequently, the uploader responds within a day or two of the nomination, but then nobody looks at it for two weeks. In cases where the uploader is the copyright holder or has a contact with the copyright holder, better responsiveness may result in being able to get a GFDL permission, whereas if two weeks pass by, if the uploader isn't a regular user, they may have given up by then. The "so what" of all this - please keep an eye out for nominations that have a reply so that if an uploader asks a question, we can give them a timely answer. --B (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A user has queried an image which I didn't upload but which is in an article I've been working on. The image is tagged {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} but as it also appears on another website (which may well be the personal site of the original uploader) the user wants to see proof that the uploader was in fact in a position to release the image. I've emailed the webmaster of the site it appears on to confirm that he/she was the uploader and does indeed hold the copyright. If I get a reply to say "yes I do", what's the next step? Do I send it to the OTRS email address......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Send the whole e-mail exchange and the link to the image to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Garion96 (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the list of admins there are over 1,000 active admins on Wikipedia. Could one of you please take care of this? It goes back to the 18th of December. --Rockfang (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because dealing with images causes all kinds of abuse to the deleting admin. One of the reasons why I haven't dealt with this page for a while. I will clear a few days though. Garion96 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your response.--Rockfang (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's stance on Associated Press images being used in articles? I occasionally find images here that are clearly AP images, Berlin-wall-dancing.jpg is one that I noticed that was taken by AP Photojournalist Thomas Kienzle and can be found listed in the AP Images Database under ID 8911100132. Alemily (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

They're virtually never allowed. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the instructions to tag caption(s) if an image is in use. Please clarify. --Una Smith (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm just wondering why Image:Old_Bicycle_Path_Railroad_Crossing_in_Medford_New_York.jpg was closed as keep. It's my understand that only images published before 1923 are definitely public domain; something could have been created a while before and not published and may still be copyrighted. --NE2 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I plan to have BJBot tag and file here images that are in the non-free category (All Non-free media) but have a free license tag. The image either is free and somehow is is in the non-free category (FUR template, etc) or the image is non-free and yet has a free license tag. I except the numbers that meet this are going to be few. This seems like the best venue to be but I'm not sure. BJ^Talk 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some images that legitimately have both a free and a non-free tag. The most common cases are free photos of copyrighted works, such as sculptures or copyrighted characters. Kelly ^hi! 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted, it will then only report non-free images that only have a free license tag. BJ^Talk 13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The holding cell seems to be missing May 30 through June 7. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was: Do not merge. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Question - where does stuff like everything on User:KingKon97 fall? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly fan art, which is definitely non-free, if the underlying characters are not free. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless if the images are derivative works, they are clearly not made by the uploader. All of the user's images deleted and user warned. BJ^Talk 10:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just put up a proposal that images that contain a source, a licence, but no evidence that the source has agreed to release the image under that licence be speedily deleted after seven days since the uploader was notified, as they are on Commons. Please comment over here. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw TinEye image search mentioned on slashdot. I haven't used it myself (plugins and account needed just to read the FAQ). Anyone else tried it, is it any good? -- Jeandré, 2008-08-23t15:43z

Could someone look over the images on this page. Copyright of ie. Image:PICT4175.JPG looks dubious. Taemyr (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The holding cell is starting to get out of hand... its takes up more then a screen full on my computer. Any admins willing to take a shot and clearing some stuff up?--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to set your monitor to a higer resolution. :) I am cleaning some up. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Small text is hard to read! :-) Thanks for taking on some of these.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The "puic" tag means that the caption of the image can no longer be seen. This will often be highly prejudicial to to the deletion discussion - few editors will bother to go into the history and see what it said. This should be changed if at all possible, or the tag not used. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more a Twinkle fault than a fault of the template itself; if added properly both tags should be visible. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has requested that AnomieBOT "close" the discussion on deleted images here, as it does at WP:IFD. Since Legobot is already handling the holding cell, there isn't any need for excess process here; all the bot would do is add a reason for deleted, non-local, or non-existent images. I can have the bot mark them using {{ifd top}}/{{ifd bottom}}, or I can just add a note after '-----' like Garion96 has done in some of the recent days.

Is this something you would like done? I'll file a BRFA in a few days if the response here is positive. Anomie⚔ 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd second the request - doing a wonderful job at IFD & would make keeping up with changes here much easier! Skier Dude (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Which style of "closing" would you want the bot to use? Anomie⚔ 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the way I do it, but the IFD templates are clearer and give more information. Like the link and info about Wikipedia:Deletion review. So I think they (or a to be created PUI equivalent) are better. Garion96 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 18 Anomie⚔ 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The bot has been approved and is now running. Let me know if you see any problems. Anomie⚔ 01:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Think we should move all of PUI to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files or Wikipedia:Possibly unfree media? ViperSnake151 15:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like busywork. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No objection here, we need to make sure the relevant bots, userscrips (Twinkle and Howcheng's quick delete come to mind) and templates are all updated to match roughly at the same time thoguh. --Sherool (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has requested I have AnomieBOT auto-close discussions for any image that is already marked as non-free (e.g. it's a member of Category:All non-free media) with a note pointing the nominator to {{dfu}} or WP:NFR. Are there any objections to this being done? Anomie⚔ 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... When I started to look into this, I discovered a few interesting edge cases.

1. The image could be tagged with both a free license template AND a non-free template. For example, someone could have put both {{non-free use rationale}} and {{PD-UK}}. Are these WP:PUI-able, or not? If so, I'm not sure how to efficiently detect the situation as there isn't a corresponding Category:All free media added by all free license templates, or even a comprehensive list of free license templates (Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates contains "unknown" and "disputed" templates in addition to "free" templates).
2. The image page could have been edited since being listed, so it has a rationale now even though it didn't when it was originally listed. Would it be better to close these as "Marked non-free" or leave them for a human to decide?

Anomie⚔ 03:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm steering you on a path, I'm trying to get mass adoption of the {{free media}} tag, and sorting them into relevant categories so these can be easily bot-detected. ViperSnake151 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps rather than closing the discussion, the bot might just leave a message saying "this image is tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale (etc)... Otherwise, unless another reason is given for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept." Stifle (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• If an image is PD in the UK and not in the US, it should be tagged as PD-UK and also with an appropriate non-free tag (and a rationale). Stifle (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• If there are no objections to this I will ask Anomie to have AnomieBOT place a note in the wording above on all non-free images listed at PUI. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is done: images with a non-free template will have a note appended, unless they contain {{PD-UK}}. Also, I've added handling of image redirects: those created by moves during the nomination will have a note posted (and the section renamed to the new name), and other redirects will be closed as described above. Let me know if any errors occur. Anomie⚔ 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a mass deletion request going on on Commons regarding whether or not images of cosplayers are derivative works of the copyrighted animated source characters. Your opinion would be welcome, whether or not you have a Commons account. I'm also interested in whether there is precedent for this on En. Dcoetzee 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
• User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems User:Od Mishehu just moved this page with the "move subpages" box checked. Which left a few hundred other subpages not moved, a bunch of transclusions broken, lost the edit notice, and broke at least one bot (mine). I've gone and moved the active subpages, fixed the transclusions I could find, requested the edit notice be copied over, and fixed my bot. There's probably a lot more cleanup that needs doing, though. Anomie⚔ 11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is causing significant problems with the daily pages (per below) and needs to be resolved as soon as possible. I'd do it myself but I'm not familiar enough with the structure to know what needs changing. Powers ^T 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the daily pages for March 19-23, and a few more templates. I've also dropped a note at User talk:Schutz about Zorglbot. Someone needs to contact the authors of any tools people use to nominate PUIs and have them update their code. Until the bot is fixed, someone will have to jump in (as close to 00:00 (UTC) as possible) and move the pages it will create each day. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle is apparently one such tool; I've left a bug report for them. Anomie⚔ 04:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

On that subject, is this normal behavior for a redirect? There is a nomination on that page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Twinkle should probably follow the redirect rather than append the nomination to the bottom of the redirect page. Or did you mean the part where MediaWiki doesn't display the nomination when you view the redirect page? Yes, that's the way MW handles that situation; see bugzilla:14323. Anomie⚔ 05:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The second one. I hadn't encountered that before. I thought I broke the internet. *phew* ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle is changed to work with PUF now, thanks for the heads-up. Might need a browser cache refresh.
I created some redirects at {{puf}}, {{puf2}}, {{pufc}} and {{idw-puf}} pointing to the pui versions, and Twinkle is already using those. I'm assuming you'll be wanting to move the templates though? --Amalthea 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 2 currently gives a link to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 March 22 - which is a different page from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2009 March 22. Wha? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See the section above, I guess, and make it 2 bots broken. Anomie⚔ 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 March 11 was skipped in the "holding cell" list. Is it OK for someone to add this by hand? Or is this something that only the bot should be allowed to do? Richwales (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no one spoke up, I went ahead and added the above to the list by hand just now. Richwales (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've ported a TinEye search gadget from Commons for use on Wikipedia here: User:Twp/tineye.js. It adds a "tineye" tab to the top of File: pages for performing quick TinEye searches on images, to identify potential copyright violations.

Does anyone have any suggestions for where I should advertise this tool? I would like to see if it's useful to image patrollers, but I have not been able to find a "new images patrol" or "image copyright patrol" wikiproject. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Used only on File:Fungknives.jpg and File:Eminem09.jpg. If these are dealt with it can be deleted/. Rich Farmbrough, 23:03 24 May 2009 (UTC).

WP:FFD's discussions were just lengthened to 7 days. Now every non-speedy method of deletion gives 7 days for discussion, opposition, etc., including PROD and AFD. This is at an (IMO) crazy two weeks. Why do articles nominated here sit around longer than they do at FFD? I think that changing this to seven days would make it more inline with other deletion processes (therefore also preventing confusion), and then copyright violations also wouldn't sit around online any longer than they need to. Thoughts? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Blatant copyvio's are deleted as a speedy anyway. This is about images where there is some uncertsainty or where the uploader has failed to provide some information. To give good faith editors a week extra to provide information is not so bad. Garion96 (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that usually either A) Nobody comments on the discussions and they just wait for two weeks before deletion (in some cases these could have used the "di-" templates to be deleted faster, too), or B) They are discussed for about a week, after which things kind of stall. There are certainly exceptions, but looking through the older nominations which are still open, it seems that most of those with comments were discussed within a week or so of nomination, and most comments after that aren't really significant. If a discussion doesn't seem to have reached a consensus, an admin can always relist it, and most admins should undelete an image on request to give its problems a chance to be fixed if the uploader (or someone else) didn't get a chance to fix it during the discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

True, in most cases it doesn't make a difference, I also don't have a strong objection to changing it to one week. I just don't see any benefit in it. Garion96 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Benefit would primarily be to avoid confusion (since all other non-speedy deletion methods are now 7 days), and prevent actual copyvio files from sitting around any longer than they need to. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I don't see any problem with switching it to 7 days, but I don't see any benefit either. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to this template at the Village Pump. Please comment there, this notice is only to draw attention to the central discussion. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who use Twinkle to add image deletion tags to captions, there is a bug that causes the preexisting caption to be hidden, by the addition of a superfluous | mark. This has been reported here, and seems related to this earlier bug report, but has yet to be fixed. This should all go without saying, but 1) the captions are necessary to evaluate the use of the image within the article, often providing commentary or at a minimum, identification; 2) relevant deletion procedure states that the tag should be added to the caption, not replace it; and more fundamentally, 3) there is certainly no valid reason to remove the captions while the images remain within the article, particularly when the removal is not constructive but rather accidental. So this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Until the bug is fixed, I see only two solutions: either refrain from using Twinkle to tag images, or go back and manually fix the captions in every image you tag with Twinkle. Postdlf (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CCI

Wikipedia has several processes in place for dealing with limited copyright concerns--single articles or files, even a small grouping of these--but no workable process for dealing with massive multiple point infringement. While WP:COPYCLEAN has attempted to fill this gap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys, this solution is not ideal. It is difficult to publicize and to regulate, and in addition it may seem to suggest exclusivity. I hope that generalizing clean-up will encourage other contributors as well as making it easier to publicize the investigation option at relevant policies and guidelines. (To substantiate the need for this, I need only point out the listings currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys and those few which have already archived. Additionally, these come up routinely at ANI, where response is hit-and-miss, depending on who is reviewing ANI in a given day.) The processes proposed are based on existing policies and practices for handling copyright problems (I've worked with many of these); the board is inspired in large part by WP:SPI. More information is available at the process page and in the purpose statement at the process talk.

I think this is critically needed. Wikipedia has chosen to address copyright concerns proactively, demonstrating due diligence, and when we know a contributor has widely violated copyright, we must have a streamlined process for handling it. The primary point for text copyright issues, WP:CP, cannot handle this specific situation: a listing such as Wikipedia:CCI/Singingdaisies would bring it to a halt.

Please help address this need. Your comments are much welcome at WT:CCI. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

{{pui}} allows me to specify a section name that is not the same as the filename; this theoretically allows me to list multiple files in the same section. The problem is that {{pui2}} does not allow me to customize the section name, because it automatically includes the File: prefix and a link. It would be nice if pui2 allowed me to specify a section name. Powers ^T 12:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, {{puic}} doesn't seem to work with custom section headers either. Powers ^T 12:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to try to come up with some solutions for massive and/or chronic backlogs on copyright issues (such as at WP:PUF, WP:SCV and WP:CCI), I've opened a discussion at Areas for Reform. Please contribute, if you have any ideas. I think there's a critical need. At this moment, WP:PUF has images that have been listed for over three months, while there are literally hundreds of articles and images still waiting review at WP:CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

...at the top of the PUF date-specific boards? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few, but those are gold mines for site-navigational purposes. If you start a new day, please make sure to add these. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Zorglbot isn't running at the moment. See User talk:Schutz#Zorglbot 2. Anomie⚔ 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if i should bring this here so i will ask first. I recently crop a picture for use in Portal:Iron Maiden - as per --> Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France is this ok?? I mean its clearly a logo see image in question here---> File:Iron Maiden in the Palais Omnisports of Paris-Bercy (France crop).jpg. ..Moxy (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So, one of my images has been listed on here, but apart from the original listing and a few comments on it by me, no action has been taken. What am I supposed to do if nothing happens? --Kevin W. 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Pufc}} is not being consistently removed from articles when discussions here are closed. It is currently transcluded over 1200 times. It appears over 90% of these instances currently need to be removed. Many of these are from 2008 and 2009, but recent months are well represented as well. Adding this template is documented as part of the procedure for listing files here, but removing the template does not appear to be in the closing procedure. Is removing this template the responsibility of the closing admin? What is preventing this from happening? What would make it easier or more reliable? Would having categories such as Category:Pufc from 14 October 2010 (for example) help? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 06:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Qianxinyi has been uploading photos falsely under the GNU doccumentation license. For example, his most recent edition was File:New york city opera.jpg. I believe this was taken from an issue of Opera News magazine and I doubt that a young college student at the University at Buffalo owns the copyright to it.4meter4 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dshavit uploaded several imageas and put them all in several articles Transparent LED embedded glass or LED Headliner for example. I found most of them were copied from www.sun-tec.ch. The website does not allow free use. Thanks for the help.--Stone (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

December 27 isn't archiving, even though all the discussions are closed. Any ideas? --Danger (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, let's all pretend that I didn't say that. I'll be accepting trout all week. --Danger (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna keep the trout in its holster a moment here... PUF history has User:Legobot adding dated pages to the holding pen, but actual editors removing them when all entries on a given dated-page are resolved. But then editors also re-adding dated pages "to allow bot to finish". What is the bot "finishing"? Could the bot be made to remove completed dated pages itself? Could someone please point to where the workflow is given for handling these tasks? DMacks (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if anyone sees any problems. If for some reason a page needs to be kept despite the bot, you can also add a <!-- comment --> to that line and the bot won't touch it. Anomie⚔ 03:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I see this placed a {{db-nopermission}} tag on a file giving a source and {{PD-author}} tag. The page cited confirms Public Domain (scroll down and a banner appears at the top), the home page states Public Domain. The image is now embedded here (linked to from the cited page) with a similar banner and the image itself has text in it saying "PD". Now, maybe the tagging of this image was a minor lack of concentration and anyway the image has not been deleted maybe because the uploader removed the tag.

However, I see File:Enigma-machine.jpg and File:Reciprocal-operation.png were also tagged at the same time and have been deleted. I don't know enough to find out who deleted them. I can't be sure but I suspect that these two files may well be those embedded in exactly the same web page with the same PD assertions in their images. Were these deletions carried out in a proper manner? Now, I could try DRV or re-upload the files myself but I do not know where they were used in WP. However, my greater concern is these deletions seem so thoughtless, careless and damaging and I am worried this may be typical of speedy file deletion. Can anyone persuade me I am wrong? Thank you for your time. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Those images came from http://www.vectorsite.net/ttcode5.html and credit "Greg Goebel" and also say PD-author. This was unproven and so was ultimately deleted by Explicit. However I can confirm that the three rotor image is public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have restored both as they are clearly labelled public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The main page for possibly unfree files is way to confusing to bother with.

In the article H. S. S. Lawrence there are 9 images covering a seventy year period at least of the life of the subject, and all of them are listed as public domain, "entirely own work", by the 19 year old User:Prithvin 88, whose idea of entirely own work seems to be using a scanner. Weakopedia (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#FFD log page date headers. It discusses a problem that affects both FFD and PUF, and needs to be addressed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the procedure with an image on Commons? File:Frank swift.jpg is listed as CC-by-2.0 on the grounds that it was uploaded to Flickr under those terms, but the description specifically states that it was scanned from a magazine published in 1948. It is therefore still under copyright in both the US and UK and there is no indication on Flickr that the uploader was in any way authorised to release it under those terms........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests#How to list deletion requests (basically click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Toolbox and take it from there), there is no analogue to PUI on Commons, if it's not blatant enough to speedy delete you need to file a deletion request and raise the concern there. --Sherool (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to do this, but I can't deal with the process right now, just wanted to draw someone's attention to File:Osama_bin_Laden_compound2.jpg which is off Flickr, but I think it's not Creative Commons, I think it's all right reserved? jengod (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's on Flickr as CC-BY-2.0, which is a free license. The watermark is concerning, but the <?> symbol could be just about anything, so it's not as bad as the situation below with the Yoda. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can this image of a replica really be released under a CC license or is the design copyrighted? Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say no. This is a derivative of a copyrighted work and The IP for Yoda is still copyrighted. Also the in image watermarking contradicts the release terms on Flickr, which troubles me. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, a work could be copyrighted but under certain CC terms, right? Given your rationale, I assume this image would be a derivative of a copyrighted work as well?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Do you have to be an admin to close these discussions?

2. I listed flourine cell on the 12th (got no responses btw) and have now confirmed status anyway and uploaded an OTRS. Please close as keep or whatever...

TCO (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not experienced using either mechanism. Does filing a PUF preclude an FFD? I just filed a PUF, but then it occurred to me that an FFD may be more suitable, since there was a previous PUF on the same photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)