Commons talk:Reusing content outside Wikimedia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Help Click here to post on Commons:Help Desk

See also m:Meta:Babel/Archives/2008-12#Proposal_to_disable_hotlinking; Add this at Commons, Problems using pictures from Commons in Blogger - making it more of a stock photo repository (August 2010)

Embedding-Tool for reuse outside Wikip/media ??[edit]

Is there an easy-to-use tool to generate a HTML-snippet incl. License that can be embedded into a webpage !? In Germany users are pursued for copyright infringment because they dont know how to use licenses correctly. An easy-to-use embedding function along the lines of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Attribution_Generator would be very helpful ?? Dostl ba (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying authorship[edit]

I just got credited on IT World for a Wikipedia image. Unfortunately, I am not the author of the image, just the person who uploaded it, after obtaining permission. I think this guideline ought to make clear the difference between uploaders and authors, and how to find the later. Also in the section on getting further permission, there ought to be a mention that files which were obtained from other sites, such as Flickr, typically have a link to the source. --agr (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radical rewrite[edit]

Radical rewrite today, to focus on the needs of reusers and try for much greater clarity: before and after. Some material moved to Commons:Enforcing license terms, some to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia/technical, some to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia/licenses. Rd232 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to change the following sentence in the lead

  • from: Content in the public domain has no legal requirement of attribution at all.
  • to__: Content in the public domain has no strict legal requirement of attribution.

as, though it may legally not necessary to credit the author, it is ethically appropriate to do so.
In addition, I am not totally sure that outside of the US it is really legal/o.k. not to credit/mention the creator (if known) of a work considered to be or given into the public domain. I think that this might not be legal in Germany due to the strong bond between the work and its creator in the copyright law of Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking something similar. How about
Content in the public domain may not have a strict legal requirement of attribution (depending on the jurisdiction of content reuse), but for ethical reasons attribution is recommended.
Rd232 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine for me. --Túrelio (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Rd232 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting content into WikiMedia[edit]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but i can't seem to find a better forum for the question: Is there a way for me, as an editor to request permission from a graphic license holder, and then load that permission and graphic into OTRS/WikiCommons, or does the whole process need to be initiated by the license holder? BeadleB (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CJEU: Under EU law, you are not liable for embedding or framing a video or image from another website[edit]

If the latter is accessible to the general public.

If and to the extent that this work is freely accessible on the website to which the internet link points, the assumption must be made that the holders of the copyright have, when they permitted this communication, considered all internet users as the public.

Quoted from [1]. Not that we're going to embed YouTube videos, but nice to know. --Nemo 10:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC) is original Karmus interresting? I dont know if its zwittert[reply]

I need free browsing, help me pls , my number is 2349021980831 Ogbadu ibeh shem (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sound system[edit]

need to update sound system —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.36.162.4 (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading text[edit]

Report abuse[edit]

Where can I report abuse? The page (lol.lynx.)net.ru hosts a full copy of commons.wikimedia.org without proper attribution or licensing, even scamming the links looking like our original site: [2] + [3] for example... even the login page: http://lol.lynx.net.ru/index.php?q=uggcf%3A%2F%2Fpbzzbaf.jvxvzrqvn.bet%2Fj%2Fvaqrk.cuc%3Fgvgyr%3DFcrpvny%3AHfreYbtva%26nzc%3Bergheagb%3DZnva%2BCntr ! --.js (((☎))) 09:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying. Hmm, this should probably reported directly to WMF. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prima, das ist nett, dass Du das gleich gemacht hast! --.js (((☎))) 03:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ähem. Nein, dass hatte ich bisher nicht gemacht, da momentan kaum Zeit. Hast du denn Anzeichen, dass es jemand gemacht hat? --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

embedr.eu[edit]

Europeana is investing on http://embedr.eu/ , see also [4]. Nemo 12:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit Needed for Good English[edit]

{{Edit request}} The article includes the phrase "On Wikimedia Commons are almost all images and other media under some kind of free license" which is not good English. The word "are" needs to be moved, or the sentence needs to be rewritten. It should say "On Wikimedia Commons almost all images and other media are under some kind of free license". Alternatively "Almost all images and other media on Wikimedia Commons are under some kind of free license" would also work and I would prefer it, but either way. Thanks. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC Haulweli sadfi ([[m.cartoonnetwork.com/Steven_Universe

On Wikimedia Commons nearly all images and media hold some type of free license. 

Mollysdad1979 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mention API:Imageinfo[edit]

Possibility to automatically build credit is not mentioned here and it may be useful when reusing many images and being unable to provide credit by linking to commons

it turns out that API:Imageinfo does offer image license info with iiprop=extmetadata, e.g.

File:Gull portrait ca usa.jpg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=File:Gull%20portrait%20ca%20usa.jpg&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=metadata%7Ccommonmetadata%7Cextmetadata - AttributionRequired and Credit entries are especially useful, so it may be worth mentioning them

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

გიგა კოპაძე[edit]

გიგა გიგა კოპაძე (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Replace period (".") with a comma (",")[edit]

Please replace the period after the phrase "and finally" in THE HEREIN PROJECT PAGE.

It is not grammatically correct to have a period there, and makes reading confusing.

Either replace the period with a comma, or remove the period altogether.

Mercy11 (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COM:REUSE#Hotlinking or InstantCommons[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Commons:Overwriting existing files has a link to the anchor COM:REUSE#Hotlinking or InstantCommons which doesn't work and needs to be inserted in this page. Besides this, please consider whether it is really (or still) necessary to block edits on the page to autoconfirmed users? Thanks, Hamilton Abreu (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Thanks Hamilton Abreu for the report. I have fixed the link. Unsure about the page protection. Raymond 13:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Instant commons" for reusing commons[edit]

I have the extension Instant Commons. How to use a file of another version (another date), not the last one? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we genuinely need to credit Commons account names?[edit]

I think there are many people who wish to reuse images outside of Wikimedia Commons and lot of the users here input their account names into the attribution section of files. This can be a problem because some accounts have numbers in their names or titles that look like a joke, which would make the work of the person reusing images look really bad. After all, I can see the reason why several of the users here don't add their real names to files is because they don't know people want to use images outside of Wikimedia sites. That being said, if more users had found this knowledge, they would have likely not used an account name sounding like a joke or one spelled with bad grammar/random phrase. Prana1111 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prana1111: Hello. It is a pity nobody has replied to you here within a year. The implementation of the attribution requirement here on Wikimedia Commons is indeed based rather on theory than on praxis, because many times it is practically impossible to find who the actual author is or how they wish to be attributed (confusion of author and uploader, derivative works with missing attribution history, attribution provided in edit summaries / file metadata / inside image but not in the file's page etc.). There is now the tool that tries to generate an attribution text for easy external reuse, but it fails many times to generate accurate attribution because of the afore-mentioned challenges (yet people will use such a faulty attribution!). As for the account names, some people make the distinction and ask you to "When reusing, please credit me as…", essentially providing what you look for (i.e. different attribution information for internal and external resuse), but such a request is often difficult to be found, there is no support for it in the current metadata (nor in the license, I would say), and very few people actually make use of such a tool. What I see more frequently is the person's real name as a link to their user page. But other than that, I think you must simply accept that some people do want to be attributed as "LittleRabbit 245", because maybe it is a nickname they have been using for years and they are fond of, or they want to hide their real name and go by this "artist name", or... they are simply the author of the work and the license leaves it fully up to them how they want to be attributed; and if you wish to reuse the work, you must comply. (Also, I do not think it is appropriate to try to judge yourself which user name (or real name!) "is a joke" and which not – there are some rules as to what is prohibited in this project as user names, but still anyone can come up with their own attribution text, which could possibly even be not somebody's name but some phrase etc.) --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded on Foreign language Wikipedia[edit]

I have a question. An article I am working on has an Italian wiki page for the same topic. It has some images that I feel would be beneficial to the English Wiki article I am working on, but the images are hosted on the Italian wiki, not the commons. So I have two questions:

  1. ) Is there a way to put an article on English Wiki where the link comes from a foreign language wiki, without re-uploading it? And how?
  2. ) Am I allowed to do that?

Thanks for any information RedPatchBoys (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedPatchBoys: Sorry for the late reply. 1) You have to re-upload, unfortunately. 2) That entirely depends on the image's license on the source wiki. If it is one of the licenses accepted on Commons, then you are more than welcome to do it :-) Thanks! Syced (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translation merge[edit]

Didn't quite finish merging all the old translations, will get to it in the next few days but busy off-wiki.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia&oldid=607654658"