MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext

The new thumb-syntax should be integrated into the MediaWiki-upload text, because it could prevent uploading a small and a large version of an image, because it is not needed anymore. I.e. the syntax [[image:NAMEOFTHEIMAGE.jpg|thumb|Text under the image]] could be recommended. Stern 19:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I propose to remove the contents of this page (I have moved all the information to Wikipedia:Uploading images) and replace it with the following. — Timwi 14:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Use this page to upload images.

I mostly agree with this, but an extra line on how to add images would be really useful for those who have read the instructions before, and just need a quick reminder. Angela. 07:11, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for, since the form fields "Filename:", "Summary:", and the "Upload file" submit button, should be pretty self-explanatory. Nevertheless, thanks for your suggestion, I'll try to add something that comes to mind. — Timwi 00:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I meant the instructions on how to add the image to the article. I've replaced these now. Angela. 04:03, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ahhh, my eyes. This text is too big and too purple. No one is going to bother reading it now. Dori | Talk 14:49, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

from pump

Not having "To view or search previously uploaded images, go to the list of uploaded images." is inconvenient, and, unless it no longer overwrites files silently, removing the warning about that seems undesirable. Niteowlneils 01:52, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've added that link. Angela. 07:34, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ideas

I am sure someone else has thought about this, but wouldn't be a good idea to include a check for already uploaded images with the same filename? It shouldn't be too hard to write, and very helpful. Also I'd like to see the "summary" field a lot bigger, like a text box instead of the small 1-line text field. Now I have to re-open all the images I upload, edit them, and then save them again to include all the info I want... --Vikingstad 23:34, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

You can suggest features at Sourceforge (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=34373&atid=411195&set=custom&_assigned_to=0&_status=1&_category=100&_group=100&order=open_date&sort=DESC&offset=0) or on Meta. Angela. 23:53, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright vs PD in checkbox

The checkbox text is confusing; I had a hard time with it the first time. It says

  I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it 
  under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright.

Well, for a public domain file, there is no copyright holder, and it can't be licensed under any copyright. But checking the box with a positive affirmation is required to perform an upload.

Maybe it should say something more like "there is no conflict with Wikipedia copyright" or "I affirm that the file is public domain, or that the copyright holder..."--Roland Walker 19:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This will change with the new software. See Testwiki:Upload (http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload). Angela. 23:17, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm also confused by that checkbox. I want to upload an image from an anime series; do I need permission from whoever created the image (if that person can be found), or from the creators of the anime series itself (who likely will find no reason to grant permission)? If I want to upload a photo of a calendar with pictures from that series, can I grant permission to use the photo I took, or do I still need permission from the creators of the series? It's not clear to me whether the "copyright holder of this file" is the person who created the file or the person who created whatever it depicts. I'd prefer if the checkbox read "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright or that it falls within fair use," but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that's okay. Brian Kendig 21:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think an image from an anime series would be copyrighted to the creator of the series, but IANAL. Wikipedia talk:copyrights would be a better place to ask this. You might want to think about making a fair use claim for it if you can't get permission. Angela. 23:17, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

There's no way to make a fair use claim with the form as it's written right now. I can assert that using the image falls under fair use, but that still won't let me check the checkbox saying that I have permission from the copyright holder, and therefore the form won't let me upload. Brian Kendig 02:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, you need to lie when you check the box, and then explain on the image description page that it is fair use. This will change with the new version (http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload) though. Angela. 07:55, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone add to the warning text on Special:Upload that people must use clear, unambiguous filenames? -- Tarquin 09:20, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela. 00:08, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that I can upload AVI movies up to about 2Mb. The upload warns that AVI is not a recommended format. Above 2 MB a technical error message is generated.

My questions:

• What are the recommended (if any) formats for movies?
• Is the 2Mb limit an enforced limit is size, or a bug?
• If the recommended format is not AVI, are there any free conversion tools from AVi to the desired format?

t.i.a., TeunSpaans 07:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

• There is no AVI format, it is a container, i think the Ogg Theora format is reccomended, if not avalible use MPEG-2 or MPEG-4. However use Theora if you possibly can.
• Enforcement, kind of dumb for media besides images if you ask me
• As i said above, avi is not a format but a container, so there can be many formats being used inside that container and hence i cannot reccomend a converter, since it might be a multitute of formats. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:11, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Generalizing upload descriptions

Michael Snow implied in Wikipedia:Village pump#Unverified images that there is some effort underway to revise the upload form. I gather this is where it's being discussed. I would ask that any such effort also include (if it doesn't already) revision of all pages that talk about uploads as if they are always images. As an example, Special:Upload says "See Wikipedia:Uploading images for information on how this upload form works". It's not enough just to tweak the article text to include brief mentions of other formats. When I first used that form to upload an image, I had the impression after reading the entire form (yes, I'm one of those who RTFMs) that Wikipedia did not support sound, which turned out not to be true. (If I had known at the time what an "ogg" file was, I could have inferred that sound was supported, but I would argue that even mentioning more widely-known WAV files in passing does not correct the fundamental bias toward image uploading that remains in upload-related pages.) I would be bold and make the changes myself, except that I don't want to interfere with an existing process that I know nothing about. (Also, I'm still recovering from bruises I received during my attempts to broaden the Wikipedia:Sound text. ☺) — Jeff Q 14:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Instructions for description page unclear

The instructions for uploading images are unclear as to where the image description should be added. I wasn't sure if I should type my multi-line description into the summary box, or if uploading the image would take me to another page where I should then enter the description. Eoghan 20:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Formatting error

The bold formatting of the following text doesn't work, probably because of the line break:

By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the

<a href="/encyclopedia/index.php/Academic_Kids:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License">GNU Free Documentation License</a>.</p>

KISS

Please try and keep this small. No one reads MS EULA length notices, and it defeats the purpose of having text there: Informing the uploaders. Dori | Talk 04:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Suggested layout - Highlights Commons better

Error

"By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." This is not exactly correct. Say I upload something and release it under a compatible Creative Commons license, or some other free license. I have not licensed it under the GFDL, I've licensed it under the other license. Can someone reword this? I can't think of a better way of saying this right now. Dysprosia 03:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Whenever the text is removed it's put back. There's no graceful way, it seems, of saying "use the gfdl, or one of these other less restrictive licences." Further clarification needs to be made in the main paragraph rather than an extra tag-on element. --BesigedB 20:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Duel license

Neutrality added this to the page: You may duel-license your file under a Creative Commons license, but this must be in addition to—NOT in place of—the GDFL.

I removed it, first of all I question the use of duel instead of dual here, it's either a spelling error or some rare synoum for dual, either way it's much rarer.

Second, it's both biased and unfactual, first, not all creative commons licences are allowed here, only a few copyleft ones and the more permissive ones, furthermore people may infact submit content under copyleft licences not compatable with the GFDL, however as I understand it if they hold the copyright to said file they autmatically dual-licence their content.

Third, this could be percived as spam, robbot recently got blocked for mass-messageing people requesting that they dual licence their content, although I won't compare this to such spam this makes it look like we officially endorse dual-licenceing, which we may or may not want to do, furthremore, if we do, I object to this bias towards one particular licenceing scheme, personally I'd much prefer people put their works in the public domain. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 16:07, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Requested addition to instructions

How about:

• If you obtained the image from somewhere on the Web, please include the URL where it can be obtained.

This is so that we can check the claimed copyright, look for higher-resolution versions, look for other similar images and so forth. Many users already do this, but when somebody doesn't I sure miss it. --Andrew 11:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template error

The bullet point specifying the licence doesn't seem to be working anymore. It displays as "Specify the licence of the file by adding the appropriate tag(s), e.g. {{[[template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}, {{[[template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}, etc.". I assume that this is because the {{template}} doesn't work for this. Could someone please fix this back? Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 21:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you use {{template|template name}} it works. Alphax ^τεχ 04:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mystery addition

If you want to use an exclusive free license other than the GFDL or public domain, you must upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons.

This was recently added; why, and what does it actually mean? I have no idea what the instruction is actually telling me to do. --Andrew 21:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you own the copyright (i.e. if it's a picture you took) and you want to upload the file here, it must be licensed under the GDFL or released into the public domain. If you want to use another license - cc-by-sa or CeCILL or some such - you must upload it at the Wikimedia Commons. This seems fairly clear to me, but feel free to suggest a wording which is more easily understood. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 22:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Aha! I've been trying to understand this for a while. It's the omission of the "if you own the copyright" part that had got me - as it stands, it seems to specifically exclude a lot of freely licensed images from en. I think the context needs to be made clearer: put this sentence and the previous one in the same paragraph (with the same font). Perhaps a slightly clearer version would be:

If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must licence it under the GNU Free Documentation License. Alternatively, you could upload your file to the Wikimedia Commons under a different free license. Lupin 23:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a new and startling restriction on the images that can be uploaded to wikipedia! Where was it discussed? I suppose it replaces the totally bogus little checkbox which forces most wikipedia users to lie when uploading images (if I upload a NASA image, there is no copyright holder, so forcing me to click and agree that they agree to license it however is pretty dubious).

I suppose this means if I want to put my cc-sa image on Wikipedia I need to get a friend to do it. What about images with joint copyright (e.g. a cc-sa image somebody else created and I modified)?

Since it is not at all clear that it is even possible to release one's work into the public domain (Wikipedia:Granting your work into the public domain) this would be rather awkward. What is the goal of this restriction on uploads? Is the intent to forbid dual-licensing of images? I prefer to use Template:Tl (or in fact Template:Tl) for my images, but am willing to also license them under the GFDL; do I have to start getting someone else to upload my images? --Andrew 03:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

If this restriction is actually a good idea, I think Lupin's phrasing is better.

You may upload your images under any free license or combination of free licenses you like; you simply must do it at Commons. Yes, dual-licensing is permitted here, but the GFDL must be one of the licenses. As for the other inconsistences, they're things that Wikipedians have decided to live with. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Um, what wikipedians? Where was this discussed? --Andrew 08:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

From public domain: A copyright holder can explicitly disclaim any proprietary interest in the work, effectively granting it to the public domain, by providing a licence to this effect. A suitable licence will grant permission for all of the acts which are restricted by copyright law. Such a license is sometimes called a free use or public-domain equivalent licence. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, here's the link I botched before: Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain. It started because someone (I forget who) wrote the US copyright office and obtained the opinion that it is impossible to release one's work into the public domain. Note that our PD-release tag does not specify what if any rights are released; it just claims to release into the PD. It does not do what is described above - and we cannot change the license that people have applied to their own work after the fact.

That said, the current "consensus" is (as I understand it) that here (rather than the commons) we allow:

• Users can upload their own work if:
  • It is under the GFDL (only)
  • It claims (possibly incorrectly) to be PD
• Users cannot upload their own work if it is under any other license, such as the PD-equivalent Template:Tl, Template:Tl, and so on.
• Users can upload others' work if it is under any free license, or is fair use.

What I'd like to find out is how this was decided and by whom; it's certainly news to me. --Andrew 22:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I concur - this is an extremely odd policy if it is correct. For example, anyone may create an image, license it exclusively under a free non-GFDL license and get anyone else to upload it to en, but they may not upload it themselves. Can this possibly be right?

I am also interested in how this policy was decided. Lupin 23:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what the "policy" actually "says", this is my understanding of the present state of images at Wikipedia. Anything release under the GFDL is OK, even if it is ALSO released under other licenses. Images need not be EXCLUSIVELY GFDL. In addition, Public Domain images are acceptable. Fair Use is a more nebulous region, but there's general acceptance of them as well. PD-Equivalent or a truly "free" license would also be acceptable. I say "truly" meaning that the copyright owner would have to disclaim (as much as possible) any exercise of copyright. The reason that they would be acceptable is that the resultant images are functionally and substantively in the public domain. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)