You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
Thanks for uploading File:Undertoneslobster.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Undertoneslobster.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Kieronoldham, why did you write this "This image is valid for use under Wikipedias 'fair use guidelines' shown here" into the image description? Fair-use is not allowed on Commons. However, I don't see why this image should require fair-use. --Túrelio (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
We're going back a few years here, aren't we? I know that 'fair usage' isn't allowed upon here. It was written basically as yet a further layer of validity for the image, which (I believe) at the time was awaiting review by the Flickr review Bot. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.
Dear Kieronoldham,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.
In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:TopTrumpsCardSelection.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
I assume this is the reason why Category:Top Trumps only has one useless picture of an empty plastic box: the card art is copyrighted, so Wikimedia Commons isn't allowed to publish any of it. The Wikipedia article could definitely use a single, good fair use photo of a classic card, though, I'll see if I can sort something out. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've since put an official card image up on the Wikipedia article as a "fair use" copy of Winning Moves artwork, which is allowed and which Winning Moves won't object to on copyright grounds. I'll take a look at the other photos you mention. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
2022 Picture of the Year: Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) and Gadwall (Mareca strepera) in Nepal.
Dear Wikimedian,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2023 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2023.
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I understand what the requirements are. What I am asking is how did you determine that there was no copyright notice on that particular issue of the Lincoln Journal Star? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry - I forgot to reply yesterday. All I will say in addition to what I already have is that, as you can see in the link to the image in question, the image sources from a July 1984 newspaper. Now, I could understand your concerns if the image sourced from a magazine as on the introductory pages or the final page, disclaimers may be printed that are not necessarily going to be on the page of the image in question, but that will not be the case with a newspaper. The newspaper was published in 1984, so the tag is valid as it is prior to March 1989.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kieronoldham Newspapers can have copyright notices just like magazines. I don't know where you get the idea that they wouldn't. See this article for example.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that you haven't actually looked for copyright notices on anything you have uploaded from newspapers. Is that correct? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
With all due and honest respect, you are misunderstanding me there. We are referring to this particular image you seem to have an issue with here. There are clippings and tags for this edition in the link alone. Feel free to look for the full July 4, 1984 edition of the Lincoln Journal Star. Best regards, K. --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kieronoldham If I am misunderstanding you, please help me to understand by being very clear. Did you check for a copyright notice in that edition of that newspaper? If not, why are you stating that it is in the public domain? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
. I respect your integrity and I mean that. It is in the public domain. Newspapers.com or Ancestry can also help as far as physically seeing each page of the journal like I have used. If you disbelieve or wish to validate further, then be my guest and feel free to check further by writing to confirm, or emailing copysearch@copyright.gov as per the contents of your link.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kieronoldham I come here from Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Kent State LIFE May 1970. You claimed that the images from a 1970 LIFE magazine were in the public domain because they were published without a copyright notice, but that was not correct. There was a copyright notice. So I am asking a very simple question - what did you do to determine that this image is in the public domain? Did you look for a copyright notice? You have yet to answer that simple question. I don;t want to have to escalate this, so it would be great if you could just give me a straightforward answer. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have answered it, and again, I sincerely respect your observation. I looked on the 1984 scans as well as obv. the page in question. As for the 1970 LIFE magazine deletion issue pertaining to me and at least one other contributor (from Dec. last year), I could not see the act. notification pages of the article in question uploaded which held the current Commons validity issues for them (even though ironically some images were from original yearbook issues which at least one other editor has pointed out, and I will bet the basketball image of William Schroeder sources from a yearbook too, but I can't be 100%). I am sorry for the overlook there as far as magazine images are concerned. We learn as time goes by. I like to buy books and magazines which I use to reference and expand Wiki., but I did not purchase the article in question before expanding Kent State.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I hope this plus what given prv. is a straightforward answer, and I mean that. Again, there is no insincerity in my reply - I have outlined what I have done and do.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. What does "I could not see the act. notification pages of the article in question uploaded which held the current Commons validity issues for them" mean? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kieronoldham If you could not see the entire magazine, you had no basis for claiming that the images were in the public domain because there was no copyright notice. So why did you make that claim? How many other times have you claimed that something was in the public domain without checking or being able to check for a copyright notice? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I knew this was coming, and your intention from the outset despite your claims to the contrary. I have literally been waiting for this. I am not even going to bother responding beyond saying others have looked at the images and rationale. I stand by my rationales--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
When I started this discussion I was hopeful that you could explain your actions and I could move on to something else. Your answers and evasions, however, just made me more concerned about your uploads. If you stand by your rationales, I don't know why you would choose not to participate in a discussion about them. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have participated in a discussion and answered ALL your question and I strongly suspect you know it. Please don't be evasive or coy or make the claim "I don't know why you would choose not to participate in a discussion about them" What have I outlined above for anyone objective? You wanted this from the outset. I said my mistake with the Kent State images was in my folly (hands up) in not physically seeing or trying to see the missing pages of the publication, and I hold my hands up to that. A blanket obscuring of all my images? Including the pictures I have physically taken myself, or the ones taken by the legal authority that no longer exists (the Weimar Republic), or for that matter the verifiable ones "which [were] made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1955) in the U.K.", or those "created by a government unit (including state, county, and municipal government agencies) of the U.S. state of Florida"? The CCTV one " ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information produced by an automated system, such as a fixed CCTV or traffic enforcement camera" etc.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have no concerns about pictures you have taken yourself. I am only concerned about the ones that you claim are public domain because of the lack of a copyright notice. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Counterfeit Purses Every last one has a lack of a copyright notice claim tag for all to see, and most have a "direct link" added to verify by yours truly. Ah yes, as for the Denise Naslund one you mentioned. The image is the same one of her in the linked source, no? The image is in "other publications" which are not an AP story.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm here because of the post at COM:AN/U. Kieronoldham, are you saying that in each of these cases you checked the masthead of the newspaper and determined that it had no copyright notice? - Jmabel ! talk05:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I respect your observation. As far as the newspapers issue, I did in several, though not all, cases of freely-published newspapers while having access to newspapers.com and Ancestry. The images (as I mentioned with the Denise Naslund instance) in many instances are published across several newspapers whether with an AP or suchlike disclaimer or otherwise. I can talk and will about other images you have any concern with when I next log on here.--Kieronoldham (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Here's how I see this, and I'm speaking as an admin here. This casts reasonable doubt on pretty much all of the uploads you've done of content from U.S. newspapers and magazines. If we are going to keep these, then someone is going to have to go through to verify that these are in the public domain. The two most reasonable ways to proceed are:
you take this on yourself: your main Commons task for the near future is to go back through these and, for each, either verify that there is no copyright notice on the front page or masthead and either (a) note explicitly in the "permission" section of the {{Information}} template that there is not (so we don't find ourselves doing this twice), or (b) nominate it for deletion yourself.
we tag these all for deletion, possibly in batches so that this does not become overwhelming, and if you or anyone else wants to salvage any of these, you'll have the limited time involved in a deletion review to do the diligence that should have been done in the first place.
Really your call, and you can certainly decide that there are a small number of them for which you are concerned to do this diligence and the rest can be thrown in the hopper. I'd be more than willing to cooperate with you in coming up with a different approach to removing the doubts, but those are the only two ways I see. - Jmabel ! talk17:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kieronoldham Two points. The copyright notice is generally with the masthead but it may be somewhere else in the paper. When I found the copyright notice on the first page of the Lincoln Journal Star I wasn't actually looking for it, I was trying to locate the masthead. Note that there is no copyright notice with the masthead in that newspaper.
The second point corresponds to my second point in the administrator's notice board. Do you see under the "Five found dead" pictures where it says "(AP Laserphoto)"? That indicates that the photos were obtained from AP. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Counterfeit Purses. I think this is a reasonable way to approach. I have looked at and added copyright permission for three images where I can see the entire front page. I have checked the entire first three pages and the back and cannot see any copyright notice. I will wait and see if these three meet approval before going forward, but as I say, for some, I will either need access to newspapers.com again, or I will have to list the ones I cannot verify for someone else to check.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kieronoldham: I said I'd work with you on coming up with an approach, not with the legwork. I am already overwhelmed with large projects, to the point of having a backlog that could probably be measured in years.
@Kieronoldham: I think it would be much wiser to let a few of these play through, so that you can see where Commons' consensus may fall on these issues, and you can tell what are the standards you should be looking at when you go through to determine what is OK and what is not. Otherwise, the pass you make through these won't be worth much. - Jmabel ! talk23:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I understand. Thanks for your observation. Maybe some criteria should have been updated or clarified further earlier. Thanks again. As I say, I shall be looking at the images with the tags in question tomorrow.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I will do all this in swathes. I do not have a preformed, overriding desire to hatchet every user's efforts en masse at the same time as (as agreed by other users) address a particular section of "concern" at a time.. Thanks for the courteous notification though. Have you ever read the book The Two Lost Girls by Troy Taylor, Counterfeit Purses? I have it and have noted an image which would qualify with a certain tag prior to 1977 as well as another under this swathe within a certain article. Well actually, not just one by myself. The book is here (ISBN 978-1-892-52398-3) and if you cannae read everything, then purchase it for $14.00 (according to my copy here in England).
. So I am assuming an author supersedes prv. copyright "entitlement" if he has the effrontery to add the tag from a certain era into his own, or certainly into his own printed format, publications, and if so, then his unchallenged righthuousnes means anything co
with the same "
Whoops, maybe the shovel has delved a little deeper after years, maybe decades, millions of views, and millions of edits worldwide to the English Wikipedia alone and now, here we are. Let's all look at Wiki. map images on laborious Wiki. articles going forward. Kieronoldham (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Discussion on [1] seems to show that you were right. I closed a few deletion requests, and undeleted one file. Could you please list on COM:UDR all deleted pictures where there is no copyright notice in the newspaper? Then they could be undeleted. This whole discussion brought a better understanding of copyright status of these pictures. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I shall do shortly, @Yann. Give me an hour or so to check my notifications. Around eight or ten in total were deleted. I have been reading the discussions pertaining to this issue with great interest over the last few weeks. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the community for its professionalism in investigating this issue. Kieronoldham (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago14 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, by any chance do you know where you downloaded this photo from? You link to this newspaper, but that's a UPI wire photo from 1966 of a completely different image in the series. I'm currently working as a reviewer on a DYK for w:Shel Hershorn and I discovered three in this series, but many more from the incident itself. At least one photo in the series, the main one used for the Life cover, (there might be more, there are 300 in the archive to examine) is held by the Briscoe Center for American History at the University of Texas at Austin. I would like to run the image in the lead spot for DYK but I'm having second thoughts about the copyright. The image you uploaded came from somewhere else other than Kingsport Times (although you can't be faulted, they look similar at a glance). Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok, a reverse image search shows it passed through at least three image archives, from Bettmann to Corbis to Getty.[2] As of 2025, it is held by Getty.[3] It looks like it was never published but was part of the United Press International (UPI) photo library which was acquired by the Bettmann Archive in 1984 and then passed through several hands until landing in the Getty archive. The version you uploaded is a close crop of one image in the original series, but is not the same one published by the Kingsport Times. Here is the original, full photo in the Getty archive. Something interesting I also found: there's a black and white photo in the Getty archive that was taken inside the store earlier, showing a young woman who was hit inside the store by the bullet that came though the glass, being attended by others. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looks like this is solved: "United Press International (UPI) typically did not register copyrights or publish their photos with proper notices. Consequently, the majority of UPI photos, particularly those taken before March 1, 1989, are likely in the public domain." I will be changing the copyright and source tags. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, @Viriditas. Looks like you have resolved this yourself before I arrived home to reply. In January and February this year, these issues were discussed intently (and rather interestingly). The full discussion is here. Regards, Kieronoldham (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hey, just trying to wrap this up and cover all the bases with some needed skepticism. What makes you think Shel Hershorn took this photo? The reason I ask is that you uploaded it with his name, but 1) Kingsport Times only says UPI, 2) the Life magazine image is entirely different (but same window), and 3) I just discovered photographer Kent Kirkley's set of images, which shows the window all taped together, which got me thinking. What if Hershorn failed to destroy the window like he said (to prevent other photographers from copying his shot) and the window was put back together with tape (which is what Kirkley's series implies) and other photographers took similar images after Hershorn? Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
As the original newspaper says [4], the photo was taken through a jewelry store window. As was the image used on the cover of LIFE magazine, which I own a copy of and which also credits Shel Hershorn as the author of (online image crediting him with the same image can be seen here). This article confirms Shel was the individual who took the images from the jewelry store window. Hope this clarifies--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
You can see the famous Life photo here in its original form before it was used on the cover. They are separate images. The image from the Kingsport Times is also a different image. Interestingly, the Daily Mail published a second image in the Life shoot in 2014 attributed to Getty.[5] So we have two from that series. The Los Angeles Times story refers to the Life image, not to the UPI image from the same series as the Kingsport Times. Hershorn speaks of rival photographers competing with him.[6] All I'm trying to do is confirm that Hershorn is the photographer for the image you uploaded. If you can help, great, if not, just ignore me. One thing that confuses me is why would this set we are discussing be associated with UPI when Hershorn no longer worked for them in 1966? I hope you see why I'm skeptical. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do not worry - I am happy to help in any way I can, @Viriditas. The image you linked is the same one as that which was published on August 22, 1966 (although separate one from the image you are scrutinizing). I literally have a pristine condition copy of it in front of me as I am typing. One of the articles I previously linked states thus: "Hershorn noticed a bullet hole in the window of a jewelry store, went inside and photographed the tower through the hole" before claiming it was the image published on the cover of LIFE. I don't know if this tidbit of information will help you or not, but in the picture credits of the LIFE magazine from August 22, the credits read for the cover: "SHEL HERSORN from BLACK STAR"--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC). Regards,Reply
The Los Angeles Times says "In August 1966, Hershorn was in Austin, Texas, when Charles Whitman began shooting from the University of Texas tower, killing 16 people on the ground. In the aftermath, Hershorn noticed a bullet hole in the window of a jewelry store, went inside and photographed the tower through the hole. The photograph ended up on the cover of Life." They are referring to an entirely different set of photographs.[7] Black Star has nothing to do with UPI, which is the reason the photos ended up in the Bettmann Archive. As far as I can tell, Hershorn stopped working with UPI in the 1950s. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just thought the info re: Black Star may have helped. This is certainly interesting.
Maybe I should have clarified better, @Viriditas. Insofar as what has been discussed earlier, the image uploaded and which we are discussing photographs the tower through the hole; the LIFE magazine one focuses on the spidering pattern of the bullet holes with the silhouette of the UT tower in the background - hence not pictured through the hole. That says to be Hershorn took the series. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Let's take a break from this for a moment and focus on other things, but I do want to emphasize that the syndicated obituary story that you are talking about refers specifically to the Life magazine cover, in spite of their wording. The image published by the Kingsport Times (a separate image in the series) and the one hosted by Getty in the same series as the one published by Kingsport (but separate) looks very much to be a part of Hershorn's photo shoot. The problem is that you are the first person to have made that connection, not the reliable sources, and you did so by citing the wrong source. I am looking for confirmation and verification. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Hopefully we can figure this out soon. BTW, this source claims that the "rival photographer" at the jewelry store was in fact working for UPI. I am also skeptical about Hershorn's claim that he "kicked the window in", as Kent Kirkley's set suggests the window was taped back up again. If you look closely at Kirkley's photos, you can see the tape on the glass. The tape appears nowhere in Hershorn's verified photos. Theory and extrapolation: the restricted horizontal framing of the UPI set nicely hides the supposed tape in the outer frames, presumably put back together after Hershorn left and shot by the rival UPI photographer. I have zero evidence for this admittedly outrageous claim, but it fits the facts that we have so far. Update: given the new source linked up above (Summer of '66, 2006), and Hershorn's exclusive scoop and intent on getting the story for Life as expressed to Shelton Williams (and several other sources), we can conclude that Hershorn was indeed "scooped" as the UPI wire photo in the Kingsport Times on August 2 shows. We may have forgotten that Hershorn's exclusive had to wait until August 12 to be published, and he wasn't willing (or able) to publish his photos anywhere else to preserve this scoop (See Williams et al.) So, the answer has been staring us in the face the entire time. These are not Hershorn's photos. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2024 voting is open!
2023 Picture of the Year: Incense plays an important role in Vietnamese life. It is considered as a sacred bridge to connect the visible life of human beings and the world of heaven, earth, and gods. Photo taken in Quang Phu Cau village, on the outskirts of Hanoi, Vietnam. In this picture, incense sticks are being set out to dry, after being dipped in the incense solution.
Dear Wikimedian,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2024 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year is the nineteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2024.
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
2024 Picture of the Year:Mundari man polishing the horns of one of his Watusi cows using a mixture of cow urine and ash as a ritualistic and protective practice in a temporary cattle camp in Terekeka, South Sudan.
Dear Wikimedian,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2025 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year is the twentieth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favourite images featured on Commons during the last year (2025) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just five images to become the Picture of the Year.
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favourite images featured on Commons during the last year (2025) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of five images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2025.
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone,
Wikimedia Commons is pleased to finally announce the winners of this year's Picture of the Year 2025 contest! We had some truly incredible finalists to choose from, but the community has spoken.
Here are your top three winning images:
First place: The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on October 9, 2023, leaving widespread destruction in the Rimal area. Attribution: WAFA (Q2915969) / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Second place: Baby cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus) sleeping at Cape cross, Namibia. Attribution: Giles Laurent / CC-BY-SA 4.0
Third place: A gigantic jet photographed from the International Space Station by astronaut Nichole Ayers. Attribution: public domain
You can view the full results and see where all your favorite images placed here: Full 2025 Results
I also want to highlight what an incredible turnout we had. In the second round, we saw a massive jump in both the number of users voting and the total votes cast. We had exactly 13,979 votes cast by 3,509 users! To put that in perspective, last year we had 7,403 votes from 2,837 users. It is amazing to see that level of growth and community engagement.
Thank you to everyone who voted, helped organize, and generally made the contest such a huge success this year!
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
You are invited to join the discussion at COM:VPC#File:Holly Wells Jessica Chapman CCTV Soham Murders 04 August 2002.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
