Category talk:Images that should be in SVG format

Derivative work?

I don't understand this edit. Derivative works are not automatically verbotten by any means... it just means the SVG can't be placed in the public domain (or any open license), but instead is still considered fair use. People should beware that their work doesn't contribute to available open content, but by itself, doesn't mean that fair use SVG's can't/shouldn't be created. --Interiot 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. I did add the template pretty quickly, but I did so after looking through lots of information on fair use. Perhaps I misinterpreted something, but it seems to me that most edits, including conversion to an equivalent (or higher) resolution constitute "derivate works" and are thus illegal with fair use sources. Here's what US copyright law has to say on the matter: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, (...) condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." (Commons:COM:DW). The following quote from Wikipedia:Logos is another source of support: Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use. Do not use SVG formats, as this can infringe on fair use. However, if vector artwork is available, they can be rasterized to a screen-resolution PNG format.

I requested enlightenment here before putting up the message; if you still hold your opinion, definitely add it to the discussion there. Since there is more opposition than I expected, I will take down the messagebox until we get things solidified. MithrandirMageT 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Derivative work" simply means "it's still fair use", so derivative works aren't something to be avoided any more than fair use is. It is indeed true that fair use aren't allowed on commons, but fair use (and fair use derivative works) are allowed here, so the box was incorrect.

The question about whether SVG constitutes a "high resolution" image is a separate issue that does hold more weight. However, from what I've seen, it's not a settled issue whether SVG logos are automatically infringing or not. I've seen several admins, in response to a {{Fair use reduce}} put on an SVG, simply open up the SVG in an editor and change its default size to something smaller and then remove the template, even though changing the default resolution doesn't remotely address the possible copyright issues (since the SVG can be expanded back to its previous default resolution with no quality loss). eg. I think some admins think it's misguided to put a {{Fair use reduce}} on an SVG.

The term "resolution" should really be interpreted more as "detail" for SVGs... if someone posts an SVG of the cover art for a CD album, and the SVG contains enough detail to allow a piracy ring to print out convincing cover art while pirating the CD, then the appropriate response would be to remove some of the finer detail from the SVG (not change its default size), so that it can no longer be used to aid piracy. However, for many simpler SVG's, it's not really possible reduce the detail without distorting the image to the point of making it useless (for instance, the Nike "swoosh" logo is trivially simple... there's really no detail that can be removed from it without making it unrecognizable). Anyway, as long as a fair use SVG complies with those constraints, I believe it's perfectly consistent with copyright laws to convert fair use to SVG. IANAL and others may disagree, of course. --Interiot 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Conversion_to_SVG_and_fair_use with your argument — I'm tempted to agree with you regarding our rights as Fair Users, but we'll need to see what more qualified people say. MithrandirMageT 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interiot's instinct is correct (and Wikipidea:Logos is wrong, but I shall address that one on their talk page). I think the confusion is due to the fact that WP fair use policy is not a statement of U.S. copyright law: it is a policy which has been developed to try to ensure that we don't breach U.S. copyright law while still allowing us to use some non-free content under the doctrine of "fair use".

There is no limitation on making derivative works under fair use so long as the use of the resulting work is still fair. In this sense, Interiot's example of the CD cover is an excellent one: we shouldn't be publishing images in any format, whether it be .png, .svg or .justmadeupformat, which could be used for effectively pirating CD covers, because our use would be detrimental to "the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (17 U.S.C. 107). High quality SVGs of banknotes are probably a bad idea as well :).

Most of the reported fair use case law concerns what are technically derivative works. Indeed, under U.S. law, the concept of a derivative work arises to close the loophole of someone saying "it's not a copy because I changed it": if such a loophole were allowed, then copyright law would become almost pointless. Legal systems which follow the droit d'auteur system of copyright law have greater restrictions on making derivative works, known as moral rights, but I can't see how we would be breaching these extra restrictions by performing a format change on an existing image of a published work (note the two provisos: "existing" and "published"). In any case, I can't see how the breach of foreign moral rights would be actionable in the U.S., so long as the use followed WP policies.

I hope this answers your question. Physchim62 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Fair use is archived at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 18#Conversion to SVG and fair use. Jackaranga 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High priority subcategory?

Is there support for a "high priority" subcategory? With this large backlog, and the fact that most images are only used on one minor page, it seems to be a good idea. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a good idea. BTW, the page header says that "Due to this category's large backlog, high-priority images or those with particularly complex conversion needs should be submitted to the Graphics Lab in addition to being placed here." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DTR (talk • contribs) 15:46:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Auto Vectorizer

A few of these images look like they should be able to be easily vectorized; theres a new online tool over at [1]. Perhaps someone could hack up a perl script to automatically download wikipedia images, vectorize them, and post them as svg. Thegeneralguy 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They only let you vectorize 2 images, before they start charging. Still, the service works pretty good. I tried it out by converting [Image:Bicuculline.png] to Image:Bicuculline.svg, and was pleased with the results. kevyn (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevyn: Sorry to be nitpicky but: I took a look at Image:Bicuculline.svg. When you use a tool to automatically convert an image you don't become the copyright holder or creator. You've just done an automatic convertion. So you should properly attribute the author and link to the old PNG image. I see you did part of that so I think you had no bad intention, just pointing it out. I fixed it, that is I edited the description page and added a link to the old image.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The adress of the tool has changed [2]. Ouach 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut

There's a shortcut to the category, CAT:SVG --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballooning size from SVG conversion

For example, in Anglosphere, Image:Anglospeak.svg (1.71M) replaced Image:Anglospeak.png (47K), meaning inflation by a factor of about 36. It doesn't make sense to blindly convert if the effect on performance is so bad. --JWB (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG is then rendered back into a PNG by Wikimedia for viewing in the browser. The PNG on the image description page for this image is only 84k at 800px wide. See [3]. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol: Direct conversion or replacement?

Is it permissable to use the "Vector version available" template, even for images which are intended as replacements rather than exact recreations of the original raster image, as I have done in this example? Or should the template only be used for a one-for-one reproduction of the raster, such as traces or machine conversions? AJCham2097 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have seen and also agree with, the SVG version doesn't have to be an exact trace of the PNG to be "the SVG version of it", but it should be very similar. Since many/most of the good conversions from PNG to SVG is done by hand.

In your case you added some changes/improvements at the same time. So in that case I would not use {{vector version available}}. Instead I would list your SVG version under a section "Other versions" on the PNG's file page. Although the difference in how to link between them isn't that important, since {{vector version available}} shows a preview of the SVG version, thus everyone can immediately see if they like the SVG version better or not.

Also, if your SVG version isn't very similar, then I think you should not reuse the "same" file name. As in Manual Layout4d.PNG -> Manual Layout4d.svg. Instead you should have chosen a new name for the SVG. Since if the SVG name is taken it gets slightly messy if/when someone does an "exact" SVG version of the original PNG. But again, that doesn't matter that much.

What really matters is that we do add links between the different versions, and also categorise them properly, so it is easy to find the different versions. And add proper descriptions on them so we can find images by using the search function. I often also add a list of keywords, since some of the words people might search for might not be in the description text. Like I did here: File:Ballroom.svg

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction not clear

I am using my best English to follow "Instructions for converting to SVG" to update File:Ringstone.jpg and failed.

I did step 1, 2 and 3, and at step 3, I click "Save", and got the following error:

Error: No image by that name exists. Please make sure to use the correct format: ｛｛vector version available|new image name.svg｝｝.

In fact the step 3 description is very unclear. It says "Go back to the original file and edit the page.", but neither step 2 nor step 1 suggested correcting a new file, so there is only one file (with only different versions), how can a user go back to the original file when he is at it? I assume if step 3 is correct, step 2 must be wrong, instead of using "Upload a new version of this file" step 2 should have suggested "Upload file". Or, if Step 2 is correct, step 3 must be incorrect, it should be "rename the file extension from jpg to svg and update the links".

Even funnier, I uploaded the SVG using "Upload a new version of this file" to upload the SVG, and could not download it any longer. The size is displayed correctly in File History (new svg is 7kb, bigger than jpeg before), but if I click it, I get a jpeg file at 4kb, exactly the old version before I upload the SVG.

张韡武 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIME Filetipe

Every time I try to upload a new SVG version, it tells me the MIME Filetype is wrong, how to I change or be able to upload a new SVG version? Casperruegg (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Casperruegg[reply]

Bot to replace old versions in articles?

When we upload an SVG version of a file, we're supposed to replace all instances of the old file with the new one in all of the articles that the old one appears in. That is an amazingly daunting task with some of the images, specifically those that have numerous page links. Is there a bot that can do that automatically? Thanks! --DustyComputer (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]