User talk:Gram123/Image Talk

This is Gram123's Image Talk subpage. It is used to file any image-related talk that was left on my main talk page, be it discussions, complaints, notices of removal, requests for fair use rationale or whatever.

In my experience and contrary to the argument used by some Wikipedia contributors, it is not easy to gain permission from people / companies to use their images here. Even innocuous stuff. They generally have no interest in giving something away free that they could potentially charge for.

In my early days as a Wikipedia contributor, when guidelines and policies were harder to find and less well specified, and rationale was less vehemently demanded, I uploaded a bunch of images without the required rationale and/or appropriate tags. By now, these have all been tagged and rationale added, or else they've been removed either by me, or by various wiki crusaders. I now only upload DVD covers, film posters, CD covers, logos and screenshots - those images for which fair use can be argued.

As for why this stuff has been moved here - well, I don't know whether I'm allowed to delete stuff from my talk page, even if it was dealt with one way or another long ago. I looked but didn't find it. So if you left any such messages on my talk page, they will now be somewhere below as will my responses.

-- Edit

I got tremendously sick of receiving these automated bot-delivered image notices. Sometimes I'm unable to access Wikipedia for a week or two, and when I come back, some doughnut has "speedily deleted" an image that I could have added rationale for, had I been given a bit more time. In such cases, I think the 1 week thing is a total crock and unnecessarily heavy-handed. I'm sure it would be an easier practice for whichever crusader (or crusader-bot) to locate these very standard tagged image pages (logos, album covers, dvd covers in particular) and add a simple piece of rationale to them, rather than adding notes to the image, the uploaders talk page and to the speedy delete list, saying they require rationale, then deleting the image, and then leaving a new or amended note on the uploaders talk page saying "we put your image in the Wiki-bin".

In the hope of reducing the number of these automated notices that were being left on my Talk page, I initially went through approx 200 images and added rationale to each. It was a bit of a task, but the rationale was standard stuff. However, since then, it seems that the Wiki-police have decided that anything resembling boilerplate rationale is insufficient and without user intervention, images can potentially be speedy deleted "within a couple of days". Marvellous.

I've just completed the long and tedious process of going through all of those images again, plus any that I've uploaded in the meantime, and amending the rationale to specify exactly what each image is, and on which article it's being used (even though this is already noted automatically on every image page). It took a long time (I don't have bots at my disposal), but at last it's done. I put all outstanding "promo-photos" that I'd uploaded up for speedy del myself, and removed them from the articles.

I hope amending the rationale on every image will stop them being speedy deleted, and also stop the damn notices appearing on my talk page. But if they move the goalposts regarding rationale again, I will have to quit editing Wikipedia, because I simply can't be arsed with it. Gram123 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

Hi, nice work on adding DVD covers / posters for Kitano and Park Chan-wook films - some of my fav directors from Asia. Can't wait for UK release of Lady Vengeance. :) ~ Ajshm 14:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'm pretty new here, so I'm just adding stuff that interests me as I find out how... Think I might copy your gallery format for pics on my user page, that's pretty cool!

Gram 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Football pics

Hi Gram123

Just wanted to know if all those pictures from 4thegame.com can actually be used here. Thanks. -Aabha (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gram123

I notice that you've been removing your pictures from their respective articles. I just wanted to be sure about their license, had no intention of claiming that their use wasn't correct. I'm sure your intentions were absolutely right, but we've to be sure we don't violate anyone else's rights. Hope you understand what I meant. -Aabha (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

I notice that you have a lot of fair use images on your user page (according to this report, 229 of them). You should know that, in accordance with Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy, you can't display these images on user pages. I suggest that you either remove them from your user page, or write the link like so: [[:Image:Somefile.jpg]] (note the colon at the front) so as to link to the image without displaying it. --bainer (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea we weren't allowed to display such pics on user pages. I guess that would be my main criticism of Wikipedia - there's so many help pages and guidelines, pointers and projects, policies and preferences, that it can be easy to miss important info. It's a real shame cos it made my life easier and made my user page look nice, but I guess rules is rules. I've removed them as per your suggestion. Gram 11:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sort of legal-technical thing, which I won't explain here, you can read about it at WP:FU. Basically, we can only claim fair use if we are using the images fairly according to the fair use laws, and 99% of the time a use outside the main article space is not legally fair.

If you want to keep them as links (adding a colon at the front), that's fine. And you only have to not display the ones labelled fair use, all others are fine to have on user pages. --bainer (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images: reponse

With all of these images, I'd argue that they are "promotional photos", produced for the purpose of promoting the person or persons. They are being reused here with the sole intention of illustrating the person or persons described in the articles. It is entirely non-commercial useage and the images are of reduced size and quality. In my opinion, the presence of an image vastly improves the quality of an article - pages of text are hardly user friendly, and an image quickly gives a sense of the person, makes the article more readable and real.

Whilst I would agree with ackowledging copyright-holders (if that were your policy), I think it is generally a very difficult task to locate free images, or at least free images of vaguely decent quality, and even harder to get copyright-holders to make the images free; and of course, I am in no position to take such images myself (who is?). Furthermore, what are we supposed to do with the more obscure artists, whose images do not litter the internet? Presumably nothing - we must just leave these articles image-less, or try and argue the toss without really knowing how to do so, in a "fair use replaceable disupted" thing. And may I add, a crappy low quality blurred camera phone photo that someone takes themselves, in the dark at a concert whilst drunk, is no substitute for a decent quality image where you can actually tell who it is in the photgraph.

One annoyance I find in using Wikipedia is that in general there is so much talk, so many pages of crap, instructions all over the place, that it can be hard to find the things that would actually help users. For example, if we cannot use promotional images like these, which are relatively easy to come by, users don't just need you guys to come along and remove images - we need some kind of advice on how to get hold of free images in the first place, how we can approach copyright-holders (if that is what your asking us to do), and indeed whether I'm doing the right thing by responding to these fair-use-replaceable notifications in the way that I am, or not. It would be marvellous to have this advice up front as we join, and easily retrievable whilst we're members - rather than only finding out how to do stuff when someone in the know has put something on a talk page, and you follow the links to other links to other links, until finally you find some hidden information, or even, a bunch of people arguing over policies.

From what I've found from searching Wikipedia is that there doesn't seem to be true consensus on the issue of promotional pics, but if it actually is the site's policy to remove these images, then there is little I can do, and I apologise if I uploaded something that I shouldn't. I'm not being precious about any particluar images - my only intention in becoming a user of this site (and I'm sure the intention of countless others) is to improve the articles on this site, particularly those I know something about or have an interest in. This is about as close to altruism as you'll get on the internet. So you'll understand, I don't want to waste my time here - doing things only for them to be undone, searching endlessly for help when it should be right there, badgering copyright-holders when they have no desire to relinquish their copyrights.

I have put notices on the talk pages of the articles for which you intend to remove images, appealling for help from other users to provide replacement pics, or to dispute the removal of the existing ones. I doubt anyone will repsond to these appeals, and the images will end up being removed. But ultimately, you should realise that someone else will upload other promotional images to these articles - maybe even the same damn ones - and the whole palaver will start again. I don't envy you guys for the task you've undertaken, and feel like you're probably trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, somewhat. Until I hear it's all been sorted out and you have a simple image policy with consensus agreement, and your users are well informed and given assistance where required (cos 99% of the people who use this site don't know what is and what isn't fair use before they join), the only images I'll uploaded will be album covers and DVD covers, which, if I understand correctly, are still pretty safe (do correct me if I'm wrong). Gram 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are reasonable points, but I would argue that you are understating the value we place on redistribution—which is why the GFDL is enshrined in Wikipedia's five pillars—and overstating the difficulty in getting freely-licensed photos. We're so big at this point that we can insist on cooperation from publicists and generally get it; if we say Actor X must give us a GFDL photo or his #2 or #3 Google hit has no photo, Actor X's people will license that photo 19 times out of 20. But this will only work if we really crack down on all the fair use shots. And while yes, there are plenty of blurry concert cellphone photos out there, there are also some pretty good amateur photographers providing good stuff under the CC license: see [1] or [2], for example.

I agree that more needs to be done regarding new user education about issue images, and I can understand frustration of people who upload images in good faith only to have them removed. I'm just another editor, though—I'm not an admin nor do I have any special influence here.—Chowbok ☠ 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that we can "insist" on getting freely licensed images from publicists. Maybe the site as an entity has the gravity to be so insistent and get results, but as a user of a site, amending articles out of nothing more than personal interest and goodwill, I don't believe I have any power to say "you must give us a pic for free". In my attempts so far this has met with zero response (with one exception - images of an album cover and the associated record company's logo). If you're confident the site has sufficient power, perhaps Wikipedia could mass-issue formal requests (or demands) for images? These could be sent to the people who work as publicists for a number of clients, or to record companies with a number of artists on their roster, requesting an image for each of their artists? Alternatively, do you have an official letter that has yielded proven results, in the appropriate formal language, complete with a Wikipedia logo? If we could use something like that we may have some chance. I don't think I can write something myself that would compare with an official site request. Gram 16:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. —Chowbok ☠ 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:VengeanceTrilogy DVD.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:VengeanceTrilogy DVD.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NMajdan•talk 14:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded an image and immediately received a message saying this image has no fair use rationale and is a category for speedy deletion. Why?

I have never received this before when uploading a DVD cover. I correctly marked the image with the DVDCover licensing tag. As far as I was aware, DVD cover images are allowed on Wikipedia.

Gram 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you must specify detailed rationale for using each fair use image. You have one week to do this. If you look at the {{DVDcover}} template, at the bottom you will see it says, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." As long as you add fair use rationale for each article you include that image in, the image will not be deleted.--NMajdan•talk 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forget it. I looked on another user's talk page where you done the same thing and I see that the rules of Wikipedia have changed in the night, and now we have to justify every DVD cover and album cover we upload. I don't quite understand the argument though - I would have thought that the justification / rationale for uploading these types of image would be the same in every single case - namely, low quality, illustrative of the article, blah blah. Personally I think the DVDCover tag should be sufficient, and if it's not, it should be amended to include a good standard piece of rationale itself, because as it stands, I have to make something up myself (or copy it off some other user), and in 6 months time that rationale probably won't conform to your next rule change. I presume I'm (currently) allowed to write a rationale and copy-paste it for every CD and DVD cover image I upload from now on. So why can't you or some other wikipedia crusader make one available that everyone can use? Whatever, I'll write something.

But if it doesn't conform to some standards that I'm not currently aware of please can you let me know rather than just deleting the image in a week's time. Thanks. Gram 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aim (musician) gallery

Hi- there are pages of debate on the subject, but I briefly touch upon some thoughts on the matter here. In short, if you discuss the albums at length in the text (and especially if you talk specifically about the album cover) then a couple of the album covers displayed inline won't hurt. Take a look at some featured articles- that's how I like to get an idea for what seems right. J Milburn 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sammo Hung image

Hi! It looks like the person that tagged the image neglected to drop you a line on your talk page, which really isn't kosher. Unfortunately, the image was a non-free one that was used in the infobox only to depict what Hung looks like; this is fine when in the context of discussing a role, such as with the image lower down that accompanies a description of his portrayal of Wong Fei-Hung in Dragons Forever, using an image of this nature doesn't really fly for the purposes of illustrating the person only (see #12 here). Lastly, about the 48 hours - do the rules suck? Sure. However, it's been codified into WP:CSD, and while I've fought to get the lengths for image deletions relaxed before, it's like going up against a brick wall. I'm sorry, but there's very little I can do on that front. east.718 at 20:44, March 6, 2008