This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Image use policy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
With today being January 2, 2008, I have a pseudo relevant question. Since it is a performance, Would a screenshot of a television program first broadcast prior to Jan 1, 1958 be free-use under a 50-year-from-performance copyright policy? Or is there an overriding policy that messes this up? TheHYPO (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering whether there may be legal problems if some person uploads photos of children claiming some kind of copyright. Should not there be also any proof of parental consent for public release of photos? I know that when my grandchildren take part in some productions (school theatre, jazz dance, etc.), the parents are required to sign release forms that photos of their children may be used for various purposes. `'Míkka>t21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a copyright issue. The subject of a photo does not normally own the copyright, the photographer (or their employer) usually does. We don't require proof of a model's release for any photos, as far as a I know, since we don't use images in a manner requiring a model's release (such as commercial endorsement). The only copyright issue would be if the *photographer* was a minor when they licensed the image, and then later decided they wanted to take it back. Underage contributors retracting a license might be an issue worth discussing, but probably not for this page. --Rob (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
License status of over 150 years old colour plates, reprinted recently
I would like to ask, if the upload of over 150 years old colour plates is allowed, if they are taken from recently published reprints. For example I want to upload zoological colour plates of spiders, originally published 1827, using a reprint of 1988 --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
But this is only true in the US. Here in Britain that law does not apply. For example, I have taken high definition photos of Joseph Wright of Derby paintings which I would like to put in place of existing rather poor ones used on Wikipedia pages, but the existing ones were taken while the paintings were on loan in the US, while mine were taken in Derby museum where they normally live. Odd, isn't it? If someone had taken hi-res photos while they were on loan that would be fine! There are very few high res photos of paintings on the Web, partly for this reason, which seems a pity. --Memestream (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
i hope this is the right page to address this issue, if not, a redirect will be appreciated: i found this picture [[2]] and noticed that Wikipedia's image autoscaling feature made a >600KB scaled down image from a 163KB original and didn't even use the interlace option. i usually wouldn't notice things like that, but this image loaded visibly slow even on a broadband connection - and not everybody has a broadband connection, so it must be worse for many others.
i don't have a problem with pics on wikipedia (though this one wasn't even particularly helpful), but as long as traffic is an issue (for both the user and wikimedia foundation), we can probably do better. so i suggest doing the following:
instead of scaling down to the same format like the original image, try several formats and use the one that yields the smallest file size (maybe combined with the option to deactivate scaling down to .jpg for certain images, if that would degrade the quality too much). i scaled down the image myself (with IrfanView) and got the following results: .gif - 61KB, .jpg - 38KB, .png - 111KB. the .jpg-version was without visible artifacts (unless you zoom in quite deep). and even the .png-version was much smaller than the autoscaled one, so this indicates a bug or especially bad compression in the autoscale feature.
Of course the utility of this improvement depends on cost of CPU Power vs. traffic cost, but a size reduction by factor 15 (autoscaled .png to manually scaled .jpg) may well be worth it. Catskineater (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The key problem is that we don't have any mechanism in place to provide settings other than size to the scaler and noone with a strong enough knowlage of mediawiki has come forward to write one. the scaler setup is optimised for quality rather than size (e.g. it antialiases) and this can sometimes end up producing output larger than the original :(. Plugwash (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The main cause of the size increase is that the scaled version is 16 bits per channel, while the original is 8. This seems like a bug to me, and is something that should be easy to change. --Carnildo (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded photos I have taken myself earlier and had no problems and no comments. Now I have uploaded a couple screenshots taken myself and I have a lot of comments from the robot. I have read so much now, but I'm not able to figure out how to do this right. When I click on edit, it is nothing to edit.
I think there was some trouble at one time with images sized larger than 10,000 by 10,000 pixels. Was it that ImageMagick had trouble working with them? I'm not remembering clearly. Anyway, the photo of the Wii charging station is well within normal limits. See Don't worry about performance. More resolution is almost always desirable. The Wikimedia software downsizes images on the fly to display them in articles. —EncMstr07:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
uploaded pdf of what appears to be unpublished original research
Someone has started a new section, 'Between Malta and Sicily' at Location hypotheses of Atlantis, Now not only is this about a virtually unknown author, it's clearly POV and hype. He's also uploaded what looks like original, unpublished research - File:ATLANTIS.pdf. I've rewritten, deleted, etc. his stuff and it keeps coming back, and at one point he posted as Dougwellera but that was quickly banned. Is Image:ATLANTIS.pdf a legitimate use of the facility? Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
More that one copyright image in article on a film?
Somewhere I got the idea that fair use could be justified to use for a book cover, film poster, album cover, etc. to illustrate the topic of the article. However, I thought any other use of a copy right image, e.g. stills from the film, illustrations from the book etc., could not be justified. However, The Motorcycle Diaries (film) has 3 additional copyright images in addition to the copyright poster.
Could someone explain to me when and when not this justified? Does it all depend on resolution? If the resolution is low enough, any copyright image can be used? I am not clear on this. From my experience, the application of this standard appears arbitrary. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The sourcing requirements on the policy often use "or" when it's correct, but lead to confusion that the uploader may supplier either information whereas that is not the case. For example, "The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" on the IUP implies they could stay "US Census Bureau" which would satisfy the source because they listed the copyright holder, but in reality, it isn't a sufficient sourcing information because one can't verify (easily) the source and copyright information and they should provide a URL to where they got it on the web. The former part really only matters when sourcing from a Book or under fair use (the website taken from wouldn't matter, the copyright holder does). I would like to rewrite and/or clarify the requirement of sourcing information with this information (or if someone else wants to, go ahead). I'm putting it here to get some feedback before making the uncontroversial (in my opinion) edit(s). MECU≈talk22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this is relation to image deletion criteria. I support this change, but only in terms of improving image sourcing, not as a means to allowing easier deletion of images where the paperwork has been incorrectly filled out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made my change. I hope it helps clarify the requirement and think the examples given do just that. MECU≈talk15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Library of Congress image / additional restrictions...
I wanted to use this image in the Spencer Penrose article. I assumed it was ok, since the copyright appears to have expired. However, I clicked on rights and reproductions and it says: If you wish to publish or reproduce the materials in any physical or digital form beyond that permitted by fair use or use them for any commercial purpose, including display or Web page use, you must obtain prior written permission from the Denver Public Library. Do we need to adhere to those restrictions since it was created/published March 1894 according to the LOC page? --MattWright (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As Carnildo says, the link isn't working. When doing Library of Congress (LoC) searches, you get a temporary link from the search results page. To provide a permanent link, you need to provide the Digital ID number. This should be on the page you were looking at, somewhere near the bottom. When uploading the image (either here or at Commons, though preferably at Commons), you can use the {{LOC-image}} template to provide source details and a link. If you have problems doing this, just provide the Digital ID number and someone else will show you how to use the template. If you don't have a Commons account, upload it here and it will eventually be transferred to Commons. If this is a Denver Public Library image, as it seems, then have a look at Category:Denver Public Library images. It depends whether or not it is public domain. If so, no problem. If not, give the details here and we can advise. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As for whether Denver Public Library's claim include public domain pictures, the answer is no. If it is public domain, they can't place restrictions on use of the images. The only question mark over whether the images are public domain is whether they were published before a certain date. If the film for an image in question was only found, restored and developed recently, then the copyright clock would start at that point, depending on whether the rights over the material were correctly passed to Denver Public Library. Ultimately, they aren't providing enough information to determine that, but most images will have been previously published. For example, Image:WSStratton 11008875.jpg, in category Category:Denver Public Library public domain images. So it depends on the picture in question and the photographer/artist (if known). Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. The digital ID is 10000602. Hopefully that works. As mentioned above, it states "created/published March, 1894." but I am not sure if it was truly published then, or only created then. --MattWright (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I came across this image on this page, which is clearly just a zoomed-in image of this work, which appears to be drawn from a work called Hortus Sanitatis by Johannes de Cuba that was published 21 October 1497 in Strasbourg. The super-quality dkimages.com is oddly tagged copyright. Is this a public domain for our purposes or fair use? I'm baffled how a high-quality scan of a 511 year old wood carving can be copyrighted. Lawrence § t/e21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If it is an exact mechanical scan of a two-dimensional artwork that is in the public domain (as this 1497 artwork certainly is), then the scan is also public domain, no matter how high the resolution. If you log into their website and use the images, you may be breaching their terms and conditions for using that website (similar to the cases of people taking photos in a museum that doesn't allow photography), but that it a matter between you and them, and nothing to do with Wikipedia. The copyright claim by Dorling Kindersley is standard stuff. Many commercial organisations slap a copyright claim on old public domain material they have - it doesn't mean they are right to do so. For a second opinion, try WP:MCQ. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do, I'll cross-post to MCQ. I had a feeling the copyrighting claim was bunk, but wanted a sanity check. I obviously don't have access to an original volume to scan, and wanted to grab that higher-quality scan for Toadstone. Lawrence § t/e22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you should seek a wider input for consensus about the image. A single instance of application of this policy isn't really valid for discussion here. Perhaps post at the village pump or try WP:3O or the WP:DR process. MECU≈talk22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Rewriting the "Free licenses" section
I just noticed that the "Free licenses" section has not been updated since the Foundation enacted its resolution on licensing and copyright policy in March 2007. It still references an old e-mail by Jimbo, and in particular makes no mention of the fact that licenses which do not permit derivative works are not considered free. (This came up as I was clarifying the text of {{FairusewithND}} and looking for the appropriate policy page to link to.)
I'd like to propose that the current text of the section be replaced with something based on commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, which (though the layout could use some improvement) makes all the relevant points and explicitly references the Foundation policy. Any comments or objections? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Images of people where copyright is owned but not self-created
I have had difficulty uploading images of people and granting free use in the public domain because I always seem to have to tick a box that says 'I created the image myself'. Many images of famous people have been inherited by family members, and presumably the copyright is inherited too. Am I correct in thinking there is no provision for simply saying 'I own the copyright and grant free use', and should this not be provided for. It seems odd that a statement 'I created the image' is taken on trust, even from anonymous editors, but ownership of copyright by inheritance or gift is not dealt with similarly. In the limit it could be argued in some cases that the person holding the camera at the time actually owned copyright, and that this passed down differently to the actual image ownership. Unless the images are valuable, in which case the matter is likely to have been sorted out, there seems little point in bothering about the fact that, for example, my brother held the camera when a particular photo of my school was taken, of which I own the transparency. What do others think of that, and is there an official position? --Memestream (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You mention several different issues.
I think that in the U.S. the copyright is generally owned by the photographer and then by his estate; officially there is someone in charge of the property of the deceased. The rights to use the photograph might not be under the control of the person holding the photograph.
When uploading old photographs whose copyright have expired, the upload forms seem to be not allowing specification of some such situations although there are copyright templates for expired PD items.
The person who took the photograph owns the copyright (under current law), not the person holding the negative.
Yes, we seem to be in agreement. I suggest that after clicking on 'upload file' a simple tick option should appear saying "I believe I own the copyright, and I grant free use in the public domain/grant use under GFDL license". Is the GFDL license really appropriate to photos though; this seems unclear from what I read, as it is primarily for software and is complicated by stating a certain number of copies. What can I do to put a photo in the public domain but subject to acknowledgement of me as source? As for the person who took the photo owning copyright, that is what I would assume in principle, but in practise it is surely unsupportable as cameras do not record who was holding the camera! In practice I suggest that it is reasonable to assume that the person owning the film also owns copyright, provided there is no reason to believe otherwise (hence my use of the word 'believe' above). Where someone who took a photo but does not own the film wishes to claim copyright, I suggest that unless the owner of the film agrees then he has no claim in practise unless supported by a court decision, as he can provide no simple proof. --Memestream (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Responding to the question about the applicability of GFDL to photographs (or images in general): No, it isn't, unless you want to hobble the picture with restrictions that (if strictly enforceable) all but amount to a Wikipedia-only (or, rather, use as part of a larger GFDL work only) license. And it's not really at all clear whether Wikipedia itself is really strictly complying with the letter of the GFDL. For practical use with photographs, I'd recommend the Creative Commons Attribution ({{cc-by-3.0}}) or Attribution-ShareAlike ({{cc-by-sa-3.0}}) licenses. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If the person who took the photograph owns the copyright, does that mean if I ask someone to take a picture using my camera, that person owns the copyright? Or would it be considered that the person is taking the picture under my direction, acting as my agent, and therefore I own the copyright? EricJamesStone (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Under a strict reading of the law, that's an incredibly messy situation. In practice, you can act as if you clearly own the copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Images: Free use or GFDL?
To sum up, the significant facts that seem to have come out of the above are that if we grant free use we effectively give up everything, though we might be able to still insist on being credited. But if we use the GFDL licence then we ensure that any commercial user has to make the whole of his work which incorporates our image available under GFDL, which is a cost to him, and a payoff for us. Is that right? If so, perhaps the desirability of GFDL for images should be made clearer. --Memestream22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. The GFDL would not possibly hold up in a court of law under such circumstances. Use of a GFDL'd image in a work would not make the entire work GFDL. If somebody publishes a picture in a newspaper, the newspaper would not be free for anybody to use.
Actually, GFDL has never been tested in court, so...unless you are a JD or a elite member of the bar, ( which I asked two JDs and Judge Robert Keeton, last January about it. He has since DIED. ) I would not trust an off the cuff judgement. Artoftransformation (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
But, Simply put, GFDL is an attempt to extend into documents and images the policies of Free Software, as: You can use it, but others have the RIGHT to the source FREE. ( Read up on RMS, and GNU, and the GPL. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The GFDLis very restictive when it comes to non-GFDL commercial reproduction and basically makes use in a typical magazine or book unfeasible. If Wikipedia were ever commercially printed, it would be under the GFDL, so there's no problem licensing images that way here. The post above claiming "use of a GFDL'd image in a work would not make the entire work GFDL" is pure obfuscation. From the GFDL article:
The GNU FDL requires that licensees, when printing a document covered by the license, must also include "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document". This means that if a licensee prints out a copy of an article whose text is covered under the GNU FDL, he or she must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself. Worse, the same is required for the standalone use of just one (for example, Wikipedia) image.
In other words, unless the publication is also licensed under GFDL, or it reproduces every page of license in full, it will be in breach of the GFDL copyleft. It might, I think, make an image difficult to port to some other wikimedia projects, although AFAIK this isn't an issue uploading images to commons. Why isn't this more commonly-known? I'm really not sure, but it may be due to the foundation's wish to have stuff dual-licensed, which provides the most flexible, non-PD commercial free terms, allowing licensees to choose the most appropriate license. It does, of course, make non-free commercial reproduction quite a bit easier, which is the biggest single reason stopping professional and copyright-conscious photographers from uploading their work here, IMO. I'd certainly be interested in hearing a wider discussion on the issue. --mikaultalk12:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Can this be done in articles?
Can you have two pictures of two ends of something, like this?
I think (if this technique were EVER needed) it would improve the flow of the article. However, I am worried it would appear differently for every browser and cause issues. Would it?
Thanks. CompuHacker (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The above combination of 2 pictures and text is actually all one big .png image. Having text in images is deprecated because it is inefficient and makes an image unsuitable for wikipedias in other languages. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, no, you're looking too closely. Presume that the image is of an article. The idea is that you can have article text, and two images representing one object on either side. They are aligned in a way that you can clearly see that they are the same object, yet there is nothing but text in the middle. Please bear with me and try to understand :(. CompuHacker (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to make a special composite image in order to get 2 images side by side when you can use HTML to construct a single-row table like this:
There's no need for a table, just use
[[Image:Simple shapes example.png|left|thumbnail|250px|Picture on the left]]
[[Image:Simple shapes example.png|right|thumbnail|250px|Picture on the right]].
See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Carnildo's "Can't be done reliably" is also true: If the browser window is narrow, the formatting will change. —AlanBarrett16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Reducing the width of the IE browser window causes the horizontal scroll bar to appear. It functions reasonably with my table solution whereas the position of the text "There's no need for a table, just use" relative to the thumbnails in AlanBarrett's method changes. More complicated things can also be done with browser-friendly HTML table tags though I don't know for what "Important physics related article" any of this is useful. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Facebook Inquiry
This may have been addressed already though I could not find it in a google search of Wikipedia or in any of the archives. It's an inquiry into the claim about images on Facebook uploaded to public areas such as groups and publicly accessible photo albums are allowed to be uploaded on to Wikipedia. Do these images become public domain as uploading these images you release your rights to facebook, and potentially any other third parties that have access to them via your privacy settings you choose?
When you use Facebook, certain information you post or share with third parties (e.g., a friend or someone in your network), such as personal information, comments, messages, photos, videos, Marketplace listings or other information, may be shared with other users in accordance with the privacy settings you select. All such sharing of information is done at your own risk. Please keep in mind that if you disclose personal information in your profile or when posting comments, messages, photos, videos, Marketplace listings or other items , this information may become publicly available.
Thanks for any insights people may have. This is in relation to landscape images of public landmarks. Mkdwtalk05:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
On that note, I've been trying to clarify: let's say someone has uploaded a picture of several people. When requesting permission to use that picture, do you contact the author only or each person in the picture? Corsulian (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
For use on Wikipedia, you need to contact the copyright holder (who is usually the creator of the picture). Make sure you're asking for the picture to be released under a free license, because simple permission to use the image on Wikipedia isn't good enough. --Carnildo (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Image licensing question
There's a thread at Deletion Review at the moment - here. A photographer had uploaded images to flickr, initially under a CC licence. She subsequently decided to change the image licence and removed the CC licencing, but by then someone had already taken the images and uploaded them to Wikipedia. What is the status of these images? My first impression would be to leave them deleted, but I would appreciate some people knowlegable in image policy chipping in on this, either here or on the DRV thread. Thanks. Neıl☎10:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy on "photo galleries" is unclear and difficult to interpret. Some users are misinterpreting it to mean "all photo galleries are bad regardless" of location, context or format. My understanding is that in-article options 1-3 are currently acceptable, but that separate pages consisting solely of images and captions ("namespace galleries") are discouraged. Can someone confirm this and/or rewrite the policy so that it is less confusing, and add some rationale so that we can understand why the policy exists. Currently the policy is causing conflict and misunderstanding. Specifically, please replace the obscure term "namespace galleries" with some basic English.Rep07 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Second this! It has come up in an FAC I'm involved in. From that I can see from the few mentions I've found, it seems that the policy about galleries is not about the tag or using the tag, but about "galleries" that are pages that consist entirely of images. Some of my findings follow:
Galleries are pages which contain large numbers of media content—almost always, images—with little or no supporting text. Large numbers of galleries have been deleted from Wikipedia
And further in it defines it:
gallery:
Any page or page section which consists entirely or almost entirely of images or thumbs. Note: In fact most references to "galleries" in the text below clearly refer to "gallery pages" only.
Basically both image use and MoS appear to be talking about "gallery pages" and not "using gallery tags in a page with other content. Can someone clarify this for me? I'd hate to fail an FA on this! Maury (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the lack of comment on this, I have to assume everyone agrees! So then can I go ahead and add the clarifying text to the guideline? Maury (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I have tracked down how all of this started, it's in this edit. As you can see, the article clearly talked about "pages consisting mostly of images" which they called "montages". However, the term "montage" was objected to, so they changed it to "gallery", certainly a more confusing term. I am going to add clarifying text now. Maury (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This does require further discussion, and I agree with Rep07 that the section on photo galleries needs clarification/rewriting. I also agree that "all photo galleries are bad regardless of location, context or format" is not the intent. However, I do not agree that all galleries, other than pages consisting mostly of articles, are acceptable. There are a number of scenarios where a gallery is a really useful tool to help illustrate an article -- there are other uses of galleries where it simply represents a collection of images, and in those latter instances the galleries ought to be replaced by a Commons link. This is an important issue - let's get it right. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to elaborate a bit, I think you've relied too much on a failed guideline proposal, that did not generate enough discussion or support, for your suggested definition of gallery, and you are reading too much into the earlier montage/gallery wording discussion. Having said that, can we not come up with wording that makes clear that not all galleries are bad, while at the same time not gutting this policy and suggesting that all galleries are fine (which I know a lot of people would have a problem with). Maury, what was the FA you were working on, and how did that play out? Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The FA was for National Ignition Facility. There is a small selection of images at the bottom in a gallery tag, and the reviewers claimed that galleries should not be used. Trying to understand why that was, I came to the conclusion above, which I still hold, that the wording was introduced to the Image Use Policy to address "pages of mostly images". The confusing wording led people to believe they were arguing against "the gallery tag", which is something else entirely. Maury (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that the clarifying text I added to the Galleries section had been removed.
The policy, as it is currently written, is extremely misleading. The section on galleries is not talking about the gallery tag, it is talking about "montages". If you want proof, simply consider the fact that the policy was originally added in this diff on 15 April 2003. Why is that interesting? Because the gallery tag was added in mediawiki 1.4, which was released in February 2005.
Clearly the text in question is not talking about the gallery tag; it predates it by two years and is substantally similar to the current version. All that has changed since then is the addition of what amounts to a discussion in the policy text, and the changing of the term from "montage" to "gallery", which has obviously confused matters. Yes, there has been considerable conversation about whether or not montages should be used, but there has not been, from what I can see, a single conversation about the gallery tag.
Skeezix1000, I'm all for adding additional guidance to tell users how to best use the gallery tag. However, that would be new material that the current policy does not cover. If you wish to lead discussion on this, by all means, start it up. But the clarifying text is going back in in the meantime.
I am sorry, but you need consensus for the text you propose to add. You are making a very significant change, and whether you feel it is consistent with past history is really a matter of opinion. In making your change to the text, you relied on a failed guideline proposal, and now you seem to be making a historical distinction between montages and galleries that is not very convincing, and certainly does not support your contention that the policy only applied to full gallery pages. I have sent you links to past policy discussions showing that the issue is far more complicated than you make it seem. In any event, the history is of minor relevance, because the policy is often used, as you even noted above, for the proposition that galleries (i.e. the gallery tag) are not appropriate in all situations. Your edits effectively gut the policy, and mean that galleries are appropriate at almost all times. If you want to make a significant change to the policy, feel free, but you need first to establish a consensus today. I am happy to work on a policy with you, and propose here it on the talk page. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The interpretation on the non-free content policy pages has generally been that a gallery is a clustered collection of images. "If it smells like a gallery, it's a gallery" ... Note that galleries can exist inside articles. *MOST* uses of the gallery tag are galleries, but you can easily create a gallery without one.--Gmaxwell (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in a dispute over a photo gallery I added to the William Lyon Mackenzie King article. I think that, as currently written, the Image Use Policy doesn't actually clarify whether such galleries are acceptable/desirable, since it basically says "here are 4 possible standards, but none have yet been adopted."
I'd like to argue in favor of Gallery inclusion in articles which are not MERE galleries. I think that the article I added to the William Lyon Mackenzie King page adds considerably to the article in that it gives the reader a greater visual sense of the man's career. I also don't think that it's comparable to a Wikimedia Commons gallery: a Commons gallery potentially has hundreds, or even thousands of images (especially for an important figure like King). A gallery on a Wikipedia page, on the other hand, can select out the best, and most representative images about a topic.
In clarifying our policy, I would also propose the following: I think that if we allow galleries, they should have a maximum size. Now, I have 80 images of King up, which I would argue is justified because he was prime minister for a staggering SIX TERMS. So, maybe a max of 100 images is appropriate - or maybe a lower # like 50 is appropriate - I think this is worthy of discussion.
I would also say that, if we ultimately decide that Galleries aren't allowed, we should come up with some procedure by which Galleries could be transferred to Commons instead of simply deleted (since any gallery someone took the time to create would probably have some merit and should be preserved somewhere.
I agree and disagree with you. I disagree with you as to the clarity of the policy. It is very clear -- in general, galleries are discouraged. There is odd wording at the beginning, generally reflective of a series of failed discussions in the past that had attempted to come up with more detailed criteria as to when the use of a gallery would be appropriate. However, the policy itself is otherwise straightforward -- there must be a good reason to have a gallery in the article namespace, otherwise use the Commons.
I also disagree with your comments on the Commons. Just because the WLM King category or gallery on the Commons contains hundreds of images does not mean that a more specific and separate Commons gallery cannot be created that provides a visual chronology of the man's life, using the best images. And we can include special links to that gallery within the WLM King article, in addition to the standard Commons link at the bottom. The Commons is very flexible, and would allow you to do exactly what you are wanting to do. The additional benefit of the Commons is that it is a shared resource among the various Wikipedia projects, allowing other projects to link to the chronology.
My final area of diagreement (sorry, I will get to the agreement part in a moment) is in respect of the number of images. I am sorry, but I think an 80-image gallery on Wikipedia is just preposterous. No wonder you are getting push back over at that article. Having said that, however, I think the size of a gallery (if it is agreed that special circumstances warrant a gallery) is an issue best left to be resolved in the context of each article - not here. Any limits we came up with for this policy would be, at best, arbitrary, and would likely just be instruction creep. The number of images depends on the purpose of the gallery and the nature of the article, and it would be very difficult to come up with a general guideline that would be useful or helpful.
As for my agreement, I do agree with you that there are instances where galleries are appropriately used in Wikipedia articles -- typically, such galleries are not just collections of images, but rather describe or show something that can better be done by images rather than words. For example, an article on a painter could contain a gallery of 6 images which show the progression of that artist's style over the years. In such cases, the purpose of the gallery should be clear (e.g. the heading should read "Evolution of X's style" rather than simply "Gallery"), and the gallery images should typically accompanied by detailed captions to assist the reader in understanding what is being shown. On the other hand, an article on a city that contains a gallery consisting of numerous snapshots of that city's landmarks probably does not constitute an appropriate use of a gallery in Wikipedia. That latter gallery should be transfered to the Commons.
I do not know if your gallery over at the WLM King article is appropriate or not. The policy, as it is currently worded, would generally seem to permit what it is you want to do (although maybe not 80 images), because what you are proposing is not merely a random collection of images. However, I think that's a discussion best left for the talk page of that article. Mind you, I do think here that we can amend the policy to make it a little less confusing at the beginning. I would propose that we eliminate the dated references to the four approaches and to the "no decision has been made yet" -- those discussions have since occurred, and no consensus on more precise criteria was ever reached. And we probably never will agree on more precise criteria because ultimately I believe that these decisions (as to whether there is some justification or purpose for a gallery beyond what can be done on the Commons) are best made in the context of each individual article. I would leave the first para. quite simple -- "In general, galleries are discouraged in main article namespace; historically, such galleries are more often deleted than kept. As a result, there are relatively few namespace galleries in the encyclopedia and good reasons must be given for creating them. Consider instead linking to a gallery on Wikimedia Commons – see this page for more details. The determination of whether a gallery should be incorporated into an article or created at the Commons should be discussed on the article's talk page." Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't really understand the argument for NOT having image galleries. To my mind, one of the great things about Wikipedia - as opposed to a paper encyclopedia - is that you CAN include a lot of content like this, making this material more accessible and adding far more visual depth to an article than would be possible in more traditional media. Why is it "preposterous" to include 80 images? To my mind, it would be awesome if every Wikipedia page about a world leader had 80 images. Why not???
Maybe I'm just not as involved in the intricacies of the Wiki-universe to understand, but why is a gallery on Wikimedia Commons better than a gallery on a Wikipedia page? Why insist on splitting up the article and the visuals when Wikipedia already provides a place where the two can be integrated? I don't see what we gain by splitting the two? Adam_sk (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies and guidelines are clear -- just because we can add something to an article doesn't necessarily mean that we should. Even WP:NOTPAPER, which you cite above, notes that there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done -- there is a feasible limit for article size, and WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion. Good articles maintain a proper balance between prose and images; in fact, the perfect article should include informative, relevant images "that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it." The clear and unanimous feedback you have received over at the William Lyon Mackenzie King article is that your 75+ image gallery was excessive and did not maintain that proper balance.
As for your comments on splitting, we routinely split large articles and create sub-articles where appropriate, and leaving certain galleries to the Commons is no different. It provides a better balanced, more appropriately sized article, and (just like any subarticle) the gallery is merely a wikilink away. Moreover, the significant benefit of the Commons is that it allows the gallery to become the joint effort of various Wikiprojects. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion on breast is about the Gallery. In that case an earlier consensus was formed that the Gallery was desirable, and that many images offered valuable perspective on the topic. Recently an editor came along and wiped out the gallery without comment or discussion. (apparently his agendum was censorship under the guise of cleanup) After reinstatament, and now discussion and agreement by most editors that the Gallery is too large and needs to be gone through and cleaned up, editor Star Trek Man has supported a position of wiping out the whole Gallery. His opinion is his right. Indeed, like most editors I think the prevailing opinion, including my own is that just because an image can be added to the article does not mean that that it should be. Hence the discussion on how best to clean up the images in the Gallery -- which ones we can add into various sections in the article, and what new sections don't exist but obviously are needed based on a good image in the Gallery indicating that a sub topic is not addressed. In any event, entire removal of the Gallery in the midst of ongoing discussions by other editors is disruptive and unwelcome, as well as being contrary to past efforts that resulted in consensus with the Gallery being desired.
I respect the opinion of a valuable editor like Star Trek Man, but in this specific case I don't find disrupting the ongoing discussion to be constructive. Atom (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Image content guidelines
Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines for an attempt to start a guideline to consolidate and improve our guidelines on image content on Wikipedia. Please discuss at the talk page and help improve this new guideline, which was inspired by this and other recent image discussion controversies. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No-deriative allowance?
There's a bit of a discussion going on concerning Troy McClure's potential main-paging; the only free image we can find of Phil Hartman is on a Creative Commons licence that does not allow for derivative works.
I personally am of the opinion that the image could still be OK for the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps just with some sort of special template and a "Do not move to Commons" warning. What say you? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am seeking input, and hopefully the determination of some guidance, on whether the image of a military decoration should be used on Wikipedia in a context other than the military decoration itself.
The prompt for this issue is that I discovered Image:Air Force Good Conduct Medal ribbon.png used as part of a one-of-a-kind, custom Wikipedia award given to User:BetacommandBot. I removed the image, saying it wasn't an appropriate use of the image. My edit was reverted by Betacommand in this edit. I also placed a notice on the awarding editor's talk page (User talk:Rolypolyman) asking that editor to please consider picking a different image as part of the award. Another editor started a discussion on the editor assistance page on this topic, with people saying the discussion should be moved to a policy-making area.
Relavent U.S. laws & regulations: As with anything produced by the U.S. federal government, the images for military decorations are completely in the public domain. There are still federal laws & regulations which govern the use of military decorations, including 18 U.S.C.§ 704 and, for the Army (and sometimes Air Force), 32 CFR Part 507. As part of this second reference, Part 507.12(c) states that "ribbons... or colorable imitations thereof, will not be used by any organization, society, or other group of persons without prior approval in writing" of the military. It would be my interpretation that displaying the image in its original context would not be "use", but that displaying the image as part of a new award would be "use" on the part of Wikipedia.
Proposed policy: Prohibit the use of images of actual military decorations on Wikipedia used in a context other than as part of the actual military decoration they are associated with. Affect of policy: This would prohibit military decoration images being incorporated into Wikipedia awards as was done in this case.
Why I'm proposing this: (Some people are concerned about why a person proposes what they propose.) I am proposing this because I saw the image where it was and in the context it was used in. I recognized that the award looked like a military decoration, and this was confirmed when I clicked the image. I didn't like the idea of such an image being used in a way it was not intended to be used. When I discussed its removal, everyone seemed in agreement that it is an inappropriate use of the image, but nobody was aware of any law or Wikipedia policy violated. I would like to see that Wikipedia policy change to include what most people would think appropriate and what may be required by U.S. law/regulation.
I fully support restricting the use of any military (USA and all countries and awards) award as part or the derivative of any Wikipedia based award. To further this, I believe any user should still be allowed to use the awards on their userpage as a self-awarding, if they wish to, in such case as they may have actually received the award and wish to share that information here. The general thought behind my support in restricting is that other usage would cheapen the true aspect and meaning of the award. Copyright aside -- yes, we can legally do it perhaps -- but should we? The barnstar is the adopted standard Wikipedia award, do we need anything else? Those that serve and do such great things to earn the real awards don't need them cheapened by Wikipedia. I would be fine with a "Wikipedia Good Conduct" award, but does is need to copy a real award? Why can't it just have the barnstar format? MECU≈talk22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are some legalities involved with use of U.S. military awards relating to the Stolen Valor Act. I'm not sure if any of them apply here on Wikipedia, however - IANAL and all that. Kellyhi!22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If we can conclusively say this is illegal, it should be policy. If not, it should be a guideline at WP:AWARDS never to repurpose images of actual military or civilian medals for WP awards. There is absolutely no reason to steal an image of a meaningful award, the reuse of which is probably offensive to those who were awarded the actual medal, when it's so easy to create a unique image. – flamurai (t) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be sufficient to place the {{Insignia}} restriction tag on those images, or do we need a special-purpose restriction tag for these images? Kellyhi!05:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't know such a template existed. If its use is accepted as policy, I think that should be fine. A few questions: Can an image have two templates? Also, all U.S. gov't awards will fall under commons:Template:PD-USGov-Award and commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military award... Could the contents of {{Insignia}} be placed in these two templates (many more for other countries), or can a template be placed in a template? Thanks. ~PescoTalk11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, what limitations on use on Wikipedia should using the {{Insignia}} impose? Will it be understood that images tagged like this won't be used as part of Wikipedia awards? ~PescoTalk11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Images can have two or more templates, usually when uploading fair use images we apply all relevent templates to the work in question, so I don;t see why we couldn't have two or more for a pd-image. One thing that somewhat concerns me though is that those of us who would award military type images for whatever reason typically do so becuase of the status of the award: for example, those who have been harrassed incensently or have fallen victim to vandal attack repeatedly are occasionally given purple hearts as for thier status within the U.S. military. Now it wouldn't be two hard to replace the image, but do the law(s) surrounding military decorations also prohibite the use of award names under the circumstances you have provided? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Just did a bit of searching... I think you mean Template:The Purple Heart Barnstar? Can't say I'm completely keen on the name just on the principle of it, but I don't think any laws or regulations would address as they might when using the image of an actual military decoration and calling it something else. ~PescoTalk04:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I picked purple heart becuase its meaning was obvious, but I was thinking about what may/could happen if some made a "wikipedia medal of honor" or a "contributer good conduct medal" or a "project coordinator unit citation" or something along those lines. Obviously the use of any associated image for such awards would be controversial if the borrowed directly from the current awards (a medal of honor, a good conduct medal, a unit citation, etc) but I wanted to make sure that the use of such names would get anyone in trouble. From the sound of it they wouldn't (legally) but it would be distatefull. Is that more or less correct? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt it's illegal, and any regulation that would seem to say that is probably unconstitutional if it were applied that way. If it were illegal the worst we could expect is a polite request by the US government to remove the image - they're not going to prosecute or sue. Unless it's blatantly obvious or there's a serious risk of financial harm to the Foundation questions like that are best left to Wikimedia's legal counsel, because if we jump the gun and act on mere speculation it has a chilling effect. Absent any illegality I don't know of anything in image use policy to prohibit it, but there could be. However, I would think that a sense of decorum, decency, and respect suggest that we not repurpose military medals for use here, particularly not for ironic or controversial purposes (e.g. praise or a subtle dig at Betacommand by giving BetacommandBot a medal). Wikidemo (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your comments. Just to clarify, by mentioning possibly relevant laws/regulations I was only trying to show that there might be references that speak to the issue of whether images of military decorations have any kind of protection, not assert that what is going is "illegal" in any sense. Like you say, I am hoping that out of respect and recognition that these images do have some kind of special status (even if they are in the public domain). I'm hoping that, to prevent examples such as the one you mentioned, Wikipedia image use policy can gently state that the use of these images is limited to use in reference to the actual military award. ~PescoTalk03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The above doesn't go for appropriating text as long as it isn't too close to the military use. Phrases like "good conduct medal", "hazardous duty pay", etc., have made it to common use in English. I think "purple heart" is a fence-sitter. Inasmuch as it is an exaggeration (being a victim of wikidrama is only marginally comparable to sustaining an injury in military combat) many uses for it might seem a little ironic. Wikidemo (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think unless someone is claiming (say, on their userpage) to be a recipient of an actual Purple Heart or other military decoration, there is no violation of the law. Kellyhi!14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asserting any protected status for text that has similar military awards, such as generic "good conduct awards" or "Legion of...", etc. Just as an aside, there are plenty of people that use military decoration imagery to state on their user pages that they have been awarded a particular award. I don't think there's a problem with this. If a person is lying, the fault is theirs, not Wikipedia's. I just think Wikipedia can, through image use policy, limit military award images to use in reference to the actual military award. ~PescoTalk03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion
I was wondering if this RfC could be brought to a close. To sum up, there have been two issues at hand: 1) Are using these images for other uses appropriate, and 2) is this use prohibited by law/regulation? While it could be asserted that in various countries using the images for other uses is not allowed, I feel Wikipedia, as policy, should not allow other use purely on principle & sense of appropriateness.
That said, I propose the inclusion of {{Insignia}} within military decoration image templates such as commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military award. I propose that images portraying military decoration should only be displayed on Wikipedia when used in the context of the actual decoration and not for any fictional or Wikipedia award purpose. Thoughts? ~PescoSay it!01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is much made about nothing. I don't think that we need policy on this, but I would support a petition to Bettacommand to remove that graphic from his award as disrespectful. It is very ironic that Betta is so anal about proper releases etc. for images, but shows no respect for those who have earned this ribbon legitimately. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge the consensus that there's no desire to change image use policy for images associated with actual military decorations. I also appreciate the sentiments of those that disagree with the use of these images out of a "sense of decorum, decency, and respect." Personally, I find it unfortunate that there's more interest to prevent misuse of a music album cover or a TV screenshot than a military award image. Thank you. ~PescoSo say•we all03:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What IS the use of images in the "Image Use Policy"?
I've tried reading this, and it's clear as mud to me. The article on Image Use Policy seems mostly about what images can be uploaded. All I want to know is
1. May I use any image that I find on the Wikimedia Commons in an article on Wikipedia?
and
2. If I may not use images that I find on the Wikimedia Commons in an article on Wikipedia, what images can I use?
It depends on the license of the image and the article it's being used in. For example, as far as I know, a corporate logo may be used in the article about that company. A TV-show main title screen may be used in the article about that TV show. Images that have no copyright claimed or are public domain may be used pretty much freely in Wikipedia. If you have questions about any specific images & articles, feel free to ask. ~PescoSay it!01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the answer above applies to fair use images, which won't be found on Commons anyway, but must be restricted to wikipedia. The simple answer is that all images on the Commons may be freely used in any wikipedia article, depending on the relevance and appropriateness of the image to the topic, of course. That assumes that the image has been uploaded correctly and with an accurate permissions licence to Commons in the first place, although that is not really your problem. If you do have doubts when looking at an image, notify a Commons admin or even nominate it for deletion there. Ty01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! That is the information I needed. Maybe it could be stated like that on the Image Use Policy page for others who are not uploading images, just trying to illustrate their Wikipedia article? --Hafwyn (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight.
needs to be changed to
Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted quickly unless a valid fair use rationale is provided and the image is actually used as described in the fair use rationale.see revised version below
in order to comply with actual practice.
I'm not going to go around changing policies without discussing it first, so are there any comments before I make this change to the documented policy?davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please include language to suggest that honest mistakes leaving out some minor detail should not result in speedy deletes. There needs to be some sort of dividing line between clear copyvio and honest mistake, and that if the reviewer cannot tell the difference at first glance they should always assume the later. Lots of images are being deleted from the wiki not because there is anything wrong with them, but because the uploader didn't follow the unclear-and-ever-expanding instructions to the letter. Maury (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Revised version - how is this?
Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted quickly unless a valid fair use rationale is provided and the image is actually used as described in the fair use rationale. If the image is used in an article but is missing a fair-use rationale, and such a fair-use rationale can be easily provided, editors and administrators are encouraged to provide such a rationale rather than deleting the image to make a point.
NATO has a photograph collection (http://www.nato.int/multi/photos.html) for which it hold copyright. NATO permits the images to be reused under certain coditions (http://www.nato.int/multi/conditions-e.html). In particular they state that "Material is provided, free of charge, for use only in objective and balanced documentaries/articles, even though at times the end products may be critical of NATO". Clearly they are not public domain. Can I use them in the Wikipedia? If so what licencing templates would be required and would, given NATO's conditions, they need to be low resolution, not freely replaceable etc? Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Some editors are using the statement "In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences" as a reason to strip all sizing off images using the "thumb" claiming that thumbnail images should never have a size set. This is done without regard for whether the images can be properly displayed at the 180px default (which is what the vast majority of readers will see, such as images with unusual dimensions or images with text. I've read some of the older discussions noting how disputed this is, and I'm wondering if this is some hard fast rule that must always be followed, or if common sense prevails. From my understanding, the answer is no. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size does not specifically forbid image sizes ever being set, and further down it notes what to do "where size forcing is appropriate." MOS:IMAGES notes that lead images should be atleast 300 pixels wide. Most infobox images default to 250px. A vast number of featured articles and lists includes hard sized images as lead images. The images are not thumbnails, they are tagged thumb to put a caption on them and allow resizing down to a more suitable article size. "Frame" cannot be used as it will not allow one to specific the size of the image. WP:PIC also allows for resizing, including telling you how to do it and noting specifically that you must use thumb to set a specific image size. So is this stripping of sizes condoned or appropriate? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems that around 6 months ago, an editor took it upon themselves to re-word the MoS to change from the existing established consensus position that specifying the image size is "not recommended" to "not necessary". I don't know how this slipped through unnoticed but it is now under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Watering down of non-use of pixel sizes. The previous consensus position was that we should not be forcibly over-riding user preferences unless there is a specific reason for it. The MoS outlined the most common situations where use of a fixed size was appropriate, and the discussion underway there is partly about getting the MoS, Image use policy and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#New syntax for images (notes under sizepx) to be consistent. Either we reaffirm the existing consensus position or we say "screw users who want to set their preference bigger, we're going to go back to forcing the images to be small" and re-word the pages. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I forgot to answer your question. The answer is, unless there is a justifiable reason to retain the fixed pixel size (such as those outlined in WP:MOS#Images), it is appropriate to remove it in accordance with WP:EIS. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to put it that way one could characterize your position as "screw the 99.9% of readers who are not logged-in experienced Wikipedians who have changed their preference settings". Image size settings are widely used, even in featured articles. The prohibition you are arguing in favor of doesn't reflect any working consensus. Haukur (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Crediting CC-BY
Do CC-BY images need to bear a credit line in every article they appear in, or is the credit on the image description sufficient? – flamurai (t) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested that I post this question here. I have an old postcard with a photograph of a lighthouse that was seriously damaged (a corner of the brick structure) and I would like to upload the image. However, I do NOT know how old the photo is and do not want to violate copyright laws. Any comments or suggestions? --Crimson Red Fox (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you know when the postcard was first published? Do you know the name of the photographer? If not you probably won't be able to satisfy image policy. Haukur (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Image rights questions
Hi, I'm not sure where to ask this, so I'm starting here:
I've been contacted by an advertising agency that wants to use one of my photographs that is posted on Wikipedia with a GFDL license. They are aware that they can use the photograph under the terms of GFDL, but they would like to use it without having to post all that text, and they would like the photo at higher resolution than can be found in Wikipedia. Here are my questions:
I haven't found anything in the GFDL license that restricts me from licensing a different version of the photograph for commercial purposes, so I assume it is alright. Is this correct?
I will make it clear in the agreement with the advertising agency that their use is non-exclusive, and that a GFDL version will continue to exist at Wikipedia. Are there any other considerations I should be thinking about?
As this ad will be seen by thousands of people (it will be in a newspaper insert), do I need to do anything to keep the Wikipedia image from being challenged as a copyright violation? Should I note on the image page that commercial rights to a higher resolution version that was never posted on Wikipedia were not GFDL?
Is there anything else I should be thinking about?
Does anyone have an idea what I should charge for the rights? (I'm planning to donate the proceeds to Wikimedia) E-mail me if you have advice about this question.
2. The 2 points you mention are important to have stated. Specify as rigorously as you can what the agency can do with your image in return for their payment. Say that non-exclusive use means that you keep the image as your property.
3. No. No.
4. I think not. But look very carefully at whatever terms the agency offer you and don't accept anything you don't understand. Is this to be a one-time usage?
5. Uh, I'd say whatever the market will bear. I have no idea.
What is the policy regarding copyrighted images of living people? I always thought that they shouldn't be used because a free-use image is theoretically available, even if it's not available yet. Are such images which are used in articles a cat for speedy delete, or is there something else which should be done. I have one particular image in mind and there isn't a rationale for it, although the image was uploaded two days before the May 6, 2006 (is that the right date?) cut-off date when copyrighted images required one. It's currently used in an article of the guy, and a list of head coaches (he used to be a coach of a basketball team or something). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If you substitute "non-free" for copyrighted, then you are usually correct. In particular, such pictures should not be used merely to identify the subject. However, you could make an argument if it is important to identify how a subject looked at a particular time, such as a now-grown child actor in an article that is substantially about the subject's child-acting career, or if the person is now a recluse and the "theoretically possible to create a free image" statement arguably does not apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 2.0
I've noticed that the majority of images on Flickr that are Creative Commons licensed use CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, when using the image uploader it only has CC-BY-SA 3.0 as an option unless it's your own image, in which case you can select CC-BY-SA 3.0 or older. Is CC-BY-SA 3.0 okay to use when it's someone else's image and it's only licensed using version 2.0? --JD554 (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, you have to upload it under the same version it was released under. There is a specific option for works from Flickr that will allow you to select the correct license from the drop-down. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this question has already been asked a thousand times, but is there a standard protocol regarding using here, on English Wikipedia, images that are not in the Commons but that are part of non-English Wikipedia servers? In particular, I am looking for an image for Alexei Khvostenko. There is a corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia, with his picture in it, available here:[4]. The user who uploaded the picture there states in the licence box (in Russian) that he himself took the photo and that he surrenders all the rights to it to the public domain. To be honest, I am slightly dubious here, but assuming that I believe his claim, is there a standard protocol for dealing with such situations? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you asking how to move the image to commons, whether to honor the public domain designation, or how to check the status of the image? —EncMstr (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess all three. Also, would it be acceptable to upload that image to the English WP server (rather than the Commons) and to give the Russian WP site as a source and to say that the author of the image stated there that the image is released into public domain? Nsk92 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
For an image which will be—or might be—used on more than one project, upload it to commons using this page. (You might have to create or extend your account before it will work.) Answer the questions, many of which will be the same as listed on the ru site. Before you can upload, save the photo on your system temporarily. In general, save the highest resolution available by clicking on the source photo until no higher resolution is available. Reverse click, choose "save image". WP:AGF says trust the uploader, unless it's obviously stolen, etc. —EncMstr (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I find the self-creation claim quite dubious. It's clearly a professional picture, but it doesn't have any of the usual indications of self-creation: it has no information about where or when it was taken, it doesn't have EXIF information, and it's web-resolution rather than full-size. --Carnildo (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I also though that the picture was a bit too good. However, the user mentioned in the licence (Sir66) does say on his userpage that he is a photographer (presumably professional). There is also something else that is a bit fishy there. The picture was originally uploaded by the user Ruskiman in 2006 and then two year later, in 2008, user Sir66 edited the licence and wrote there that he is the author of the photo. Could be that it is the same person who forgot his password. Still, I am feeling rather uneasy about this one. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Image stumper
I have an issue. I am working on an article, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, and would like to add some images from Wisconsin Historical Society, like this one. I am unsure of the licensing issues, though. I emailed the Image Production and Licensing Manager, and was told that we could use the images gratis, so long as they are credited to the society. As some of the images are at the 90+ year mark, they are not free images. I could use some guidance on how to approach the situation of implementation and obtaining of free usage, either here or through offline wikimail. - Hexhand (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been discussing this with another editor (User:Caspian blue) this morning, who insists that I am misinterpreting policy in regards to forced image sizes. As far as I can tell, the relevant section of this policy is quite clear: for the majority of images, forced sizing is to be avoided, because it overrides individual user preferences. CB has repeatedly stated that he is not overriding my preferences with his edit (1), and that I apparently need to change my own system configuration. I'd like some additional comments here, to determine if my interpretation of the policy is indeed in error. There has been a somewhat extensive discussion on my talk page, for those who may be interested in the original discussion. Thanks for any clarification that may be provided. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
My interpretation is that thumb sizes should rarely be specified. As desktop screens get larger and hand-held devices get more common, giving the user the ability to set his own preferences will become increasingly important. So - you are correct, in my opinion.--Appraiser (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. Unfortunately, the equivalent part of the Manual of Style was changed a while ago to remove this because there are an increasing number of editors who have the attitude that they want to optimise the image size setting for their own personal system and don't care that it over-rides user preferences. The result of discussion there was a very watered down wording that gives the impression that it is okay to use fixed pixel sizes. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You have run an automatic removal of all manual set sizes in all these articles without seeking consensus. As it has been said here, policy is now softened and the image size can be set to a different value where it is deemed appropriate. Not all users will change their settings and default 180px is sometimes too small. Of course it usually shouldn't go over 550px as the policy says but forcing a size is not something that should by no means be considered bad and removed at sight. If you think otherwise you are free to seek support for the change of policy but until you do so you can't remove the forced size by quoting this policy as this policy never mentions that forced sizing is forbidden, in fact it allows it.--Avala (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, specifying sizes is often a good thing and is widely done. Very few of our readers have Wikipedia accounts with specialized preferences. Haukur (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with the use of forced image sizes and would consider that the use of the word generally would indicate that some special case would have to be made to force the image size. It is a pain when looking at article with a small screen size when somebody has forced the images to 300 or higher. It only takes a click to open a smaller image to view it large. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly the point I've been stressing in my discussions with Caspian Blue. Not everyone has the exact same monitor, computer, internet browser, and the same resolution settings, so a "one size fits all" policy is completely untenable. What looks nice on a 17" monitor will likely look like crap on my small 14", and just as bad on someone's 20" screen. Or what looks good in Firefox might not be so great in Safari. This is exactly the reason for having our own preferences for image sizing. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What percentage of those who read a given Wikipedia article do you think have set an image size preference? Haukur (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What you or I think is irrelevant; there's no concrete evidence to justify your assertion that only a tiny majority do have their preferences set. I prefer to err on the side of caution, and assume that more do than not, and towards that end, avoid forcing what might look good on my particular system on others. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
more do than not Right, thanks for answering. So, more than 50% of those who read Wikipedia not only are logged in users but also have changed this particular preference setting. Is that erring on the side of caution or is it just erring? Haukur (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As you have posted here Avala, perhaps you can tell us why people who have their settings at 300px are being forced to see photos at 250px, when there is no valid reason for having them at 250px. Why not 300px? The people who are so adamant on having images at 250px, on those articles, have not yet come up with a valid reason for doing so. Just what is the reason for forcing photos on these articles to 250px? --РоссавиаДиалог12:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well 300px makes vertically oriented images too large for the short article, they exceed the length of it. It's all common sense. And as it has been pointed out only a small number of readers have a set size. It's set at 300px for me yet I don't see a problem with images set at 250px if that is appropriate.--Avala (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The "upright" image tag is recommended for vertical- or portrait-orientation images. (Like this: [[Image:My_perfect_image.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.]]) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) It doesn't matter that few people change their default settings. When an editor tries to improve the layout of an article by setting a size, any improvement is unique to his monitor, resolution settings, and browser. In other words, it does no good to try to manage the issue as an editor. Readers can leave their default at 180px and click to see larger images, or they can investigate and find out that they have some control over it. As an aside, I would like to see the "preferences" options go down to 0px, for use on handhelds and in public areas where I want to read with no pictures. Does anyone know of a technical reason this can't be accomplished? If it is done, I will become even more resolved that editors should not specify thumb image sizes. --Appraiser (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that few people change their default settings. Yes, it does! Almost everyone will see the default size (and not know or care that they could laboriously change it by getting a Wikipedia account, fiddling with its preferences and then making sure they were logged in at all times) and the default size is unsuitable for a large number of images. That's why editors frequently specify image sizes and why any policy page telling them not to is a dead letter. Haukur (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement with Appraiser - image sizes should be handled by user preferences and the Mediawiki defaults, not specified in the article. Mediawiki is not InDesign or QuarkXpress, and article editors should resist the urge to worry too much about the graphic design of articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with editor Appraiser. Forced image size is not useful, as the broad range of monitor sizes, screen widths and pixel densities means that at standard size, how it looks differs on a monitor by monitor basis. Even if an user does not use the custom settings, they have the capability to do so in the cases where many articles are unreadable for them. At least with a dynamic, rather than static capability we leave it within the grasp of every user to fix the issue if they choose by merely changing their preferences. With a fixed pixel size, all users have no control over that. I am a strong advocate that editors should not specify fixed image sizes. I change all articles I edit or review to remove fixed pixel sizes whenever possible. Atom (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
we leave it within the grasp of every user to fix the issue if they choose by merely changing their preferences There's nothing merely about it - most Wikipedia readers don't even have an account. Most websites don't force you to log into them and change preference settings just to ensure that you can make out people in photographs or ensure that maps and diagrams are legible. Insisting that every image be the same width - regardless of height or, really, anything else - is not a sensible policy. Haukur (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That's why the upright parameter exists. To allow a different scaling factor to be applied to taller images. As has been pointed out before, it is always possible to click on an image to see a larger version. I would also point out that this entire discussion (and other similar ones including some that have been linked above) is a significant waste of time and is a direct consequence of the watering down of the MoS wording. I said before that I wasn't entirely happy with the compromise and I'd see how it went. Well, now I can see that it went badly, as I expected. This type of time wasting argument, plus related edit warring, will continue all over wikipedia until the MoS wording becomes a lot more definite than it is right now. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You think having a draconian rule that doesn't actually correspond to what people do in practice is a better state of affairs? Since you and I have had conversations about this before, let's bring back my old test and look at the featured article of the day. That would be William Wilberforce. It has several images and it has sizes specified for all but one of them (presumably because that one is tall and doesn't look too small with a width of 180px). I'm even amused to notice that some of the images are set to larger sizes than I would personally prefer, that's not typical. Haukur (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Funnily enough going back thru those discussion, noticing it was HaukurÞ who made the change without discussion, perhaps he now can answer the question as to why I should be forced to view images at 250px when I have settings at 300px with my 21" monitor. --РоссавиаДиалог14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Honestly you should be the last person to complain about edits made without discussion as none of this would have happened if you sought community consensus and policy change prior.--Avala (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The default size, by design, is intended for those 99% of readers. If you think the default size is not appropriate, lobby to have it changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Image forced resize is there for a reason. There is simply no universal size which fits every image and situation (180px or any other). It is often a case to case issue and having all images set at the same size is worse then setting them to a specified size. Also the maximum thumb size one can set is 300px and often detailed lead maps need 500px (as they are horizontal they don't take too much space as a vertical image would take with 500px). So maybe some image needs more prominence and detail then other but if they are all fixed at a default size which is always the same we would have some vertical images taking too much space while some important horizontal images would be hidden behind. I agree with Haukur that insisting that every image be the same width - regardless of height doesn't make any sense. --Avala (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well use the upright parameter. Aside from that, there is no valid reason for forcing of sizes in any of the articles which I mentioned above, because from all I can see it is your own preferences which are guiding this, rather than the use of the policy in the spirit in which it was written (not including Haukurth's totally unwarranted changes) --РоссавиаДиалог15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
How come then Featured articles use forced size then if it was against the rules? The answer is that it is not against the rules.--Avala (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The FA people are quite happy to follow what the MOS says; it's just a matter of getting the MOS right. I wasn't aware until today that the MOS was so lax about the bad practice of forced sizes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
So, before mean old me made that change to the MOS a few months back the featured articles didn't specify image sizes? I think that doesn't fit the facts. Haukur (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You're trying to do more graphic design than the medium allows. No image "needs" 500px - the reader can always click on an image to see a larger version. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Policy allows up to 550px. Sorry but I choose to trust the policy over you and for a reason. If you need to see Monaco on a wrold map you need more than 180px. And maybe you are not interested in clicking you want to see it within article.--Avala (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
And the buildings? We have to see each individual brick? Those are the images we are talking about, and you know that. Why are the photos being forced to 250px in size? It overrides my own preferences, and you have no valid reason to do so. Well I hope that Haukurth is happy to see what he has created....nice job there. --РоссавиаДиалог15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You amuse me. I didn't "create" anything. More than half a year ago I modified a single word in a single policy page to bring it more closely into line with the facts on the ground and best practices as seen in e.g. featured articles. I doubt this has had more than a tiny effect on how people actually do things. Haukur (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
250px is only 70px larger than 180px so please don't overreact. You can't see every single brick on 250px and you know it.--Avala (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
But it is 50px less than my settings. Why is the situation allowed to arise whereby you are overriding my own set preferences? That is not the spirit in which the policy is written, and there is still no valid reason for setting photo image sizes. Or is there? That is the question that you have yet to answer. --РоссавиаДиалог15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I already answered it. Not all images fit into the same predefined size mold. Sometimes they need to be shown larger sometimes smaller and it usually corresponds to the amount of text in the article and importance of detail on the image. And you are inconsistent, you call 250px as something where we will see every brick but 300px is your set size.--Avala (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The policy says "Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style)." The only exceptions in the MOS are "Examples of images which typically need more than the default size include lead images (see above) and detailed maps." - which is more liberal than needed, since as I said maps can be zoomed by clicking on them (or, as in the case of Monaco, replaced by different maps that already have a zoomed inset portion.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic idea! Show the map of Monaco diplomatic missions by zooming to Monaco so no country outside of Monaco area can be seen! Now it might be a useless map and incorrect because it doesn't show what it's supposed to show but the important thing is that it's zoomed. Or let's make readers click every image, who cares what is the speed of their connection and if they really want to see a 800x600 (default preview). Now it could have been solved by forced size to more than 180px but less than 800px but that would have been a sin, right? Of course apart from my sarcasm I hope you got the point.--Avala (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to images like this, that use insets. As I said, if you think the default size is too small, you should lobby to change it, but not override it on an ad hoc basis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
And I was referring to this. You can't see Monaco on 180px here Map at 180px where we are supposed to see Monaco - impossible.--Avala (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't particularly mind it as a default size. Sure, 200 or 220 would probably have been better but it's not worth the fuss trying to find the optimal default. Also, people have assumed for a long time that the default is 180px so many of the images which don't specify size are actually fine at 180px. Anyway, even if we had another default we'd still have to override it on an image-per-image basis. And that's what we do. That's what we've always done. Haukur (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No, honestly guys, if you think you have a consensus for your 180px-fits-all solution then go ahead and bring the last few featured articles into line with your views. Let's see if that sticks. Haukur (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the fondness of FA for following the MOS and policies, it would probably be enough to point out to the FA people that this policy says to generally avoid fixed image sizes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's almost laughably naive. Do you think this issue has never been discussed in FA circles? Haukur (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It does seem that the policy language here needs to be tightened some, then. But a review of the August FAs shows they do a pretty good job of not specifiying image sizes, overall. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for you to point anything out. They can read and the policy uses clear text. Not to mention further MOS guidelines which say "The pixel size parameter may be omitted; this will result in default image width of 180px (140px for portrait format), although this value can be altered in user preferences. If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified. Examples of images which typically need more than the default size include lead images (see above) and detailed maps."--Avala (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Re Haukur, they all seem to enlarge the lede image, and maps, but I only saw one that went overboard in fixing the sizes of other images. Overall, I think they generally stick to the policy. Re Avala, I already quoted that above. I agree that the policy here, together with the MOS, is clear in discouraging fixed image sizes. It's a bad habit, and self-defeating, to try to make an article look good on your own browser as if you were using a desktop publishing program. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It makes almost no difference whether the image is unreadable as a thumbnail. The reason it's called a "thumbnail" in the first place is because you may need to click on it to enlarge it to a readable size.
I looked through a different set of articles than you, actually. Your evidence of overuse of fixed sizes is strong. Some are particularly egregious - [[[Anna May Wong]] has an image hardcoded to 200px, when the default is 180px, right? That's exactly the type of futile micromanagement that this policy deprecates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't we use the text link to an image or thumbnail of 25px? The sole fact that the software allows the forced resize and that MoS allows the usage of it makes it an impossible task for anyone to prove how it must not be used. It might be someone's personal preference that it shouldn't be used but since it exists and is not forbidden it stays at that, personal preference which can't be imposed on other editors.--Avala (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we've finally got to the bottom of our disagreement. I fundamentally disagree that the images in question are thumbnails in the sense you describe. In my opinion the reader of the article should be able to peruse the images without clicking on them and the images should be usable for someone who prints out the article. Haukur (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What size monitor are you going to assume that your "typical" unregistered customer is using? Micromanaging this issue by specifying thumbnail sizes will not work for anyone except the editor who designed the page.--Appraiser (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The images are described as "thumbnails" on this policy, the MoS, and the image help page; the parameter is called "thumb". In what other sense are they thumbnails, apart being miniature version of the full images? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Mini versions yes. Some wikipedias use mini instead of thumb but if thumb becomes microscopic then what is the point of having them at all if they will be unreadable in printed version? I don't think that paper is clickable.--Avala (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A user who wants to print an article will probably have to print some of the images separately. It would be nice if Mediawiki supported properly typeset printed output, or the generation of PDF documents that include the thumbnailed images at proper size on separate pages. Also, remember that web browsers already scale up images for printing, since a 200px image would be 1/3 inch wide on a 600dpi printer. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
And you feel that a system where you have to print images separately is better than one where we keep them readable as a default? Haukur (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Clearly enforcing one way is not the answer. Editors should follow a standard, and there should be special instances when the standard should not be used because it does not fit. It makes common sense that a dynamic image sizeable by the individual user preferences should be preferred over forcing the image size regardless of their preferences or monitor size. In some cases, such as with a map, where seing the image without clicking on the image is important to the quality of the article, using a forced size should be possible. In some other instance where a set of photos being displayed in a small space is desirable by the editors, and small size could be forced on the images. These are exceptions though, and in most cases, in most articles, the photos should follow a standard size, dynamic and adjustable by the preferences of the user should they choose, and large enough to give good displat to the images when at the default. That default is currently 180px, and Wiki admins/programmers should make sure that the default size stays current with existing technology. We don't commonly see 14" monitors anymore, and not many people have 25" monitors.
So, in summary, the policy should recommend and prefer not setting a fixed size on images in an article. It should not require that. The wording should say that setting fixed size on an image should be rare and an exception only to fit a specialized case, buit is up to the discretion of the editors. If a dispute over an image occurs on whether it should be set to dynamic or fixed, it should be decided by consensus of editors on the article, but they should consider that the burden of proof should exist to explain why the disputed image should be set to a fixed size over the preferred dynamic setting. That's my opinion. Atom (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Essentially, you've described how it usually worked in practice before the MoS was watered down. Like unsourced material etc, the onus is on those who want it there to show that it's appropriate. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
All this talk about preferences is so much pie-in-the-sky. Normal readers don't set their preferences. Most of the people who read this encyclopedia won't even know those preferences exist. Of course everyone in this conversation knows about this stuff and I'm sure that several of you have a non-default setting. But we're a very very skewed sample and we shouldn't just decide things based on our own convenience. There is no "dynamic" setting - there's trying to find an appropriate size for each image where the relevant details of that image are visible and there's leaving everything with a width of 180 pixels and hope that this somehow works out. That this one-size-fits-all solution is being promoted as a "dynamic" option is absurd. Not specifying the size will not let the image magically adjust to different monitors, browsers and users. All it does is to allow a tiny number of veteran Wikipedians to fiddle with their settings - at the cost of everyone else who reads Wikipedia articles. Haukur (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Bit of an over-simplification. Anyone who wants a large image can click on the thumbnail - that is standard internet practice. There are still many people using dial-up and they don't have to wait for large images to download that they might not even be interested in. Those people who want big images (maybe for sight reasons) and have set their default to 300px will find that any images at a forced size less than that will over-ride that preference and come out smaller - hence defeating the supposed purpose of setting a bigger image size in the first place. No doubt there are regular readers - not just editors - who find out about preferences. Ty00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And is 180px for everything standard Internet practice too? What percentage of readers do you think have their preferences set? You can get an upper limit for that question by answering those two: How many logged in users does Wikipedia have on a given day? How many readers does Wikipedia have on a given day? Haukur (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Haukur, we can't make settings per registered users only as there are so many of those who only read but never edit. Also this is not a matter of MoS but software, for as long as there is an option to set a size for images in the article no MoS can ban it, even if all ~5 users who have gathered here would agree on that because it's a far bigger issue which should be dealt with much bigger participation including programers of the wiki software who would have to shut down the option and wiki board members who might find that harmful and they have the last word.--Avala (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Those are strawman arguments. No one is suggesting "banning" it. There have always been specific exceptions, e.g. detailed maps necessary for understanding the text. If you want to change long-standing MOS stipulations, then please do open the discussion to a wide field and obtain consensus to do so. Ty01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course there is a "dynamic" setting. When the image is not specified it goes to the default setting in the user preferences. That is currently 180 px. I agree that many, if not most people who read a WIkipedia article do not have a login, and therefore use the default settings. That only means they get the current system default of 180px. The 180px is chosen by system admins based on what default size currently works best (on average shows the best using the average monitors and technology available). That size is "Dynamic" because 1) A user who chooses to create a login can set their preference, rather than it being forced. The few users who do go to that effort are users who have a reason to go to that effort. The "dynamic" default size does not work for them. 2) System admins can change the default size as technology changes and a different size is more appropriate. By doing that ALL articles within Wikipedia without static sizes dynamically change without any editing of articles. Atom (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Forcing image sizes is like assuming that everyone has a system like ours, as if there are no people with different screens out there. People who read Wikipedia may use different screen sizes, different resolutions, different browsers (with full page zoom functionality or no), may have different habits regardng browser window size (some like their browser maximised or full-screen, others keep their browser windows non-maximised at a smaller size than their screen), and they may also have low-speed Internet access (dialup or GPRS) or have metered (non-unlimited) Internet usage plans where they may be paying very high prices by the kilobyte (eg UMTS/HSDPA 3G/3.5G). All these problems can be avoided or minimised by using the default thumbnail size, so please use it. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Others have said it already, but I want to echo: Readers grossly outnumber editors, and Wikipedia is primarily for the readers. If an appropriate image isn't legible at 180px then it has to be made larger. If this upsets some editors, well tough. Many images can be left at the default size just fine, but editors should be given wide latitude to make exceptiosn on a case-by-case basis. Dragons flight (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Potential solution
Unless I'm misunderstanding the issue, wouldn't the problem be solved if the developers were to add an "Always display thumbnails at this size" checkbox (to provide the option of overriding the sizes specified within articles) to accompany the "Thumbnail size" setting in the user preferences? Has such a request been filed? —David Levy01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I had thought of that solution (or maybe "maximum size" and "minimum size" options) myself. It shouldn't be too hard to implement; haven't looked at bugzilla to see. I think it's somewhat orthogonal to the discussion here though, since the argument keeps being raised that most people aren't logged in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
For someone who isn't logged in (or otherwise has no custom setting in effect), it's less helpful to always apply an arbitrary default (which said individual hasn't requested) than it is to allow editors to use their best judgement (assuming that one of the above features is added to MediaWiki). Either way, some readers will end up with better results than others will, but the latter situation increases the likelihood of generating a good layout for as many users as possible. —David Levy01:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Too often, fixed image sizes are intended to fix issues like excess white space that vary so widely from one user to another that there's no reason to expect the default will be worse than an arbitrarily chosen fixed size. On the other hand, whenever a fixed size is specified (since the features you suggested aren't part of mediawiki yet), it breaks the intended default sizing for users who have gone out of their way to achieve it. It's not much different than trying to hard-code font sizes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1. The "white space" issue is an example of abuse that will occur regardless of whether a MediaWiki enhancement is implemented. Either way, the solution is to explain the problem to the users in question and revert such inappropriate changes, not to severely limit the ability of knowledgeable editors to apply common sense and consensus.
2. Yes, I fully understand that assigning fixed sizes to thumbnails currently interferes with users' personal thumbnail size preferences. That's why I noted that the above is contingent upon the ability to override thumbnail sizes specified within pages being added to MediaWiki.
Basically, both sides in this argument are right. Users who haven't specified their desired thumbnail sizes stand to benefit from the employment of common sense in articles, but many users who have specified their desired thumbnail sizes are better off without their selections being overridden. A MediaWiki tweak could eliminate the issue by delivering the best of both worlds.
A mediawiki extension might be the best solution to this argument. I'd suggest that a pair of check boxes for "over-ride fixed image sizes if they are smaller than the preferred size" and "over-ride fixed image sizes if they are larger than the preferred size" in preferences would probably be the solution that I'd lean towards. One for high resolution screens where users want bigger images and the other for small screens such as mobile phones where users want the images to be small. Such a move would indirectly encourage increased use of fixed sizes, because logged in users who have set their preference would no longer be affected by images being forced to be small and hence these arguements would subside, saving a lot of people a lot of time. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I like the variant suggested by CBM (minimum and maximum thumbnail sizes), as this would allow for the most freedom.
The current "Thumbnail size" setting would be relabeled "Default thumbnail size" and accompanied by "Mimimum thumbnail size" and "Maximum thumbnail size" settings. Someone who wants thumbnails to always display at a certain size would specify that size for all three. Someone who wants thumbnails to display at a certain size or smaller would specify that size as the "default" and "maximum" (but not the "minimum"). Someone who wants thumbnails to display at a certain size or larger would specify that size as the "default" and "minimum" (but not the "maximum"). And someone who wants to allow a specific range of sizes would set the low end as the minimum, the high end as the "maximum," and one of those two sizes (or one in between) as the "default." —David Levy03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Image maps
I've been having an interesting conversation with another editor at this TfD about image maps and the problems they raise. One question about them is how clearly they link to the image description page of the underlying image, which of course is necessary for copyright purposes. As far as I can tell, there's no existing policy specifically about them, and they've been multiplying and becoming more varied. I think a centralized discussion is necessary, possibly with the goal of putting a sentence or two into this policy about them. I have no idea right now what that would be, but I'd like to start a discussion. Chick Bowen00:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, here are a few different uses of image maps currently. They vary greatly in the way links are used and in the visual effect. Let me clarify, my goal here is not remotely to eliminate them, but only to put together some guidelines on how they should be used:
One difference between them is that in some cases the thumbnail is small enough that a reader might want to easily find the full version of the image, and in others (such as the eye image), that is not a problem. The gunpowder image originally caught my attention because the writing on it is too small to read, and it was a fairly roundabout route to the full-size image; that problem has now been fixed. Chick Bowen01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that every image requiring attribution must have a convenient and fairly obvious way of reaching the image description page. I also think that most images not requiring attribution probably should as well. This could concievably take a couple diffent forms. For example, the apparently high unpopular "desc" option in imagemap syntax exists to creates a clickable "i" icon that links to the image description page. Sparsely populated images could include a default link covering most of their display (e.g. most of the "eye" referenced above could link to the image description). In addition a link to the image page might appear at the start of the caption. See Template:Annotated_image/Extinction for example. Dragons flight (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you in spirit, but I think probably distinguishing a separate category of images that require attribution is not that helpful, since even public domain images should (not legally but by our policies) have a clear route to a source. I didn't fully understand about the "desc" option--that does seem like one way to address at least some of these problems. Chick Bowen02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a useful discussion I'm pleased that the objectives do not include "elimination". (Could you close down the TfD please). I agree that it is essential/vital that wikipedia has links from its images to their copyright ... even if it is public domain. I achieve this by the button that is placed in the bottom right of images if they have the thumb option. (Although I think there has been one on wikipedia's main page that broke this rule.) Creating an Image map that did not have this button should be grounds for deletion. (Obviously after discussing the issue with the author if possible). One output of this discussion is that I have improved the template twice and I have improved my skills and I've learnt that Image Map uses the example from The Club (feels great!). I'm impressed by Dragonflights example. As Chick Bowen notes they are getting more varied which is showing that these are a good way of improving articles. I know of at least one FA that uses an image map (pretty much) as its table of contents. (Obviously if we are going to have a free discussion then we need to be able to mention them without a TfD or AfD appearing.) Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that one simple option is to make the info icon mandatory in the extension rather than optional. Since the fly-over text for the icon is "About this image" it should direct the user appropriately. This could be an install-time option so that non-Wikipedia sites could use the extension without that restriction. --Michael Daly (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed new language
In line with what's said above, I propose to add new language to the policy, along these lines:
The purpose of the image description page is to provide access to the full-size version of an image and its source and copyright information. In order to make that information readily accessible, all images whose automatic link to the image page has been superseded (such as image maps) should contain a link to it either in the image itself or in the caption.
ok by me - this is not just good practise but essential to wikipedia showing respect for international copyright law. (Although there is a bug that prevents links in imagemap captions at present). Victuallers (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Catering for people using PDAs
The current image size policy says "Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors." but I believe that we should also cater for people using PDAs that have screen sizes as low as 640x480 (which could fit a 550px image) or 480x640 (which does not fit a 550px image). Also, today many Web browsers offer full page zoom capabilities (Opera, Firefox 3, ...), and as such setting a hardcoded size may not be really necessary in many cases. I generally think it is better to support PDA users as well as this could help increase our readership, and as such I suggest changing the maximum width to 400 pixels. Don't forget that if the user wants to see the full image they can always click on it. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel a page needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any page by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Policy on image relevance?
Is there a policy on what requirements must be met to ensure that an image is relevant to the article's content? For example, in the INFJ article (a psychology article on one of the Myers-Briggs personality types), there's a photo of a guy with a tattoo that says INFJ accompanied by some abstract symbols. I don't believe the photo relates to the article. If the article were on the Los Angeles Police Dept., and the photo showed someone with a tattoo that said LAPD, would that be relevant? If the article were on the New York Jets football team, and the photo showed someone with a tattoo that said NY JETS, would that be relevant? I just don't think so. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The policy currently reads "Images should depict their content well." I think that's clear enough, and no, in my opinion the image you mention does not qualify, nor does the logo at the top which was simply evented by the uploader. Chick Bowen22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think we need anything beyond "Images should depict their content well". When there's disagreement, it's just a matter of working out something on the local talk page. Personally I think the tattoo picture is sort of interesting (though the caption is bad), it indicates that some people take this quite seriously. The logo at the top should go. Haukur (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Common sense always said to me that images should contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic of an article or section. Perhaps something like that should be in WP's image policies.
With respect to the original concern, I too find the image of the man's tattoo very interesting. The text lists, in part, that an INFJ is
abstract in communicating
lives in a world of hidden meanings and possibilities - part of an unusually rich inner life
artistic (having a natural affinity for art), creative, and easily inspired
very independent
orderly view toward the world but within themselves arranged in a complex way only they could understand
I think the image confirms some of these characteristics, in that particular person anyway. I lean toward that it is relevant in supporting the accompanying text. Another factor is that readability is enhanced by interspersing text with visuals. Since this topic doesn't easily lend itself to photographs (in contrast to sports cars, for example), this photo is probably as good as any.--Appraiser (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The objection I have is not so much to the tattoo itself, but that it seems to suggest that getting a tattoo might be typical of an INFJ, which I consider a misrepresentation. The article also says that INFJs are "quiet, private individuals" who have "a vivid inner life that they may be reluctant to share with those around them." The wearing of a large, conspicuous tattoo on the upper arm seems inconsistent with that description.
I agree with the point about visuals enhancing reading, which is why I don't have a particular problem with the logo. It doesn't add much, but at least it doesn't detract, and it engages the reader's right brain. I'll see if I can find some more appropriate images. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
But getting back to the policy question, I think it needs to be a little better defined than "Images should depict their content well." For example, suppose that the Cat article showed only a photo of a sphinx, the hairless breed. It's undeniable that a sphinx is a cat, yet such a photo could mislead the reader into thinking that cats don't have fur (not a reader from the planet Earth, of course, but I'm speaking theoretically). If there were photos of other breeds in the article, however, then the photo of the sphinx would be correctly perceived as depicting an interesting oddity. So is a photo of an interesting oddity better than no photo? Or does it do more harm than good to reader comprehension? If I had a photo of a group of librarians at an INFJ convention to counterbalance the guy with the tattoo, I wouldn't object to the tattoo photo. But given that it's the only photo in the article, I think it has too much weight. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Good points. For the general question, why not add, Images should contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic of an article or section. to the policy. For this example, your analogy with the cat is appropriate. I suppose the caption (of the tattoo pic) could explain which characteristics of the topic it supports, and which it doesn't, but that may be too wordy. I recently uploaded a picture of a bridge that requires a wordy explanation due to an optical illusion, and I recognize that it is far from ideal. Getting a better picture of that bridge is on my list of things to do.--Appraiser (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Question about specific NASA image - confusing labelling
In particular, JPL's image use policy states that JPL images may be used for any purpose without prior permission unless noted otherwise. This specific image appears to be cropped from PIA01076, whose information page contains no such notice. Therefore, I would say it can indeed be safely assume to be free. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm hoping I have come to the right place to get some advice. I have recently loaded 3 images to help illustrate a biographical article of a dead person - Ted Blake, the images can be seen there now if you need to refer to them - and one of them (the portrait) has been marked for possible deletion because it has no licence. Two of the images were taken either by, or for, Ted Blake (including the portrait) and the third is a scanned copy of the cover of programme for a public event he organised many years ago. All three images were provided to me by Ted Blake's son to be used in illustrating his father's contributions to trampolining. I am not the original owner of the copyright but have been given the rights to use the pictures by the person I now take to be the copyright owner but who is not a Wikipedia editor. In such circumstances what licence should I use please? I have gone through all the lists and can not find an obvious match. DaveK@BTC (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The image can then be deleted after a week in the normal way — see our deletion policy.
I'm unsure if mention should be made of WP:NFR. Any feedback? Does it work? Does it almost work? Does it flat out fail for reasons that should be (but aren't) obvious to me? :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think if the idea is to make it easier for everyone to have up to date information available to them so they are citing the correct sources when they delete or "nominate" something for deletion than I am all for it. However I would like to see all of this in "one" place...and I mean that in a concept sense, not a literal sense. If it is a copyright issue then there should be one copyright page that everyone looks at and uses, not spread out over several jumps. But that seems to be part of your question - at least for images you are saying the WP:CP in no longer used. If that is the case then why continue to cite copyright issues anywhere, even on the WP:CSD? (That is sort of a rhetorical question) I think copyright is massively important but in order to "kiss" I think most everything should be self contained at the WP:CSD and if there are other issues that need to be discussed then users should be directed to the correct location - copyright issues to the copyright article, notability issues to the GNG or an SNG page and so on. You state at the bottom: I'm unsure if mention should be made of WP:NFR and my answer would be "yes" if the reason for deletion was non-free content and not copyright related. (and I know the two cross paths but that is part of what my thread above is about) Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
To interpret Soundvisions1's comment a bit (please correct me if I misinterpret), I think what they're going for is a straightforward and easy-to-follow process that someone should follow when responding to a problematic image that doesn't involve jumping back and forth between many policies. It might make sense to have a policy page dedicated to "dealing with images with copyright problems" that could be linked from several places.
For Soundvisions1's sake, I should clarify that WP:CP has not ceased handling images because they are no longer considered important, but because PUI receives better attention from the right people. Also, I believe the relationship of NFR and copyvio images is stronger than you might think: even the most blatant copyvio image may reasonably be considered for fair use before it's deleted. Dcoetzee22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Was I that hard to understand? Seriously though you are correct. And also I did get that copyrights are still important, thusly why I said it was a rhetorical question about "why bother". On a good day you ideally need a sub set of IP attorneys who deal with all image issues on Wikipedia but that is not a logical option so, yes, having a "straightforward and easy-to-follow process" would work for most situations. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
←It's not really within my power to create a straightforward and easy-to-follow process, particularly given that image work is not my usual area. :) But I may able to create a gathering point for "dealing with images with problems". I've made an effort, here. If this looks like it could be remotely useful, please let me know, and I will village pump it. (Unless somebody points out to me that I'm essentially duplicating something else that I haven't found, I may anyways. I have myself struggled with figuring out how to handle various image issues, and I've thought in the past that such a document could be massively useful.) I suppose it goes without saying that contributions and feedback are welcome, but, in case it doesn't, I'll say it. :) I've never used some of these processes myself, but I've done my best to be all inclusive. Linking to the template for directions as I've frequently done is an effort to avoid contradiction, as the more places a procedure is described the more likely it is to be outdated. Please also note that where I've duplicated text from other documents/policies/templates, I've indicated as much in edit summary in compliance with GFDL. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Need Policy on User Created Charts which can be POV/WP:OR
Image:Financial_Leverage_Profit_Engine.png is an example of an original user created chart. If it was a chart of content from a WP:RS article, as are other charts in the article where this is found, I wouldn't have a problem. But the creator has quite his own POV on other issues, so I assume he does here.
Anyway, there are a lot of issues like this where WP:original research could be rampant. I did discuss this at WP:OR/Noticeboard. But despite different views on policy, no one could come up with a link on the policy. I can write a sentence or two and stick it in User Created images section if no one else wants to. If there is a policy, it should be linked in User Created images section. Carol Moore 23:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Even more to the point, whether or not the image itself is deleted, I believe it can be safely said that using it to illustrate an article is inappropriate, unless the facts it purports to illustrate are actually presented in the text of the article in a manner compliant to our policies, including WP:OR. Images on Wikipedia are used to illustrate articles. If the image is not a good illustration of anything but a set of claims that cannot, under Wikipedia policy, be legitimately included in any article, then it cannot be used on Wikipedia, period. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Since the article didn't mention "original research" as a reason for deletion I didn't think it applied. Does that need to be in there?
Someone could do an artistic work illustrating some point in an article, and that too would be WP:OR. People on original research agreed image in question was not appropriate so the person removed from the one article discussed but refuses to move from another article he "owns" even more than the original article. Sigh... Carol Moore 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Doesn't WP:OI cover this? Original images are fine, even encouraged, provided that they do not "propose unpublished ideas or arguments". Jheald (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I remember now that since it didn't deal with my issue, I brought it to original research noticeboard, which agreed with me, bu the person creating the POV diagrams largely ignored. I did just add there the type of problem I've seen as a specific example to original images policy and if it's acceptable I'll just add the relevant section and link to this article. :-) Carol Moore 13:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
A bit fuzzed out on this
Apparently this image is inappropriate to be used in the article on whale tail. Can't really see why. Can someone explain? Or at least lead me to another discussion page where I may ask the question? Aditya(talk • contribs)04:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that there is already one image there that doesn't show someone's face (who might not like being on the "whale tail" page. Why did you want to add this image to the page as well, or were you hoping to replace this image? Protonk (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was totally inappropriate. I think that if you have one image of a whale tail where you don't have a "personality rights" issue and one where you do, it makes sense to only use the one without the issue. That doesn't mean that the image needs to be removed, per se. If you want to use it over the other (for some aesthetic reason), then I would suggest downloading the image, cropping it, and uploading a cropped version with just the woman on it. that may or may not work out well. Alternately, if you think that the image should be removed from commons, the deletion process there is a little simpler than ours, it isn't too hard to nominate something for deletion there. If you have troubles doing that let me know and I'll see where I can help. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Keep in mind that people on that page may still not want two whale tail images, but you shouldn't have the personality rights problem, so the discussion should be simpler. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I use this image?
I found an image on photobucket that I would like to use for an article, but I am unsure of it's license. The image itself has permanent links for sharing the photo in emails, layout pages, blogs, and forums. This open sharing seems like it might be permissible. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
GA Review Pic Question
Hey, I'm doing a GA review of an article with Image:New Delhi Temple.jpg, for which an editor got someone else's permission. It looks like it's a Wikipedia-only pic, which is bad. Can someone check? The emails are on the image page. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems conflicting to me. Image:New Delhi Temple.jpg is released under CC 3.0 BY-SA, which is compatible with Wikipedia (see Commons:Copyright_tags#Free_Creative_Commons_licenses). The same is the case for Image:Akshardham Delhi .jpg. However, not all parties involved with the permissions seem to understand what that entails. CC BY-SA basically means that anyone can share the image, so long as attribution is maintained. If the license holder submits to that but also says "you can use this on WP only", someone is misinformed. It isn't our job to correct that misinformation (in other words, if they have clearly licensed the photos as CC 3.0 BY-SA, then we aren't here to force them to read the license), but we might want to contact the uploaded and ensure that the license is unambiguous. If they meant to release it to WP only, then we need to take the images off commons. We can contact them and get OTRS permission to use the images (or preferably, some OTRS confirmation that CC BY-SA is the license) on wikipedia. If I were reviewing the article, I'd place the Ga on hold until that was cleared up. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if the uploader is active, just point him here and I can talk him through it. If he isn't, you can check Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Basically that will tell you to email the copyright owners and ask them if they want to tell WP:OTRS that their image is CC 3.0 BY-SA. If they say yes, then we can wait for that to happen. If they say no: place a PUI tag on the wikipedia image and nominate the commons images for deletion and remove them from the article. Does that clear things up? Protonk (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_27#Image:Bride-two.jpg about whether the English Wikipedia ever requires model releases. The picture in question shows a clearly identifiable woman at a private party, standing in her underwear with a fake penis strapped to her head. Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people would require a model release (that is, permission from the woman to publish pictures of her in her underwear on Wikipedia) on the essentially moral grounds of unreasonable intrusion into privacy. The apparent consensus at Images for Deletion is that model releases are at least highly desirable, if not actually required. However, no explicit policy seems to exist on the English Wikipedia. Does such a thing exist? Should it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Given the large volume of automated transfers that occur between English Wikipedia and Commons, it would be a good idea to either harmonize practice between sister sites, or else articulate how the different standards would apply here and implement measures to prevent this class of images from getting bot-transferred and subsequently deleted. DurovaCharge!06:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it should exist, and copying the Commons policy would make a good start (per Durova). One item I can see would be potentially contentious is anonymising images. I read the Commons policy as saying that if an image has identifying features obscured it negates the personality rights issue, but we should decide if that's appropriate for the en wikipedia.
I'll also repost a few starting points for discussion I made on IfD -
1) How identifiable does someone need to be to trigger deletion, on a scale of full face to paper bag?
2) What counts as embarrassing, what cultural norms do we go with, etc?
3) Should we adopt a policy of blurring or obscuring identifiable parts rather than deleting the whole image?
4) What exactly is a private space and how much trust do we put in uploaders to identify whether photography was permitted?
For the record, I would focus on people presented in a negative context rather than people who are identifiable. In other words, I would focus on the BLP / libel issues which appear more prominent rather than the personality rights issues which primarily address limits to commercial exploitation. Dragons flight (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and the commons policy has a bit on that, using the example of a photograph of a young girl used to illustrate obesity. The guideline is that if she's identifiable then the caption "An obese girl" is derogatory and shouldn't be used. However, if her face is blurred then it's acceptable use. The localtelevisualscandalrags do that all the time, showing people from the neck down with an ominous voiceover about the health scare du jour. Orpheus (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this problem is lessened by the choice of more professional images. For example, if we wanted an image to illustrate obesity, it would be better to get a high-quality image of:
A (somewhat) well-known person who has publicly spoken about their own obesity
A rally or meeting of an organization dedicated to helping obese people. Or, an obese person speaking at such a rally
We shouldn't just randomly go out on the street, take a picture of someone at random, and slap it on the article. The problematic photos being discussed - of a random, private obese person, or of a random woman at a party - are not at all the best images that could be used in their settings. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
rfc
Do you all think that this idea should be incorporated into the existing WP:Image use policy, or as a separate page? Overall, I'm leaning towards a new section in the existing policy, but I'm not committed to any particular outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be glad to see it in policy, if that's consensus. With regard to the question of editing/blurring v. deletion, on a practical level that usually comes down to how much time and effort anyone is willing to invest. Keeping on top of image deletions in general is always a challenge. So on a practical level over at Commons, a noncompliant image gets kept if somebody took the time to fire up Photoshop or GIMP and perform edits that make it compliant. I've done that occasionally when I'm going through deletion requests when there's enough encyclopedic value and no good replacement exists. But that slows things down and it simply isn't feasible to make that a requirement for every image that might be rescued. DurovaCharge!08:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this one up, WhatamIdoing. Nice job so far. Only suggestions I'd make would be a) integrating Durova's comments from above regarding blurring (in other words, it's a permissable option but don't expect someone else to do it for you) and b) linking explicitly to the commons policy and adding in something about how keeping the two in harmony is desirable. Orpheus (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to use some of the great photos of the Capitol Visitor Center shown on the Architect of the Capitol website for United States Capitol Visitor Center, which really needs an overhaul. Unfortunately, I'm unsure if these would be in the public domain. I would assume they are, because I know an AOC representative takes all the photos. Can someone confirm to me that these are usable? No artist renderings will be used, only updating photographs.
Why do we need all that information for photos that are clearly PD?
A photo of someone who died over 100 years ago is clearly now in the PD if it was taken while that person was alive. Why do we have to provide a bunch of information about it, like who the photographer was and where the original photo is? If we have no way of getting some information, it really shouldn't stop us from using an image that we are clearly allowed to use. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it PD? If the photo was take in 1907, first published in 1924 with the copyright renewed in 1952, and the photographer died in 1987, it will still be copyrighted until January 1, 2020. If the photographer delayed publication until 1979, the image will be copyrighted until January 1, 2057. --Carnildo (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, if a non-US photo was taken in 1907, first published in 1930 and the photographer died in 1930 then the URAA would have restored the copyright and it will not expire in the US until 2025. But we don't need hypotheticals - there's plenty of stuff that's more than 100 years old that's still under copyright. I can't, for example, transport Image:Valkyries with swan skins.jpg to Commons because it's still under copyright in Sweden - and that image was published in 1893. Haukur (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
In short, verification. If the legitimacy of the known data about the image is questioned, any additional data can be useful in researching the issue. For example, if someone notices that the subject of the photo didn't exist at the time it was purported to have been taken. It also serves the general purpose of media archival beyond that of establishing license, for the purposes of automated image retrieval, image geneology and research, and tracking down higher quality versions. Dcoetzee08:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Tagging Help Needed!!!
I need help with correct tagging two pictures correctly and was wondering if I could get any help from anyone. These two pictures are keeping an article from recieveing a GA. For further information please contact me through my talkpage Juthani1tcs21:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Feedback on image use
Sorry if this is the wrong place, if so please point me toward the right one. I'm reviewing Go, Cubs, Go for good article status and my only sticking point is the use of Image:Take Me Out To A Cubs Game.jpg. IMHO it would not survive a NFCC #8 challenge but in general I find image policy on the confusing side. If anyone can offer some feedback about the acceptability of the image in that article I'd appreciate it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Normalenvektor.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%A5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82.jpg){kind=link}
