This is an archive of past discussions on 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.
I keep seeing the message "No higher resolution available." under all the images here at wikipedia (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Example.png ) why is the message there, like with screenshot and things people upload, those images get resized and then have a message under them saying (discouraging) people from uploading large/better quality images of whatever the subject is. When did this start? Why? The only (good) reason I can think on is that wikipedia is running out of server space and is resizing image to take up less file space.. thought, answers anyone, please. Namire19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Namire
The message "No higher resolution available." simply means that what you are seeing is the original size that was uploaded to wikipedia. All images are stored in their original uploaded format and size. Images that have been uploaded in high resolution format will get displayed in a lower resolution to speed up loading of "Image:" pages. If the image has been displayed in a lower resolution, you can always still obtain the original sized image by clicking on the image, or clicking on the message "Full resolution (x × x pixel, file size: x.xx MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)". For an example, see Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg. --Ozhiker16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Rules for derivative works?
I don't seem to be able to find rules for derivative works. Should I then assume that the same rules as in Commons [1] apply with the exception that fair use images are allowed? Samulili11:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Flickr images
Hello everyone; was wondering if somebody could clarify something for me. I edit BBC articles and both myself and others have been finding it increasingly difficult to find free use images for articles, particularly those about television channels, that are good enough to use other than fair use screenshots. I believe that either somebody mentioned this elsewhere or that I saw an image that had been uploaded from Flickr on either the public domain of gfdl tag (correct me if I am wrong) and so was wondering if such images could be used. If somebody could reply on my talk page, I'd be very grateful. Thank you! Wikiwoohoo19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for me to imagine how we would get freely licensed examples of BBC material to illustrate our articles. Flickr users often upload things for which they don't own the coyright and make some nonsense licensing claim, so use good judgement when browsing there. Maybe you can be clearer about what exactly you're looking for, or looking at? Jkelly20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This issue has come up for me too. Many thousands of excellent, useful images on flickr are licensed with Creative Commons licenses which would appear to allow their use on Wikipedia. Furthermore, many are uploaded with their camera EXIF data intact, and by looking at that together with the user's photo collection in general, a reasonable common-sense guess can often be made as to whether the uploader really owns the photo. However, I suspect a lot of flickr users, perhaps even the majority, do not fully understand the implications of the license the system assigns to their photos. They often chose a default when signing up with flickr. I don't suggest for a moment that the site is being sneaky – in fact in my dealings with them, they've seemed very decent – but I think it is always advisable to contact the photographer (always possible through their flickr account) and ask permission before using a photo. It's generally well-received (it's flattering) and is much better than gnashing of teeth later. – Kieran T(talk)20:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have had the same experience. I sometimes wonder how many of my fellow flickr contributor really understand the tags. People have always been flattered when I have asked. It sure is a wonderful source for images. Wikimedia Commons has a process for reviewing and uploading CC images from flickr (a bot called FlickrLickr). Commons is a great starting place to look for any general image. The categories are structured to be easy to search (in theory anyhow). RoyalbroilT : C22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help. As suggested I will begin contacting certain Flickr users who have uploaded what appear to be their own work and which would be perfect for inclusion in certain articles. A search on Flickr for BBC News 24 brings up certain images of the channel available to view on 3G mobile phones as well as on a bus in one case! Another search for George Alagiah displays a perfect image of George posing for a photograph alongside the BBC News Election 2005 bus (some of you may remember the Election roadshow for the news). Many thanks again! Wikiwoohoo15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyright Legal Question
I'm not too sure about this; a cartoonist drew a sketch of his own unique character, and sold it to be used on shotglasses. I took the original picture and started drawing it in Illustrator. (so the differences are for the most part minimal; it's basically the same picture, unless you're using a fine-tooth comb searching for differences)
Would using this drawing I made of his picture be copyright infringement? Note, only being used on profile, not on any Wikipedia pages.
I sort of emailed him already about something else, so I'd ask him first before using it, even if it's not copyright infringement.JimmmyThePiep04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The character itself is probably copyrighted, so even if you had drawn the character "from scratch" in a different pose i believe it would still be conisdered a derivative work, if it's also almost identical to the original drawing it would probably just be considered a "copy". As such no, the image can not be used on your userpage unless you get the cartoonist's permission to release it under a free license first (has to be a free license, "permission to use" only is not enough on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) --Sherool(talk)08:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay; I'll finish drawing and see if the cartoonist likes it first before asking. But about this free license; Is it a verbal licence or something more substantial? (such as on paper, or recorded in a legal manner somewhere like a Law office)
I ask because on a Town page I was going to post a picture of a landmark, and got permission from the county website. However, what would I do to get a free license from them? (They suggested posting their website in the copyright info.) JimmmyThePiep19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VelocityRunning(2).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 293.xx.xxx.xx 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC) — 293.xx.xxx.xx 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I responded to ask whether it was the wrong license or the fact of the character herself being copyright (User_talk:293.xx.xxx.xx), and the response was that it was the wrong license. However, the discussion above seems to suggest that no license will do as any original fan art I might create of a copyrighted character would be a derivative work. Should I contact the character's creator to get permission to show the image IAW Wikipedia's image policy? And if I do, should I include the text of any such permission in the licenseing info? Thanks. Jackytar18:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Size references inside an image (coins, bills, leafs, bugs etc..)
Could we add an advice to use some kind of ruler (preferebly metric) when trying to compare objects? coins etc.. are quite nation specific and makes little sense outside of that nation. As an example look at the Gumstix image, gumstix picture (Gumstix).
In essence anything that is not frequently common worldwide should not be used as a reference for size.
Yeah, I could have sworn we had that in a guideline (or possebly essay) somewhere already, but I can't seem to find it again now (maybe it was on Commons)... Anyway it's sound advice. As for image links just add a colon at the start of the link. [[:Image:Example.png]] will produce Image:Example.png. Works for categories too by the way. --Sherool(talk)12:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think superimposing a ruler is a good idea. Rather it should be an advice when composing the picture from the beginning. Electron915:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with water marking?
My only reason I am on wikipedia is to provide articles lacking pictures with an appropriate photograph. I am a freelance photographer. As a photographer I always watermark my photos in the bottom right hand corner with my last name. I release all rights of this photograph to be used on wikipedia. Like artists, I want my name on my work and am disappointed to find the following message
{{imagewatermark}}
Am I no longer able to "sign" my art work!?
Billy Rules 16:31, 12 January 2007
All media published through Wikipedia must be licensed to allow modification. Credit for photography goes on the image description page (just as article credit goes on the article history page). Watermarking an image suggests that there is some part of the image that is not modifiable. There is also a general feeling that image watermarks interfere with the professionalism or the encyclopedic quality of an image. Given that many users will want to remove the watermark, and that the license allows them to do so, watermarking the image creates extra work, and is discouraged. I hope this answers your question. Jkelly21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand what you are saying. However, I would like my name or "signature" on all of my photographs as I feel this is my own personal work of art. I release all rights so if some one wants to crop or remove my name that is fine, but will my photos be deleted if it has my name on it? Billy Rules 17:34, 12 January 2007
It's hard to say. They may be deleted if someone takes them to WP:IFD and says "We have an unwatermarked image to replace this one". They may be edited to remove the marking. They may be left alone. It all depends on who it is that notices them or wants to use them. Jkelly22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Watermarked images should not be allowed. The "distortion" issue needs to be clarrified. I'm not sure I get what the deal is with distortion. I think signatures should be allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbleem (talk • contribs) 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
If its just in an irrelevent corner and mostly invisible it'll probablly either be left or removed (by cropping, painting over with the clone brush etc) depending on if anyone bothers to remove it.
If otoh its right accrross the middle of the image then the image probablly won't survive an ifd.
watermarks also don't fit in well with the typical sizes wikipedia scales too, what would be a reasonable watermark on the image at full size will become nothing more than an unreadable nasty looking artifact at the size used in articles.
Also the way wikipedia normally works is to keep credit seperate from content (on history pages, image decscription pages etc) If we didn't do this then articles would become flooded with credit. watermarking tries to short cuircuit this and put your credit directly into the article. I'm sure you can understand how the major authors of the articles text could feel a bit uncomfortable with that especially since we already give images far easier to find credit than text.
Finally while you may regard your photographs as works of art wikipedia is not an art gallery. The images in our articles are mainly there to show important features of the subject and may be modified in any way we see fit for that purpose. Plugwash23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If you just want to store and share your pictures I would recommend the Wikimedia Commons. The focus there is more on picture quality and images are usually not deleted even if they are not being used. Also the images uploaded there can be used on all language versions of Wikipedia. --Oden02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy appears to discourage watermarking due to its usage by content creators to reserve rights.
However, for scientific purposes, those are often not watermarks as such, but caption information.
In scientific applications, it is important to preserve as much data as possible, including the source, in order to provide the context and references that are so crucial to encyclopedias. While it is true that it could be loaded into EXIF info, users who come across the image out of context could draw erroneous conclusions based on the visual information alone. A subsequent user who opens the file in an EXIF-unaware application and then reuses the image could unintentionally deny the EXIF information to following users. What would be the policy of Wikipedia regarding the use of caption information in the image field for this purpose, assuming the image is properly released? Robogun19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Change of license
Ok, so I found a good photo for one of my articles on Flickr. It had the proper license (allowed commercial use and derivative works). I uploaded the image to Wikipedia and gave all the proper info (source, url, and the exact license that the photographer had on Flickr). I informed the photographer on flickr that I uploaded his pic to Wikipedia, I gave him a link to the photo, and I informed him I used the same license that he had. I went back to flickr today (about 4 days after uploading) and he had replied to my note saying it was fine that I used the photo. BUT he changed the license to "All Rights Reserved." So my question is, do I now need to delete the image if the photographer changed the license? I'm going to send him another note informing him of the situation, but I wanted to get some information here first.--NMajdan•talk04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well as I understand it a CC license can't be revoked once given, unfortunately if a Flickr user chagnge the "tagging" on his images there is no way for anyonen to verify that it used to be under a free license. Commons have a verification system where trusted users (mostly admins) will go over Flickr uploads and vouch for the image beeing under a free license when they checked, but it's a slow process with a huge backlog. There is also a bot that will only copy properly licensed Flickr images. I guess your best bet is to talk to the user and see if you can't convince him to change it back to the proper CC license, as I understand CC is not the default setting so I would asume he had some idea of what he was doing when he used it (but you never know, aparently quite a few Flickr users are genuinely shocked when they realise that their CC-BY-SA images can be used by others, especialy the "commercialy" bit). --Sherool(talk)08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In Commons, not only admins but also a bot can verify images that come from Flickr. This has reduced the backlog substantially. Samulili19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Marxists.org
There are a ton of pics of various philosophers at Marxists.org. The site is under Creative Commons 2.0. Are the pics there kosher for use here? I'm very confused. --Beaker34206:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Most of the photos seems to be old enough to be PD (though some may be recent enough to be borderline and unfortunately they include no info on when the images where published or by whom, so use some caution). The CC license only extend to material created by the owner of the site itself, so that probably does not include most of the photos they use. --Sherool(talk)08:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I had assumed they were free images if they were hosted at the site, but perhaps it's better to be conservative on such matters. --Beaker34220:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
How would you advise I proceed in this situation?
Hi,
As I understand it, fair use of an image is considered permissible for critical commentary on
the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs.
It seems to me, therefore, that the image should be kept but the use of the image in the Ruby Bridges article should be removed.
Do you agree? Should I just be bold and delete the image or should I start a discussion somewhere? If the latter, where should that discussion be held?
I agree, now be bold. At the very least there is no explicit rationale claimed for that page, as required by WP:FUC #10. If someone wants to come up with one, then hold the discussion. ed g2s • talk14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Where do I start a discussion on whether an image fits or not?
There is an image in the Andrew Martinez that is a (nude) picture of the man according to the image information page. This image keeps being deleted and reverted, and I'm wondering where the fittingness of the image should be disputed.
Image in question located at Image:Sunning.jpg (how do I link to an image's page without displaying it?)
There has been a small edit war in penis as to the sizing of on of the diagrams (image:male anatomy.png). User:Atomaton wants user preferences to be respected. While I want to image to be sized at a resolution that is readable. My reason for this is that the image contains labelled parts that are described in the text of the article.
Can anyone please help give their opinion on how the image should be sized? and which size is consistent with the policy?--Clawed20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that nearly all images should be thumbnails without a size specified (respecting the user's preferences). When someone wants to read detail, he merely needs to click the thumb to see a full-sized image, which should be much larger than any size one would specify anyway. Increasingly readers will be accessing WP with hand-held devices and articles with only user-specified thumbnail sizes will be most user-friendly. --Appraiser21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not call it an edit war. It has been the normal be bold, revert, discuss cycle that two people with differing opinions follow. I asked for discussion on the talk page so that we could work it through. I suppose that you would like the image sized so that the text is readable, immediately upon entering the article. I just happen to feel that is mistaken. My thought is that most people who *want* to see things like that set a large user preference, and those would not want that set a small user pref for image size. By forcing a size on them, you take the users preferences away. If it were true that there was a loss of valuable information necessary to the article by letting user preferences be used, I might agree with you.
I work with a variety of monitors on a daily basis, from small to large, and letting user preferences be chosen makes a big difference. In most cases I can read the text "as it is" on any monitor, it just is tiny. When I want to read the detail, I merely click on the image. Most of our users, including the first time users figure this out. We are not denying them access to the detail.
If you assume that many of the users have not yet set their user preferences, and so it defaults to 180px. The image would then look something like this: File:Male anatomy.pngIllustration of the anatomy of the human male genitalia. It is obvious that there is more detail available, for anyone interested. They can just click on the image to look at the detail. (Please click on this image to see what I mean.) Or, to look at this example in its native context, go here.
It seems to me that there is a trade-off, and that both perspectives are fair (as both are supported by the WP:MOS). As allowing user preferences gives the most flexibility without losing acccess to the information, it is my preference in this specific case, and frankly, in almost every case. Atom21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Here[2] we have two editors who believe that the interpretation of the meaning of an image (without a verifiable source stating that this is the correct interpretation) violates WP:OR. I think this is absurd and requires more than a one-voice response from the image-oriented folks. The short of it is, if I upload an image of a friggin' butterfly, do we really need a published citation that states my image is indeed a friggin' butterfly? Or are we going to start requiring that our images come only from published sources that verify the image is just what it looks like? If so, say good-bye to free images. The straw poll in question is probably moot because even the originating editor has found an image he likes better. However, the two editors who insist on citations could also make the same point about the alternative images as well. Rklawton01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The "butterfly" example isn't a good comparison, as the definition of what a butterfly is beyond dispute. The meaning of "sexual objectification" is certainly up for dispute, and is highly subjective. Requiring citations for disputed content is quite reasonable. In particular, any disputed claim about a living person (or depictions of them), definately requires a citation. Fortunately, in the vast majority of images used on Wikipedia, there's no dispute that the image depicts what's claimed. --Rob03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The identification the species associated with the image could easily be disputed. Many types of butterflies look very similar to each other, so I think the example has merit. Next, I wasn't aware there was a dispute about whether or not the image of a girl getting her t-shirt doused with water in front of a crowd of men constituted a wet t-shirt contest. Is this claim actually being disputed? And who, specifically is disputing this? Rklawton05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't disputing it. However, I suspect the girl who was doused with water, and the douser probably do. Also, the discussion wasn't just about the "water dousing pic". There was also Image:Objectification at Imitation of Christ by David Shankbone edited-1.jpg, which is rather pecular, and harder to pigeon hole. While Image:Pouring-water-for-wet-tshirt.jpg doesn't have a clearly identifiable person (no face shown clearly), the ""Imitation of Christ" does show faces, and those people probably would object to your label. They may well call it "art". We have a very strict WP:BLP policy, and lots of things we may find "obvious" aren't allowed if some people may dispute them. Anyhow, this all seems like a rather poor excuse to show a certain type of picture. Neither picture adds anything that properly written text can't handle. As for your silly butterfly example, no there is usually little dispute of what a butterfly is. But if/when there is, I would demand verification, and removal if there wasn't. Note, however, what species an animal is, is a factual question, that can be answered definitively, in a way, that subjective questions (like what's "objectification") can never be. --Rob14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not an easy question. We explicitly excluded images from meeting WP:NOR. We didn't exclude interpreting images from WP:NOR. My only recommendation is to tread lightly, be very conservative, and quickly identify and exclude anybody who isn't contributing thoughtful, good-faith material to the discussion. Jkelly07:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The short of User:Thivierr's argument appears to be that he simply doesn't want any image to illustrate the Sexual objectification article and he's trying to use WP:OR as his excuse for what ammounts to POV pushing. Wet t-shirt contests have been cited as an example (along with many others) as a form of sexual objectification, so an image depicting such is significant to the article. The question relevant to this talk page now is: how have these "we don't want any images" (i.e., "Wikipedia should be censored") arguments been settled previously? Rklawton02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Note quite. I would welcome a good picture of a wet-t-shirt contest, in a wet-t-shirt contest article. Also, suppose there was an event (wet-t-shirt or otherwise) that had published criticisim for being "objectification", and you had an image of such an event; then, I would welcome a picture of it (with cites given in article). We have to separate arguemetns here. I am all for having the relevant images. I just oppose any useage which includes *unattributed* opinion as to their meaning, beyond what's an objective fact. If we allow people to upload images, with deragatory terms describing them, than Wikipedia will be routinely used as a vehicle for insulting people. For instance, why not have an image of a person "acting stupid", "being a jerK', "lazy", "being a slut" or maybe just "ugly". After, all, I can come up with pictures that "obviously" meet the criterion. I'm not trying to suppress the image, just your personal interpretation of its meaning. --Rob15:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying, then, that an image of a specific event must have a verifiable citation that states that it is what it is? Or is it enough to say that wet t-shirt contests are an example of sexual objectification; this is an image of a wet t-shirt competition; therefore this is an illustration of an example of sexual objectification? Rklawton16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Publicity photo?
I have found what appears to be a 1960's television publicity photo for Adam West as Bruce Wayne on some random website (scroll down). It has no copyright reference or tag. Any thoughts on whether it is appropropriate to use?--Vbd02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No, if we can't source the copyright holder, we can't use it. You could write to the website owner asking for more information. Jkelly19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Good evening. I'm a user from the Italian Wikipedia and I'm working to this voice. In en.wiki I've found this image, which I'd use in the voice. I'd want to know where I can ask the permission to use the image, if you know. I've tried to contact the uploader, but he's offline by a lot of time. If you can answer to my question, --El Tarantiniese20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought there was a Wikipedia policy whereby one could use a copyrighted image in an article if the permission of the copyright holder were obtained and permission e-mailed to Wikipedia. Is this still correct? Where is this information? KP Botany03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If they are releasing it under a free license, email the release to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org. If they're just giving Wikipedia permission to republish it, it needs to adhere to our Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines and policy. Such permission can be noted on the image description page, but we're not very interested in it. Jkelly03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite follow the last part, although I'm not certain it's relevant to the case at hand. This image lists a copyright but nowhere does it list the photographer's permission to use the image has been granted: Image:Thornwort.jpg. Thanks for the first part. Does it list this anywhere on the policy? KP Botany03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still trying to learn the ins and outs of the WP policy on images, so I apologize if I am asking obvious questions. As part of a recent rating of a biographical article (Don Ohlmeyer), there was a specific request that a photo be added, so I have been surfing the Web trying to find one. So far, I have two options. One is a photo that appears on the Museum of Broadcast Communications bio of Ohlmeyer and is credited as "Photo courtesy of Don Ohlemeyer." I'm pretty sure I have seen it on other sites, too. Is it implied that this photo can be used with Ohlemeyer's permission? I don't know how to contact him directly to get permission. The second option is a candid photo of Ohlmeyer giving a guest lecture. It is posted on some professor's webpage; I suspect he would grant permission for its use. If this is the better option, how do I go about getting permission?--Vbd | (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
In either case, you must ask for and receive permission - and state exactly what sort of permission (copyright) you received on the image's page when you upload the image. Read: WP:COPYREQ for the full details. Rklawton15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Taking pictures of people
How can we justify using someones picture on wikipedia? How can I legitematelly publish someones picture, which I was using previously under fair use but it was deleted for copyright issues, in an article about that person? How can we republish someones picture here when we know that if it is used commercially that company may face sanctions? --CyclePat02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Publishers are responsible for what they publish. If we tag something as fair-use, and some idiot is stupid enough to publish it commercially, then they get what's coming to them. It's how the rest of the world works, and we're not a special case. Rklawton04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Still, I wonder, specially after ready this article from USA today, if a person really doesn't want his picture to be published can it be removed? Let's assume it meets fair use and does not violates their personal privacy issues? If I take someones picture in public or while he is teaching a class (at work), can I publish it on Wikipedia if the article is about that person? --CyclePat15:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That's two different questions. First, administrators can remove an image for a variety of reasons. Typically, if the subject of an image complains, admins will remove the image rather than hassle with the matter any further. Second, the privacy/legal/USA point of view is another matter entirely. Wikipedians endeavor to follow the law plus policies consistent with maintaining a free encyclopedia. In short, we're stricter. US law offers very little privacy protection for people photographed in public when their images are used for social commentary purposes and aren't libelous. Rklawton21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay! I'm going to play devils advocat here. Let's assume I am a business and I've decided to republish Image:Pope Benedictus XVI january,20 2006 (2) mod.jpg with the words "Come to our church, our Pope Ben!" Well, according to USA Today, "you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose — using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK."[3] So, that would mean we can infer that we could not use pope Ben's picture, even though it was taken by a photograph that has released the image. If I can't use the image for commercial purposes shouldn't that image be deleted or labeled differently. Perhaps are pictures of people are only fair use images? Wasn't there a vandetta towards such fair use images where some people believe it should be deleted? --CyclePat01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I read some talk hereabouts about model releases for all recognizable people in images. Some folks think that a model release would solve the problem you mention. Of course, we'd end up deleting a lot of images, and we'd have the new problem about who verifies and maintains these releases. Model releases aren't the end-all, either. A model can revoke a release at any time. Also, a release isn't actually a "release" for all possible applications of an image. For example, let's say a model signs a release for "commercial use" and some agency decides to make a billboard out of her face with the caption "don't end up a crack-whore". Well guess what, unless the model release specifically stated the image would be used in this way, it just won't hold up in court (yes, a similar example has been tested in court). The compromise, as I've seen it applied here and in commons seems to be for us to apply WP:BLP standards to images. If the image is of a recognizable person, then it must not represent something that isn't obviously true or be properly sourced. For example, a photo of a person running nude across a football field during a football game could reasonably be used to illustrate an article about streaking. However, an image of a person running nude through an empty field with no other person visible could not because it's not obvious that what the person is doing satisfies the definition of streaking. There's a neat little discussion in commons about a photo of a man and a woman talking in the street. It's labeled something like "a prostitute talks with her pimp". The photographer claims he overheard the conversation and that the description is correct, but the image does not make this evident, and there is nothing that satisfies WP:RS to indicate the image is what the uploader claims it to be. When I checked last, the uploader was losing his case. Lastly, even if the image is self-evident, if it is derogatory to the subject, editors here are more inclined to obscure the subject's identity rather than risk potential embarrassment to the subject. Rklawton02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Permissions
Is it important that Wikipedia be sent permission to use an uploaded copyright image or not? I seem to be having difficulties with an editor who won't send or won't explicitly state that she has sent the permission--namely, I think the editor has been given permission to upload the copyrighted image to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia itself does not have the copyright holder's permission. From having copyright materials professionally printed myself, I can assure you that my having the permission is not sufficient for the printer to print the copyrighted materials, the printer must have permission. It seems to be that on Wikipedia it would be the same, that Wikipedia must be the one with the explicitly given permission to use the copyrighted image. KP Botany19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The editor must either explicitly mention, on their web site, that their content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (or a compatible license) or they must send permission from a public e-mail address to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org.
Short of that, if they mention explicitly to you the GFDL-compatible license they intend to apply to their work, it may be uploaded. You must also, however, receive permission to post your personal correspondence with the person to a relevant talk page, the image description page, etc. so that other users may attempt to verify the licensing. But they must explicitly mention the license for their images and that they will release their e-mail correspondences. --Iamunknown22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it okay to upload self-created image in wikipedia and At The Time in Another WEBSITE? Is there any problem to have self created images in both other website and as well as in Wikipedia or (wikimedia)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NAHID (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
If you own the copyrights, then you can do what you want with your images. Since Wikipedia is a FREE encyclopedia, it is our hope that these images will be freely used lots of places. So no, it's no problem at all. Rklawton15:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Any user, whether the uploader or not, may dispute the claim that an image is replaceable. They should not, hwoever, remove Template:Rfu, but instead add Template:Replaceable fair use disputed. --Iamunknown21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And rational
A lot of images (i.g.logo and other images) uploading without rational, sources and proper license. Will it be okay If an user start to add rational, sources and proper license to those image pages that was uploaded by another user? (though responsibility just goes to the uploader) Most of the time uploader forgate to add those stuffs in image page. Then can other user add stuffs(rational, sources and proper license) to those image pages to ensure they won't get deleted? Or leave them just for in deletion process --NAHID08:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In my experience listing images and debating copyright licenses on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, I would say that the consensus is that you certainly may add a rationale, source, and/or proper license to the image description page in obvious cases. Make sure, however, that they are obvious enough so that you are sure of the correct information. --Iamunknown21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Mistakenly tagged an image or Article by wrong deletion template
Can any user ,uploader or creator remove any deletion template from an Article \ Image (except {{Template:Prod}}) that's mistakenly tagged by another person (If the deletion template is clearly wrong)? Can anyone clarify it to me? :) thanks --NAHID21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say no: removing process templates is vandalism. Instead, become one with the wiki, replace the wrong template with the appropriate one, and create a nomination page that says something like, "I came across this incomplete nomination. I have no opinion. ~~~~," or anything else. --Iamunknown21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. We know that we can't remove WP:IFD and WP:AFD from an article / image. But What if Someone tagged an article / image wrongly (If he doesn't know the policy of using deletion template) by using these two templates. Can any user, creator or uploader remove them ('Coz they are being wrongly used on an article / image) --NAHID21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfree image deletion tamplates and Transwiki templates falls in which deletion process?? Speedy deletion or something else?? --NAHID21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In the section: User-created images: Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use.
Is is applicable to steganography? Where a user embeds his name and copyright (cc-by-sa-2.5) so that the license is properly enforced? For example if the image is used without attribution, the original author can prove that the image belongs to him. =Nichalp«Talk»=17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never thought of that. I would assume that, if the stenography in no way obstructs the image as a watermark obviously does, then it would be acceptable to upload the image. Any other opinions? --Iamunknown02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think stegging a copyright into an image is a great idea. It's not foolproof, though. If the image is digitally manipulated, this information may be lost. For example, if I stegged and uploaded a high-rez image, the low-rez version found in an article would likely have lost this information due to resizing. A better way might be to add the copyright into the image's metadata. This, at least, isn't lost with resizing or editing. Rklawton16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm editing the articles on Everest - and on Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay who were the first people to reach its summit. I would like to include these two photos as they are particularly iconic and will add greatly to the articles:
Can I add Book,Album, CD cover and Screenshot in Biography ,that is related to particular person? For example Video screenshot in the article of Madona, Book cover in famous writer's article and also CD cover in the article of Madona.Thanks --NAHID18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes and No. If the fair use image is used to illustrate the work from which it came (book, CD, movie), then yes. If it's used to illustrate something else (actor, performer) then no. So, a nice album cover photo of an artist can not be used to illustrate his/her article. However, it might be used to illustrate a section within that article dedicated to that specific work. For example, a discography section might contain small album cover images to illustrate each of the albums named therein. Rklawton20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Self taken screenshot
If I take an screenshot of Film by myself by using powerDVD (or equivalent software), then is there any chance to delete that image? What can be the possible reasons?
And, Image:Najimy MaryPatrick.jpg is this image replaceable? The image (screenshot) is using in Biography (Kathy Najimy). Is it likely to be deleted? Shoudn't it be used in biography? Please clarify it to me --NAHID20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot should be fine if you use the tag {Non-free film screenshot} (adding another set of brackets, obviously) in your license area, and provide rationalizations for its use. See Image:Simpsons couch gag.jpg for an example. Not a film, but same idea. Sorry if you don't like the Simpsons. vLaDsINgEr14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Image from flickr.com
If I upload an image from flickr. com, then what can be the appropriate license? Most of the time they are uploaded under {{t1|{{attribution}}. This link [[4]] shows that this image (Image:Bmalke.jpg) is under public domain.But it's license tag is {{attribution}}. What's the matter? In UPLOAD Section license box doesn't show any license tag for images found in flickr.com.How can I rectify this?--NAHID21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The link you provided above leads to an image that is fully copyrighted. As such, the image should be immediately removed from Wikipedia. Rklawton21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, as Rklawton stated, that image is copyrighted. Under the Additional Information section, it says " All Rights Reserved" which means the image is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. Also, images taken from Flickr should be uploaded to the Commons. The upload page on that site does have options for images from Flickr. On a Flickr image page you cannot use an image with any of the following copyright tags: , , .↔NMajdan•talk22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If I published my own image in another website by mentioning " All Rights Reserved", then can I upload those images in wiki[me]pedia too (Since I'm the copyright holder). If I'm able to do so, then what should I write in image description page?--NAHID21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If you hold the copyright to the image, feel free to upload it and assign it any copyright you feel appropriate (and allowed by Wikipedia). Rklawton19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use image
A notable person who died less then 70 years ago, then what should be the appropriate license of his image. Will it be {{Non-free fair use in}} license? I noticed most of the persons (who died 5, 10, 30....years ago) images are tagged with {{Non-free fair use in}}. Thanks in advance --NAHID20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I could not open the image, so I could not see it. (This is because I botched up the URL I gave them.) Because of this, I am replying on a general level.
First I state that a police car, by itself, cannot be subject to copyright and thus a photograph of one does not infringe copyright (see §1 of the Finnish Copyright Act, which states that copyrights protect "literal or artistic works"). By the copyright law, the photograph the asker took can be subject to copyright. I must further note that the official police emblems (for example, the sword logo) may not be used without permission from the police department of the Ministry of the Interior, but as I understand the case was not the use of police emblems, but rather only a photograph of a police car. If the asker wants to confirm this, I recommend contacting the police chief management (the police department of the Ministry of the Interior).
Second I state that when photographing in a public place, and specially when photographing private persons, as well as the copyright law and possible permission from the subject, for example §24 of the Finnish Criminal Act (specially, regarding secretive viewing (espionage? voyeurism?) and blasphemy), and privacy protection otherwise. In these cases, the issue is mostly about what the photograph is used for.
Finally I state that I have not studied the Wikipedia policy, because it does not fall under my duties in this case. I do recommend that the asker studies them himself, or with the help of a lawyer, because the policy is binding between the asker and Wikipedia. Because of this, the policy may include further restrictions regarding the issue.
This is the way I read the note above is: you can't use logos; you can use images of police cars with logos; you must respect the privacy of individuals per Finnish law (whatever that is). My conclusion is: this image does not contain the image of any recognizable person. I don't see any problems using this image. Rklawton16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevance of image
I don't seem to find a Wiki policy, or much discussion, on the relevance of images that are included in articles.
On the article for journalist and columnist Andrew Bolt I have added the cover of a book which devotes several pages to criticising Bolt. The criticism is of the accuracy and honesty of Bolt's journalism and the book was written by the captain of an oil tanker that had been captured by pirates. Bolt reported on the incident at the time. I would argue the inclusion of the criticism, firstly, is notable because (a) the incident at the time was widely reported; (b) the author's occupation provides him with a certain status and (c) his accusations go to the heart of Bolt's reputation. Secondly, I would argue the inclusion of a book cover is warranted because of the nature of the criticism and its pertinence to this journalist's credibility.
The Bolt article is so far un-illustrated. Another editor has twice deleted the book cover. I have tried to find examples of articles in which a critic or antagonist of the subject of an article is depicted ... without success. (eg Lewinsky in Clinton, Woodward in Nixon etc).
No. Fair use of a book cover is limited to illustrating the cover of the book in question, not to illustrate the subject or author of the book. fethers01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Well it may or may not be fair use (in a legal sense), but Wikipedia policy does not allow the usage of fair use claims in such situations. Mentioning the book is probably warranted, but that does not mean it's cover art is of significant enough importance to the article to warrant it's inclution. Non-free-licensed images should be used very sparingly, and only when it adds significant information that can not reasonably be introduced into the article by other means. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. That has more to do with the fact that we are supposed to be making a free content ensyclopedia than the actual relevantce of the image though. Free licensed images can be used fairly liberaly as long as they have some relation to the article in question and otherwise "fits in". --Sherool(talk)01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the image from the article "Andrew Bolt." If you want to actually delete the image, you need to tag it as such. If you want to actually delete the image, you'll need to go to the image (Image:Petropirates.jpg) and tag it with {{db-author}}. To do that, edit the page and type { { d b - a u t h o r } } without any of the spaces. --Iamunknown02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to slightly modify watermark rule for user images
I propose to change "Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, ..." to "Also, user-created images may not be visibly watermarked, ..." (notice the "visibly"), to explicitly allow digital watermarks. This would allow contributors that want to be able to track possible misuse of the image by the invisible digital watermark to do so. Perhaps even adding text about invisible digital watermarks are specifically allowed.
The next step is to decide what to do with images that are watermarked, ie, if they should be deleted, replaced, cropped, grand-fathered in, etc. But for now, just a change in the wording of the policy, once consensus is achieved on this, we can discuss what should happen. --MECU≈talk18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not adopt or imply any obligation to preserve anyone's watermark, visible or not. Any editor is free to remove them (unless, of couse, it concerns a deliberate picture of a watermark).Cuddlyable318:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Using photos with permission from creator
I have a question about uploading a photo that was taken by a family member or friend. Even if the person has given permission to use the photograph, or release it to the public domain, I don't want to claim that I created it. Any suggestions?
GeoffreyCH05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently found a press photo of Forest Whitaker that I added to his Infobox. An admin came along and removed it; his explanation in the edit summary was, "sorry, that image would only be fair use if used to discuss the character." I posted a message on the admin's talk page to inquire about this decision. I have yet to receive a response. Is there a process by which I can appeal his determination that the use of the photo in the Infobox is not fair use?--Vbd (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I know that fair use is contrued narrowly. But I'm still not clear on the threshold for a publicity photo like this. Whitaker's character on The Shield is listed in the Infobox as one of his "notable roles" and is discussed within the text of the article. How much discussion of the character in Whitaker's bio might constitute legitimate fair use of the photo? Would it matter of the photo was placed elsewhere on the page, rather than in the Infobox? --Vbd (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Commons media categorisation
Hello,
I've encountered a user who has created several categories for images as analogues to categories on the Commons based on the idea that then linking those categories to the Commons makes locating images easier, even though there is far less image content on WP and so the result is many categories for a few images; they have even begun categorising Commons media that are not even used on WP (1,2,3,4) so as to populate the hierarchy of categories created (1,2). My understanding was that we were actively in the process of moving all free images to the Commons, and so it followed that if not reducing image infrastructure on WP, we shouldn't be increasing it. After an inquiry to an admin working on image categorisation that recommended that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to deletion of one of the images, this user promptly created a page for the Commons image and again categorised it on WP. According to that sort of convention, wouldn't we have every image from the Commons categorised by their WP pages on WP, thus pretty much negating the utility of separate projects? Please advise, TewfikTalk05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Cropping an album-cover image
A user is cropping album and single covers to exclude the title and artist graphic (in order to just show the subject(s)) and using the image in infoboxes, claiming, of course, that it's an (unedited) cover of a recording. How does this stand in the eyes of Wikipedia? - Dudesleeper · Talk07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Every day, thousands of images are uploaded with incorrect or incomplete licensing information, or that don't meet Wikipedia's image use policy for one reason or another. There are around 10000 images in the various backlogs and at any given time, Category:Non-commercial use only images for speedy deletion has around 50 or so images. On top of all of this, there are over 110 thousand orphaned images and, other than a brief time when a bot was clearing out orphaned non-free images, that number has been steadily increasing.
One of the biggest complaints that I have found when I delete images is that many well-meaning users do not understand our image use policy. I noticed several days ago a page called Wikipedia:Fromowner that makes it very simple for a user to upload an image that he or she created. When they click on the link from Wikipedia:Fromowner, they are taken to a custom upload page [5] with very simple instructions for uploading a file.
I would like to propose that we expand on this concept. We can have as many custom upload pages as we would like. Each page can then give full instructions that are relevant to the user's situation. A page dealing with
I have created a prototype at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext. At the bottom is the current upload instruction page we use at Special:Upload. But at the top is a box that invites the user to click on one or more links that will take them to a content-specific form. Each content-specific form gives specific instructions for what the user is trying to upload. The goal here is that a well-meaning user will have instructions geared towards their need, as opposed to being presented with a large number of boxes.
I have no attachment to the particular pages displayed or the exact text on them. If you think there should be a special form for a different content type, that's fine. If you think that having a page for "some website" uploads is to beansy, that's fine too. This is a proof of concept - not something I'm planning on taking live tomorrow.
Please have a look at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext and the related pages and give your thoughts on User talk:BigDT/upload. I think that it is important that we do something to stem the tide of ever-increasing image backlogs and helping a novice user understand what kinds of things to upload is an important step.
As much as I like tits, this image: [6] concerns me. I wonder if those girls are all aged 18+?. Doesn't the page require a 18_USC_Section_2257 statement to that effect? Sorry if I have brought this matter to the wrong place, I did put something on the image's talk page but I think this could be urgent.Chronic The Wedgehog20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the Land of the Free, but there is nothing "sexually explicit" in that picture, as far as I can tell.--Stephan Schulz23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
After some discussion on WP:IFD about using a new system for archiving discussions, and template changes, some new templates were made. This would be a change in process for IFD to a more decentralized system very similar to how the replaceable fair use system works now. Please give any feedback about it you have. :) - cohesion01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Image credit in article's caption
I was wondering if there is a policy as to whether it is ok to give photo credit in the article's caption. The image Virginia Tech massacre Damiano photo from Holden Hall.jpg has its photographer credited in the caption in the article Virginia Tech massacre#Attacks. I went to remove the credit, but hidden text said not to remove it because apparently the photographer prefers that his name is "is incorporated into the image or used as a caption," according to the image's "terms of use." I think that this is highly inappropriate because nowhere else on Wikipedia have I seen someone preferring to be credited in the caption, and I think that it should be removed. –Crashintome419617:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not so - the image of Bridget Moynahan has the copyright holder and the copyright status in the text under said image. I put that one up, with that requirement from the source. --Dumarest20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Question about uploading images by other people
If you ask someone on a website, such as a message board or forum to use an image they took on wikipedia, is it allowed? If it is, what's the exact process that needs to be gone through?
I find the image uploading rules and processes on wikipedia to be quite confusing personally. Thanks for any help in advance.
Is there a policy on image-naming conventions that would settle whether it's permissible to include the name of the author and contributor of an image in the image's filename? The author/contributor in question is also a Wikipedia editor who uses his real name as his userid, and includes this name in the image's filename, so that the filename for a picture of a Corvette, for example, would be Corvette_by_[User's]_[Name].jpg .
I AGF, but also wonder if the purpose might not be self-promotion: a Google search on the editor's real name returns hits for the image files on Wikipedia precisely because the author has included his name in the image's filename. I note that in several articles the editor has without explanation substituted his own work for perfectly adequate images. Doing so has not appreciably improved the articles, but it has, of course, replaced the file with one bearing the editor's name and increased his visibility on the web.
In fact, on other websites the user advertises his work as a photographer by inviting people to view his work at Wikipedia -- and to visit his Wikipedia userpage, which raises the possibility that the userpage itself may be being used for self-promotion, contrary toWP:NOT#USER.
I have hunted around without much success for relevant policies, and while I suspect WP:NOT#SOAP is probably applicable, I'm wondering if there are other more precisely on point. Is there a policy on claiming authorship that might be relevant? --Rrburke(talk)13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty fine with this, since it's fairly hidden to the casual reader. It doesn't really show up on the article page and you can only see if it you're interested in the image anyways. But I agree, there isn't anything covering this. MECU≈talk13:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the contributor's name appears to casual readers on every mouse-hover over the image -- when the image alt-text is displayed. The contributor also inserts his real name into all the attendant edit summaries. --Rrburke(talk)19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't see a problem with that. It's not "in your face" advertising, but attribution. However, if the "YOUR_NAME" part of the image filename was "www.myawesomewebsite.com" I would have a problem with that... but an image "Pretty flowers by MECU" I don't. I don't think it's self-promotion, it's attribution and credit for work. It's very subtle and nearly hidden to the average reader. MECU≈talk20:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
For my part, I've never thought credit for work had much to do with the Wikipedia model. As for attribution, the Information template will suffice to achieve that. Since that template already takes care of the issue of attribution, I can't see much purpose in inserting your name elsewhere unless it's to call attention to yourself as the creator of the image. Moreover, my understanding is that the purpose of attribution is chiefly to avoid copyright problems, not to ensure credit for the contributor.
As for inserting your website name in the filename, that strikes me as fairly apposite: if I'm looking for a cheap way to increase the visibility of my photographic work, talking myself up on other sites and then suggesting people visit my WP userpage and view my photographic contributions at Wikipedia (which is what the user in question has done) is not bad free publicity -- and hence contrary to the spirit, at any rate, of WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#USER and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Except that in this case I don't even need to direct people to my website, because Wikipedia is providing me one for free. --Rrburke(talk)20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Could some editors take a good look at these and reach some agreement on whether any action should be taken (changing background, reverrt to original.)
brendel maintains that the manipulated images are superior to the "the usual on-the-street crap." The on the street images are of depressingly poor quality, but I do not believe that these manipulations are the best way to go. Please give some guidance. There is also a rather pointed discussion going on between brendel and CJ DUB on brendel's talk page. vLaDsINgEr14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No colors. If you're going to remove the background, which is fine generally, it should be to a blank white background. This is routinely done to make images to "focus" the image on the subject. I'm fine with this, but it should be to a more professional level than neon colors or textured backgrounds. It may look boring, but there shouldn't be an artistic quality really to the image. Color selection could pose problems for some color blind or limited eyesight people as well, where as a solid white eliminates this, in theory. MECU≈talk19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Images That Disparrage Others
Are users allowed to upload and use images that insult, demean and disparrage other users' belief systems? What if the image itself proves the user/editor is biased toward one particular POV? How can that user be trusted to contribute or edit anything without a footnote? Ymous17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Images shouldn't be solely to attack. I think they then fit under the WP:CSD G10 (though it says attack pages, I would delete an image for the same purpose since it's under "general"). However, this sounds more like a content dispute for which the dispute resolution process would be a better route to solve the disagreement. MECU≈talk19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Content policies can handle this, there is no special provision for images. If something is encyclopedic and should be in wikipedia according to the myriad inclusion policies that is fine. Wikipedia is not censored. WP:NOT#CENSORED. - cohesion01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Credit on image description page
How is that "appropriate attribution"? We ask that for example newspapers using our images properly attribute the image, but we ourselves hide it away on an image description page nobody looks at.
Attribution is indeed not very wiki but it motivates people on Flickr or whatever to give up their images and have their name in Wikipedia. It might not look good but if we don't do that we often wouldn't have gotten the images in the first place. Moreover, it doesn't limit those images to be free images. I say it's only fair to the image creators that they be attributed were people can see. But most importantly, we expect other reusers of the image to do the same, since most websites don't have image description pages.
I suggest changing it to allow credits on the article beneath the image, be it in <small>.
There's no reason to credit a thumbnail (which is what the image on a wiki page is) which links to a page where the author is credited, should anyone be interested enough to click it. I guess the incentive is to upload images good enough to generate that interest! mikaultalk23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that the Commons upload process does not allow people to put a "non-commercial" tag on their uploads. I propose that the same be done here. This would save admins a lot of time deleting images which have the {{db-noncom}} tag on them. -- RHaworth00:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is intentional. If we don't have those options people pick other incorrect options at random. - cohesion01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Flag images from FOTW
What is the permission/copyright status of flags obtained from the "Flags of the World" website? I am not aware that they are copyrighted, though of course acknowledgment should be made. Case in point: Carroll County, Illinois: I uploaded the image to Wikipedia. I *designed* the flag back in 1974 and the neither I nor the county copyrighted it, intentionally -- we wanted people to use the image freely. But I didn't know how to say that here.
The section at Placement concerning (what turns out to be) the collecting of images in a gallery format (in the case of articles blessed with multiple images) is confusingly titled "Photo montages", rather than the obvious "Galleries". A photomontage refers to the combination, usualy in photoshop or similar, of several photographs into a single image. If there's nothing obvious I'm missing here, I intend changing this sub-section to refer to Gallery use. mikaultalk23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
'Tis done. I've added the suggestion to create and link to commons-based galleries instead of en namespace ones. Not sure if the opening "four options" are relevent now, to be perfectly honest. Suggestions welcome. mikaultalk11:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0
Is it ok to download images made by other people licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 ? Epbr12312:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes! If you re-use the image you must follow the license though. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org.. It is our goal to create all the content so that it can be re-used. :) - cohesion00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this image today at glycogen. It's a micrograph showing glycogen granules quite nicely, however it has been taken from a text book and uploaded under public domain licence. The user has modified it slightly, but it's still essentially the text book's image. I imagine it will have to be deleted? Could someone familiar with image policy take care of things and let the uploader know the situation? Thanks. Richard00110:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware for a "basic" image such as this if someone has created a digital version by using the information provided in a textbook then it wouldn't breach copyright - as you can't copyright information, only the form it takes. But if you're still worried tag it as {{PUIdisputed}} and list it on the page indicated - then it will get discussed. Madmedea10:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, that was a different picture from the same page, I've fixed the link. The one I linked to before was created by the same author, presumably his own original work. Richard00111:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear... unless he's Mr Junqueira (the author) that is a copyright violation. I've tagged it for deletion.Madmedea11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article.
My dictionary defines
explicit precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication; in accordance with fact or the primary meaning of a term
How can explicit be bad? Has someone who thinks they know better than to use a dictionary decided to re-define the word as a euphemism for offensive, or are we supposed to deduce "explicitly sexual"? Either of those possibilities seem stupid and I ask whether anyone else supports more sensible wording of #12, keeping consistency with WP:NOTCENSORED Cuddlyable320:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two other problems with the quoted sentence: 1) It contradicts what one can read here:A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. 2) The prohibition "Do not upload...unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors..." is a nonsensical "Catch-22" rule because editors cannot judge, let alone reach consensus on, any picture until after someone has uploaded it for consideration. Cuddlyable307:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this specific rule of thumb was to prevent shocking images to be inserted into articles purely with the intention to shock or offend. This rule creates an "err on the side of caution" feeling, with which I definitely agree. The quoted sentence should definitely be rephrased to read something like Do not insert shocking or explicit pictures into articles, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article.
While a picture like Image:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg could be claimed as explicit, it is clearly encyclopaedic. Other images may be deemed offensive, but crucial to the understanding of an article, while others may be considered offensive and not significant or necessary to the article. This rule guards against the second type. Anrie21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Anrie your post demonstrates doublespeak where you want both to keep a rule against "explicit pictures" and to give the same characterisation to a picture of eye surgery that has found broad acceptance on Wikipedia pages after it was uploaded. Just changing in the quoted rule the word "upload" into "insert...into articles" as you propose is an unhelpful variation because we are only concerned here with images for Wikipedia articles. It is a mystery how you think either version of the rule can guard against some offensive images and not others, or where you find "offensive" even mentioned. You may say you "definitely agree" with having an "err on the side of caution feeling" but that sounds like chilling censorship which is incompatible with WP:NOTCENSORED.Cuddlyable314:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Now-now, let's not go around accusing fellow-wikipedians all willy-nilly. Look, I used Image:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg purely as an example of an image where someone might go "Yuk! Ew! Does that have to be there?" It might not be a great (or even a good) example, but I didn't exactly feel like browsing through categories like "masturbation" and other possibly explicit/offensive categories to look for a better example.
What do you mean with this sentence: "Just changing in the quoted rule the word "upload" into "insert...into articles" as you propose is an unhelpful variation because we are only concerned here with images for Wikipedia articles." ? What I meant was that a person could upload his picture, but if he thinks that some might find it offensive/too explicit, he could discuss it on the talk page and link to the image from there, so that others might see it and help decide. The original sentence doesn't make a lot of sense - how can other people help decide on the suitability of an image, if they have no access to it?
Wikipedia users are always invited to use their discretion: if I think "imagex.jpg" (not a specific image) might be useful to be used in "articlex", but I consider it a bit border-line (perhaps a picture of a puppy being dissected for an article on the anatomy of a dog - can't really think of a great example now), I could upload it and then provide a link to it from the talk page, asking other contributors what they think of it. This way the community can decide whether it is suitable for inclusion in the article or not. Discussions regarding the suitability of pictures are made every day for pictures which aren't explicit/offensive. All this rule is saying that in some cases it might be a good idea to discuss first, before insertion, instead of after. Anrie07:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Explicit has at least two meanings, according to my dictionary and Wiktionary, of which the "clearly expressed" meaning is barely the most commonly used. I don't know about US English, but in other parts of the world explicit is very commonly used to refer to material which might be regarded as offensive, especially regarding visual media. I don't think offensive is anywhere near specific enough in this context. Ok, there's a problem there with the wording – it shouldn't prescribe against uploading but it should till advise against pasting into an article before discussion with other editors, as you should before adding any controversial content. Per Anrie, it's an appeal to common sense and courtesy, not voluntary censorship. mikaultalk12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The "clearly expressed" meaning of explicit is the only meaning of the word in many older dictionaries. That meaning should be close to any encyclopedist's heart. This source [[7]] records that the word gets used since 1971 as a new euphemism for pornographic. Mikaul surprises me by suggesting the original meaning barely survives, and Anrie sees it having wider application to some peculiar examples of non-sexual offence. What I see is a straightforward word of my English language being ruined the same way as words like "gay" and "intercourse". I don't think it is constructive here to talk about "someone might go "Yuk!" on seeing a surgical view or about puppy dissection. However Anrie I do understand now you have explained your intention with rewording the rule, but I think Wikipedia has matured through erring on the side of be bold! rather than be cautious! I don't think a difficult case is made any easier by the uploader encouraging a controversy on a talk page because what matters is the usefulness of the image judged when seen in its context. I suggest we try to write a more constructive version of Rule #12 that doesn't mince euphemisms and has more to do with a 21st century on-line encyclopedia than the attitudes of 19th century nannies (who would swoon at just the idea of having an article on masturbation). Cuddlyable316:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're on the right lines, as was your (now reverted) edit, although the right wording really does revolve around the way the type of image in question is described. I hear what you say about long-established meanings and definitions and looking again, the more common modern term is probably a compound, ie, sexually explicit. Whereas I do think modern adopted "buzz words" have a habit of seriously sidelining original meanings – that's another issue – the word can be used in both senses in this context. The wording I have in mind makes a bigger deal of likely controversy than of risqué content, and requests justification while being less prohibitive. Rather than float it by here first, I'll go ahead and post a version along those lines. The exact description of this type of image here (is there a "type" of image here?) is the bit I'm not entirely sure about, but overall it has to be better than the finger-wagging Catch-22 we had before. mikaultalk16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome aboard mikaul. I see that rewrites to the guideline are streaming in now, mostly from editors who may not have caught up with this thread. I encourage you to float your version here because on this subject only a text that can be seen to have obtained significant consensus is likely to be allowed to stand long. Can the class of picture be pre-defined? - I think not. Can the intention behind any uploading to Wikipedia be characterised? - I think we are trying to do that. Shall we tell Adam not to eat apples? - LOL that's been tried before. (Gen. 3:3) Cuddlyable309:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Older images - cutoff date?
When working on articles about historic matters (in my case, New Zealand history), I often get images which have dates on when they were taken, but not who took them. NZ copyright allows reuse of an image 50 years after the authors death, or 100 years after it was taken by a government agency. Finding out who took an image is hard, finding out their death date is in most cases impossible.
Therefore, would it be acceptable for me to label an image Template:PD-NZ if it was taken on or before 1857?
The above year was derived in the following way: I assume that at maximum, a person would live to around 115 years. I am stretching that, the number of people who do are so limited. I also assume that a person would not have been able to take a photo before he was 15 (remember, this was in the day when cameras were still about as complicated and expensive to use as, say, an airplane today). 15 would be very early again.
Therefore, any photo taken 150 years ago would be public domain (took photo at 15, then lived to 115, plus 50 years copyright). If the photo was taken by a government agency or a company after all, it would have entered PD even earlier (after 50-100 years after being taken, depends), so that would be safe as well.
What do people think about this? This is quite relevant here, for there ARE many photos of early NZ colonial of 1857 or earlier, and within the next years, increasingly more will become available as time goes by.MadMaxDog11:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Be Bold i.e. "publish and be damned!". The NZ copyright law includes this: If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first made available to the public by an authorised act.Cuddlyable308:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia article as a image source
I found some images mention wikipedia article as a source.Among of those images, some of them under fair use and others are under PD old license.So, can anyone use WP article as a source whether it's a fair use or PD old image.Regards--202.79.19.19318:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Legality
I'm wondering if pictures like Image:Formentera i Eivissa 016 cropped.jpg actually conform to child-porn laws. I traced the origins of the picture and found somewhere a mention that the subject was only 16. Whether or not that is valid, I have no idea, but it raises the question of what exactly the bounds are for pictures such as these. -- VegitaU21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what laws you think about (which jurisdiction, I'd guess US federal law?). But as this does not involve sex, or obscenity, its not nearly as problematic as you may think. Otherwise, lots of families would break the law by having nude pics of their babies, kids etc... (not that there haven't been some rather outrageous prosecutions for just that thing...) MadMaxDog06:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Not that it's my pic anyways. I just ran across it, thought it looked good, and tried to find who it was... some chick from Spain. -- VegitaU06:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"Porn" is short for pornography whose original meaning is "writings about prostitutes". VegitaU sees a picture of a female sunbathing and this starts him wondering about child pornography. So now this needs to be discussed in Wikipedia. Am I the only one who is aghast at this foolishness?Cuddlyable309:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Retouching and manipulation of historical images
I believe there should be a firm policy against excessive digital alteration of historical images, either prior to or following uploading to the encyclopedia. There are some criteria for manipulation of Featured Picture Candidates which are fairly prescriptive, but respect the need to (eg) remove people from images in which the main subject is a building or a scene in which the people are superfluous, something which should never happen in a historical image. The guidelines I'm thinking of are similar to current photojournalism guidelines in the US, with similar ethical concerns. In particular, I very much agree with these guidelines and suggest Wikipedia adopt something along those lines to protect the veracity and truthfulness of what are, in effect, historical documents in image form. At present, there is some guidance at WP:NOR but no specific forms of alteration are outlined and it's this I'm interested in establishing, preferably as policy here at WP:IUP. mikaultalk21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to reality where people constantly make and change images. Mikaul your expression is of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). That is Fear of historical images getting lost, Uncertainty that one might not notice that happening and Doubt that Wikipedia editors can apply sensible case-by-case standards of objective neutrality without being given a literal rulebook. Instead of reacting to instances of provocative photojournalism by over-legislating, we do better to embrace these as the tools that they can be to better reveal subjects in our past and present world.Cuddlyable309:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I fear the tools are too sharp, I doubt that everyone instinctively knows what to reveal and what to conceal with them and I'm uncertain you, at least, have taken time to read up on the ethics involved. Don't you think there is even the most guarded of warnings at photo editing of the dangers of undeclared image manipulation as regards current affairs and historical documents? Me, I'm really not that paranoid, just cautious ;) mikaultalk14:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes Mikaul the tools are sharp which means that we learn to live with them, and that requires some education. Nobody claims "everyone instinctively knows" anything relevant here, but the negative public reaction whenever a deceitful photomanipulation gets exposed is a healthy one (and some photomanipulations are regarded as harmless). Please don't patronise me about alleged ethical ignorance. IMO the photo_editing page states the concerns adequately, and the external link [Digital Tampering in the Media, Politics and Law – A collection of digitally manipulated photos of political interest] gave me amused reading without a trace of fear. (That would change if some over-zealous "do-gooder" makes a crime out of what one may do alone in a virtual darkroom.) Cuddlyable313:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't join you in your lack of "fear" and disagree with your suggestion that post hoc "negative public reaction" is enough to inform contributors of the need for factual accuracy in certain (especially historical) images. Like the guy from The Blade says about journalism, an encyclopedia "whether by using words or pictures, must be an accurate representation of the truth." There's nothing in WP:IUP to point this out, which is an omission, IMO, hence my suggestion. mikaultalk14:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I sympathise with your state of fear Mikaul. However you seem to believe what you call a historic photograph is necessarily an identical reproduction (facsimile) of past reality. That is not so. Since the dawn of photography every photographer has made use of the available choices of selecting scene, exposure, time of day, cropping, and a multitude of treatments that are possible in the darkroom. Stalin's propagandists famously discredited themselves by deceitful photomanipulations (and now anyone who likes to can play such games using a PC program such as Photoshop). I think that having the "firm ethical policy" that you long for Wikipedia to formulate would have had zero useful effect in the 1930s. Historically notable photomanipulations can themselves be good material for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not intended to be a news sheet, and demanding "an accurate representation of the truth" sounds to me like metaphysical vagueness. Wikipedia's goal is to give objective, verifiable and noteworthy information using the best consensus that we editors can find. Use of every possible tool that can clarify or better fit images in Wikipedia to these purposes should IMO be encouraged. (Are there not adequate archives elsewhere to hold the historical images that you wish to protect?) Inventing a new ethical policy will not contribute a single image to Wikipedia and IMO adding such unnecessary wordage would just dilute the strong guidelines that we already have. Cuddlyable314:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course a historic photograph is not always an identical reproduction. However it is a reproduction of what was considered in that time real. Which we can add in the article. If we change the image to emphasize or alter or whatever we actually do original reseach which of course goes against Wikipedia:No original research. Garion96(talk)16:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, exactly. I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here. It's really quite simple: there should be respect for historical images because we can no longer verify their accuracy. In many cases, the author is dead. Ok, so no-one can say that what changes have already been made to a given depicted scene, but niether can anyone claim to be able to verify the content of an image when retouching it. Let's get something straight: I'm not against image editing by any means. Old pics almost always need to be retouched. They get uploaded full of dust and scratches and often missing important detail, sometimes pertaining to the subject itself. I happen to like "fixing up" these old shots but I'm hyper-aware that my role as retoucher is limited to basic tonal or colour correction, sensitive cropping, rotating, etc and the aforementioned restorative retouching. Missing detail shold remain just that - missing. Read the ethical guidelines I linked to. They might be aimed at current news reporting but they are largely relevant to this theme within the encyclopedia. mikaultalk20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe your concern Mikaul is best met by a preservatory repository, examples of which are a time capsule, or a storage vault in a museum. I am in favour of those because relics of our history are an irreplaceable heritage, some have hardly been investigated yet, and even as we chat some are being lost due to decay and negligence. Let us call such materials (in this case photographs) primary sources. However Wikipedia has always aimed to be a secondary source; you can say that it is the product of constant, deliberate revision and retouching. I think the motivation of this "revision and retouching" is clear, and it is tracked in Wikipedia so that if it should lead to some gross error, well then Wikipedia itself would be the primary source of evidence. I guess that in 100 years much of Wikipedia will look as quaint, biased or ill-informed as a 19th century encyclopedia seems to our eyes. (In those days it was as routine to retouch portrait photographs to hide moles and wrinkles as it would be later in mid-20th century movie posters.) Please do not invent an ethical duty for Wikipedia to preserve source images because that is not its purpose. Please rethink "respect for historical images because we can no longer verify their accuracy" because I am not sure that is logical reasoning. I propose not to reply to you Mikaul again because I don't need to be told repeatedly by you to read the same guidelines.Cuddlyable309:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify: as User:Garion96 pointed out, the issue of WP:NOR applies equally to some images (or at least, our treatment of them) as it does text. User-created images, as primary sources, are generally accepted without WP:OR considerations. Interpretation of images, on the other hand, is open to OR and POV analysis. As historical images are rarely uploaded by their creator, their retouching and manipulation is much more likely to be an interpretation, and there is a greatly increased risk that (as noted in NOR for original images) "the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image". The veracity of historical images effectively demands greater respect than contemporary images by living authors.
The way I see it, no uploaded historical image should ever be edited like this user-uploaded one (original here). Desipte the increased enc this brings to an image of contemporary scenes (which can be verified if necessary), WP:NOR applies to similar manipulation of a historical image (which can't) and should be actively discouraged. mikaultalk15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with removing some objects such as people that are clearly not permanent and are clearly not relavent for the article from a picture of a building. IMO doing that is no different from removing irrelevent sentances from an article. However if the picture is notable in its own right and/or the editor trys to create a historical scene that never existed than that is wrong imo. Plugwash18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I do however think we should strongly encourage the uploading of unretouched versions as well so that other editors can check that the retouching has not gone too far. Plugwash18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in most cases the unretouched version stays on the server and is linked to from "other versions" on the image page. It seems (with user-created images) the only real objection people have is with the addition of details. For example, this submission as a WP:FPC a while ago was roundly condemned; on the other hand, the Egeskov one (with the people removed) was promoted as a featured picture. With historical images, removal of detail might be as contentious as addition.
Maybe over-prescriptive, detailed rules aren't necessary here, as I was originally proposing (I posted the wrong link earlier, BTW: these are the guidelines I was thinking of for restoration of historical images) For the encyclopedia there are really only two basic requirements, I think: first, that historical images are respected as such, ie. "preserve the integrity of visual history and avoid inaccuracies" in the resulting image. The second is that a careful note is made on the image page (using {{RetouchedPicture}} template) decribing the alterations in detail. The question is, does this merit a mention on the Image use policy page? I'm suggesting it does. The exact wording is far from obvious and would need to be agreed here; that's largely why I've put forward the DigitalCustom page above. mikaultalk23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Image posting help
I need some help getting an image posted. I made a combination of three pictures from this website http://www.loopers-delight.com/tools/akai/MPC2000/MPC2000.html and I don't know how to get the correct license for it because there is no clear license.
the_raider
Without seeing your image, I am guessing that it is your original work which contains images of Akai products that are advertised. Provided the product images are down-sized and the original work is significant, I think you have a valid fair-use argument.Cuddlyable307:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Dewan negara.jpg
This image is used as an example of a fair use image on this policy page. However, in looking at the image page I don't see a very specific fair use rationale given for its use on the one page where it appears. That is unless the comments on the file summary counts and that's not very specific. Is the comment that it is "lo-res and unique" sufficient? Any comment? JodyB talk23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Museum photography policies that aim to prevent commercial use
Many museums have photography policies that aim to prevent commercial use of photographs of items in their collections (even when those works are in the public domain). Most of the time, a photographer has to sign a pledge to only use photographs taken in a museum for personal and non-commercial use. I understand that a museum could ban that person from reentering the museum if he/she subsequently publishes images without copyright or under a free license that allows commercial use (and the photographer could be arrested for trespass if he/she renters the museum after being asked to stay away). However, is the act of publishing those images without copyright or under a free license illegal in itself? In other words, was a contract created when the photographer signed the pledge, thus invalidating any license that allows for commercial or public use? --mav02:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the only way to answer this is to view the actual pledge text, and for safety, ask the museum to clarify their policy. Many museums want to sell pictures of their exhibits. (I have never seen such a pledge required. The National Art Gallery in Oslo explicitly lets in "only hand-held cameras" which I take to mean one is free to publish one's own snapshots.)Cuddlyable309:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Image source policy
Hi there,
Would it all be possible to change the following sentence:
Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer.
to include that the URL should be of the page on which the image appears? I'm having great trouble with a user who insists that this isn't the case and that part "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" is purely optional. He argues that the image policy doesn't explicitly state that the url should link to the image on which the page appears and have been linking to the home page of the sites each time.
(This is on the Afrikaans Wikipedia, by the way. Our policies are based on yours, but we only translated the core policies and are adding others as they seem necessary. I have since done a partial translation of this, but he opines that that is just my interpretation of the policy. Anrie06:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia asks image uploaders to declare information about source and copyright for its own protection, this is acting with due diligence to avoid subsequent claims against Wikipedia. It relies on uploaders to act in good faith, and to be able to document that they did so. Ideally that means, in the case of an image from a web page, showing the exact URL that links to the image. If someone links only to a home page, he/she can reasonably argue that this fulfils the requirement for "the web page the image came from". Here we are asked to take on trust that the image is indeed to be found at the page named, presumably as a thumbnail or a title. This is an extension of the trust Wikipedia puts in uploaders. I think your question Anrie boils down to whether or not that trust should be given.
The uploader puts his trust in whatever copyright release the web site owner declares. It is in the uploader's interest to act with due diligence, which boils down to identifying the owner as nearly as possible. A web page URL provides that identification, though indirectly via a DNS and an ISP. We must accept that such identity may be difficult to trace, but I do not see that having a longer URL that extends deeper into the page owner's domain makes that tracing easier. (It also makes the URL vulnerable to possibly trivial rearrangements of the source web site that its owner may make at any time.) Cuddlyable308:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the source also necessary for verification - to verify that the image can indeed be found at the source and that it was indeed published under the license given? In a specific instance, this image was uploaded and the source given as http://www.die-fans.de/.
Someone unable to speak German, or not knowing how to track down an image would find it quite near impossible to verify that that image is indeed from the given source, never mind trying to find out if the given license is applicable (it is of course easier when one has the original page to work from). The direct url gives much more information than the link to the homepage. In the event of a link being broken a user can still deduce the main address of the website, which is just as informative as non-direct link. Anrie12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have an exact, stable, URL, why not use it? However, URLs change, sites get redesigned, some sites are dynamic, and some images appear again and again all over a site. Shouldn't people simply be as specific as they can, in a way that allows a typical person to quickly find and verify the image? As far as people trying to navigate sites in languages they don't know, that's a little problematic. Depending on the site they might not get by the splash page or the pop-up ad. You do what you can. Wikidemo17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Self-made images
It seems implicit from the guidelines on the project page that, for a completely self-made image, a {{Pd-self}} or {{GFDL-self}} tag or equivalent is all that is required. Clearly, the source information is the uploader/author who applied the tag. However, I have noticed that some overzealous admins have been marking {{pd-self}} images for deletion based on insufficient licensing information. So I figured I would pose the question here: what else is necessary? Are there any examples of self-made images with good summary info that would stand up to scrutiny? Silly rabbit09:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I assume people would only do that in situations where images are improperly tagged as self made. For instance, taking a screen capture could be considered self made by the uploader (I did the screen capping, so it’s mine). If there’s any reasonable doubt about the appropriateness of a self-made-tag on an image, I think the “doubter” should contact the uploader about it. An uploader could probably avoid questions like that by adding info on how (s)he made it and what resources/information were used for its creation on the image description page. Do you have an example of improper marked {{pd-self}} images for deletion?found it --Van helsing10:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(Addendum) If there’s any reasonable doubt about the appropriateness of a self-made-tag on an image but the uploader is not around anymore to ask questions. I my opinion (I don’t think that’s policy somewhere) the image can be deleted on grounds of that reasonable doubt, however, that "doubt" should be substantiated. That’s a bit more than just "insufficient licensing information". --Van helsing10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well now that's a leading way to ask the question if I've ever seen one. First of all, the person who tagged the image more than 7 days ago wasn't an admin and its not really polite to call them overzealous. This was not about insufficient licensing, it was about the complete lack of any source information. Per the policy Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Don't put credits in images themselves. Adding a standard license template doesn't satisfy this requirement. Shellbabelfish18:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on! The image was self-made, which explicitly means that it was an original work created by the uploader (I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain... etc.) I guess you could make a case if it were a screenshot including a company logo or something. But this was a photograph of a body part, for god's sake. The tag includes the sourcing information. Anyway, the only reason that I can see for this image to have been deleted was as a sort of "back-door censorship." Someone tried to have it deleted before through IFD. Failing that, someone else tagged it for speedy deletion because of some perceived problem with the sourcing. Silly rabbit21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so it seems that the consensus is that {{tl:pd-self}} does not assert that the image is an entirely original work of the uploader. However, if you are uploading a file [8] and select the pd-self license, it says "You created this yourself, it is entirely your own work and release it to the public domain." That is a fairly unambiguous assertion of authorship, is it not? Hence, I think that absent a particular copyvio objection, the pd-self template should be enough to assert sole authorship of a work. I feel that this should be made clear in the policy, since this is the obvious intention of the wording on the upload page. Silly rabbit15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If it is CC-BY-SA 1.0 and GFDL, that's okay right?
If not, feel free to run an IFD on this image and notify me on my talk page (I don't check the image use policy page often). Otherwise I will assume this is okay.
In an article, if you have a movie poster for a movie that was released in England, and a different poster of the same movie that was released in the USA, which one should you use, or is both okay? BellaSwan(Talk!)18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
A good question. Generally, one talks about neither poster. Under non-free use guidelines and policy film posters may be used for identification purposes in articles about the film, without a specific discussion of the poster itself. Not as a suggested guideline but just as a matter of relevance I would choose the poster for where the film achieved greatest popularity, recognition, etc. Wikidemo12:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Vanity?
Are pictures of onesself allowed on Wikipedia? I've seen lots of user pages where the users include pictures of themselves. A little digging through old image deletion archives (ex. 1 and 2) reveals mostly pictures deleted for vanity reasons also include disuse; however, according to WP:NOT#USER and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, it seems to me that vanity is a good enough reason alone to delete pictures. Thoughts? GlassCobra09:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that discussion closed? Inasmuch as the cartoon is non-famous and unencyclopedic, eleting it seems like the right thing to do, but a little sad. At least it's preserved in the talk page for anyone who wants to see it. Wikidemo23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to find something in the style guides recommending a number of images based upon content. For example, a user has placed four images on a rather small article, all depicting the same character who is the subject of the article. I've trimmed it to two, and wanted to point to a document showing a recommendation, but can't find out. My preference is to use other articles as examples. Emma Watson, Sean Connery and Queen Elizabeth II show one, three and many images, more or less based upon article size. But I'd prefer to point the user to an actual recommendation, rather than just as other articles by example. Thanks... -FeralDruid21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. It all depends on the notability, whether they "junk up" a page, etc. I had am image war over Peachoid with someone who thought that this water tower was important enough for eight images! But as a prolific photographer on Wikipedia, if it adds to the page, and doesn't junk it up too much, then I think there is room. There's always the dreaded gallery option... --DavidShankbone21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Use of PD images in books
If a WP editor uploads a PD image that is the work of that editor can that image then be placed in a book covered by a copyright without acknowledging the PD status of the image? -- Alan Lieftingtalk11:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If it's public domain it can be used anywhere. The book might be copyrighted but the image isn't (technically) covered by that copyright, although in practice people protect such content as if it was, cf. old photos in museums which the museum protects reproduction under its own copyright "umbrella".mikaultalk14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As a publicly supported institution the Library generally does not own rights to material in its collections. Therefore, it does not charge permission fees for use of such material and cannot give or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. For further information, see the Prints and Photographs Division's online brochure, Copyright and Other Restrictions Which Apply to Publication and Other Forms of Distribution of Images: Sources for Information.
So, as a general concept, free use is not allowed [as on Wikipedia]. That is for items that are within the date range for copyright to still exist, which Billy Graham certainly is. --Dumarest19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to add an image of a particular cruise ship to an article I recently created about the ship. The ship existed from 1941 until it was scrapped in 1978.
There are plenty of images of the ship available on various websites on the net but with no info about their copyright status. I have noticed though, that the explanatory text for some ship images on Wiki states that you can use promotional material about a particular ship if the company that published the material no longer owns the ship. Since there are some picture postcards released by the (now defunct) company reproduced on the net, I could use one of these pics assuming that the above information is correct. Can someone confirm for me that I can use promotional material from a (defunct) company regarding a ship they sold (which itself no longer exists)? Thanks, Gatoclass08:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Copyrighted?
I'm about to upload two images, but have no idea how they should be licensed. The first, is a scan from a book of a drawing of a guy that appeared in a Cuban magazine in the 1880s. The other is a scan from a book of the cover of the same magazine from 1891. It seems they would be old enough to be public domain, but I don't know how that works for non-US stuff, in particular when the originals were created during time of a government that doesn't even exist anymore. Suggestions? Murderbike07:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This template, maybe?
This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1929. Other jurisdictions have other rules. Also note that this image may not be in the public domain in the 9th Circuit if it was first published on or after July 1, 1909 in noncompliance with US formalities, unless the author is known to have died in 1953 or earlier (more than 70 years ago) or the work was created in 1903 or earlier (more than 120 years ago.)[9]
PD-USPublic domain in the United States//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_9
Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. This file might not be in the public domain outside the United States and should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be verified to be in the public domain in its country of first publication and that at least 70 years have elapsed since the author died. Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States. If this file is in the public domain outside the United States, add |pdsource=yes to this template to hide this warning. If this file is not in the public domain in the source country but will become so in the future, add |out_of_copyright_in= and then the year its copyright will expire.
I wanted to upload this image from the uncyclomedia commons to put it on my talk page, it this allowed? If so, what license would I use? I know it comes from open clipart so it's free for use, so can I just upload it for my talk page? BellaSwan12:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
All Rights Reserved" which means the image is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. Also, images taken from Flickr should be uploaded to the Commons. The upload page on that site does have options for images from Flickr. On a Flickr image page you cannot use an image with any of the following copyright tags: 
, 
.↔NMajdan•talk 22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
_mod.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Girls_by_the_pool.jpg){kind=link}
