Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. August 2002 – March 2003
  2. April 2003 – April 2003 (1)
  3. April 2003 – April 2003 (2)
  4. April 2003 – April 2003 (3)
  5. May 2003 – December 2003
  6. January 2004 – July 2004
  7. July 2004 – August 2006
  8. September 2006 – December 2006
  9. January 2007 – September 2007

Contents

[edit] Can I use this image?

I'm a relative newbie. Can I use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:7G_Rainbow_Colony.png instead of whats there on 7G Rainbow Colony? Mspraveen 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User insisting on watermark

I reverted som images to their previously non watermarked images, but got a message from the uploader saying "PLEASE MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND STOP MESSING WITH MY IMAGES! GET A LIFE!!". After trying to point out the image policy I got a "IF YOU KEEP THIS HARRASSMENT UP I WILL NEVER CONTRIBUTE ANOTHER IMAGE TO WIKIPEDIA.". Any advice on what to do? // Liftarn

The behaviour you observed has been seen before. It sounds like this "until such a time that wikipedia has a clear and sensible graphics policy, that is decided by artists rather than text-editors who know nothing of art, illustration or diagrams, i will not be adding any more of my work. Say what you will, I don't care - because I can sleep 100% happy at night knowing its wikipedia's loss not mine." There is more of this outburst at the source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikipedianProlific&diff=next&oldid=112449472

My advice is to take a SLOW cool look and then ignore it.Cuddlyable3 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, as usual, Liftarn completely missed the point. He chose to meddle with my photos without the courtesy of prior communication with me. He was heavy handed and arrogant in his approach to me. All this was unnecessary, but Liftarn brought it about. Compare this to the following:
"Correct he does not own the encyclopedia, he cannot unilaterally decide that we must use those. However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away. Some assets are not so easily replaceable. For comparison the Wikipedia community can choose to cast you out for no reason what so ever, however treating contributing people in this manner, only does a disservice to ourselves. As Wikipedia leaks contributing users, I wonder at what point the curve begins to slope. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"
What a difference in attitude! "Seven" is a sensitive and perceptive man. "Litfarn," in comparison, is an intrusive sledge hammer. Motorrad-67 21:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Posting a question here about what to do seems neither heavy handed nor arrogant. The question at the top of this section seems like a polite request for help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't the posting of the question, Carl, it was the way Liftarn treated me without any prior communication with me whatsoever. I draw a comparison between Liftarn's attitude and Seven's attitude. Seven notes, "treating contributing people in this manner, only does a disservice to ourselves." If Seven can see with clarity this fact, I hope you can too. If you want me and other contributors to go away, then treat us like Liftarn treated me. Or, you can adopt Seven's attitude and keep us around. It's your choice, apparently, Motorrad-67 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you weren't contacted, since you were the original photographer for these images. It's almost always worth a note when an image upload is reverted. On the other hand, we really don't accept watermarked images, so Liftarn was not acting unreasonably in reverting back to the nonwatermarked version. It appears that everyone was acting in good faith here, but perhaps not with perfect communication skills. I hope you will stay and contribute positively, but the decision whether to contribute is up to you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of being constructive here, let me suggest the following. Motorrad-67 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

  • Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.
  • The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.
  • If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.
  • If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.
  • If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Wikipedia. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.
This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the basic idea of Wikipedia providing a free-content encyclopedia. Our conditions of upload require that user-created images be released under a free license or into the public domain. That's clearly stated on the upload page - If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under a free license or release it into the public domain.
Once the image is freely-licenced, then it can be placed by anyone on the Commons - or used by anyone for any reason, so long as they comply with the terms of the free license. That is what "free-content" means - it is a fundamental part of Wikipedia, and is not negotiable. You may choose to contribute your photographs to Wikipedia, or you may choose not to license your content freely, but you may not choose both.
It is a good idea to notify uploaders that the move has been made, but it is not necessary to ask anyone's permission to place free images on the Commons. The Commons is the intended repository for all such free media. FCYTravis 22:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


What an attitude. Motorrad-67 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
May I ask, why are you opposed to the images being placed on the Wikimedia Commons? I cannot make sense of your position - you want your photos on Wikipedia, but you do not want them on the Commons. Yet, you have released them under a free license, which means the Commons is the correct place for them.
Part of Wikipedia's mission is to provide, as far as is possible, an encyclopedia composed of freely-available and freely-distributable content, so that this knowledge can be disseminated as widely and as inexpensively as possible. What we are creating, is free knowledge. That is why we require all user-created images to be released freely. If you do not feel that you can contribute your works in a way that is compatible with this mission, then you should not contribute. That's not "attitude," that's the truth. FCYTravis 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I also don't understand the objection to commons. Whether an image is hosted on English Wikipedia or on Commons is only a technical detail. It doesn't affect our ability to use the image, the license of the image, or the ability of others to reuse the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think people who start off contributing to en-wikipedia, and then start contributing photos, aren't always aware of Commons. Even when they realise that the photos on Commons are still available for use on en-wikipedia, they still feel a sense of "their" photos being taken away from them. Purely a misunderstanding, and those dealing with those with hurt feelings should be more sensitive to that. Equally, those who don't quite understand what Commons is about, or what releasing under a free license is all about, are sometimes shocked to find that their images are being used on other language Wikipedia's, or indeed are being used outside the Wikimedia projects altogether. Again, a natural consequence of the GFDL and other free licenses, but it can be a shock if you weren't aware of this. Again, sensitivity in handling this (and CBM's replies have, for the record, been very polite and helpful) really does help. Agressive cries of "we are free" (or, worse, condescending, "you haven't really understood what we are about" lectures) don't really help. Carcharoth 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing condescending about explaining our free-content policy. It's rather basic to what we do - and it explains why people might "find that their images... are being used outside the Wikimedia projects altogether." Part of our mission is to provide free content. Fairly simple. It is regrettable that someone may choose to cease contributing because they disagree with that mission, but that is their decision to make. When the goals of Wikipedia and the goals of the contributor diverge, then it's probably time to part ways.
I do believe it is a positive idea to require notification when moving images from WP to Commons - it's a simple enough and common-sense thing to do, to let uploaders know where their images have gone FCYTravis 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you share your excellent opinion with User:Liftarn. Motorrad-67 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Notification would be great, especially if it provided information (or a link to it) about how moving free images to Commons is an internal technical matter. It should point out that moving images to commons changes nothing about the availability of the image for us or others to use, except it makes it possible for Wikipedias in other languages to directly use the image. Maybe there is already a template message for this? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I wrote Wikipedia:Why was the image I uploaded moved to Wikimedia Commons? to help explain what's going on. Please feel free to comment about that page on its talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The word "notification" may be taken to mean that the photographer will definitely be notified and nothing will be done until that step has been done, so may be interpreted to mean that nothing will happen until it is known that the person got the information. This might require certified mail with return receipt or a signed document, not merely a message in a User Talk page. The word "notification" should be avoided in messages about procedures. Yes, I also recognize that once stuff is GFDL then it may be edited and copied mercilessly, I'm pointing out a problem with the phrasing in the discussion. (SEWilco 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
Notification for our purposes just means a note on the user talk page. If that's not clear, the policy could just say "a message should be left on the user talk page". But we usually consider that to be "notification". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I am interested to hear from Motorrad-67 how (s)he was made aware that images were reverted. Does (s)he have them on a watch list? Cuddlyable3 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think people need to be notified when changes are made to free content. This is a core benefit of free content. As long as the move is done correctly the image will still be very findable, likely at the exact same url as before. If there is a change in name, the articles using the images should have been changed. I don't think we have a problem with this process, so I will assume that is being done correctly most of the time. If people think of images they have uploaded to Wikipedia under a free license as being theirs we have a problem. Maybe we are not doing a good job explaining what free content is, or maybe the uploaders are not paying attention, assuming that things work in ways they have been accustomed to on sites like flickr. Regardless, if an image is freely licensed, and someone re-uses it, or changes it, and the licensor gets upset they have failed to understand their licensing arrangements. This is a problem. If they don't intend to freely license their images then they shouldn't tag them as such. - cohesion 20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules of thumb and requirements - splitting sections

I split out the firs two "rules of thumb" into a new section called requirements. In my vernacular, "rules of thumb" are suggestions, not requirements. The first two things that were rules of thumb were different than the rest because they are actionable: an image that has no license tag, or no source, may end up speedy deleted. The remaining rules of thumb don't seem to affect the speedy deletion of the image; they are more like suggestions or best practices. So I moved the first two old "rules of thumb" to a new section "requirements" to make it more clear that these two must always be followed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse - this clarification was needed. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, much better. :) - cohesion 20:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of people

Unless the law has changed a lot, I really think we need a clear policy on when images of people can be uploaded and used in Wikipedia. Copyright is not the only hurdle an uploader must clear (and copyright itself contains not just one hurdle, but many). There's a question of violation of privacy. There's a separate and distinct question of control over the commercial use of a photo.

  • Privacy. As I understand it, if the photo was taken out in public, there's no privacy claim. If any one who was there can see you, then any one of them could have taken a picture to share. If it's taken indoors at a private party, for example, you can't share it without the consent of all the people who are recognizable in the picture. Pictures taken outdoors at a private, members-only club fall somewhere in between. Pictures taken by telescope are another problem. What have the US courts - specifically the Florida courts - decided about these issues? Florida law applies to our servers for copyright purposes; it probably applies for all image use purposes.
  • Commercial use. If someone uses a picture of me in commerce, that's a commercial use, and I get the right to say no. This applies whether I'm a celebrity or not. If Daniel Radcliffe appears in a public square, walking around, looking in shop windows, I can't take a picture of him and use it to sell my products. I also can't use it to promote my church, even if my church does not accept financial contributions. This means it can be "commercial" even if it is a "nonprofit" organization, or even a money-losing business venture. Wikipedia is a nonprofit, and it may or may not use all of its contributions. I don't know the answer to this one, either. What do the Florida courts say about it? Do we have to use up Wikipedia's contributions to find out? In other words, do we have to wait until someone sues us?

I think this issue is important enough that the Wikipedia board of directors needs to think about it and decide. It's not up to all the interested ears at the waterpump. How do we let them know about this? By the way, the reason I got into this is Image:Augusto.JPG, which was uploaded as part of a prank/attack page. Cbdorsett 04:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Non-profits can be involved in commerce and their activities can run into problems with "non-commercial" licensed works which is one of the reasons we reject cc-by-nc licensed works. You appear to be misunderstanding the extent of control brought by personality/publicity rights under US law. --Gmaxwell 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2257 and sexually explicit imagery

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia and its editors are not exempt from 18USC2257. That means it's a felony to post sexually explicit images here. The only way to make it legal would be for the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain full proof of age data on any performer involved in the imagery, for the Foundation to appoint a "custodian of records", and to open the Foundation office to surprise no-warrant federal inspections for compliance. That's the Foundation's call, not ours, and I doubt they would agree to take on this responsibility.

Under the circumstances I don't see any alternative but to ban adult materials that fall under 2257. That would mean deleting all such material from existing articles, and deleting and making unavailable (best to purge) these images from Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons should do the same. Does anybody have any objection or argument otherwise? Thx, Wikidemo 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This arises out of this discussion. Wikidemo 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This would seem to be something for Foundation legal counsel to decide, not the community. *Dan T.* 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The community is not qualified to make a legal determination as to the legality of these images. -Chunky Rice 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Anal-oral contact since that seems to be more watched. Two simultaneous discussions is annoying to read. Garion96 (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVG and PNG format

If I have a map in PNG format and in SVG format, which one is preferred when the SVG filesize is larger than the png? I mean is filesize a priority? Thanks. Pojanji 06:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Wikipedia talk:Public domain image resources

[edit] Is this statement sufficient to declare an image free?

[1] John Carter 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC) The FAQ page says: "Are clip art images free? YES. You have permission to use images on the Clip Art page. The clip art files can be used for web sites, church bulletins, newsletters, fliers, and much more!" Is this sufficient? Aepoutre 14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough. The FAQ clearly states that the images are free as in beer, but not free as in speech: there's no mention of redistribution, or unrestricted creation of derivative works. --Carnildo 00:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Editing an image before it becomes PD

I was wondering what the policy was on PD images that have been touched up. I found the source of this image, and it was published in 1902, which would make it PD under U.S. law, but an anon claimed that it was edited (I assume slightly), without any indication as to when. If it was done before the image became PD, I assume that the edited version gets a new starting point for how long you have to wait before it becomes PD? S/he didn't say when it was edited and I'm not sure how we could tell whether the uploaded image was an edited one or not. What if the image was edited before 1923 but never published, or published after that time? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, any work which was modified while under its original copyright will likely have been modified with the author's permission. As a legitimate derivative work, its author can claim copyright and ordinarily you would assume that to be the case here. In this case however, a cursory glance at the source page linked on the image page shows that (apart from having a bigger, better version - go figure) the image copyright has been renewed in another way, probably when it was acquired from Pinewood Studios in 1989. The page carries a more general copyright statement:

All images on this site are copyright V&A. For further information on using or requesting copies of any images please contact the V&A Picture Library: vanda.images@vam.ac.uk including the URL of the relevant page.

I'd suggest dropping them a line would be the first and best course of action. You sometimes find these collections are open to Wiki-friendly licensing, if you ask nicely. --mikaultalk 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a new problem tag

I would like to propose that en:wp adopts a new problem tag like {{nsd}} and {{nld}}, namely {{npd}} or {{no permission since}}. Commons has this template for images that have an author and source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. The template also has instructions on how to deliver the permission. Samulili 07:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a requirement that we have OTRS confirmation for every image. Would this be applied to some subset of images? If so, which ones? - cohesion 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This would be for those image which don't have an "online permission", that is they are from someone's private offline collection or from a website which doesn't have any free license text. Naturally, this wouldn't be required for those images whose author is the uploader. Samulili 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rude, unhelpful message on message upload

Having almost no experience with images on Wikipedia, I just tried to upload a .bmp file I'd created.

Now, I appreciate that there may be file types we don't want (and at the moment I'm not asking why). However, I'm appalled by the way the message is delivered.

First, the upload software allows me to go through the labour of setting up the upload, selecting the image (couldn't a rejection message be prompted there and then?) making the filename more userfriendly, writing a lengthy explanation of what/why the image is and trawling my way through the horrible horrible inexplicable mess that is licensing. After all that, the image going to be rejected? Not good. But OK, it's gotta be. So, let's devise a nice, gentle, explanatory message. Good idea. Except, no... this is what you get for your trouble:

Upload warning ".bmp" is an unwanted file type List of allowed file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, sxw, sxi, sxc, sxd, ogg, svg, djvu

(In red)

With no wikilinks or, in fact, anything else on the page.

Not very nice. Can this be addressed please. --Dweller 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

PS There's no mention of inappropriate file types at Wikipedia:Upload or at the "Upload a file" page that took me to. --Dweller 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a problem. I think it has been discussed a little bit before, but not that much. There are a few technical solutions, but they are not very good. The only one I am aware of that would work is to add JavaScript that tells the uploader, before he or she uploads the file, that the extension (in this case .bmp) is not an allowed file type.
Other than that, however, what would you recommend in terms of making the message less bitish? (Note that the message also limited by technical issues - i.e. the server automatically generates a list of allowed file types, so I don't think we could add a wikilink to each one - see MediaWiki:Filetype-badtype.) Anyways, thanks in advance for your input!  :) --Iamunknown 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
We could add wikilinks, but it would have to be maintained, probably not that big an issue, does it change very often? To answer the other question, BMP is a very large uncompressed image format not really suitable for web images. - cohesion 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

I found a picture of a rose on google images that I really liked, but it is not uploaded anywhere on any of the wikis. It is not fair use either, Would I have to obtain permission from the creator of the image to use it on my userpage? If so, what would I put as the licensing for it? ~ Bella Swan 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You would need to obtain a release under a free content license. Simple permission isn't good enough. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for some sample request messages. --Carnildo 02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

I'd like this cleared up. If someone takes a photo of a work that is undoubtebly public domain and uncopyrighted (like Reneissance works of art), those photos are public domain as well, right? Meaning there is no way someone can horde those pictures for themselves and not allow thei free-use. I am asking because there are many paintings and sculptures that have no picture here on Wikipedia, although there are plenty on other sites or in books. My question is: can we scan or use those photos under the assumption that they are public domain to illustrate the works in question? -- VegitaU 03:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Painting, maybe, sculpture, no, and only in the United States. --Carnildo 06:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but that doesn't answer anything. Maybe? Maybe not? Could be? Perhaps? Anyone else knowledgeable in this, please provide some input. -- VegitaU 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you like it more specific? According to the case, a mere photo of a 2D artwork (and by extension a flat representational photo of a 2D anything) does not achieve a copyright independent of the work. The ruling does not apply to photos of 3D objects, e.g. photographs of a sculpture, a coin, a stained glass window in context, a product label on a product (though that may be covered by other relevant laws). It applies only to US law, but we are only concerned with US law here I believe. To answer your question specifically, if you find a photo of a painting where the painting is clearly not copyrighted it should be safe to use. However, you should still say where you got it from and provide all relevant info in case someone later decides otherwise. Photos of sculptures do not count. They involve a much greater degree of creativity in lighting, camera angle, depth of field, etc., than required for a photo of a 2D object. Wikidemo 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds about right, but I'd be careful uploading anything from sources outside of the US, where this ruling doesn't apply. --mikaultalk 00:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a policy on that? I don't believe we're compelled to follow the copyright laws of any other countries. Online jurisdiction is a complicated subject, but US copyright law applies within the US for all images, wherever they may come from.Wikidemo 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a whole bunch of policy on that, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image guidelines for example. We should respect copyright wherever it originates, and where there's no non-com CC or GFDL license, perhaps politely request one. The alarm bells start to ring when we're talking about loophole situations like the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. saga. The way I read it, images of 2D museum artefacts and artworks which can now be considered PD if they originate in the US should not be assumed to be PD if they don't.
With ref to the original question, there's nothing stopping anyone making their own photo/scan of a copyright-expired 2D artwork if they have authorised access to the original, wherever it happens to be. Outside the US, copyright does still apply to copies of PD original works made by someone else. In the UK, whoever makes that copy makes a new copyright; they are able to license it and we are bound by the Berne Convention to respect (or negotiate) the terms of that license. Only in the US can we automatically assume any such copies are in the public domain, and only in the US can copies of copies of PD images be made with impunity. I can't see any way this this would exclude old images in textbooks, for example, foreign though that sounds to my English ears... --mikaultalk 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help create a manual of style for maps and diagrams

Right now it seems that Wikipedia provides no guidance on the best practices for creating maps and diagrams. These types of images are rapidly proliferating on Wikipedia. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation has just started a grant program to pay illustrators to add new diagrams to articles in need. It would be nice if most of these additions followed similar styles and conventions instead of continually reinventing the wheel (with various degrees of success). Although I don't believe Wikipedia needs to enforce one particular style on all maps and diagram, there are some helpful conventions that I think we should put into writing somewhere. Wikipedia:Image use policy doesn't seem like the appropriate place for this, so I've decided to be bold and create a proposed Manual of Style page for maps and diagrams. Right now it is mostly blank as I would like to know what suggestions the Wikipedia community has to offer. Feel free to hop over there and edit it to your heart's content or add ideas to the talk page. Thanks! Kaldari 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the policy on image collages whose parts are of dubious origin?

I am referring to [2]. I recall a discussion a ways back on one article page where there was concern over the use of an image collage where the individual image had questionable fair use criteria. In this case, I doubt the creator has copyright on the original aircraft images used. --Mmx1 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have listed Image:JF17 is made up from a bit of everything.jpg as a possibly unfree image. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ironically...

What is the 'project page'? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
this page is the talk page of the project page.. WP:IUP. If you see the cute little tabs atop the page (esp. when editing), you'll see links to "Project page — Discussion — Edit this page — + — History — Move — Unwatch."Ling.Nut (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I see. Someone want to pick a different screenshot to use? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of people where copyright is owned but not self-created

I have had difficulty uploading images of people and granting free use in the public domain because I always seem to have to tick a box that says 'I created the image myself'. Many images of famous people have been inherited by family members, and presumably the copyright is inherited too. Am I correct in thinking there is no provision for simply saying 'I own the copyright and grant free use', and should this not be provided for. It seems odd that a statement 'I created the image' is taken on trust, even from anonymous editors, but ownership of copyright by inheritance or gift is not dealt with similarly. In the limit it could be argued in some cases that the person holding the camera at the time actually owned copyright, and that this passed down differently to the actual image ownership. Unless the images are valuable, in which case the matter is likely to have been sorted out, there seems little point in bothering about the fact that, for example, my brother held the camera when a particular photo of my school was taken, of which I own the transparency. What do others think of that, and is there an official position? --Memestream (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You mention several different issues.
  1. I think that in the U.S. the copyright is generally owned by the photographer and then by his estate; officially there is someone in charge of the property of the deceased. The rights to use the photograph might not be under the control of the person holding the photograph.
  2. When uploading old photographs whose copyright have expired, the upload forms seem to be not allowing specification of some such situations although there are copyright templates for expired PD items.
  3. The person who took the photograph owns the copyright (under current law), not the person holding the negative.
(SEWilco (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Yes, we seem to be in agreement. I suggest that after clicking on 'upload file' a simple tick option should appear saying "I believe I own the copyright, and I grant free use in the public domain/grant use under GFDL license". Is the GFDL license really appropriate to photos though; this seems unclear from what I read, as it is primarily for software and is complicated by stating a certain number of copies. What can I do to put a photo in the public domain but subject to acknowledgement of me as source? As for the person who took the photo owning copyright, that is what I would assume in principle, but in practise it is surely unsupportable as cameras do not record who was holding the camera! In practice I suggest that it is reasonable to assume that the person owning the film also owns copyright, provided there is no reason to believe otherwise (hence my use of the word 'believe' above). Where someone who took a photo but does not own the film wishes to claim copyright, I suggest that unless the owner of the film agrees then he has no claim in practise unless supported by a court decision, as he can provide no simple proof. --Memestream (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the question about the applicability of GFDL to photographs (or images in general): No, it isn't, unless you want to hobble the picture with restrictions that (if strictly enforceable) all but amount to a Wikipedia-only (or, rather, use as part of a larger GFDL work only) license. And it's not really at all clear whether Wikipedia itself is really strictly complying with the letter of the GFDL. For practical use with photographs, I'd recommend the Creative Commons Attribution ({{cc-by-3.0}}) or Attribution-ShareAlike ({{cc-by-sa-3.0}}) licenses. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If the person who took the photograph owns the copyright, does that mean if I ask someone to take a picture using my camera, that person owns the copyright? Or would it be considered that the person is taking the picture under my direction, acting as my agent, and therefore I own the copyright? EricJamesStone (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Under a strict reading of the law, that's an incredibly messy situation. In practice, you can act as if you clearly own the copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there anywhere that clearly spells out the "free license" policy?

I've looked and looked all over, however I cannot find anywhere that **clearly** specifies what the policy is on images that can be used on Wikipedia. There's all this talk about "free licensing", but nowhere is that made specifically clear.

I have a lot of images that I'd like to use on various articles, and so do friends on mine. However, as far as I can tell from what I'm reading here, you basically have to give up all copyright and control over the use of those images in order to use them on Wikipedia. Clearly, this is stupid and unacceptable, but I can't believe that that is the actual policy here. Not only would I never agree to such a thing, I'd never even consider asking my friends to agree to such a thing either.

Am I wrong? Where in the heck is this policy ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT? -- Otto 18:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses. Briefly, a license is considered "free" if it gives everyone permission to use, redistribute, modify, and make derivatives of the image for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Technically you do not give up the copyright to the image (unless you want to), but this permission must be granted. In particular, you may not restrict the use of the image to non-commercial uses only, and you may not restrict the use of the image to Wikipedia only. It is okay if you want to require attribution for the image (so people must credit you as the creator). The reason for this policy is that the goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. —Bkell (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You should consider uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons; this is the default media repostitory from which your files will link directly to encyclopedia pages. The upload page there links to the licensing page where free licensing is explained in brief. The licensing tag I'd recommend is {{GFDL:SELF}}, which restricts further use (ie outside of Wikimedia pages) to publications prepared to reproduce that license in full. To see what I mean, have a look at the license. It effectively makes it impractical to use your pics under that license in all but free-content publications like.. wikipedia. Hope that's of some help. --mikaultalk 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Briefly, a license is considered "free" if it gives everyone permission to use, redistribute, modify, and make derivatives of the image for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Technically you do not give up the copyright to the image (unless you want to), but this permission must be granted.
Errr.... So, you can have copyright, but not actually be able to invoke it at any point in time ever again? Nice.
Those terms are completely ridiculous. Why would anybody in their right mind ever agree to anything like that? My work has value, asking me to simply give it away for any use of any kind is ludicrous and laughable. It's one thing to allow text and code to be "free", but photographs are a whole different kettle of fish. I have no problem allowing non-commercial use, but if somebody is going to use my photos for commercial use, then they're damn well going to have to pay for it.
Thanks for the information, I guess. At least now I know that none of my work will ever make it to Wikipedia, nor will any of the other people I know. It's a shame, really, they have some great pictures too that would make quite an improvement. -- Otto 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You still retain legal copyright to the image, so if you attach conditions to the permission you grant (for example, requiring attribution, or requiring that derivative works be released under a similarly free license), then you can use your copyright to enforce those conditions.
I'm sorry to hear that you think these conditions are so ridiculous, but free content is part of the goal of Wikipedia; see the five pillars which outline Wikipedia's mission. —Bkell (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you dislike the fact that commercial use must be allowed because you don't want corporations making money from your free work, you may wish to read The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC [non-commercial] License. Restricting otherwise free content to non-commercial use only has some disadvantages that many people don't consider. —Bkell (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I read your link. However, I also disagree with virtually every single point made on it. It's fundamentally flawed in almost all respects. We're talking about PHOTOGRAPHS here. What type of "derivative work" would apply? The only point of using a photograph is, you know, to publish the photograph. Sure, you can crop it or use pieces of it in a photoshopped image, but the only reasonable commercial use is republishing of the work itself. It makes absolutely no sense to allow commercial use of photographs unless you attach a value of zero to them.
No, the entire concept is stupid, and I won't be a part of it. My photographs are my work (and not work that is likely to generate meaningful derivatives at that), so I'll be damned if I'm going to give up my rights to them based on "principle". I believe in open source, I believe in free software, I even believe in the idea of a free encyclopedia. But those are easily alterable things which can be used in other meaningful derivative ways. Those arguments do not apply to photos.
More to the point, this really sours me on the whole wikimedia notion to begin with. Is this whole thing nothing more than some kind of new age land grab? I give up my stuff for free, but the wikimedia people get to make money on my work without payback of any sort? All while claiming to be a non-profit and taking donations? Seriously, that's like the best scam ever. I do know that I'll never be donating to wikimedia or anybody associated with them if these sorts of "policies" are in place. -- Otto 20:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're looking at this from the wrong end of the beast. The ethos here is to freely provide illustrative material in a format which encourages other free content. As such, the "copyleft" principal of share-alike licensing, while it does allow commercial use, only does so under the same terms as you made it available, ie free for anyone to make copies of. First, no hardnosed commercial publisher is going to make his entire content freely avalaible just to include a few wikimedia images in it. The license requires that either the publication is also GFDL or the license terms are published wherever GFDL content is appears, and he's equally unlikely to want a GDFL license statement plastered all over the page on which your copyrighted material appears. The practical upshot is that any commercial use of wikimedia content outside of GFDL must be relicensed via negotiation with the copyright holder. In a nutshell: you don't give up your copyright, you give your images up for use in free-content publications like Wikipedia. You make them available to people for free, to use in exactly the same way. You give up the right to keep them stashed away on your hard drive for you alone to enjoy.. in my experience, you get a bit too involved and end up giving up way too much of your time persuading other people to do the same.. if the ethos of free-content and the terms of GFDL aren't for you, fair enough, I know it's not everyones cup of tea, especially not hardnosed publisher types ;o) --mikaultalk 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No, look, I get the idea. I do write and release lots of code. Admittedly, I usually use BSD-style licensing for code I don't much care about, and I use the GPLv2 (but absolutely NOT v3, under any circumstances) for code I do care about. I have no problem applying that same use to text as well. What I'm saying here is that I understand free licensing, I do it all the time. I get the principles and motivations behind it.
But I completely fail to see how those same principles can apply to photographs. Photographs have inherent value, and there's no reasonable case for derivatives that matters. See, if I release free code, and somebody modifies that code and releases it, great. That was the point of releasing it, so that somebody else can improve upon the work and I can reap the benefits of their improvements. On the other hand, releasing a free photo doesn't make any sense. Nobody's going to release a modified version with value that comes back to me. There's no GAIN in it for me. The whole concept is one-sided: I give my work away for free, and gain nothing in return.
What's more, recent events such as that phone advertising thing down in Australia that got the photographer sued for releasing his image under a CC license (accidentally, I believe) really only serve to drive the point home. It makes no sense to allow free commercial use of photographic work, from any angle. Unless you don't value that work, of course, in which case public domain makes a whole lot more sense. -- Otto 05:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you never use Wikipedia I guess you would see no benefit from contributing to it. If you could easily sell what you would otherwise donate, go release your pic's inherent value that way, rather than give it up to a resource you have no personal stake in. OTOH if you do regularly use Wikipedia, I don't see your problem: you regularly benefit from contributions freely made by others in your situation. It's not so different to your software releases, just way bigger in scope. You get out of it much more than you put in, but if no-one puts in.. bear in mind that the whole project is basically billions of hours of work freely-donated by people who, I think I'm safe in saying, consider their time to have every bit as much inherent value as you see in your images.
Incidentally, apart from having no relevance to the GFDL licensing I suggested, you got the wrong end of the stick vz that Australian story. The photographer isn't getting sued, he just didn't understand the implications of the license he released them under.. --mikaultalk 12:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you're wrong, look it up again. The photographer did get sued, but then the family dropped it and now both he and the family are suing Virgin Mobile and the Creative Commons people.
And you're also missing the point. You're not asking me to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm willing to do that. You're asking me to license my photographic work in such a way that I essentially have to give up all rights to it and all real control over it, just in order to contribute to Wikipedia. That's really freakin' extreme.
So saying that "you regularly benefit from contributions freely made by others" is not the point. I'm willing to contribute to Wikipedia. But that's NOT what you're asking me to do. You're asking me to contribute my work to everybody, for free, with no restrictions at all. The benefit from that that you're now telling me is "well, you get wikipedia", which is really, really weak. Where's the benefit to me from releasing even ONE photograph under such terms? I get Wikipedia anyway without giving up my rights.
The power of free licensing is the power to ensure that improvements are also free. That is its only power. In such a case, all parties benefit. But photographs cannot really be improved upon, unless somebody takes a better photograph. So the contributing party gets no benefit whatsoever from his work. The license is now one-sided. It makes no sense to release quality photographic work (work with value) under such terms.
So, is Wikipedia's goal to only have low-quality photographic work? Because that's the inevitable result of such policies. -- Otto 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, if you don't want to contribute your photos, don't. We aren't soliciting your photographs. You aren't going to change Wikipedia's policy, either, so there's really nothing to argue about here. If you don't believe that it's possible to get people to freely release high-quality photographs, fine, you're entitled to your opinion; but might I direct your attention to Commons:Featured pictures, which contains thousands of freely licensed photos that I would consider to be of high quality. I also disagree with your claim that the only power of free licensing is the power to ensure that improvements are also free—consider the four freedoms explained at Freedom Defined. But apparently no one here is going to change your strong opinion that freely licensing photographs is ridiculous, and you aren't going to change anything here, so I'm not sure why we're still arguing. I think your view is short-sighted, but of course that's just my opinion. —Bkell (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I have absolutely no intention of releasing my works under those terms. But I really, really am trying to understand your point of view. It appears, however, that you don't understand mine, and so I'm continually getting the impression that I'm not making myself clear here.
What I'm REALLY trying to do is to get a reasonable response here. So far, all you're giving me is either a) illogical or b) more of a "if you don't like it piss off" attitude. Are you all incapable of reasoned responses? Hell, you might actually be able to change my opinion, if you could answer my questions with actual answers. Sorry, but I won't take nonsense just because you're fresh out of sense.
As for these four freedoms, you also missed the point. The first three freedoms do not benefit the licenser in a free licensing situation, they only benefit the licensee. If I take a photo and release it under a free license, then other people can use/study/re-release it. But I already could do all those things as the copyright holder. I've made no gain from free licensing my work. The only "freedom" that I could gain would be the 4th one listed, and that one makes no sense with photographs. Do you see my point?
Please tell me that somebody here is rational enough to actually understand what I'm talking about. Because so far, I'm not getting any feedback here that makes any sense. :( -- Otto 20:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree that you will probably not receive a direct personal benefit for releasing your photographs under a free license. If that's your point of view, if your only goal is personal gain, then you're probably right—free licensing doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is not created by people who are seeking personal gain; it's created by people who are volunteering their work for the benefit of others. So free licenses, which give benefits to the licensees, fit right in with Wikipedia's philosophy. I contribute here not for my own benefit but for others'. All of my contributions are gifts on my part, and I don't really get anything in return. Is this rational? I think so—I think of it as a small way to make the world a little better. Maybe you don't agree. —Bkell (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah. Altruism is a delusion; everybody does everything for personal gain, they just have to understand what their gain is. Maybe your gain is that it makes you feel better about yourself. :) -- Otto 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Altruism? (page break)

Otto: what you are explaining, that you gain the benefits of Wikipedia whether or not you contribute, is a well understood problem, known as the tragedy of the commons. The question is; given that the tragedy of the commons applies to so many things we do, beginning with the problem of individuals grazing their animals on common land, how is it that societies manage to exist in the way they do, with considerable altruism always being seen. One answer is that they adopt laws and policing, but the limitations of these is all too apparent in the Western world currently. Another is by religion, and the belief that good deeds bring reward in heaven, and that played a big part a hundred years ago. Another, and perhaps the most important answer in my opinion, is the seeking of status, approval, and trust. People who become known for generosity and altruistic behaviour, tend to be trusted by others, or even favoured. This works best in small communities where good deeds are remembered and reputations important, and many would argue that it is the breakdown of small communities and the impersonalisation of human interactions in western society that has led to the collapse of Western society that many now agree is taking place. Against this background, Wikipedia is perhaps an attempt to restore altruistic behaviour in a bigger network. I for one feel proud to have contributed to articles, and proud to show friends how great Wikipedia is. I might hope that this gains me some respect and trust with them. There's another point though that you might not have considered. I've had my success, made lots of money at what I did, and now I see meaning in trying to fix the big problem - trying to rescue society from the 'rat-race' of business. I'm very interested in the idea of memes in the evolution of societies, and so it is a privilege to put an article straight (in an NPOV way) or to have my photos out there if they help people see the world differently, or help them marvel at what Wikipedia can do. Yes, altruism is a delusion, you are dead right, but there's more to the story, and it's being unravelled in evolutionary psychology where status is currently regarded as important to the mystery of altruism. I agree that 'do-gooders' are actually being selfish (though they often argue against this), but while pretending to do good for the sake of it they are actually seeking status (as good generous citizens), and status brings rewards and trust which can make life easier. If your reputation or motives are ever in doubt, it may help that friends know you to be altruistic, and it will not help if they know you as a hard-nosed businessman. Status is the 'proximal' reward that evolution uses to make societies, just as it uses sexual pleasure as the 'proximal' reward to make children (people rarely have sex to make children but that's the 'distal' reason why they do it in evolutionary terms. Societies that lose altruistic behaviour die out, because being able to trust up-front oils the wheels of life, and complex laws and checks and identity cards and passwords all clog them up. Status in business is another matter of course, often relying too much on power, and not good for society. Perhaps I should use the word 'reputation', and reputation is quite different from 'feeling better about yourself'. Check out tit for tat. --Memestream 13:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your concept of "status" indeed makes sense, but the problem is that it only applies to small groups. You can gain status in a small community. You can gain status on a small internet forum, with a few hundred regular users. But this is Wikipedia; it has tens or hundreds of thousands of contributors. "Status" is therefore meaningless here except among a small set of elites who all know each other. Not being part of that group, and only being a part time contributor, there's no cachet in giving away my work for free. There's no "status" to be gained because the group is too large of a set in which that status can be recognized. The only reason I have for contributing is, mainly, boredom. Gives me something to do from time to time. Also, I tend to contribute on articles about my local area. What with it being a tourist spot, this sort of enhancement increases potential business in the area, which can directly benefit me.
In other words, I don't perceive any status to be gained from contributing here, so it cannot be a gain factor in my decision making process. The only time you can gain status in such a large groups is if you already have such status that you can perceive it as a smaller peer group, namely those among you who have such status. -- Otto 15:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I did say, status works best in small groups and there is a problem with large groups, but you seemed intent on trying to find a reasoned answer, and I seem to have made some progress in that you agree status may be significant to the question. To take things a stage further, I suggest that the desire for 'validation' by others, is an inbuilt mechanism that is hard, maybe impossible, for us to escape (read R.D. Laings early books regarding 'ontological insecurity'). If we all carry on as though we are in a small community, then 'what goes around comes around' and we still benefit as a society. Some of us are trying to do that I think, while others, like you, are choosing to be 'freeloaders', although I suspect that you are looking for a reasoned answer because, despite the fact that freeloading 'makes sense' to you, it perhaps doesn't feel quite right. What can pull us together and make a big group behave as a small group is, I suggest, the concept of God, a father figure who notices what we all do and applies the checks and balances even if othes don't. I'm an out and out atheist, but I am beginning to think nevertheless that this is why large societies tended to be founded on religion. It's interesting that Benjamin Kidd came up with this idea in 1894 in the final chapter of his book Social Evolution. So if you can bring yourself to realise that the concept of God works without there really being one, provided most people behave as if there was one, then you have a reason for still persuing altruism in big groups. How am I doing? --Memestream 22:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You're doing terribly, because everything you just wrote is total nonsense. Even the bits that do make sense don't apply to me.
First, I don't consider myself a "freeloader" of any sort. I'm just not going to do something that is, frankly, downright idiotic: give up my rights on my images. This is not about freeloading, I contribute to Wikipedia just fine. I'm making a specific use case for images here. I have no problem contributing words and giving up control over those. I have no problem giving up control over code. In both these cases, the loss of control over the work is balanced out (or exceeded) by the gain in value of the work. But there's no case in which the gain exceeds the loss for images. The gain is virtually non-existent, and the loss is quite high.
My point is that people generally make decisions based on risk/reward, or personal gain. In this *specific* case, the gain is simply not high enough. If you want quality images, if you want people to freely donate them, then the loss/gain ratio needs to be more balanced instead of being completely one-sided.
Furthermore, I'm more than willing to contribute images to Wikipedia or any other free project, just not under the given conditions. Allowing free and unlimited commercial use of my work is the sticking point here, it's just a completely insane requirement that no serious photographer would ever agree to. -- Otto 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem lies with that phrase 'serious photographer', which suggests that you value your ability as a photographer highly, and devalue people who 'just take photographs'. Wikipedia is not just for works of art, or 'creative' photographs. A photograph of a famous person, or building, or street scene that someone just happened to take can be of great value in enhancing an article even if it was not taken by a 'serious photographer'. If it is sharp and well framed and lit all the better, but that is not essential to give it value. Putting it in the public domain can help keep the memory of that person or time alive, and bring appreciation whereas trying to sell the photograph may be counterproductive because outside of the articles context the photo may have no value. --Memestream (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you're overthinking my choice of phrase. A "serious photographer" would be somebody who takes photos seriously and recognizes that they have value. The quality of a work is not what's at stake here. Even a quick snapshot has value. Even a poorly framed shot of a boring looking building has some value. And a photo with value is not even necessarily a photo that could even be sold either. The gain isn't monetary, nor is the value.
What I am saying is that if somebody values their work, then they would never agree to terms that essentially require them to give up that work without getting something in return. Heck, I'll even give you an example.
Back about 4-5 years ago, I got an iPod. This was before iTunes for Windows came out, so the choice of software to make the thing work on Windows was rather limited (there were 2 programs, both of which sucked). Linux had one piece of software that worked, but it worked very badly and could not support any real functionality (it could put on songs and that was about it).
So I dived in and reverse engineered the structure of the iPod's file formats, and worked it out enough to be able to put files on the thing myself. I also worked out enough to make playlists and a bunch of other things work. I wrote all this code to demonstrate how to do it, and then released it under a BSD-style license. I also documented it over on the iPodLinux wiki. I spent a great deal of time and effort doing that and gave all that work away for free. Why? Because in return, people took that code, and took that knowledge, expanded upon it, and now there's dozens of free tools that can talk to my iPod. That was the whole point, and it worked. I know of 4 open source projects directly using parts of my code, 3 more based on it, and virtually all of them have made use of (and contributed back to) the knowledge base that I spent so much time starting. So, I have gained much for my efforts.
And that's the beauty of sharing work for free. The gain happens in other ways than monetarily. But it doesn't quite work with photographs. There's no gain in it for me, as I have pointed out above. Without that gain, without something to encourage me to give away something I value, then I'm not going to do it. Nor should anybody who values their work. It's not about whether the work has value to other people, it's about whether it has value to me. I value my photographs. I'd like other people to see them. I'd like to contribute them. But I'd be an idiot to give them away and potentially let them be used in ways that I do not agree with.
The only way that giving them up for nothing in return makes any sense is if I assign a zero value to them. If I don't care about them in any way. Which makes it unlikely that I'd bother, really.
So no, I don't see the point in this sort of a rule. It's idiotic and counterproductive, in my opinion. It's even somewhat communist in nature. Your definition of "free" is certainly not the definition I'd use, nor one that I agree with. -- Otto 16:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a misunderstanding above that donating a copy of a photo involves giving up copyright. My understanding is that the copyright holder holds the copyright and is merely licensing the uploaded copy under a free license. The copyright holder still has the original and can sell or give away other copies of the original under whatever license they wish. -- SEWilco 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Copyright is meaningless without actual control over the use of the work. -- Otto 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we've been round that loop already (above) SEWilco, and Otto is right; once a photo is put in the public domain is loses all value as there is no point in anyone paying for it. However, I think you are wrong, Otto, to insist that there must be personal benefit. What you did with software was good, and in that case you saw a personal reward, but there can be a feeling of reward without financial reward if you benefit your society. I grant you that this was more likely when we lived in small communities so that we were increasing our status with people we knew, but some of us still feel the same. Another point might be that when most people die, very little ever remains of their life. Wikipedia might be for ever! Future generations might track your efforts with interest. You may say that this is no good to you once you are dead, and yet some people do feel the need to leave their mark. In the end, financial reward, which is all you are likely trade copyright for does not bring satisfaction. Many people who have more than sufficient money will confirm that. It's because money is one-dimensional, being traded only for work, materials, or ideas, but not for fortune or feeling (we are not compensated for death of a loved one for example, or for bad luck). What we tend to seek when we have enough money is something more, linked to status and doing good, and taking pleasure in seeing a joint project succeed. That's the essence of Wikipedia. --Memestream (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images: Free use or GFDL?

To sum up, the significant facts that seem to have come out of the above are that if we grant free use we effectively give up everything, though we might be able to still insist on being credited. But if we use the GFDL licence then we ensure that any commercial user has to make the whole of his work which incorporates our image available under GFDL, which is a cost to him, and a payoff for us. Is that right? If so, perhaps the desirability of GFDL for images should be made clearer. --Memestream 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. The GFDL would not possibly hold up in a court of law under such circumstances. Use of a GFDL'd image in a work would not make the entire work GFDL. If somebody publishes a picture in a newspaper, the newspaper would not be free for anybody to use.
And anyway, GFDL is dying now. Wikipedia is switching to CC-BY-SA. [3] -- Otto 13:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, GFDL has never been tested in court, so...unless you are a JD or a elite member of the bar, ( which I asked two JDs and Judge Robert Keeton, last January about it. He has since DIED. ) I would not trust an off the cuff judgement. Artoftransformation (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
But, Simply put, GFDL is an attempt to extend into documents and images the policies of Free Software, as: You can use it, but others have the RIGHT to the source FREE. ( Read up on RMS, and GNU, and the GPL. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Woudlnt it make it a LOT easier of you provided a link to a policy you state? CC-BY-SA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The GFDL is very restictive when it comes to non-GFDL commercial reproduction and basically makes use in a typical magazine or book unfeasible. If Wikipedia were ever commercially printed, it would be under the GFDL, so there's no problem licensing images that way here. The post above claiming "use of a GFDL'd image in a work would not make the entire work GFDL" is pure obfuscation. From the GFDL article:

The GNU FDL requires that licensees, when printing a document covered by the license, must also include "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document". This means that if a licensee prints out a copy of an article whose text is covered under the GNU FDL, he or she must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself. Worse, the same is required for the standalone use of just one (for example, Wikipedia) image.

In other words, unless the publication is also licensed under GFDL, or it reproduces every page of license in full, it will be in breach of the GFDL copyleft. It might, I think, make an image difficult to port to some other wikimedia projects, although AFAIK this isn't an issue uploading images to commons. Why isn't this more commonly-known? I'm really not sure, but it may be due to the foundation's wish to have stuff dual-licensed, which provides the most flexible, non-PD commercial free terms, allowing licensees to choose the most appropriate license. It does, of course, make non-free commercial reproduction quite a bit easier, which is the biggest single reason stopping professional and copyright-conscious photographers from uploading their work here, IMO. I'd certainly be interested in hearing a wider discussion on the issue. --mikaultalk 12:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forced thumbnail sizing

Where can I find the discussions regarding forced thumbnail sizing? My adherence to Wikipedia policy is being challanged at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Image_Sizing, where users would like to define the size for every image in an article rather than using default thumb sizing to enable user preferences. Thanks, Cacophony (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here and an older, (even) longer discussion here. --mikaultalk 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple images?

When a page covers multiple fictional characters whose individual look/style is part of their character design (EG, a character made up to look like something that the represent) is it permissible to have multiple images on the page as an object illustration of each individual character. For example, could a page containing could a page detailing 10 anthropomorphic characters form a specific franchise have 10 separate images, one for each character.

Some admin input would be especially appreciated?

perfectblue (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, but only if there are not more specific articles to place the non-free images into. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Driving Licence image question

I was looking through the European Driving Licence article, when I noticed that there was a published driving licence image. The Image was tagged as a public domain image, but my question is whether or not the publishing of this image (and all its subsequent informartion) violates the Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, concidering that the licence was issued in an EU country? NevliX (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about this one: [4] , then it appears to be from a German government site. In which case I assume it's fake info. -- Otto 17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

With today being January 2, 2008, I have a pseudo relevant question. Since it is a performance, Would a screenshot of a television program first broadcast prior to Jan 1, 1958 be free-use under a 50-year-from-performance copyright policy? Or is there an overriding policy that messes this up? TheHYPO (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No information? This must have come up at some point...? TheHYPO (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parental consent for images of underage persons

I am wondering whether there may be legal problems if some person uploads photos of children claiming some kind of copyright. Should not there be also any proof of parental consent for public release of photos? I know that when my grandchildren take part in some productions (school theatre, jazz dance, etc.), the parents are required to sign release forms that photos of their children may be used for various purposes. `'Míkka>t 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a copyright issue. The subject of a photo does not normally own the copyright, the photographer (or their employer) usually does. We don't require proof of a model's release for any photos, as far as a I know, since we don't use images in a manner requiring a model's release (such as commercial endorsement). The only copyright issue would be if the *photographer* was a minor when they licensed the image, and then later decided they wanted to take it back. Underage contributors retracting a license might be an issue worth discussing, but probably not for this page. --Rob (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License status of over 150 years old colour plates, reprinted recently

I would like to ask, if the upload of over 150 years old colour plates is allowed, if they are taken from recently published reprints. For example I want to upload zoological colour plates of spiders, originally published 1827, using a reprint of 1988 --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The original image is out of copyright. A copy of an image does not generate a new copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. In other words, you can use these images as they are PD. For relevant template to use on the image page see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#Art. Tyrenius (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tyrenius, thank you very much. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
But this is only true in the US. Here in Britain that law does not apply. For example, I have taken high definition photos of Joseph Wright of Derby paintings which I would like to put in place of existing rather poor ones used on Wikipedia pages, but the existing ones were taken while the paintings were on loan in the US, while mine were taken in Derby museum where they normally live. Odd, isn't it? If someone had taken hi-res photos while they were on loan that would be fine! There are very few high res photos of paintings on the Web, partly for this reason, which seems a pity. --Memestream (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Memestream. Thanks a lot. Could someone prove, if my images in [[5]] are legal or not? If they are not, I will delete them. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image autoscaling wastes traffic

i hope this is the right page to address this issue, if not, a redirect will be appreciated: i found this picture [[6]] and noticed that Wikipedia's image autoscaling feature made a >600KB scaled down image from a 163KB original and didn't even use the interlace option. i usually wouldn't notice things like that, but this image loaded visibly slow even on a broadband connection - and not everybody has a broadband connection, so it must be worse for many others.
i don't have a problem with pics on wikipedia (though this one wasn't even particularly helpful), but as long as traffic is an issue (for both the user and wikimedia foundation), we can probably do better. so i suggest doing the following:
instead of scaling down to the same format like the original image, try several formats and use the one that yields the smallest file size (maybe combined with the option to deactivate scaling down to .jpg for certain images, if that would degrade the quality too much). i scaled down the image myself (with IrfanView) and got the following results: .gif - 61KB, .jpg - 38KB, .png - 111KB. the .jpg-version was without visible artifacts (unless you zoom in quite deep). and even the .png-version was much smaller than the autoscaled one, so this indicates a bug or especially bad compression in the autoscale feature.
Of course the utility of this improvement depends on cost of CPU Power vs. traffic cost, but a size reduction by factor 15 (autoscaled .png to manually scaled .jpg) may well be worth it. Catskineater (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The key problem is that we don't have any mechanism in place to provide settings other than size to the scaler and noone with a strong enough knowlage of mediawiki has come forward to write one. the scaler setup is optimised for quality rather than size (e.g. it antialiases) and this can sometimes end up producing output larger than the original :(. Plugwash (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The main cause of the size increase is that the scaled version is 16 bits per channel, while the original is 8. This seems like a bug to me, and is something that should be easy to change. --Carnildo (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I knew there had to be a bug. Catskineater (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] screenshots and copyright

I have uploaded photos I have taken myself earlier and had no problems and no comments. Now I have uploaded a couple screenshots taken myself and I have a lot of comments from the robot. I have read so much now, but I'm not able to figure out how to do this right. When I click on edit, it is nothing to edit.

Any advise appreciated!

screenshots--{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I forgot to say the screenshot was off my own website. --{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

Is there a limit to how big a free pic can be? Image:Wii Charge Station.jpg is 1.26 MB, IMO that is much much larger than it needs to be. TJ Spyke 07:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there was some trouble at one time with images sized larger than 10,000 by 10,000 pixels. Was it that ImageMagick had trouble working with them? I'm not remembering clearly. Anyway, the photo of the Wii charging station is well within normal limits. See Don't worry about performance. More resolution is almost always desirable. The Wikimedia software downsizes images on the fly to display them in articles. —EncMstr 07:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uploaded pdf of what appears to be unpublished original research

Someone has started a new section, 'Between Malta and Sicily' at Location hypotheses of Atlantis, Now not only is this about a virtually unknown author, it's clearly POV and hype. He's also uploaded what looks like original, unpublished research - Image:ATLANTIS.pdf. I've rewritten, deleted, etc. his stuff and it keeps coming back, and at one point he posted as Dougwellera but that was quickly banned. Is Image:ATLANTIS.pdf a legitimate use of the facility? Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted posters

What are the rules for using these items? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More that one copyright image in article on a film?

Somewhere I got the idea that fair use could be justified to use for a book cover, film poster, album cover, etc. to illustrate the topic of the article. However, I thought any other use of a copy right image, e.g. stills from the film, illustrations from the book etc., could not be justified. However, The Motorcycle Diaries (film) has 3 additional copyright images in addition to the copyright poster.

Could someone explain to me when and when not this justified? Does it all depend on resolution? If the resolution is low enough, any copyright image can be used? I am not clear on this. From my experience, the application of this standard appears arbitrary. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Resolution is only one point in the non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify sourcing requirements

The sourcing requirements on the policy often use "or" when it's correct, but lead to confusion that the uploader may supplier either information whereas that is not the case. For example, "The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" on the IUP implies they could stay "US Census Bureau" which would satisfy the source because they listed the copyright holder, but in reality, it isn't a sufficient sourcing information because one can't verify (easily) the source and copyright information and they should provide a URL to where they got it on the web. The former part really only matters when sourcing from a Book or under fair use (the website taken from wouldn't matter, the copyright holder does). I would like to rewrite and/or clarify the requirement of sourcing information with this information (or if someone else wants to, go ahead). I'm putting it here to get some feedback before making the uncontroversial (in my opinion) edit(s). MECU≈talk 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is relation to image deletion criteria. I support this change, but only in terms of improving image sourcing, not as a means to allowing easier deletion of images where the paperwork has been incorrectly filled out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made my change. I hope it helps clarify the requirement and think the examples given do just that. MECU≈talk 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Library of Congress image / additional restrictions...

I wanted to use this image in the Spencer Penrose article. I assumed it was ok, since the copyright appears to have expired. However, I clicked on rights and reproductions and it says: If you wish to publish or reproduce the materials in any physical or digital form beyond that permitted by fair use or use them for any commercial purpose, including display or Web page use, you must obtain prior written permission from the Denver Public Library. Do we need to adhere to those restrictions since it was created/published March 1894 according to the LOC page? --MattWright (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your link to the image isn't working. --Carnildo (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As Carnildo says, the link isn't working. When doing Library of Congress (LoC) searches, you get a temporary link from the search results page. To provide a permanent link, you need to provide the Digital ID number. This should be on the page you were looking at, somewhere near the bottom. When uploading the image (either here or at Commons, though preferably at Commons), you can use the {{LOC-image}} template to provide source details and a link. If you have problems doing this, just provide the Digital ID number and someone else will show you how to use the template. If you don't have a Commons account, upload it here and it will eventually be transferred to Commons. If this is a Denver Public Library image, as it seems, then have a look at Category:Denver Public Library images. It depends whether or not it is public domain. If so, no problem. If not, give the details here and we can advise. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As for whether Denver Public Library's claim include public domain pictures, the answer is no. If it is public domain, they can't place restrictions on use of the images. The only question mark over whether the images are public domain is whether they were published before a certain date. If the film for an image in question was only found, restored and developed recently, then the copyright clock would start at that point, depending on whether the rights over the material were correctly passed to Denver Public Library. Ultimately, they aren't providing enough information to determine that, but most images will have been previously published. For example, Image:WSStratton 11008875.jpg, in category Category:Denver Public Library public domain images. So it depends on the picture in question and the photographer/artist (if known). Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. The digital ID is 10000602. Hopefully that works. As mentioned above, it states "created/published March, 1894." but I am not sure if it was truly published then, or only created then. --MattWright (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is public domain. If you decide to use it, you should use Template:Denver Public Library public domain images. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help -- added a slightly different image! --MattWright (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on a web image of a 1497 woodcut

I came across this image on this page, which is clearly just a zoomed-in image of this work, which appears to be drawn from a work called Hortus Sanitatis by Johannes de Cuba that was published 21 October 1497 in Strasbourg. The super-quality dkimages.com is oddly tagged copyright. Is this a public domain for our purposes or fair use? I'm baffled how a high-quality scan of a 511 year old wood carving can be copyrighted. Lawrence § t/e 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is an exact mechanical scan of a two-dimensional artwork that is in the public domain (as this 1497 artwork certainly is), then the scan is also public domain, no matter how high the resolution. If you log into their website and use the images, you may be breaching their terms and conditions for using that website (similar to the cases of people taking photos in a museum that doesn't allow photography), but that it a matter between you and them, and nothing to do with Wikipedia. The copyright claim by Dorling Kindersley is standard stuff. Many commercial organisations slap a copyright claim on old public domain material they have - it doesn't mean they are right to do so. For a second opinion, try WP:MCQ. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do, I'll cross-post to MCQ. I had a feeling the copyrighting claim was bunk, but wanted a sanity check. I obviously don't have access to an original volume to scan, and wanted to grab that higher-quality scan for Toadstone. Lawrence § t/e 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice requested - image policy

With regard to a failure to find consensus here about this image and caption, I would appreciate any advice from more experienced editors about the meaning of "shocking or explicit pictures" from rule 10 of this policy. The fox hunting article is a difficult one to find consensus at. Thank you. MikeHobday (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should seek a wider input for consensus about the image. A single instance of application of this policy isn't really valid for discussion here. Perhaps post at the village pump or try WP:3O or the WP:DR process. MECU≈talk 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can this be done in articles?

Can you have two pictures of two ends of something, like this?
Image:Distanceunseen.PNG

I think (if this technique were EVER needed) it would improve the flow of the article. However, I am worried it would appear differently for every browser and cause issues. Would it?
Thanks. CompuHacker (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The above combination of 2 pictures and text is actually all one big .png image. Having text in images is deprecated because it is inefficient and makes an image unsuitable for wikipedias in other languages. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, no, you're looking too closely. Presume that the image is of an article. The idea is that you can have article text, and two images representing one object on either side. They are aligned in a way that you can clearly see that they are the same object, yet there is nothing but text in the middle. Please bear with me and try to understand :(. CompuHacker (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't be done reliably. --Carnildo (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to make a special composite image in order to get 2 images side by side when you can use HTML to construct a single-row table like this:

The sad lady at extreme right expresses tragedy, don't you think? Friedrich August von aulbach - In Arcadia
The sad lady at extreme right expresses tragedy, don't you think? Friedrich August von aulbach - In Arcadia
 Put some text here such as Don't strain your eyes, this is not meant to be stereoscopic!
The sad lady at extreme right expresses tragedy, don't you think? Friedrich August von aulbach - In Arcadia
The sad lady at extreme right expresses tragedy, don't you think? Friedrich August von aulbach - In Arcadia

Put some more text here. Easy :) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture on the left
Picture on the left
Picture on the right
Picture on the right

There's no need for a table, just use [[Image:Test.png|left|thumbnail|250px|Picture on the left]] [[Image:Test.png|right|thumbnail|250px|Picture on the right]]. See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Carnildo's "Can't be done reliably" is also true: If the browser window is narrow, the formatting will change. —AlanBarrett 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reducing the width of the IE browser window causes the horizontal scroll bar to appear. It functions reasonably with my table solution whereas the position of the text "There's no need for a table, just use" relative to the thumbnails in AlanBarrett's method changes. More complicated things can also be done with browser-friendly HTML table tags though I don't know for what "Important physics related article" any of this is useful. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting the "Free licenses" section

I just noticed that the "Free licenses" section has not been updated since the Foundation enacted its resolution on licensing and copyright policy in March 2007. It still references an old e-mail by Jimbo, and in particular makes no mention of the fact that licenses which do not permit derivative works are not considered free. (This came up as I was clarifying the text of {{FairusewithND}} and looking for the appropriate policy page to link to.)

I'd like to propose that the current text of the section be replaced with something based on commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, which (though the layout could use some improvement) makes all the relevant points and explicitly references the Foundation policy. Any comments or objections? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook Inquiry

This may have been addressed already though I could not find it in a google search of Wikipedia or in any of the archives. It's an inquiry into the claim about images on Facebook uploaded to public areas such as groups and publicly accessible photo albums are allowed to be uploaded on to Wikipedia. Do these images become public domain as uploading these images you release your rights to facebook, and potentially any other third parties that have access to them via your privacy settings you choose?

When you use Facebook, certain information you post or share with third parties (e.g., a friend or someone in your network), such as personal information, comments, messages, photos, videos, Marketplace listings or other information, may be shared with other users in accordance with the privacy settings you select. All such sharing of information is done at your own risk. Please keep in mind that if you disclose personal information in your profile or when posting comments, messages, photos, videos, Marketplace listings or other items , this information may become publicly available.

Thanks for any insights people may have. This is in relation to landscape images of public landmarks. Mkdwtalk 05:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they do not become public domain. They are copyrighted just the same as anything else. --Carnildo (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
On that note, I've been trying to clarify: let's say someone has uploaded a picture of several people. When requesting permission to use that picture, do you contact the author only or each person in the picture? Corsulian (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
For use on Wikipedia, you need to contact the copyright holder (who is usually the creator of the picture). Make sure you're asking for the picture to be released under a free license, because simple permission to use the image on Wikipedia isn't good enough. --Carnildo (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image licensing question

There's a thread at Deletion Review at the moment - here. A photographer had uploaded images to flickr, initially under a CC licence. She subsequently decided to change the image licence and removed the CC licencing, but by then someone had already taken the images and uploaded them to Wikipedia. What is the status of these images? My first impression would be to leave them deleted, but I would appreciate some people knowlegable in image policy chipping in on this, either here or on the DRV thread. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 10:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also see a parallel thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#When CC is revoked. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery Policy Clarification

The policy on "photo galleries" is unclear and difficult to interpret. Some users are misinterpreting it to mean "all photo galleries are bad regardless" of location, context or format. My understanding is that in-article options 1-3 are currently acceptable, but that separate pages consisting solely of images and captions ("namespace galleries") are discouraged. Can someone confirm this and/or rewrite the policy so that it is less confusing, and add some rationale so that we can understand why the policy exists. Currently the policy is causing conflict and misunderstanding. Specifically, please replace the obscure term "namespace galleries" with some basic English.Rep07 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Second this! It has come up in an FAC I'm involved in. From that I can see from the few mentions I've found, it seems that the policy about galleries is not about the tag or using the tag, but about "galleries" that are pages that consist entirely of images. Some of my findings follow:
. From Wikipedia:Galleries we see this definition:
Galleries are pages which contain large numbers of media content—almost always, images—with little or no supporting text. Large numbers of galleries have been deleted from Wikipedia
And further in it defines it:
gallery:
Any page or page section which consists entirely or almost entirely of images or thumbs. Note: In fact most references to "galleries" in the text below clearly refer to "gallery pages" only.
Basically both image use and MoS appear to be talking about "gallery pages" and not "using gallery tags in a page with other content. Can someone clarify this for me? I'd hate to fail an FA on this! Maury (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of comment on this, I have to assume everyone agrees! So then can I go ahead and add the clarifying text to the guideline? Maury (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I have tracked down how all of this started, it's in this edit. As you can see, the article clearly talked about "pages consisting mostly of images" which they called "montages". However, the term "montage" was objected to, so they changed it to "gallery", certainly a more confusing term. I am going to add clarifying text now. Maury (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This does require further discussion, and I agree with Rep07 that the section on photo galleries needs clarification/rewriting. I also agree that "all photo galleries are bad regardless of location, context or format" is not the intent. However, I do not agree that all galleries, other than pages consisting mostly of articles, are acceptable. There are a number of scenarios where a gallery is a really useful tool to help illustrate an article -- there are other uses of galleries where it simply represents a collection of images, and in those latter instances the galleries ought to be replaced by a Commons link. This is an important issue - let's get it right. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to elaborate a bit, I think you've relied too much on a failed guideline proposal, that did not generate enough discussion or support, for your suggested definition of gallery, and you are reading too much into the earlier montage/gallery wording discussion. Having said that, can we not come up with wording that makes clear that not all galleries are bad, while at the same time not gutting this policy and suggesting that all galleries are fine (which I know a lot of people would have a problem with). Maury, what was the FA you were working on, and how did that play out? Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The FA was for National Ignition Facility. There is a small selection of images at the bottom in a gallery tag, and the reviewers claimed that galleries should not be used. Trying to understand why that was, I came to the conclusion above, which I still hold, that the wording was introduced to the Image Use Policy to address "pages of mostly images". The confusing wording led people to believe they were arguing against "the gallery tag", which is something else entirely. Maury (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image content guidelines

Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines for an attempt to start a guideline to consolidate and improve our guidelines on image content on Wikipedia. Please discuss at the talk page and help improve this new guideline, which was inspired by this and other recent image discussion controversies. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No-deriative allowance?

There's a bit of a discussion going on concerning Troy McClure's potential main-paging; the only free image we can find of Phil Hartman is on a Creative Commons licence that does not allow for derivative works.

I personally am of the opinion that the image could still be OK for the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps just with some sort of special template and a "Do not move to Commons" warning. What say you? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Kelly hi! 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Use of a U.S. military decoration image

A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpolicy list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Hello. I am seeking input, and hopefully the determination of some guidance, on whether the image of a military decoration should be used on Wikipedia in a context other than the military decoration itself.

The prompt for this issue is that I discovered Image:Air Force Good Conduct Medal ribbon.png used as part of a one-of-a-kind, custom Wikipedia award given to User:BetacommandBot. I removed the image, saying it wasn't an appropriate use of the image. My edit was reverted by Betacommand in this edit. I also placed a notice on the awarding editor's talk page (User talk:Rolypolyman) asking that editor to please consider picking a different image as part of the award. Another editor started a discussion on the editor assistance page on this topic, with people saying the discussion should be moved to a policy-making area.

Relavent U.S. laws & regulations: As with anything produced by the U.S. federal government, the images for military decorations are completely in the public domain. There are still federal laws & regulations which govern the use of military decorations, including 18 U.S.C. § 704 and, for the Army (and sometimes Air Force), 32 CFR Part 507. As part of this second reference, Part 507.12(c) states that "ribbons... or colorable imitations thereof, will not be used by any organization, society, or other group of persons without prior approval in writing" of the military. It would be my interpretation that displaying the image in its original context would not be "use", but that displaying the image as part of a new award would be "use" on the part of Wikipedia.

Proposed policy: Prohibit the use of images of actual military decorations on Wikipedia used in a context other than as part of the actual military decoration they are associated with. Affect of policy: This would prohibit military decoration images being incorporated into Wikipedia awards as was done in this case.

Why I'm proposing this: (Some people are concerned about why a person proposes what they propose.) I am proposing this because I saw the image where it was and in the context it was used in. I recognized that the award looked like a military decoration, and this was confirmed when I clicked the image. I didn't like the idea of such an image being used in a way it was not intended to be used. When I discussed its removal, everyone seemed in agreement that it is an inappropriate use of the image, but nobody was aware of any law or Wikipedia policy violated. I would like to see that Wikipedia policy change to include what most people would think appropriate and what may be required by U.S. law/regulation.

I am eager to discuss the merits & process of this proposal. Thank you. ~PescoTalk 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully support restricting the use of any military (USA and all countries and awards) award as part or the derivative of any Wikipedia based award. To further this, I believe any user should still be allowed to use the awards on their userpage as a self-awarding, if they wish to, in such case as they may have actually received the award and wish to share that information here. The general thought behind my support in restricting is that other usage would cheapen the true aspect and meaning of the award. Copyright aside -- yes, we can legally do it perhaps -- but should we? The barnstar is the adopted standard Wikipedia award, do we need anything else? Those that serve and do such great things to earn the real awards don't need them cheapened by Wikipedia. I would be fine with a "Wikipedia Good Conduct" award, but does is need to copy a real award? Why can't it just have the barnstar format? MECU≈talk 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are some legalities involved with use of U.S. military awards relating to the Stolen Valor Act. I'm not sure if any of them apply here on Wikipedia, however - IANAL and all that. Kelly hi! 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Stolen Valor Act modified 18 U.S.C. § 704, which starts off: "Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures, or sells any decoration...", so it's hard to apply to an image display on the internet. 32 CFR 507.12 could apply, though. Read para (c). I've quoted it above. ~PescoTalk 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If we can conclusively say this is illegal, it should be policy. If not, it should be a guideline at WP:AWARDS never to repurpose images of actual military or civilian medals for WP awards. There is absolutely no reason to steal an image of a meaningful award, the reuse of which is probably offensive to those who were awarded the actual medal, when it's so easy to create a unique image. – flamurai (t) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be sufficient to place the {{Insignia}} restriction tag on those images, or do we need a special-purpose restriction tag for these images? Kelly hi! 05:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't know such a template existed. If its use is accepted as policy, I think that should be fine. A few questions: Can an image have two templates? Also, all U.S. gov't awards will fall under commons:Template:PD-USGov-Award and commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military award... Could the contents of {{Insignia}} be placed in these two templates (many more for other countries), or can a template be placed in a template? Thanks. ~PescoTalk 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, what limitations on use on Wikipedia should using the {{Insignia}} impose? Will it be understood that images tagged like this won't be used as part of Wikipedia awards? ~PescoTalk 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Images can have two or more templates, usually when uploading fair use images we apply all relevent templates to the work in question, so I don;t see why we couldn't have two or more for a pd-image. One thing that somewhat concerns me though is that those of us who would award military type images for whatever reason typically do so becuase of the status of the award: for example, those who have been harrassed incensently or have fallen victim to vandal attack repeatedly are occasionally given purple hearts as for thier status within the U.S. military. Now it wouldn't be two hard to replace the image, but do the law(s) surrounding military decorations also prohibite the use of award names under the circumstances you have provided? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Just did a bit of searching... I think you mean Template:The Purple Heart Barnstar? Can't say I'm completely keen on the name just on the principle of it, but I don't think any laws or regulations would address as they might when using the image of an actual military decoration and calling it something else. ~PescoTalk 04:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I picked purple heart becuase its meaning was obvious, but I was thinking about what may/could happen if some made a "wikipedia medal of honor" or a "contributer good conduct medal" or a "project coordinator unit citation" or something along those lines. Obviously the use of any associated image for such awards would be controversial if the borrowed directly from the current awards (a medal of honor, a good conduct medal, a unit citation, etc) but I wanted to make sure that the use of such names would get anyone in trouble. From the sound of it they wouldn't (legally) but it would be distatefull. Is that more or less correct? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt it's illegal, and any regulation that would seem to say that is probably unconstitutional if it were applied that way. If it were illegal the worst we could expect is a polite request by the US government to remove the image - they're not going to prosecute or sue. Unless it's blatantly obvious or there's a serious risk of financial harm to the Foundation questions like that are best left to Wikimedia's legal counsel, because if we jump the gun and act on mere speculation it has a chilling effect. Absent any illegality I don't know of anything in image use policy to prohibit it, but there could be. However, I would think that a sense of decorum, decency, and respect suggest that we not repurpose military medals for use here, particularly not for ironic or controversial purposes (e.g. praise or a subtle dig at Betacommand by giving BetacommandBot a medal). Wikidemo (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your comments. Just to clarify, by mentioning possibly relevant laws/regulations I was only trying to show that there might be references that speak to the issue of whether images of military decorations have any kind of protection, not assert that what is going is "illegal" in any sense. Like you say, I am hoping that out of respect and recognition that these images do have some kind of special status (even if they are in the public domain). I'm hoping that, to prevent examples such as the one you mentioned, Wikipedia image use policy can gently state that the use of these images is limited to use in reference to the actual military award. ~PescoTalk 03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The above doesn't go for appropriating text as long as it isn't too close to the military use. Phrases like "good conduct medal", "hazardous duty pay", etc., have made it to common use in English. I think "purple heart" is a fence-sitter. Inasmuch as it is an exaggeration (being a victim of wikidrama is only marginally comparable to sustaining an injury in military combat) many uses for it might seem a little ironic. Wikidemo (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think unless someone is claiming (say, on their userpage) to be a recipient of an actual Purple Heart or other military decoration, there is no violation of the law. Kelly hi! 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asserting any protected status for text that has similar military awards, such as generic "good conduct awards" or "Legion of...", etc. Just as an aside, there are plenty of people that use military decoration imagery to state on their user pages that they have been awarded a particular award. I don't think there's a problem with this. If a person is lying, the fault is theirs, not Wikipedia's. I just think Wikipedia can, through image use policy, limit military award images to use in reference to the actual military award. ~PescoTalk 03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

I was wondering if this RfC could be brought to a close. To sum up, there have been two issues at hand: 1) Are using these images for other uses appropriate, and 2) is this use prohibited by law/regulation? While it could be asserted that in various countries using the images for other uses is not allowed, I feel Wikipedia, as policy, should not allow other use purely on principle & sense of appropriateness.

That said, I propose the inclusion of {{Insignia}} within military decoration image templates such as commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military award. I propose that images portraying military decoration should only be displayed on Wikipedia when used in the context of the actual decoration and not for any fictional or Wikipedia award purpose. Thoughts? ~PescoSay it! 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is much made about nothing. I don't think that we need policy on this, but I would support a petition to Bettacommand to remove that graphic from his award as disrespectful. It is very ironic that Betta is so anal about proper releases etc. for images, but shows no respect for those who have earned this ribbon legitimately. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What IS the use of images in the "Image Use Policy"?

I've tried reading this, and it's clear as mud to me. The article on Image Use Policy seems mostly about what images can be uploaded. All I want to know is

  • 1. May I use any image that I find on the Wikimedia Commons in an article on Wikipedia?

and

  • 2. If I may not use images that I find on the Wikimedia Commons in an article on Wikipedia, what images can I use?

I hope someone can provide simple answers... --Hafwyn (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the license of the image and the article it's being used in. For example, as far as I know, a corporate logo may be used in the article about that company. A TV-show main title screen may be used in the article about that TV show. Images that have no copyright claimed or are public domain may be used pretty much freely in Wikipedia. If you have questions about any specific images & articles, feel free to ask. ~PescoSay it! 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The first part of the answer above applies to fair use images, which won't be found on Commons anyway, but must be restricted to wikipedia. The simple answer is that all images on the Commons may be freely used in any wikipedia article, depending on the relevance and appropriateness of the image to the topic, of course. That assumes that the image has been uploaded correctly and with an accurate permissions licence to Commons in the first place, although that is not really your problem. If you do have doubts when looking at an image, notify a Commons admin or even nominate it for deletion there. Ty 01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Good to know. ~PescoSay it! 02:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! That is the information I needed. Maybe it could be stated like that on the Image Use Policy page for others who are not uploading images, just trying to illustrate their Wikipedia article? --Hafwyn (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Delete on sight" needs clarification

In Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images:

Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight.

needs to be changed to

Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted quickly unless a valid fair use rationale is provided and the image is actually used as described in the fair use rationale. see revised version below

in order to comply with actual practice.


I'm not going to go around changing policies without discussing it first, so are there any comments before I make this change to the documented policy? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please include language to suggest that honest mistakes leaving out some minor detail should not result in speedy deletes. There needs to be some sort of dividing line between clear copyvio and honest mistake, and that if the reviewer cannot tell the difference at first glance they should always assume the later. Lots of images are being deleted from the wiki not because there is anything wrong with them, but because the uploader didn't follow the unclear-and-ever-expanding instructions to the letter. Maury (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Revised version - how is this?
Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted quickly unless a valid fair use rationale is provided and the image is actually used as described in the fair use rationale. If the image is used in an article but is missing a fair-use rationale, and such a fair-use rationale can be easily provided, editors and administrators are encouraged to provide such a rationale rather than deleting the image to make a point.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of NATO images

NATO has a photograph collection (http://www.nato.int/multi/photos.html) for which it hold copyright. NATO permits the images to be reused under certain coditions (http://www.nato.int/multi/conditions-e.html). In particular they state that "Material is provided, free of charge, for use only in objective and balanced documentaries/articles, even though at times the end products may be critical of NATO". Clearly they are not public domain. Can I use them in the Wikipedia? If so what licencing templates would be required and would, given NATO's conditions, they need to be low resolution, not freely replaceable etc? Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the image meets the criteria at WP:NFCC, you can't use it. Restricting use to "objective and balanced" works is far from free content. --Carnildo (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forced Sizing

Some editors are using the statement "In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences" as a reason to strip all sizing off images using the "thumb" claiming that thumbnail images should never have a size set. This is done without regard for whether the images can be properly displayed at the 180px default (which is what the vast majority of readers will see, such as images with unusual dimensions or images with text. I've read some of the older discussions noting how disputed this is, and I'm wondering if this is some hard fast rule that must always be followed, or if common sense prevails. From my understanding, the answer is no. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size does not specifically forbid image sizes ever being set, and further down it notes what to do "where size forcing is appropriate." MOS:IMAGES notes that lead images should be atleast 300 pixels wide. Most infobox images default to 250px. A vast number of featured articles and lists includes hard sized images as lead images. The images are not thumbnails, they are tagged thumb to put a caption on them and allow resizing down to a more suitable article size. "Frame" cannot be used as it will not allow one to specific the size of the image. WP:PIC also allows for resizing, including telling you how to do it and noting specifically that you must use thumb to set a specific image size. So is this stripping of sizes condoned or appropriate? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crediting CC-BY

Do CC-BY images need to bear a credit line in every article they appear in, or is the credit on the image description sufficient? – flamurai (t) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We treat the image description page as being sufficient. --Carnildo (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postcard Image Copyright Question

It was suggested that I post this question here. I have an old postcard with a photograph of a lighthouse that was seriously damaged (a corner of the brick structure) and I would like to upload the image. However, I do NOT know how old the photo is and do not want to violate copyright laws. Any comments or suggestions? --Crimson Red Fox (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galleries, again

I hadn't noticed that the clarifying text I added to the Galleries section had been removed.

The policy, as it is currently written, is extremely misleading. The section on galleries is not talking about the gallery tag, it is talking about "montages". If you want proof, simply consider the fact that the policy was originally added in this diff on 15 April 2003. Why is that interesting? Because the gallery tag was added in mediawiki 1.4, which was released in February 2005.

Clearly the text in question is not talking about the gallery tag; it predates it by two years and is substantally similar to the current version. All that has changed since then is the addition of what amounts to a discussion in the policy text, and the changing of the term from "montage" to "gallery", which has obviously confused matters. Yes, there has been considerable conversation about whether or not montages should be used, but there has not been, from what I can see, a single conversation about the gallery tag.

Skeezix1000, I'm all for adding additional guidance to tell users how to best use the gallery tag. However, that would be new material that the current policy does not cover. If you wish to lead discussion on this, by all means, start it up. But the clarifying text is going back in in the meantime.

Maury (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image rights questions

Hi, I'm not sure where to ask this, so I'm starting here:

I've been contacted by an advertising agency that wants to use one of my photographs that is posted on Wikipedia with a GFDL license. They are aware that they can use the photograph under the terms of GFDL, but they would like to use it without having to post all that text, and they would like the photo at higher resolution than can be found in Wikipedia. Here are my questions:

  1. I haven't found anything in the GFDL license that restricts me from licensing a different version of the photograph for commercial purposes, so I assume it is alright. Is this correct?
  2. I will make it clear in the agreement with the advertising agency that their use is non-exclusive, and that a GFDL version will continue to exist at Wikipedia. Are there any other considerations I should be thinking about?
  3. As this ad will be seen by thousands of people (it will be in a newspaper insert), do I need to do anything to keep the Wikipedia image from being challenged as a copyright violation? Should I note on the image page that commercial rights to a higher resolution version that was never posted on Wikipedia were not GFDL?
  4. Is there anything else I should be thinking about?
  5. Does anyone have an idea what I should charge for the rights? (I'm planning to donate the proceeds to Wikimedia) E-mail me if you have advice about this question.

Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Correct.
2. The 2 points you mention are important to have stated. Specify as rigorously as you can what the agency can do with your image in return for their payment. Say that non-exclusive use means that you keep the image as your property.
3. No. No.
4. I think not. But look very carefully at whatever terms the agency offer you and don't accept anything you don't understand. Is this to be a one-time usage?
5. Uh, I'd say whatever the market will bear. I have no idea.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)