Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I keep seeing the message "No higher resolution available." under all the images here at[REDACTED] (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Example.png ) why is the message there, like with screenshot and things people upload, those images get resized and then have a message under them saying (discouraging) people from uploading large/better quality images of whatever the subject is. When did this start? Why? The only (good) reason I can think on is that[REDACTED] is running out of server space and is resizing image to take up less file space.. thought, answers anyone, please. Namire19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Namire
Rules for derivative works?
I don't seem to be able to find rules for derivative works. Should I then assume that the same rules as in Commons apply with the exception that fair use images are allowed? Samulili11:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Flickr images
Hello everyone; was wondering if somebody could clarify something for me. I edit BBC articles and both myself and others have been finding it increasingly difficult to find free use images for articles, particularly those about television channels, that are good enough to use other than fair use screenshots. I believe that either somebody mentioned this elsewhere or that I saw an image that had been uploaded from Flickr on either the public domain of gfdl tag (correct me if I am wrong) and so was wondering if such images could be used. If somebody could reply on my talk page, I'd be very grateful. Thank you! Wikiwoohoo19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for me to imagine how we would get freely licensed examples of BBC material to illustrate our articles. Flickr users often upload things for which they don't own the coyright and make some nonsense licensing claim, so use good judgement when browsing there. Maybe you can be clearer about what exactly you're looking for, or looking at? Jkelly20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This issue has come up for me too. Many thousands of excellent, useful images on flickr are licensed with Creative Commons licenses which would appear to allow their use on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, many are uploaded with their camera EXIF data intact, and by looking at that together with the user's photo collection in general, a reasonable common-sense guess can often be made as to whether the uploader really owns the photo. However, I suspect a lot of flickr users, perhaps even the majority, do not fully understand the implications of the license the system assigns to their photos. They often chose a default when signing up with flickr. I don't suggest for a moment that the site is being sneaky – in fact in my dealings with them, they've seemed very decent – but I think it is always advisable to contact the photographer (always possible through their flickr account) and ask permission before using a photo. It's generally well-received (it's flattering) and is much better than gnashing of teeth later. – Kieran T20:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have had the same experience. I sometimes wonder how many of my fellow flickr contributor really understand the tags. People have always been flattered when I have asked. It sure is a wonderful source for images. Wikimedia Commons has a process for reviewing and uploading CC images from flickr (a bot called FlickrLickr). Commons is a great starting place to look for any general image. The categories are structured to be easy to search (in theory anyhow). Royalbroil22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help. As suggested I will begin contacting certain Flickr users who have uploaded what appear to be their own work and which would be perfect for inclusion in certain articles. A search on Flickr for BBC News 24 brings up certain images of the channel available to view on 3G mobile phones as well as on a bus in one case! Another search for George Alagiah displays a perfect image of George posing for a photograph alongside the BBC News Election 2005 bus (some of you may remember the Election roadshow for the news). Many thanks again! Wikiwoohoo15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyright Legal Question
I'm not too sure about this; a cartoonist drew a sketch of his own unique character, and sold it to be used on shotglasses. I took the original picture and started drawing it in Illustrator. (so the differences are for the most part minimal; it's basically the same picture, unless you're using a fine-tooth comb searching for differences)
Would using this drawing I made of his picture be copyright infringement? Note, only being used on profile, not on any Misplaced Pages pages.
I sort of emailed him already about something else, so I'd ask him first before using it, even if it's not copyright infringement.JimmmyThePiep04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The character itself is probably copyrighted, so even if you had drawn the character "from scratch" in a different pose i believe it would still be conisdered a derivative work, if it's also almost identical to the original drawing it would probably just be considered a "copy". As such no, the image can not be used on your userpage unless you get the cartoonist's permission to release it under a free license first (has to be a free license, "permission to use" only is not enough on Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission) --Sherool(talk)08:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay; I'll finish drawing and see if the cartoonist likes it first before asking. But about this free license; Is it a verbal licence or something more substantial? (such as on paper, or recorded in a legal manner somewhere like a Law office)
I ask because on a Town page I was going to post a picture of a landmark, and got permission from the county website. However, what would I do to get a free license from them? (They suggested posting their website in the copyright info.) JimmmyThePiep19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Size references inside an image (coins, bills, leafs, bugs etc..)
Could we add an advice to use some kind of ruler (preferebly metric) when trying to compare objects? coins etc.. are quite nation specific and makes little sense outside of that nation. As an example look at the Gumstix image, gumstix picture (Gumstix).
In essence anything that is not frequently common worldwide should not be used as a reference for size.
Yeah, I could have sworn we had that in a guideline (or possebly essay) somewhere already, but I can't seem to find it again now (maybe it was on Commons)... Anyway it's sound advice. As for image links just add a colon at the start of the link. ] will produce Image:Example.png. Works for categories too by the way. --Sherool(talk)12:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think superimposing a ruler is a good idea. Rather it should be an advice when composing the picture from the beginning. Electron915:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with water marking?
My only reason I am on[REDACTED] is to provide articles lacking pictures with an appropriate photograph. I am a freelance photographer. As a photographer I always watermark my photos in the bottom right hand corner with my last name. I release all rights of this photograph to be used on wikipedia. Like artists, I want my name on my work and am disappointed to find the following message
{{imagewatermark}}
Am I no longer able to "sign" my art work!?
Billy Rules 16:31, 12 January 2007
All media published through Misplaced Pages must be licensed to allow modification. Credit for photography goes on the image description page (just as article credit goes on the article history page). Watermarking an image suggests that there is some part of the image that is not modifiable. There is also a general feeling that image watermarks interfere with the professionalism or the encyclopedic quality of an image. Given that many users will want to remove the watermark, and that the license allows them to do so, watermarking the image creates extra work, and is discouraged. I hope this answers your question. Jkelly21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand what you are saying. However, I would like my name or "signature" on all of my photographs as I feel this is my own personal work of art. I release all rights so if some one wants to crop or remove my name that is fine, but will my photos be deleted if it has my name on it? Billy Rules 17:34, 12 January 2007
It's hard to say. They may be deleted if someone takes them to WP:IFD and says "We have an unwatermarked image to replace this one". They may be edited to remove the marking. They may be left alone. It all depends on who it is that notices them or wants to use them. Jkelly22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Watermarked images should not be allowed. The "distortion" issue needs to be clarrified. I'm not sure I get what the deal is with distortion. I think signatures should be allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbleem (talk • contribs) 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
If its just in an irrelevent corner and mostly invisible it'll probablly either be left or removed (by cropping, painting over with the clone brush etc) depending on if anyone bothers to remove it.
If otoh its right accrross the middle of the image then the image probablly won't survive an ifd.
watermarks also don't fit in well with the typical sizes[REDACTED] scales too, what would be a reasonable watermark on the image at full size will become nothing more than an unreadable nasty looking artifact at the size used in articles.
Also the way[REDACTED] normally works is to keep credit seperate from content (on history pages, image decscription pages etc) If we didn't do this then articles would become flooded with credit. watermarking tries to short cuircuit this and put your credit directly into the article. I'm sure you can understand how the major authors of the articles text could feel a bit uncomfortable with that especially since we already give images far easier to find credit than text.
Finally while you may regard your photographs as works of art[REDACTED] is not an art gallery. The images in our articles are mainly there to show important features of the subject and may be modified in any way we see fit for that purpose. Plugwash23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If you just want to store and share your pictures I would recommend the Wikimedia Commons. The focus there is more on picture quality and images are usually not deleted even if they are not being used. Also the images uploaded there can be used on all language versions of Misplaced Pages. --Oden02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy appears to discourage watermarking due to its usage by content creators to reserve rights.
However, for scientific purposes, those are often not watermarks as such, but caption information.
In scientific applications, it is important to preserve as much data as possible, including the source, in order to provide the context and references that are so crucial to encyclopedias. While it is true that it could be loaded into EXIF info, users who come across the image out of context could draw erroneous conclusions based on the visual information alone. A subsequent user who opens the file in an EXIF-unaware application and then reuses the image could unintentionally deny the EXIF information to following users. What would be the policy of Misplaced Pages regarding the use of caption information in the image field for this purpose, assuming the image is properly released? Robogun19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Change of license
Ok, so I found a good photo for one of my articles on Flickr. It had the proper license (allowed commercial use and derivative works). I uploaded the image to Misplaced Pages and gave all the proper info (source, url, and the exact license that the photographer had on Flickr). I informed the photographer on flickr that I uploaded his pic to Misplaced Pages, I gave him a link to the photo, and I informed him I used the same license that he had. I went back to flickr today (about 4 days after uploading) and he had replied to my note saying it was fine that I used the photo. BUT he changed the license to "All Rights Reserved." So my question is, do I now need to delete the image if the photographer changed the license? I'm going to send him another note informing him of the situation, but I wanted to get some information here first.--NMajdan•talk04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well as I understand it a CC license can't be revoked once given, unfortunately if a Flickr user chagnge the "tagging" on his images there is no way for anyonen to verify that it used to be under a free license. Commons have a verification system where trusted users (mostly admins) will go over Flickr uploads and vouch for the image beeing under a free license when they checked, but it's a slow process with a huge backlog. There is also a bot that will only copy properly licensed Flickr images. I guess your best bet is to talk to the user and see if you can't convince him to change it back to the proper CC license, as I understand CC is not the default setting so I would asume he had some idea of what he was doing when he used it (but you never know, aparently quite a few Flickr users are genuinely shocked when they realise that their CC-BY-SA images can be used by others, especialy the "commercialy" bit). --Sherool(talk)08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In Commons, not only admins but also a bot can verify images that come from Flickr. This has reduced the backlog substantially. Samulili19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Marxists.org
There are a ton of pics of various philosophers at Marxists.org. The site is under Creative Commons 2.0. Are the pics there kosher for use here? I'm very confused. --Beaker34206:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Most of the photos seems to be old enough to be PD (though some may be recent enough to be borderline and unfortunately they include no info on when the images where published or by whom, so use some caution). The CC license only extend to material created by the owner of the site itself, so that probably does not include most of the photos they use. --Sherool(talk)08:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I had assumed they were free images if they were hosted at the site, but perhaps it's better to be conservative on such matters. --Beaker34220:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
How would you advise I proceed in this situation?
Hi,
As I understand it, fair use of an image is considered permissible for critical commentary on
the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs.
It seems to me, therefore, that the image should be kept but the use of the image in the Ruby Bridges article should be removed.
Do you agree? Should I just be bold and delete the image or should I start a discussion somewhere? If the latter, where should that discussion be held?
I agree, now be bold. At the very least there is no explicit rationale claimed for that page, as required by WP:FUC #10. If someone wants to come up with one, then hold the discussion. ed g2s • talk14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Where do I start a discussion on whether an image fits or not?
There is an image in the Andrew Martinez that is a (nude) picture of the man according to the image information page. This image keeps being deleted and reverted, and I'm wondering where the fittingness of the image should be disputed.
Image in question located at Image:Sunning.jpg (how do I link to an image's page without displaying it?)
There has been a small edit war in penis as to the sizing of on of the diagrams (image:male anatomy.png). User:Atomaton wants user preferences to be respected. While I want to image to be sized at a resolution that is readable. My reason for this is that the image contains labelled parts that are described in the text of the article.
Can anyone please help give their opinion on how the image should be sized? and which size is consistent with the policy?--Clawed20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that nearly all images should be thumbnails without a size specified (respecting the user's preferences). When someone wants to read detail, he merely needs to click the thumb to see a full-sized image, which should be much larger than any size one would specify anyway. Increasingly readers will be accessing WP with hand-held devices and articles with only user-specified thumbnail sizes will be most user-friendly. --Appraiser21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not call it an edit war. It has been the normal be bold, revert, discuss cycle that two people with differing opinions follow. I asked for discussion on the talk page so that we could work it through. I suppose that you would like the image sized so that the text is readable, immediately upon entering the article. I just happen to feel that is mistaken. My thought is that most people who *want* to see things like that set a large user preference, and those would not want that set a small user pref for image size. By forcing a size on them, you take the users preferences away. If it were true that there was a loss of valuable information necessary to the article by letting user preferences be used, I might agree with you.
I work with a variety of monitors on a daily basis, from small to large, and letting user preferences be chosen makes a big difference. In most cases I can read the text "as it is" on any monitor, it just is tiny. When I want to read the detail, I merely click on the image. Most of our users, including the first time users figure this out. We are not denying them access to the detail.
If you assume that many of the users have not yet set their user preferences, and so it defaults to 180px. The image would then look something like this: File:Male anatomy.pngIllustration of the anatomy of the human male genitalia. It is obvious that there is more detail available, for anyone interested. They can just click on the image to look at the detail. (Please click on this image to see what I mean.) Or, to look at this example in its native context, go here.
It seems to me that there is a trade-off, and that both perspectives are fair (as both are supported by the WP:MOS). As allowing user preferences gives the most flexibility without losing acccess to the information, it is my preference in this specific case, and frankly, in almost every case. Atom21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Here we have two editors who believe that the interpretation of the meaning of an image (without a verifiable source stating that this is the correct interpretation) violates WP:OR. I think this is absurd and requires more than a one-voice response from the image-oriented folks. The short of it is, if I upload an image of a friggin' butterfly, do we really need a published citation that states my image is indeed a friggin' butterfly? Or are we going to start requiring that our images come only from published sources that verify the image is just what it looks like? If so, say good-bye to free images. The straw poll in question is probably moot because even the originating editor has found an image he likes better. However, the two editors who insist on citations could also make the same point about the alternative images as well. Rklawton01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The "butterfly" example isn't a good comparison, as the definition of what a butterfly is beyond dispute. The meaning of "sexual objectification" is certainly up for dispute, and is highly subjective. Requiring citations for disputed content is quite reasonable. In particular, any disputed claim about a living person (or depictions of them), definately requires a citation. Fortunately, in the vast majority of images used on Misplaced Pages, there's no dispute that the image depicts what's claimed. --Rob03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The identification the species associated with the image could easily be disputed. Many types of butterflies look very similar to each other, so I think the example has merit. Next, I wasn't aware there was a dispute about whether or not the image of a girl getting her t-shirt doused with water in front of a crowd of men constituted a wet t-shirt contest. Is this claim actually being disputed? And who, specifically is disputing this? Rklawton05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't disputing it. However, I suspect the girl who was doused with water, and the douser probably do. Also, the discussion wasn't just about the "water dousing pic". There was also Image:Objectification at Imitation of Christ by David Shankbone edited-1.jpg, which is rather pecular, and harder to pigeon hole. While Image:Pouring-water-for-wet-tshirt.jpg doesn't have a clearly identifiable person (no face shown clearly), the ""Imitation of Christ" does show faces, and those people probably would object to your label. They may well call it "art". We have a very strict WP:BLP policy, and lots of things we may find "obvious" aren't allowed if some people may dispute them. Anyhow, this all seems like a rather poor excuse to show a certain type of picture. Neither picture adds anything that properly written text can't handle. As for your silly butterfly example, no there is usually little dispute of what a butterfly is. But if/when there is, I would demand verification, and removal if there wasn't. Note, however, what species an animal is, is a factual question, that can be answered definitively, in a way, that subjective questions (like what's "objectification") can never be. --Rob14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not an easy question. We explicitly excluded images from meeting WP:NOR. We didn't exclude interpreting images from WP:NOR. My only recommendation is to tread lightly, be very conservative, and quickly identify and exclude anybody who isn't contributing thoughtful, good-faith material to the discussion. Jkelly07:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The short of User:Thivierr's argument appears to be that he simply doesn't want any image to illustrate the Sexual objectification article and he's trying to use WP:OR as his excuse for what ammounts to POV pushing. Wet t-shirt contests have been cited as an example (along with many others) as a form of sexual objectification, so an image depicting such is significant to the article. The question relevant to this talk page now is: how have these "we don't want any images" (i.e., "Misplaced Pages should be censored") arguments been settled previously? Rklawton02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Note quite. I would welcome a good picture of a wet-t-shirt contest, in a wet-t-shirt contest article. Also, suppose there was an event (wet-t-shirt or otherwise) that had published criticisim for being "objectification", and you had an image of such an event; then, I would welcome a picture of it (with cites given in article). We have to separate arguemetns here. I am all for having the relevant images. I just oppose any useage which includes *unattributed* opinion as to their meaning, beyond what's an objective fact. If we allow people to upload images, with deragatory terms describing them, than Misplaced Pages will be routinely used as a vehicle for insulting people. For instance, why not have an image of a person "acting stupid", "being a jerK', "lazy", "being a slut" or maybe just "ugly". After, all, I can come up with pictures that "obviously" meet the criterion. I'm not trying to suppress the image, just your personal interpretation of its meaning. --Rob15:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying, then, that an image of a specific event must have a verifiable citation that states that it is what it is? Or is it enough to say that wet t-shirt contests are an example of sexual objectification; this is an image of a wet t-shirt competition; therefore this is an illustration of an example of sexual objectification? Rklawton16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Publicity photo?
I have found what appears to be a 1960's television publicity photo for Adam West as Bruce Wayne on some random website (scroll down). It has no copyright reference or tag. Any thoughts on whether it is appropropriate to use?--Vbd02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No, if we can't source the copyright holder, we can't use it. You could write to the website owner asking for more information. Jkelly19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Good evening. I'm a user from the Italian Misplaced Pages and I'm working to this voice. In en.wiki I've found this image, which I'd use in the voice. I'd want to know where I can ask the permission to use the image, if you know. I've tried to contact the uploader, but he's offline by a lot of time. If you can answer to my question, --El Tarantiniese20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought there was a Misplaced Pages policy whereby one could use a copyrighted image in an article if the permission of the copyright holder were obtained and permission e-mailed to Misplaced Pages. Is this still correct? Where is this information? KP Botany03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If they are releasing it under a free license, email the release to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org. If they're just giving Misplaced Pages permission to republish it, it needs to adhere to our Misplaced Pages:Fair use guidelines and policy. Such permission can be noted on the image description page, but we're not very interested in it. Jkelly03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite follow the last part, although I'm not certain it's relevant to the case at hand. This image lists a copyright but nowhere does it list the photographer's permission to use the image has been granted: Image:Thornwort.jpg. Thanks for the first part. Does it list this anywhere on the policy? KP Botany03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still trying to learn the ins and outs of the WP policy on images, so I apologize if I am asking obvious questions. As part of a recent rating of a biographical article (Don Ohlmeyer), there was a specific request that a photo be added, so I have been surfing the Web trying to find one. So far, I have two options. One is a photo that appears on the Museum of Broadcast Communications bio of Ohlmeyer and is credited as "Photo courtesy of Don Ohlemeyer." I'm pretty sure I have seen it on other sites, too. Is it implied that this photo can be used with Ohlemeyer's permission? I don't know how to contact him directly to get permission. The second option is a candid photo of Ohlmeyer giving a guest lecture. It is posted on some professor's webpage; I suspect he would grant permission for its use. If this is the better option, how do I go about getting permission?--Vbd | (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
In either case, you must ask for and receive permission - and state exactly what sort of permission (copyright) you received on the image's page when you upload the image. Read: WP:COPYREQ for the full details. Rklawton15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Taking pictures of people
How can we justify using someones picture on wikipedia? How can I legitematelly publish someones picture, which I was using previously under fair use but it was deleted for copyright issues, in an article about that person? How can we republish someones picture here when we know that if it is used commercially that company may face sanctions? --CyclePat02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Publishers are responsible for what they publish. If we tag something as fair-use, and some idiot is stupid enough to publish it commercially, then they get what's coming to them. It's how the rest of the world works, and we're not a special case. Rklawton04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Still, I wonder, specially after ready this article from USA today, if a person really doesn't want his picture to be published can it be removed? Let's assume it meets fair use and does not violates their personal privacy issues? If I take someones picture in public or while he is teaching a class (at work), can I publish it on Misplaced Pages if the article is about that person? --CyclePat15:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That's two different questions. First, administrators can remove an image for a variety of reasons. Typically, if the subject of an image complains, admins will remove the image rather than hassle with the matter any further. Second, the privacy/legal/USA point of view is another matter entirely. Wikipedians endeavor to follow the law plus policies consistent with maintaining a 💕. In short, we're stricter. US law offers very little privacy protection for people photographed in public when their images are used for social commentary purposes and aren't libelous. Rklawton21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay! I'm going to play devils advocat here. Let's assume I am a business and I've decided to republish Image:Pope Benedictus XVI january,20 2006 (2) mod.jpg with the words "Come to our church, our Pope Ben!" Well, according to USA Today, "you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose — using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK." So, that would mean we can infer that we could not use pope Ben's picture, even though it was taken by a photograph that has released the image. If I can't use the image for commercial purposes shouldn't that image be deleted or labeled differently. Perhaps are pictures of people are only fair use images? Wasn't there a vandetta towards such fair use images where some people believe it should be deleted? --CyclePat01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I read some talk hereabouts about model releases for all recognizable people in images. Some folks think that a model release would solve the problem you mention. Of course, we'd end up deleting a lot of images, and we'd have the new problem about who verifies and maintains these releases. Model releases aren't the end-all, either. A model can revoke a release at any time. Also, a release isn't actually a "release" for all possible applications of an image. For example, let's say a model signs a release for "commercial use" and some agency decides to make a billboard out of her face with the caption "don't end up a crack-whore". Well guess what, unless the model release specifically stated the image would be used in this way, it just won't hold up in court (yes, a similar example has been tested in court). The compromise, as I've seen it applied here and in commons seems to be for us to apply WP:BLP standards to images. If the image is of a recognizable person, then it must not represent something that isn't obviously true or be properly sourced. For example, a photo of a person running nude across a football field during a football game could reasonably be used to illustrate an article about streaking. However, an image of a person running nude through an empty field with no other person visible could not because it's not obvious that what the person is doing satisfies the definition of streaking. There's a neat little discussion in commons about a photo of a man and a woman talking in the street. It's labeled something like "a prostitute talks with her pimp". The photographer claims he overheard the conversation and that the description is correct, but the image does not make this evident, and there is nothing that satisfies WP:RS to indicate the image is what the uploader claims it to be. When I checked last, the uploader was losing his case. Lastly, even if the image is self-evident, if it is derogatory to the subject, editors here are more inclined to obscure the subject's identity rather than risk potential embarrassment to the subject. Rklawton02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Permissions
Is it important that Misplaced Pages be sent permission to use an uploaded copyright image or not? I seem to be having difficulties with an editor who won't send or won't explicitly state that she has sent the permission--namely, I think the editor has been given permission to upload the copyrighted image to Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages itself does not have the copyright holder's permission. From having copyright materials professionally printed myself, I can assure you that my having the permission is not sufficient for the printer to print the copyrighted materials, the printer must have permission. It seems to be that on Misplaced Pages it would be the same, that Misplaced Pages must be the one with the explicitly given permission to use the copyrighted image. KP Botany19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The editor must either explicitly mention, on their web site, that their content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (or a compatible license) or they must send permission from a public e-mail address to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org.
Short of that, if they mention explicitly to you the GFDL-compatible license they intend to apply to their work, it may be uploaded. You must also, however, receive permission to post your personal correspondence with the person to a relevant talk page, the image description page, etc. so that other users may attempt to verify the licensing. But they must explicitly mention the license for their images and that they will release their e-mail correspondences. --Iamunknown22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it okay to upload self-created image in[REDACTED] and At The Time in Another WEBSITE? Is there any problem to have self created images in both other website and as well as in Misplaced Pages or (wikimedia)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NAHID (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
If you own the copyrights, then you can do what you want with your images. Since Misplaced Pages is a 💕, it is our hope that these images will be freely used lots of places. So no, it's no problem at all. Rklawton15:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Any user, whether the uploader or not, may dispute the claim that an image is replaceable. They should not, hwoever, remove Template:Rfu, but instead add Template:Replaceable fair use disputed. --Iamunknown21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And rational
A lot of images (i.g.logo and other images) uploading without rational, sources and proper license. Will it be okay If an user start to add rational, sources and proper license to those image pages that was uploaded by another user? (though responsibility just goes to the uploader) Most of the time uploader forgate to add those stuffs in image page. Then can other user add stuffs(rational, sources and proper license) to those image pages to ensure they won't get deleted? Or leave them just for in deletion process --NAHID08:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In my experience listing images and debating copyright licenses on Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images, I would say that the consensus is that you certainly may add a rationale, source, and/or proper license to the image description page in obvious cases. Make sure, however, that they are obvious enough so that you are sure of the correct information. --Iamunknown21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Mistakenly tagged an image or Article by wrong deletion template
Can any user ,uploader or creator remove any deletion template from an Article \ Image (except {{Template:Prod}}) that's mistakenly tagged by another person (If the deletion template is clearly wrong)? Can anyone clarify it to me? :) thanks --NAHID21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say no: removing process templates is vandalism. Instead, become one with the wiki, replace the wrong template with the appropriate one, and create a nomination page that says something like, "I came across this incomplete nomination. I have no opinion. ~~~~," or anything else. --Iamunknown21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. We know that we can't remove WP:IFD and WP:AFD from an article / image. But What if Someone tagged an article / image wrongly (If he doesn't know the policy of using deletion template) by using these two templates. Can any user, creator or uploader remove them ('Coz they are being wrongly used on an article / image) --NAHID21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfree image deletion tamplates and Transwiki templates falls in which deletion process?? Speedy deletion or something else?? --NAHID21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In the section: User-created images: Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use.
Is is applicable to steganography? Where a user embeds his name and copyright (cc-by-sa-2.5) so that the license is properly enforced? For example if the image is used without attribution, the original author can prove that the image belongs to him. =Nichalp«Talk»=17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never thought of that. I would assume that, if the stenography in no way obstructs the image as a watermark obviously does, then it would be acceptable to upload the image. Any other opinions? --Iamunknown02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think stegging a copyright into an image is a great idea. It's not foolproof, though. If the image is digitally manipulated, this information may be lost. For example, if I stegged and uploaded a high-rez image, the low-rez version found in an article would likely have lost this information due to resizing. A better way might be to add the copyright into the image's metadata. This, at least, isn't lost with resizing or editing. Rklawton16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm editing the articles on Everest - and on Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay who were the first people to reach its summit. I would like to include these two photos as they are particularly iconic and will add greatly to the articles:
Can I add Book,Album, CD cover and Screenshot in Biography ,that is related to particular person? For example Video screenshot in the article of Madona, Book cover in famous writer's article and also CD cover in the article of Madona.Thanks --NAHID18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes and No. If the fair use image is used to illustrate the work from which it came (book, CD, movie), then yes. If it's used to illustrate something else (actor, performer) then no. So, a nice album cover photo of an artist can not be used to illustrate his/her article. However, it might be used to illustrate a section within that article dedicated to that specific work. For example, a discography section might contain small album cover images to illustrate each of the albums named therein. Rklawton20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Self taken screenshot
If I take an screenshot of Film by myself by using powerDVD (or equivalent software), then is there any chance to delete that image? What can be the possible reasons?
And, Image:Najimy MaryPatrick.jpg is this image replaceable? The image (screenshot) is using in Biography (Kathy Najimy). Is it likely to be deleted? Shoudn't it be used in biography? Please clarify it to me --NAHID20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot should be fine if you use the tag {Non-free film screenshot} (adding another set of brackets, obviously) in your license area, and provide rationalizations for its use. See Image:Simpsons couch gag.jpg for an example. Not a film, but same idea. Sorry if you don't like the Simpsons. vLaDsINgEr14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Image from flickr.com
If I upload an image from flickr. com, then what can be the appropriate license? Most of the time they are uploaded under {{t1|{{attribution}}. This link ] shows that this image (Image:Bmalke.jpg) is under public domain.But it's license tag is {{attribution}}. What's the matter? In UPLOAD Section license box doesn't show any license tag for images found in flickr.com.How can I rectify this?--NAHID21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The link you provided above leads to an image that is fully copyrighted. As such, the image should be immediately removed from Misplaced Pages. Rklawton21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, as Rklawton stated, that image is copyrighted. Under the Additional Information section, it says " All Rights Reserved" which means the image is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Misplaced Pages. Also, images taken from Flickr should be uploaded to the Commons. The upload page on that site does have options for images from Flickr. On a Flickr image page you cannot use an image with any of the following copyright tags: , , .↔NMajdan•talk22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If I published my own image in another website by mentioning " All Rights Reserved", then can I upload those images in[REDACTED] too (Since I'm the copyright holder). If I'm able to do so, then what should I write in image description page?--NAHID21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If you hold the copyright to the image, feel free to upload it and assign it any copyright you feel appropriate (and allowed by Misplaced Pages). Rklawton19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use image
A notable person who died less then 70 years ago, then what should be the appropriate license of his image. Will it be {{Non-free fair use in}} license? I noticed most of the persons (who died 5, 10, 30....years ago) images are tagged with {{Non-free fair use in}}. Thanks in advance --NAHID20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I could not open the image, so I could not see it. (This is because I botched up the URL I gave them.) Because of this, I am replying on a general level.
First I state that a police car, by itself, cannot be subject to copyright and thus a photograph of one does not infringe copyright (see §1 of the Finnish Copyright Act, which states that copyrights protect "literal or artistic works"). By the copyright law, the photograph the asker took can be subject to copyright. I must further note that the official police emblems (for example, the sword logo) may not be used without permission from the police department of the Ministry of the Interior, but as I understand the case was not the use of police emblems, but rather only a photograph of a police car. If the asker wants to confirm this, I recommend contacting the police chief management (the police department of the Ministry of the Interior).
Second I state that when photographing in a public place, and specially when photographing private persons, as well as the copyright law and possible permission from the subject, for example §24 of the Finnish Criminal Act (specially, regarding secretive viewing (espionage? voyeurism?) and blasphemy), and privacy protection otherwise. In these cases, the issue is mostly about what the photograph is used for.
Finally I state that I have not studied the Misplaced Pages policy, because it does not fall under my duties in this case. I do recommend that the asker studies them himself, or with the help of a lawyer, because the policy is binding between the asker and Misplaced Pages. Because of this, the policy may include further restrictions regarding the issue.
This is the way I read the note above is: you can't use logos; you can use images of police cars with logos; you must respect the privacy of individuals per Finnish law (whatever that is). My conclusion is: this image does not contain the image of any recognizable person. I don't see any problems using this image. Rklawton16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevance of image
I don't seem to find a Wiki policy, or much discussion, on the relevance of images that are included in articles.
On the article for journalist and columnist Andrew Bolt I have added the cover of a book which devotes several pages to criticising Bolt. The criticism is of the accuracy and honesty of Bolt's journalism and the book was written by the captain of an oil tanker that had been captured by pirates. Bolt reported on the incident at the time. I would argue the inclusion of the criticism, firstly, is notable because (a) the incident at the time was widely reported; (b) the author's occupation provides him with a certain status and (c) his accusations go to the heart of Bolt's reputation. Secondly, I would argue the inclusion of a book cover is warranted because of the nature of the criticism and its pertinence to this journalist's credibility.
The Bolt article is so far un-illustrated. Another editor has twice deleted the book cover. I have tried to find examples of articles in which a critic or antagonist of the subject of an article is depicted ... without success. (eg Lewinsky in Clinton, Woodward in Nixon etc).
No. Fair use of a book cover is limited to illustrating the cover of the book in question, not to illustrate the subject or author of the book. fethers01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Well it may or may not be fair use (in a legal sense), but Misplaced Pages policy does not allow the usage of fair use claims in such situations. Mentioning the book is probably warranted, but that does not mean it's cover art is of significant enough importance to the article to warrant it's inclution. Non-free-licensed images should be used very sparingly, and only when it adds significant information that can not reasonably be introduced into the article by other means. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria. That has more to do with the fact that we are supposed to be making a free content ensyclopedia than the actual relevantce of the image though. Free licensed images can be used fairly liberaly as long as they have some relation to the article in question and otherwise "fits in". --Sherool(talk)01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the image from the article "Andrew Bolt." If you want to actually delete the image, you need to tag it as such. If you want to actually delete the image, you'll need to go to the image (Image:Petropirates.jpg) and tag it with {{db-author}}. To do that, edit the page and type { { d b - a u t h o r } } without any of the spaces. --Iamunknown02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to slightly modify watermark rule for user images
I propose to change "Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, ..." to "Also, user-created images may not be visibly watermarked, ..." (notice the "visibly"), to explicitly allow digital watermarks. This would allow contributors that want to be able to track possible misuse of the image by the invisible digital watermark to do so. Perhaps even adding text about invisible digital watermarks are specifically allowed.
The next step is to decide what to do with images that are watermarked, ie, if they should be deleted, replaced, cropped, grand-fathered in, etc. But for now, just a change in the wording of the policy, once consensus is achieved on this, we can discuss what should happen. --MECU≈talk18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Using photos with permission from creator
I have a question about uploading a photo that was taken by a family member or friend. Even if the person has given permission to use the photograph, or release it to the public domain, I don't want to claim that I created it. Any suggestions?
GeoffreyCH05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently found a press photo of Forest Whitaker that I added to his Infobox. An admin came along and removed it; his explanation in the edit summary was, "sorry, that image would only be fair use if used to discuss the character." I posted a message on the admin's talk page to inquire about this decision. I have yet to receive a response. Is there a process by which I can appeal his determination that the use of the photo in the Infobox is not fair use?--Vbd (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I know that fair use is contrued narrowly. But I'm still not clear on the threshold for a publicity photo like this. Whitaker's character on The Shield is listed in the Infobox as one of his "notable roles" and is discussed within the text of the article. How much discussion of the character in Whitaker's bio might constitute legitimate fair use of the photo? Would it matter of the photo was placed elsewhere on the page, rather than in the Infobox? --Vbd (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Commons media categorisation
Hello,
I've encountered a user who has created several categories for images as analogues to categories on the Commons based on the idea that then linking those categories to the Commons makes locating images easier, even though there is far less image content on WP and so the result is many categories for a few images; they have even begun categorising Commons media that are not even used on WP (1,2,3,4) so as to populate the hierarchy of categories created (1,2). My understanding was that we were actively in the process of moving all free images to the Commons, and so it followed that if not reducing image infrastructure on WP, we shouldn't be increasing it. After an inquiry to an admin working on image categorisation that recommended that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to deletion of one of the images, this user promptly created a page for the Commons image and again categorised it on WP. According to that sort of convention, wouldn't we have every image from the Commons categorised by their WP pages on WP, thus pretty much negating the utility of separate projects? Please advise, Tewfik05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Cropping an album-cover image
A user is cropping album and single covers to exclude the title and artist graphic (in order to just show the subject(s)) and using the image in infoboxes, claiming, of course, that it's an (unedited) cover of a recording. How does this stand in the eyes of Misplaced Pages? - Dudesleeper · Talk07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Every day, thousands of images are uploaded with incorrect or incomplete licensing information, or that don't meet Misplaced Pages's image use policy for one reason or another. There are around 10000 images in the various backlogs and at any given time, Category:Non-commercial use only images for speedy deletion has around 50 or so images. On top of all of this, there are over 110 thousand orphaned images and, other than a brief time when a bot was clearing out orphaned non-free images, that number has been steadily increasing.
One of the biggest complaints that I have found when I delete images is that many well-meaning users do not understand our image use policy. I noticed several days ago a page called Misplaced Pages:Fromowner that makes it very simple for a user to upload an image that he or she created. When they click on the link from Misplaced Pages:Fromowner, they are taken to a custom upload page with very simple instructions for uploading a file.
I would like to propose that we expand on this concept. We can have as many custom upload pages as we would like. Each page can then give full instructions that are relevant to the user's situation. A page dealing with
I have created a prototype at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext. At the bottom is the current upload instruction page we use at Special:Upload. But at the top is a box that invites the user to click on one or more links that will take them to a content-specific form. Each content-specific form gives specific instructions for what the user is trying to upload. The goal here is that a well-meaning user will have instructions geared towards their need, as opposed to being presented with a large number of boxes.
I have no attachment to the particular pages displayed or the exact text on them. If you think there should be a special form for a different content type, that's fine. If you think that having a page for "some website" uploads is to beansy, that's fine too. This is a proof of concept - not something I'm planning on taking live tomorrow.
Please have a look at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext and the related pages and give your thoughts on User talk:BigDT/upload. I think that it is important that we do something to stem the tide of ever-increasing image backlogs and helping a novice user understand what kinds of things to upload is an important step.
As much as I like tits, this image: concerns me. I wonder if those girls are all aged 18+?. Doesn't the page require a 18_USC_Section_2257 statement to that effect? Sorry if I have brought this matter to the wrong place, I did put something on the image's talk page but I think this could be urgent.Chronic The Wedgehog20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the Land of the Free, but there is nothing "sexually explicit" in that picture, as far as I can tell.--Stephan Schulz23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
After some discussion on WP:IFD about using a new system for archiving discussions, and template changes, some new templates were made. This would be a change in process for IFD to a more decentralized system very similar to how the replaceable fair use system works now. Please give any feedback about it you have. :) - cohesion01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Image credit in article's caption
I was wondering if there is a policy as to whether it is ok to give photo credit in the article's caption. The image Virginia Tech massacre Damiano photo from Holden Hall.jpg has its photographer credited in the caption in the article Virginia Tech massacre#Attacks. I went to remove the credit, but hidden text said not to remove it because apparently the photographer prefers that his name is "is incorporated into the image or used as a caption," according to the image's "terms of use." I think that this is highly inappropriate because nowhere else on Misplaced Pages have I seen someone preferring to be credited in the caption, and I think that it should be removed. –Crashintome419617:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Question about uploading images by other people
If you ask someone on a website, such as a message board or forum to use an image they took on wikipedia, is it allowed? If it is, what's the exact process that needs to be gone through?
I find the image uploading rules and processes on[REDACTED] to be quite confusing personally. Thanks for any help in advance.
Is there a policy on image-naming conventions that would settle whether it's permissible to include the name of the author and contributor of an image in the image's filename? The author/contributor in question is also a Misplaced Pages editor who uses his real name as his userid, and includes this name in the image's filename, so that the filename for a picture of a Corvette, for example, would be Corvette_by__.jpg .
I AGF, but also wonder if the purpose might not be self-promotion: a Google search on the editor's real name returns hits for the image files on Misplaced Pages precisely because the author has included his name in the image's filename. I note that in several articles the editor has without explanation substituted his own work for perfectly adequate images. Doing so has not appreciably improved the articles, but it has, of course, replaced the file with one bearing the editor's name and increased his visibility on the web.
In fact, on other websites the user advertises his work as a photographer by inviting people to view his work at Misplaced Pages -- and to visit his Misplaced Pages userpage, which raises the possibility that the userpage itself may be being used for self-promotion, contrary toWP:NOT#USER.
I have hunted around without much success for relevant policies, and while I suspect WP:NOT#SOAP is probably applicable, I'm wondering if there are other more precisely on point. Is there a policy on claiming authorship that might be relevant? --Rrburke13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty fine with this, since it's fairly hidden to the casual reader. It doesn't really show up on the article page and you can only see if it you're interested in the image anyways. But I agree, there isn't anything covering this. MECU≈talk13:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the contributor's name appears to casual readers on every mouse-hover over the image -- when the image alt-text is displayed. The contributor also inserts his real name into all the attendant edit summaries. --Rrburke19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't see a problem with that. It's not "in your face" advertising, but attribution. However, if the "YOUR_NAME" part of the image filename was "www.myawesomewebsite.com" I would have a problem with that... but an image "Pretty flowers by MECU" I don't. I don't think it's self-promotion, it's attribution and credit for work. It's very subtle and nearly hidden to the average reader. MECU≈talk20:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
For my part, I've never thought credit for work had much to do with the Misplaced Pages model. As for attribution, the Information template will suffice to achieve that. Since that template already takes care of the issue of attribution, I can't see much purpose in inserting your name elsewhere unless it's to call attention to yourself as the creator of the image. Moreover, my understanding is that the purpose of attribution is chiefly to avoid copyright problems, not to ensure credit for the contributor.
As for inserting your website name in the filename, that strikes me as fairly apposite: if I'm looking for a cheap way to increase the visibility of my photographic work, talking myself up on other sites and then suggesting people visit my WP userpage and view my photographic contributions at Misplaced Pages (which is what the user in question has done) is not bad free publicity -- and hence contrary to the spirit, at any rate, of WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#USER and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Except that in this case I don't even need to direct people to my website, because Misplaced Pages is providing me one for free. --Rrburke20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Could some editors take a good look at these and reach some agreement on whether any action should be taken (changing background, reverrt to original.)
brendel maintains that the manipulated images are superior to the "the usual on-the-street crap." The on the street images are of depressingly poor quality, but I do not believe that these manipulations are the best way to go. Please give some guidance. There is also a rather pointed discussion going on between brendel and CJ DUB on brendel's talk page. vLaDsINgEr14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No colors. If you're going to remove the background, which is fine generally, it should be to a blank white background. This is routinely done to make images to "focus" the image on the subject. I'm fine with this, but it should be to a more professional level than neon colors or textured backgrounds. It may look boring, but there shouldn't be an artistic quality really to the image. Color selection could pose problems for some color blind or limited eyesight people as well, where as a solid white eliminates this, in theory. MECU≈talk19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Images That Disparrage Others
Are users allowed to upload and use images that insult, demean and disparrage other users' belief systems? What if the image itself proves the user/editor is biased toward one particular POV? How can that user be trusted to contribute or edit anything without a footnote? Ymous17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Images shouldn't be solely to attack. I think they then fit under the WP:CSD G10 (though it says attack pages, I would delete an image for the same purpose since it's under "general"). However, this sounds more like a content dispute for which the dispute resolution process would be a better route to solve the disagreement. MECU≈talk19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Content policies can handle this, there is no special provision for images. If something is encyclopedic and should be in[REDACTED] according to the myriad inclusion policies that is fine. Misplaced Pages is not censored. WP:NOT#CENSORED. - cohesion01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Credit on image description page
How is that "appropriate attribution"? We ask that for example newspapers using our images properly attribute the image, but we ourselves hide it away on an image description page nobody looks at.
Attribution is indeed not very wiki but it motivates people on Flickr or whatever to give up their images and have their name in Misplaced Pages. It might not look good but if we don't do that we often wouldn't have gotten the images in the first place. Moreover, it doesn't limit those images to be free images. I say it's only fair to the image creators that they be attributed were people can see. But most importantly, we expect other reusers of the image to do the same, since most websites don't have image description pages.
I suggest changing it to allow credits on the article beneath the image, be it in <small>.
There's no reason to credit a thumbnail (which is what the image on a wiki page is) which links to a page where the author is credited, should anyone be interested enough to click it. I guess the incentive is to upload images good enough to generate that interest! mikaul23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that the Commons upload process does not allow people to put a "non-commercial" tag on their uploads. I propose that the same be done here. This would save admins a lot of time deleting images which have the {{db-noncom}} tag on them. -- RHaworth00:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is intentional. If we don't have those options people pick other incorrect options at random. - cohesion01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Flag images from FOTW
What is the permission/copyright status of flags obtained from the "Flags of the World" website? I am not aware that they are copyrighted, though of course acknowledgment should be made. Case in point: Carroll County, Illinois: I uploaded the image to Misplaced Pages. I *designed* the flag back in 1974 and the neither I nor the county copyrighted it, intentionally -- we wanted people to use the image freely. But I didn't know how to say that here.
The section at Placement concerning (what turns out to be) the collecting of images in a gallery format (in the case of articles blessed with multiple images) is confusingly titled "Photo montages", rather than the obvious "Galleries". A photomontage refers to the combination, usualy in photoshop or similar, of several photographs into a single image. If there's nothing obvious I'm missing here, I intend changing this sub-section to refer to Gallery use. mikaul23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
All Rights Reserved" which means the image is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Misplaced Pages. Also, images taken from Flickr should be uploaded to the Commons. The upload page on that site does have options for images from Flickr. On a Flickr image page you cannot use an image with any of the following copyright tags: 
, 
.↔NMajdan•talk 22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
_mod.jpg){kind=link}
