With today being January 2, 2008, I have a pseudo relevant question. Since it is a performance, Would a screenshot of a television program first broadcast prior to Jan 1, 1958 be free-use under a 50-year-from-performance copyright policy? Or is there an overriding policy that messes this up? TheHYPO (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering whether there may be legal problems if some person uploads photos of children claiming some kind of copyright. Should not there be also any proof of parental consent for public release of photos? I know that when my grandchildren take part in some productions (school theatre, jazz dance, etc.), the parents are required to sign release forms that photos of their children may be used for various purposes. `'Míkka>t 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
i hope this is the right page to address this issue, if not, a redirect will be appreciated: i found this picture [[2]] and noticed that Wikipedia's image autoscaling feature made a >600KB scaled down image from a 163KB original and didn't even use the interlace option. i usually wouldn't notice things like that, but this image loaded visibly slow even on a broadband connection - and not everybody has a broadband connection, so it must be worse for many others. i don't have a problem with pics on wikipedia (though this one wasn't even particularly helpful), but as long as traffic is an issue (for both the user and wikimedia foundation), we can probably do better. so i suggest doing the following: instead of scaling down to the same format like the original image, try several formats and use the one that yields the smallest file size (maybe combined with the option to deactivate scaling down to .jpg for certain images, if that would degrade the quality too much). i scaled down the image myself (with IrfanView) and got the following results: .gif - 61KB, .jpg - 38KB, .png - 111KB. the .jpg-version was without visible artifacts (unless you zoom in quite deep). and even the .png-version was much smaller than the autoscaled one, so this indicates a bug or especially bad compression in the autoscale feature. Of course the utility of this improvement depends on cost of CPU Power vs. traffic cost, but a size reduction by factor 15 (autoscaled .png to manually scaled .jpg) may well be worth it. Catskineater (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Someone has started a new section, 'Between Malta and Sicily' at Location hypotheses of Atlantis, Now not only is this about a virtually unknown author, it's clearly POV and hype. He's also uploaded what looks like original, unpublished research - File:ATLANTIS.pdf. I've rewritten, deleted, etc. his stuff and it keeps coming back, and at one point he posted as Dougwellera but that was quickly banned. Is Image:ATLANTIS.pdf a legitimate use of the facility? Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What are the rules for using these items? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere I got the idea that fair use could be justified to use for a book cover, film poster, album cover, etc. to illustrate the topic of the article. However, I thought any other use of a copy right image, e.g. stills from the film, illustrations from the book etc., could not be justified. However, The Motorcycle Diaries (film) has 3 additional copyright images in addition to the copyright poster.
Could someone explain to me when and when not this justified? Does it all depend on resolution? If the resolution is low enough, any copyright image can be used? I am not clear on this. From my experience, the application of this standard appears arbitrary. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The sourcing requirements on the policy often use "or" when it's correct, but lead to confusion that the uploader may supplier either information whereas that is not the case. For example, "The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" on the IUP implies they could stay "US Census Bureau" which would satisfy the source because they listed the copyright holder, but in reality, it isn't a sufficient sourcing information because one can't verify (easily) the source and copyright information and they should provide a URL to where they got it on the web. The former part really only matters when sourcing from a Book or under fair use (the website taken from wouldn't matter, the copyright holder does). I would like to rewrite and/or clarify the requirement of sourcing information with this information (or if someone else wants to, go ahead). I'm putting it here to get some feedback before making the uncontroversial (in my opinion) edit(s). MECU≈talk 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for the replies. The digital ID is 10000602. Hopefully that works. As mentioned above, it states "created/published March, 1894." but I am not sure if it was truly published then, or only created then. --MattWright (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I came across this image on this page, which is clearly just a zoomed-in image of this work, which appears to be drawn from a work called Hortus Sanitatis by Johannes de Cuba that was published 21 October 1497 in Strasbourg. The super-quality dkimages.com is oddly tagged copyright. Is this a public domain for our purposes or fair use? I'm baffled how a high-quality scan of a 511 year old wood carving can be copyrighted. Lawrence § t/e 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Can you have two pictures of two ends of something, like this?
I think (if this technique were EVER needed) it would improve the flow of the article. However, I am worried it would appear differently for every browser and cause issues. Would it? Thanks. CompuHacker (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
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:
Put some more text here. Easy :) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for a table, just use [[Image:Simple shapes example.png|left|thumbnail|250px|Picture on the left]] [[Image:Simple shapes example.png|right|thumbnail|250px|Picture on the right]]. See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Carnildo's "Can't be done reliably" is also true: If the browser window is narrow, the formatting will change. —AlanBarrett 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Simple shapes example.png|left|thumbnail|250px|Picture on the left]] [[Image:Simple shapes example.png|right|thumbnail|250px|Picture on the right]]
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)
There's a thread at Deletion Review at the moment - here. A photographer had uploaded images to flickr, initially under a CC licence. She subsequently decided to change the image licence and removed the CC licencing, but by then someone had already taken the images and uploaded them to Wikipedia. What is the status of these images? My first impression would be to leave them deleted, but I would appreciate some people knowlegable in image policy chipping in on this, either here or on the DRV thread. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 10:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy on "photo galleries" is unclear and difficult to interpret. Some users are misinterpreting it to mean "all photo galleries are bad regardless" of location, context or format. My understanding is that in-article options 1-3 are currently acceptable, but that separate pages consisting solely of images and captions ("namespace galleries") are discouraged. Can someone confirm this and/or rewrite the policy so that it is less confusing, and add some rationale so that we can understand why the policy exists. Currently the policy is causing conflict and misunderstanding. Specifically, please replace the obscure term "namespace galleries" with some basic English.Rep07 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
I'm currently involved in a dispute over a photo gallery I added to the William Lyon Mackenzie King article. I think that, as currently written, the Image Use Policy doesn't actually clarify whether such galleries are acceptable/desirable, since it basically says "here are 4 possible standards, but none have yet been adopted."
I'd like to argue in favor of Gallery inclusion in articles which are not MERE galleries. I think that the article I added to the William Lyon Mackenzie King page adds considerably to the article in that it gives the reader a greater visual sense of the man's career. I also don't think that it's comparable to a Wikimedia Commons gallery: a Commons gallery potentially has hundreds, or even thousands of images (especially for an important figure like King). A gallery on a Wikipedia page, on the other hand, can select out the best, and most representative images about a topic.
In clarifying our policy, I would also propose the following: I think that if we allow galleries, they should have a maximum size. Now, I have 80 images of King up, which I would argue is justified because he was prime minister for a staggering SIX TERMS. So, maybe a max of 100 images is appropriate - or maybe a lower # like 50 is appropriate - I think this is worthy of discussion.
I would also say that, if we ultimately decide that Galleries aren't allowed, we should come up with some procedure by which Galleries could be transferred to Commons instead of simply deleted (since any gallery someone took the time to create would probably have some merit and should be preserved somewhere.
Adam_sk (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with your comments on the Commons. Just because the WLM King category or gallery on the Commons contains hundreds of images does not mean that a more specific and separate Commons gallery cannot be created that provides a visual chronology of the man's life, using the best images. And we can include special links to that gallery within the WLM King article, in addition to the standard Commons link at the bottom. The Commons is very flexible, and would allow you to do exactly what you are wanting to do. The additional benefit of the Commons is that it is a shared resource among the various Wikipedia projects, allowing other projects to link to the chronology.
My final area of diagreement (sorry, I will get to the agreement part in a moment) is in respect of the number of images. I am sorry, but I think an 80-image gallery on Wikipedia is just preposterous. No wonder you are getting push back over at that article. Having said that, however, I think the size of a gallery (if it is agreed that special circumstances warrant a gallery) is an issue best left to be resolved in the context of each article - not here. Any limits we came up with for this policy would be, at best, arbitrary, and would likely just be instruction creep. The number of images depends on the purpose of the gallery and the nature of the article, and it would be very difficult to come up with a general guideline that would be useful or helpful.
As for my agreement, I do agree with you that there are instances where galleries are appropriately used in Wikipedia articles -- typically, such galleries are not just collections of images, but rather describe or show something that can better be done by images rather than words. For example, an article on a painter could contain a gallery of 6 images which show the progression of that artist's style over the years. In such cases, the purpose of the gallery should be clear (e.g. the heading should read "Evolution of X's style" rather than simply "Gallery"), and the gallery images should typically accompanied by detailed captions to assist the reader in understanding what is being shown. On the other hand, an article on a city that contains a gallery consisting of numerous snapshots of that city's landmarks probably does not constitute an appropriate use of a gallery in Wikipedia. That latter gallery should be transfered to the Commons.
I do not know if your gallery over at the WLM King article is appropriate or not. The policy, as it is currently worded, would generally seem to permit what it is you want to do (although maybe not 80 images), because what you are proposing is not merely a random collection of images. However, I think that's a discussion best left for the talk page of that article. Mind you, I do think here that we can amend the policy to make it a little less confusing at the beginning. I would propose that we eliminate the dated references to the four approaches and to the "no decision has been made yet" -- those discussions have since occurred, and no consensus on more precise criteria was ever reached. And we probably never will agree on more precise criteria because ultimately I believe that these decisions (as to whether there is some justification or purpose for a gallery beyond what can be done on the Commons) are best made in the context of each individual article. I would leave the first para. quite simple -- "In general, galleries are discouraged in main article namespace; historically, such galleries are more often deleted than kept. As a result, there are relatively few namespace galleries in the encyclopedia and good reasons must be given for creating them. Consider instead linking to a gallery on Wikimedia Commons – see this page for more details. The determination of whether a gallery should be incorporated into an article or created at the Commons should be discussed on the article's talk page." Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't really understand the argument for NOT having image galleries. To my mind, one of the great things about Wikipedia - as opposed to a paper encyclopedia - is that you CAN include a lot of content like this, making this material more accessible and adding far more visual depth to an article than would be possible in more traditional media. Why is it "preposterous" to include 80 images? To my mind, it would be awesome if every Wikipedia page about a world leader had 80 images. Why not???
Maybe I'm just not as involved in the intricacies of the Wiki-universe to understand, but why is a gallery on Wikimedia Commons better than a gallery on a Wikipedia page? Why insist on splitting up the article and the visuals when Wikipedia already provides a place where the two can be integrated? I don't see what we gain by splitting the two? Adam_sk (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
As for your comments on splitting, we routinely split large articles and create sub-articles where appropriate, and leaving certain galleries to the Commons is no different. It provides a better balanced, more appropriately sized article, and (just like any subarticle) the gallery is merely a wikilink away. Moreover, the significant benefit of the Commons is that it allows the gallery to become the joint effort of various Wikiprojects. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
There's a bit of a discussion going on concerning Troy McClure's potential main-paging; the only free image we can find of Phil Hartman is on a Creative Commons licence that does not allow for derivative works.
I personally am of the opinion that the image could still be OK for the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps just with some sort of special template and a "Do not move to Commons" warning. What say you? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am seeking input, and hopefully the determination of some guidance, on whether the image of a military decoration should be used on Wikipedia in a context other than the military decoration itself.
The prompt for this issue is that I discovered Image:Air Force Good Conduct Medal ribbon.png used as part of a one-of-a-kind, custom Wikipedia award given to User:BetacommandBot. I removed the image, saying it wasn't an appropriate use of the image. My edit was reverted by Betacommand in this edit. I also placed a notice on the awarding editor's talk page (User talk:Rolypolyman) asking that editor to please consider picking a different image as part of the award. Another editor started a discussion on the editor assistance page on this topic, with people saying the discussion should be moved to a policy-making area.
Relavent U.S. laws & regulations: As with anything produced by the U.S. federal government, the images for military decorations are completely in the public domain. There are still federal laws & regulations which govern the use of military decorations, including 18 U.S.C. § 704 and, for the Army (and sometimes Air Force), 32 CFR Part 507. As part of this second reference, Part 507.12(c) states that "ribbons... or colorable imitations thereof, will not be used by any organization, society, or other group of persons without prior approval in writing" of the military. It would be my interpretation that displaying the image in its original context would not be "use", but that displaying the image as part of a new award would be "use" on the part of Wikipedia.
Proposed policy: Prohibit the use of images of actual military decorations on Wikipedia used in a context other than as part of the actual military decoration they are associated with. Affect of policy: This would prohibit military decoration images being incorporated into Wikipedia awards as was done in this case.
Why I'm proposing this: (Some people are concerned about why a person proposes what they propose.) I am proposing this because I saw the image where it was and in the context it was used in. I recognized that the award looked like a military decoration, and this was confirmed when I clicked the image. I didn't like the idea of such an image being used in a way it was not intended to be used. When I discussed its removal, everyone seemed in agreement that it is an inappropriate use of the image, but nobody was aware of any law or Wikipedia policy violated. I would like to see that Wikipedia policy change to include what most people would think appropriate and what may be required by U.S. law/regulation.
I am eager to discuss the merits & process of this proposal. Thank you. ~PescoTalk 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if this RfC could be brought to a close. To sum up, there have been two issues at hand: 1) Are using these images for other uses appropriate, and 2) is this use prohibited by law/regulation? While it could be asserted that in various countries using the images for other uses is not allowed, I feel Wikipedia, as policy, should not allow other use purely on principle & sense of appropriateness.
That said, I propose the inclusion of {{Insignia}} within military decoration image templates such as commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military award. I propose that images portraying military decoration should only be displayed on Wikipedia when used in the context of the actual decoration and not for any fictional or Wikipedia award purpose. Thoughts? ~PescoSay it! 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is much made about nothing. I don't think that we need policy on this, but I would support a petition to Bettacommand to remove that graphic from his award as disrespectful. It is very ironic that Betta is so anal about proper releases etc. for images, but shows no respect for those who have earned this ribbon legitimately. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'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
and
I hope someone can provide simple answers... --Hafwyn (talk) 16:25, 22 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)
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)
NATO has a photograph collection (http://www.nato.int/multi/photos.html) for which it hold copyright. NATO permits the images to be reused under certain coditions (http://www.nato.int/multi/conditions-e.html). In particular they state that "Material is provided, free of charge, for use only in objective and balanced documentaries/articles, even though at times the end products may be critical of NATO". Clearly they are not public domain. Can I use them in the Wikipedia? If so what licencing templates would be required and would, given NATO's conditions, they need to be low resolution, not freely replaceable etc? Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Some editors are using the statement "In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences" as a reason to strip all sizing off images using the "thumb" claiming that thumbnail images should never have a size set. This is done without regard for whether the images can be properly displayed at the 180px default (which is what the vast majority of readers will see, such as images with unusual dimensions or images with text. I've read some of the older discussions noting how disputed this is, and I'm wondering if this is some hard fast rule that must always be followed, or if common sense prevails. From my understanding, the answer is no. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size does not specifically forbid image sizes ever being set, and further down it notes what to do "where size forcing is appropriate." MOS:IMAGES notes that lead images should be atleast 300 pixels wide. Most infobox images default to 250px. A vast number of featured articles and lists includes hard sized images as lead images. The images are not thumbnails, they are tagged thumb to put a caption on them and allow resizing down to a more suitable article size. "Frame" cannot be used as it will not allow one to specific the size of the image. WP:PIC also allows for resizing, including telling you how to do it and noting specifically that you must use thumb to set a specific image size. So is this stripping of sizes condoned or appropriate? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Do CC-BY images need to bear a credit line in every article they appear in, or is the credit on the image description sufficient? – flamurai (t) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested that I post this question here. I have an old postcard with a photograph of a lighthouse that was seriously damaged (a corner of the brick structure) and I would like to upload the image. However, I do NOT know how old the photo is and do not want to violate copyright laws. Any comments or suggestions? --Crimson Red Fox (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
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:
Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the policy regarding copyrighted images of living people? I always thought that they shouldn't be used because a free-use image is theoretically available, even if it's not available yet. Are such images which are used in articles a cat for speedy delete, or is there something else which should be done. I have one particular image in mind and there isn't a rationale for it, although the image was uploaded two days before the May 6, 2006 (is that the right date?) cut-off date when copyrighted images required one. It's currently used in an article of the guy, and a list of head coaches (he used to be a coach of a basketball team or something). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that the majority of images on Flickr that are Creative Commons licensed use CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, when using the image uploader it only has CC-BY-SA 3.0 as an option unless it's your own image, in which case you can select CC-BY-SA 3.0 or older. Is CC-BY-SA 3.0 okay to use when it's someone else's image and it's only licensed using version 2.0? --JD554 (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this question has already been asked a thousand times, but is there a standard protocol regarding using here, on English Wikipedia, images that are not in the Commons but that are part of non-English Wikipedia servers? In particular, I am looking for an image for Alexei Khvostenko. There is a corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia, with his picture in it, available here:[4]. The user who uploaded the picture there states in the licence box (in Russian) that he himself took the photo and that he surrenders all the rights to it to the public domain. To be honest, I am slightly dubious here, but assuming that I believe his claim, is there a standard protocol for dealing with such situations? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have an issue. I am working on an article, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, and would like to add some images from Wisconsin Historical Society, like this one. I am unsure of the licensing issues, though. I emailed the Image Production and Licensing Manager, and was told that we could use the images gratis, so long as they are credited to the society. As some of the images are at the 90+ year mark, they are not free images. I could use some guidance on how to approach the situation of implementation and obtaining of free usage, either here or through offline wikimail. - Hexhand (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been discussing this with another editor (User:Caspian blue) this morning, who insists that I am misinterpreting policy in regards to forced image sizes. As far as I can tell, the relevant section of this policy is quite clear: for the majority of images, forced sizing is to be avoided, because it overrides individual user preferences. CB has repeatedly stated that he is not overriding my preferences with his edit (1), and that I apparently need to change my own system configuration. I'd like some additional comments here, to determine if my interpretation of the policy is indeed in error. There has been a somewhat extensive discussion on my talk page, for those who may be interested in the original discussion. Thanks for any clarification that may be provided. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There are some relevant points at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Basic_formatting_and_size. Ty 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I am running into the same issue in articles in Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country and Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by receiving country. An editor took issue and is discussed on my talk at User talk:Russavia#clean up using AWB and User_talk:Russavia#Violation of MOS:IMAGES. They have then forced sizing at Diplomatic missions of Serbia and I have posted on the talk page, and I get a thanks anyway response. These articles are frought with problems as it is, and being the only one who is taking the challenge to bring them inline with policy violations (WP:FLAGS, WP:NOT#LINKS, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:LISTS, etc, etc) I am somewhat hesitant to pursue this more. FYI, I have thumbs set at 300px, so their forcing is overriding my own settings, and their forcing of image sizes is not required, as it would be in say Diplomatic missions in Russia (an article which I am responsible for). Can someone please follow this up for me. --Россавиа Диалог 10:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) It doesn't matter that few people change their default settings. When an editor tries to improve the layout of an article by setting a size, any improvement is unique to his monitor, resolution settings, and browser. In other words, it does no good to try to manage the issue as an editor. Readers can leave their default at 180px and click to see larger images, or they can investigate and find out that they have some control over it. As an aside, I would like to see the "preferences" options go down to 0px, for use on handhelds and in public areas where I want to read with no pictures. Does anyone know of a technical reason this can't be accomplished? If it is done, I will become even more resolved that editors should not specify thumb image sizes. --Appraiser (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Image forced resize is there for a reason. There is simply no universal size which fits every image and situation (180px or any other). It is often a case to case issue and having all images set at the same size is worse then setting them to a specified size. Also the maximum thumb size one can set is 300px and often detailed lead maps need 500px (as they are horizontal they don't take too much space as a vertical image would take with 500px). So maybe some image needs more prominence and detail then other but if they are all fixed at a default size which is always the same we would have some vertical images taking too much space while some important horizontal images would be hidden behind. I agree with Haukur that insisting that every image be the same width - regardless of height doesn't make any sense. --Avala (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No, honestly guys, if you think you have a consensus for your 180px-fits-all solution then go ahead and bring the last few featured articles into line with your views. Let's see if that sticks. Haukur (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Clearly enforcing one way is not the answer. Editors should follow a standard, and there should be special instances when the standard should not be used because it does not fit. It makes common sense that a dynamic image sizeable by the individual user preferences should be preferred over forcing the image size regardless of their preferences or monitor size. In some cases, such as with a map, where seing the image without clicking on the image is important to the quality of the article, using a forced size should be possible. In some other instance where a set of photos being displayed in a small space is desirable by the editors, and small size could be forced on the images. These are exceptions though, and in most cases, in most articles, the photos should follow a standard size, dynamic and adjustable by the preferences of the user should they choose, and large enough to give good displat to the images when at the default. That default is currently 180px, and Wiki admins/programmers should make sure that the default size stays current with existing technology. We don't commonly see 14" monitors anymore, and not many people have 25" monitors.
So, in summary, the policy should recommend and prefer not setting a fixed size on images in an article. It should not require that. The wording should say that setting fixed size on an image should be rare and an exception only to fit a specialized case, buit is up to the discretion of the editors. If a dispute over an image occurs on whether it should be set to dynamic or fixed, it should be decided by consensus of editors on the article, but they should consider that the burden of proof should exist to explain why the disputed image should be set to a fixed size over the preferred dynamic setting. That's my opinion. Atom (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Others have said it already, but I want to echo: Readers grossly outnumber editors, and Wikipedia is primarily for the readers. If an appropriate image isn't legible at 180px then it has to be made larger. If this upsets some editors, well tough. Many images can be left at the default size just fine, but editors should be given wide latitude to make exceptiosn on a case-by-case basis. Dragons flight (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding the issue, wouldn't the problem be solved if the developers were to add an "Always display thumbnails at this size" checkbox (to provide the option of overriding the sizes specified within articles) to accompany the "Thumbnail size" setting in the user preferences? Has such a request been filed? —David Levy 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been having an interesting conversation with another editor at this TfD about image maps and the problems they raise. One question about them is how clearly they link to the image description page of the underlying image, which of course is necessary for copyright purposes. As far as I can tell, there's no existing policy specifically about them, and they've been multiplying and becoming more varied. I think a centralized discussion is necessary, possibly with the goal of putting a sentence or two into this policy about them. I have no idea right now what that would be, but I'd like to start a discussion. Chick Bowen 00:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In line with what's said above, I propose to add new language to the policy, along these lines:
Any objections, modifications, complaints, etc.? Chick Bowen 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The current image size policy says "Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors." but I believe that we should also cater for people using PDAs that have screen sizes as low as 640x480 (which could fit a 550px image) or 480x640 (which does not fit a 550px image). Also, today many Web browsers offer full page zoom capabilities (Opera, Firefox 3, ...), and as such setting a hardcoded size may not be really necessary in many cases. I generally think it is better to support PDA users as well as this could help increase our readership, and as such I suggest changing the maximum width to 400 pixels. Don't forget that if the user wants to see the full image they can always click on it. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy on what requirements must be met to ensure that an image is relevant to the article's content? For example, in the INFJ article (a psychology article on one of the Myers-Briggs personality types), there's a photo of a guy with a tattoo that says INFJ accompanied by some abstract symbols. I don't believe the photo relates to the article. If the article were on the Los Angeles Police Dept., and the photo showed someone with a tattoo that said LAPD, would that be relevant? If the article were on the New York Jets football team, and the photo showed someone with a tattoo that said NY JETS, would that be relevant? I just don't think so. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Image:Metis2.gif says that it is from Wiki Commons and is in the PD. Next it carries a generalized warning template. Does this mean there is a problem using the image for Metis (moon)? Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm hoping I have come to the right place to get some advice. I have recently loaded 3 images to help illustrate a biographical article of a dead person - Ted Blake, the images can be seen there now if you need to refer to them - and one of them (the portrait) has been marked for possible deletion because it has no licence. Two of the images were taken either by, or for, Ted Blake (including the portrait) and the third is a scanned copy of the cover of programme for a public event he organised many years ago. All three images were provided to me by Ted Blake's son to be used in illustrating his father's contributions to trampolining. I am not the original owner of the copyright but have been given the rights to use the pictures by the person I now take to be the copyright owner but who is not a Wikipedia editor. In such circumstances what licence should I use please? I have gone through all the lists and can not find an obvious match. DaveK@BTC (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The deleting images section needs to be revised, as images are no longer handled at WP:CP. The text currently reads as follows:
Contact (through their talk page) the user who uploaded the image, telling them of your concerns. You may be able to resolve the issue at this point. Remove all uses of the image from articles — make it an orphan. Add one of these notices to the image description page copyright violations: add the copyright infringement notice for images from Wikipedia:Copyright problems to the image description page. otherwise: add the deletion notice {{ifd}} to the image description page. List the image on one of these links: copyright violations: list the image on Wikipedia:Copyright problems otherwise: list the image on Wikipedia:Images for deletion The image can then be deleted after a week in the normal way — see our deletion policy.
I'm thinking it could work to revise from point 3:
Add one of these notices to the image description page copyright violations: If blatant, add the speedy deletion notice for image copyright, {{db-i9|url=URL of external source}} If suspected, add the possibly unfree image tag {{PUI}} otherwise: add the deletion notice {{ifd}} to the image description page. List the image on one of these links: copyright violations: Blatant violations will automatically list for administrator attention. Suspected violations should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. otherwise: list the image on Wikipedia:Images for deletion The image can then be deleted after a week in the normal way — see our deletion policy.
I'm unsure if mention should be made of WP:NFR. Any feedback? Does it work? Does it almost work? Does it flat out fail for reasons that should be (but aren't) obvious to me? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
←It's not really within my power to create a straightforward and easy-to-follow process, particularly given that image work is not my usual area. :) But I may able to create a gathering point for "dealing with images with problems". I've made an effort, here. If this looks like it could be remotely useful, please let me know, and I will village pump it. (Unless somebody points out to me that I'm essentially duplicating something else that I haven't found, I may anyways. I have myself struggled with figuring out how to handle various image issues, and I've thought in the past that such a document could be massively useful.) I suppose it goes without saying that contributions and feedback are welcome, but, in case it doesn't, I'll say it. :) I've never used some of these processes myself, but I've done my best to be all inclusive. Linking to the template for directions as I've frequently done is an effort to avoid contradiction, as the more places a procedure is described the more likely it is to be outdated. Please also note that where I've duplicated text from other documents/policies/templates, I've indicated as much in edit summary in compliance with GFDL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Financial_Leverage_Profit_Engine.png is an example of an original user created chart. If it was a chart of content from a WP:RS article, as are other charts in the article where this is found, I wouldn't have a problem. But the creator has quite his own POV on other issues, so I assume he does here.
Anyway, there are a lot of issues like this where WP:original research could be rampant. I did discuss this at WP:OR/Noticeboard. But despite different views on policy, no one could come up with a link on the policy. I can write a sentence or two and stick it in User Created images section if no one else wants to. If there is a policy, it should be linked in User Created images section. Carol Moore 23:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Apparently this image is inappropriate to be used in the article on whale tail. Can't really see why. Can someone explain? Or at least lead me to another discussion page where I may ask the question? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I found an image on photobucket that I would like to use for an article, but I am unsure of it's license. The image itself has permanent links for sharing the photo in emails, layout pages, blogs, and forums. This open sharing seems like it might be permissible. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm doing a GA review of an article with Image:New Delhi Temple.jpg, for which an editor got someone else's permission. It looks like it's a Wikipedia-only pic, which is bad. Can someone check? The emails are on the image page. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems conflicting to me. Image:New Delhi Temple.jpg is released under CC 3.0 BY-SA, which is compatible with Wikipedia (see Commons:Copyright_tags#Free_Creative_Commons_licenses). The same is the case for Image:Akshardham Delhi .jpg. However, not all parties involved with the permissions seem to understand what that entails. CC BY-SA basically means that anyone can share the image, so long as attribution is maintained. If the license holder submits to that but also says "you can use this on WP only", someone is misinformed. It isn't our job to correct that misinformation (in other words, if they have clearly licensed the photos as CC 3.0 BY-SA, then we aren't here to force them to read the license), but we might want to contact the uploaded and ensure that the license is unambiguous. If they meant to release it to WP only, then we need to take the images off commons. We can contact them and get OTRS permission to use the images (or preferably, some OTRS confirmation that CC BY-SA is the license) on wikipedia. If I were reviewing the article, I'd place the Ga on hold until that was cleared up. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_27#Image:Bride-two.jpg about whether the English Wikipedia ever requires model releases. The picture in question shows a clearly identifiable woman at a private party, standing in her underwear with a fake penis strapped to her head. Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people would require a model release (that is, permission from the woman to publish pictures of her in her underwear on Wikipedia) on the essentially moral grounds of unreasonable intrusion into privacy. The apparent consensus at Images for Deletion is that model releases are at least highly desirable, if not actually required. However, no explicit policy seems to exist on the English Wikipedia. Does such a thing exist? Should it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you all think that this idea should be incorporated into the existing WP:Image use policy, or as a separate page? Overall, I'm leaning towards a new section in the existing policy, but I'm not committed to any particular outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to use some of the great photos of the Capitol Visitor Center shown on the Architect of the Capitol website for United States Capitol Visitor Center, which really needs an overhaul. Unfortunately, I'm unsure if these would be in the public domain. I would assume they are, because I know an AOC representative takes all the photos. Can someone confirm to me that these are usable? No artist renderings will be used, only updating photographs.
Here are a few examples: [5], [6], [7].
Thanks! ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional views are needed at Wikipedia talk:Lists#Thumbnails instead of bullets regarding the use of thumbnails of people as bullets in a list in a city article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A photo of someone who died over 100 years ago is clearly now in the PD if it was taken while that person was alive. Why do we have to provide a bunch of information about it, like who the photographer was and where the original photo is? If we have no way of getting some information, it really shouldn't stop us from using an image that we are clearly allowed to use. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I need help with correct tagging two pictures correctly and was wondering if I could get any help from anyone. These two pictures are keeping an article from recieveing a GA. For further information please contact me through my talkpage Juthani1 tcs 21:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place, if so please point me toward the right one. I'm reviewing Go, Cubs, Go for good article status and my only sticking point is the use of Image:Take Me Out To A Cubs Game.jpg. IMHO it would not survive a NFCC #8 challenge but in general I find image policy on the confusing side. If anyone can offer some feedback about the acceptability of the image in that article I'd appreciate it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
