Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Verifying that pics have been donated

By email, a zoology professor has kindly let me use his pics. But where does Wikipedia:Image use policy tell me the procedure for verifying that pics have been donated, i.e. prove that the use would not be WP:COPYVIO. I have vague recollections of WP:OTRS, but that's uselessly vague. Where is the exact procedure ("cookbook")? And would it be helpful for Wikipedia:Image use policy to have a box containing links to this and other relevant "cookbook" procedures. --Philcha (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is commons:Commons:OTRS better? --Redrose64 (talk)

Redrose64, thanks for the link to commons:Commons:OTRS, which is clear and concise (wow!). I suggest this link with 1-2 sentences should be added in a prominent position on Wikipedia:Image use policy, possible in a box to one side of the text if there are a few issues which can be summarised and linked in this way. --Philcha (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:IOWN. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Galleries policy

I've noticed a few time that galleries in articles have been tagged as not complying with Wikipedia policies about them. I've been reading that Wikipedia is not a place to add too many images. Nevertheless I believe the rules regarding the galleries are somewhat too strict. I don't see a problem with galleries as long as they aren't too extensive. I think a gallery of 4 or 5 images should be allowed. If there are more image it makes, of course, more sense to add a link to the respective Wikimedia gallery. --Krawunsel (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The primary rule about galleries is that non-free images cannot be used in them. If you have several free images, it is preferable to upload them commons.wikipedia and provide category links, using a few images in a gallery on the actual page itself to provide example as such. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that's the primary rule for all images that they'd have to be free or at least under the fair use rationale. No doubt about that. But that wasn't my question. I saw that according to the current galleries policy galleries may only be used under very strict conditions which I think are too strict. As I said, galleries of 4 or 5 images should be ok while bigger galleries should find their place at Wikimedia commons. That's what I wanted to communicate as my opinion. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Galleries of a handful of images (4-5 is a reasonable number), as long as they are free, is fine. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Although in nearly all contexts it is better to have the images next to the text they are illustrating and any others should be in commons with a link. Some of the images in Ryugyong Hotel duplicate others in the article and in reality some of the others dont really add much. If they really help users to understand they could be moved into the article but I suspect most are not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The images in the Ryugyong Hotel article gallery show, in temporal order, how the construction proceeded after its resumption, and none of the images is duplicated in the article. I think it shows very neatly how things proceded and the gallery is, therefore, all right. But that wasn't really my question; it has been answered by User Masem just above; thank you for your comment. --Krawunsel (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Video use policy

Since I can't find anything at WP:VIDEO, and since its talk page doesn't appear to be monitored, I'm here to ask for clarification on what types of videos may be used on Wikipedia, particularly when illustrating articles for organizations. I'm working with Seacology in an effort to revamp their article (similar to how I worked with researchers from Marojejy National Park to enhance that article), and they are offering to release one of their videos for use on Wikipedia. (See their collection here.) Some of them obviously cannot be released because of background music that they probably don't own the license for. However, one short video seems like it might be reasonable, but I don't know if other editors would find it appropriate. Unless I missed it, I don't really see anything in WP:NOT that applies... although something should probably be added there because of the growing number of organizations that want to turn their Wiki articles into small mirrors (or redirects to) their website and/or Facebook page. Wiki should not allow advertisements for the organizations, but I think the video I linked to is fairly neutral, focusing mostly on the history and functions of the organization. I may be able to get them to trim off the logo at the start and the closing info. (Don't worry... the new article content will be coming along later this week, and it will be of high quality, similar to my previous FAs.) – VisionHolder « talk » 17:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still hoping for some feedback on this. Here is an alternate video: [1] As far as I know, the background music is local music and not copyrighted. Any thoughts or opinions would be appreciated. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two overlying factors here. The first is that we discourage rich media (outside of images) simply because not everyone viewing WP has the ability to see video, for example. This doesn't mean we don't use it, but the video's use should be something that literally must be seen to be understood. If the video is simply something that contains a lot of spoken text with images but otherwise can be put into words, the better solution is to use a template like {{cite video}} to reference the video and quote and/or paraphrase the relevant text.

The second aspect is if they are releasing the video under a free license like CC-BY, or simply for use by Wikipedia. In the former case, it would be treated as a free work, and thus we wouldn't have a problem if it was being used within the bounds of the first point. But if that's not the case, we would have to treat it like non-free media (particularly if it is using licensed music), and while technically still usable, would have to be really justified in terms of non-free content criteria to be included. It would also have to be trimmed; the entire work could not be included, I believe movies use lines similar to AUDIO, maxing at 30 s or 10% of the length of the work, whichever is shortest.

My opinion here is certainly to reference the video to provide facts, as my read suggests it would be near-impossible feat to make this video acceptable as non-free on WP. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IE8 on Win7 not showing some images?

This isn't about the policy itself, but I'm hoping to attract attention from someone who knows more about images than me: Two (out of two) users running IE8 on Win7 report that a specific jpg isn't loading for them. Folks running other systems seem to have no trouble. The current discussion thread is at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Check_an_image_on_Commons_for_me.3F. If other image-savvy folks could please take a look, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

On IE 9 the picture in question works perfectly well. You should update to IE9 which should not be a problem because you're running Win7. --Krawunsel (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The image has always displayed correctly in my browsers, probably because I haven't run Microsoft Windows since version 3.1.

The image has been updated since I posted this note. It was previously a CMYK JPEG (a strange combination), which neither IE8 nor IE9 is capable of reading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"All user-created images must be licensed under a free license"

In the section #User-created images, this policy page states, "All user-created images must be licensed under a free license, such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license, or released into the public domain, which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions." What is the meaning of this sentence?

My understanding of this sentence is that Wikipedia does not accept contributions of images created by users if those images are not freely licensed (or placed into the public domain). So, for example, if I take a photograph of something and I want to contribute it to Wikipedia, I need to agree to license my photograph freely—I cannot refuse this permission and use it on Wikipedia as a non-free image.

Today at Wikipedia:Help desk#Non-free, Toshio Yamaguchi has proposed a different interpretation. Under this interpretation, the phrase "user-created images" does not simply mean "images created by users", but rather "images created by users that have been freely licensed". The argument for this interpretation is that Wikipedia cannot force users to freely license their images, and hence any user can upload a self-created image and refuse to release it under a free license as long as the image is justifiable under the non-free content policy.

However, this interpretation of the phrase "user-created images" seems to go against the literal meaning of the words "user-created images", relying on hidden implications that are not present in the sentence as it is written. This interpretation also seems to make the sentence "All user-created images must be licensed under a free license…" meaningless. If the phrase "user-created images" is to be interpreted to mean freely-licensed images, then all that sentence says is, "All freely-licensed images must be licensed under a free license," which is at best tautological, and certainly not useful. Therefore I have a difficult time accepting this interpretation as valid.

Opinions or clarifications, anyone? —Bkell (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is being forced to freely license their image, it will just be rejected if it is not. Use under fair use is an alternative to use under free use, and it does not matter how the license actually is, although it may be useful for others to know. If any one is uploading their own creations under non free use criteria then I think we should be concerned about COI. But I can see a valid use for this with companies uploading a new logo to be used on the article about them. The idea is to avoid: for use on Wikipedia only; for educational use only; or non commercial use only type situations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

First, to Bkell, I don't think it's useful to go about this discussion with an exaggerated legalistic sense of logic. We all know our policy texts are not written by lawyers, and they often have strange loopholes or self-contradictions when taken too literally. So, the important thing is the practical intention behind the language. That said, I can imagine only very few situations where an image created by a user would genuinely stand a chance of passing NFCC. In most cases, if one user can create an image and upload it under NFC, then another user could create an alternative image and release it freely, so the first one would typically be replaceable. Most of the exceptions I can think of would involve autobio editors or potential COI situations. Let's say, a notable artist uploads copies of some of his works to illustrate his own article. But in fact, in such a case the image would be "user-created" only in a superficial sense, because the artist didn't in fact create it in his role as a Wikipedia user; he created it outside Wikipedia for a different purpose, and the fact that he also happens to be editing Wikipedia has nothing to do with the status of the file. There's no reason to treat the file differently whether the artist himself uploads it or some other editor uploads it. Similar case would be with representatives of a company uploading their own company's logo, or representatives of a publisher uploading cover images of their own books. In terms of image policy I see no problem with that – apart from whatever COI problem there might be involved in the editing as a whole, but that need not necessarily be problematic either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As FP said my inclination is not to treat the image policy page as a legal document. Rather as a matter of empirical regularity, user created images are replaceable. Rather than write the policy to support a vanishingly small number of edge cases we have a policy that covers 99% of user created images without asking users who upload their own work to deal w/ NFCC. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to wikilawyer this thing, and I apologize if my question came off that way. It is marked as policy, so I'm just trying to figure out what it means. Apparently my interpretation of it was wrong, so I'm glad I asked. The scenario I was imagining was someone who had taken a photograph of a disaster as it occurred and had uploaded her own photo here as a non-free image. The image is not likely to be replaceable, and therefore might satisfy NFCC. Are we saying, then, that people who create images that satisfy NFCC have the option to contribute their own content here without freely licensing it? If that's the case, and that's what people seem to be saying here, it seems that the sentence I quoted could be replaced by something like, "User-created images that are not freely licensed or released into the public domain are considered non-free content and must meet all of the non-free content criteria." If that is what we really mean, shouldn't we change the sentence to say that? —Bkell (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that when we say "user-created images", we actually mean "user-created images". If a user creates an image and uploads it, we want a free license. If there is some truly extraordinary circumstance (something that doesn't apply to >99.99% of user-created images), then the user can discuss the situation with the community before uploading it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you were wikilawyering. That usually accompanies a deliberately tendentious reading of rules. I just think your reading erred in being to formalistic. that is on the spectrum of different viewpoint to honest mistake (at worst). Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Protonk (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The hypothetical case of the unique disaster photo described by Bkell above is interesting. There's perhaps one more tweak to it though: The hypothetical user can only upload this thing under NFC if he has previously also published it elsewhere (per NFCC#4), and if he plausibly states that our use won't be infringing on his own commercial interests (per NFCC#2). Once he's done these two things, even if we then tell him "sorry but no thanks, we won't take this from you without a free license", the image will be out there in the open. At that point, any other unrelated editor can decide to grab it and re-upload it without the author's participation. So now, it's suddenly a normal NFC case like any other. What difference then does it make whether we accept the image from the original author directly, or whether we accept it from the middleman? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we find a single example which fits the above characteristics? I know we have examples of editors who want to upload their own published content under NFC but do we have any where they wouldn't deeply run afoul of some other guidance (COI and the like)? Protonk (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, still hypothetically speaking, but if a notable artist came to us, saw his own article and thought to himself, "this article should be illustrated with this work of mine, because it's the most representative of my style", I wouldn't say that automatically runs "deeply afoul" of COI guidance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In that highly unlikely circumstance, we can have a discussion to document an WP:IAR exception. Usually, when people want to do this, it's because they want polished, professional, copyrighted head shots or other publicity materials in their articles rather than less-than-flattering editor-generated snapshots, or because they want the publicity and ego-boosting of having a highly visible image without giving up any commercial value, not because they're notable artists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

attribution of 3D art

i see here "description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." [2], and here [3]

however there is a "non free 3D" license and link to sculpture article that names the sculptor.

how can the copyright status be unclear, when the rationale links to the sculpture article? Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That information still needs to be explicit on the image rational page even if it is linked, because while the photographer has put the work into the PD, the copyright holder - the artist that designed the statue - still must be identified as the source of the material itself. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

NFCC 10a does not say "must": "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value." rather, it links to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Multimedia which says: "Multimedia material should be referenced just like article text." if you want it to say must, change the policy.

the Template:Non-free use rationale does not include a line for author. if you want people to comply with NFCC, change the template to comply with it.

the copyright status is not unclear, as the non free rationale agrees it is copyrighted; rather the author is unclear, but this is clarified in the linked article.

no WP:BEFORE, the solution to unsourced 3D art is to source it, not delete it. Slowking4: 7@1|x 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

NFCC is a policy and is a requirement, so the "must" is implicit. We ask for this in the "source" field of the rationale template, or anywhere else where it is obvious that you are identifying these elements. Even if it is explained in the linked article, that information needs to be present in the rationale since it is possible that the article can change and this information removed. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Template wording

Please see Template talk:Orphan image. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice sought about image suitability

If an image says nothing about the article subject, and only performs a decorative function, must it be removed, per this policy, or may it remain if a majority of editors like it there. That is, does the policy prescribe removal in this situation, and if so, does local consensus trump that prescription?

I'm fairly sure policy doesn't prescribe removal, as such images abound. But confirmation would be helpful with drafting an impending RfC at Talk:Suicide#Image. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of images purely for decoration is generally discouraged. See WP:ICON for an in-depth discussion of this issue. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's just what I was looking for. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But of course the image in question is not for decoration but show suicide the subject of the article in question. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, when we say "purely for decoration", we usually mean something like adding a picture of a butterfly to an article about an emotion, or a picture of a random smiling child to an article about a school. A famous painting depicting the subject of the article is generally going to be acceptable for the lead of an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that conventional understanding of "decorative". Thanks for clarifying. Actually, I have no real opposition to images that depict the topic but add nothing to the readers' understanding, per se. I added this to the infobox of "my" article. It's the combination of "adds nothing to understanding" and "possible real harm" that underpins my objection to this instance. I'll notify this page when the RfC is launched. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fair assessment of decorative. First, if the image is free, we generally are more liberal with image use. It should be relevant, of course, but there needs to be little direct discussion of the image otherwise. A free picture of a butterfly could be used on a page about emotion if there's some potential linkage.

When you look at non-frees, we are a lot more critical. Decorative use, there, is basically including the image representing that topic without any way to tie it into the text. Except for elements like cover art which implicitly are covered by having an article on that subject, the picture and text of the article need to be nearly inseperable. Decorative images will always be separable from the text, and thus inappropriate if non-free. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Wallis's *The Death of Chatterton*, 1856.

Notification of RfC

Talk:Suicide#Image RfC

Should Henry Wallis's painting The Death of Chatterton be used to illustrate the article Suicide?
Should the article Suicide contain an image depicting suicide?

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Further guidance needed

I need some help understanding image policy.

WP:IMAGE says

Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information.

And WP:IUP says images

should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter.

(My bolding.) This seems to rule out images in articles that add nothing to the reader's understanding. Yet all over the encyclopedia I see such images in the lead or infobox. Why is that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Visual identification of a topic is a common way to help the reader associate what the topic is about: the person, the published work, the location, the concept etc. Particularly moreso if it is a free image, where there's no restrictions to its use in WP. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's common. My point is it contradicts the two policies. Is there somewhere in Wikipedia policy where it says images that tell the reader nothing he or she didn't already know about the topic are OK? I'm pretty sure there isn't. I'm just running it by here in case I've missed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't fight it and win, even though you are right. 99.999% of the book covers, album covers, and single covers are wholly unnecessary and contradict WP:IUP and any plain reading of WP:NFCC#8. The identification argument was used to violate WP:NFCC#8 in such volume that people have now institutionalized the violation. Take what comfort you can in being right, and don't bother to press the point.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put the number that high, but certainly more than 50%. Covers of fictional works that show any type of character representation at least is something, maybe not the best way to meet NFCC#8, compared to simple abstract cover art. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in fighting it (although enforcing policy as written would simplify the above RfC enormously). I quite like uninformative but emblematic images in the lead/infobox in general, except of course where they may do harm - defame, mislead, violate copyright, etc. - but would like to see it made explicit. If anybody watching can effortlessly point me to a relevant prior discussion of this I'd appreciate it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that such usage does violate copyright. Without substantial discussion of the image, there is no fair use, which means that all uses of copyrighted images in an "uninformative but emblematic" manner violate copyright.—Kww(talk) 11:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah right. Actually I'm discussing CC BY SA images that add nothing to the readers' understanding. Using such images violates this policy. WP:IUP says an image (not just fair use) should add to the readers' understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All CC BY ... images fall within free use, not fair use, so WP:NFCC does not apply. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

True, and there the IUP provisions of "relevant" and "increase the understanding of the reader" still come into play. If you can't even come up with an explanation that passes that weak test, the image truly doesn't belong at all.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the RFC that I initiated at the start of this year regarding NFCC cover art, where consensus clearly feel towards its allowance. Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Massem. I'll take a look. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You should also consider whether the image benefits the article a a whole. If it makes an article look professional and interesting it can motivate a reader to actually read the article or glance at the infobox to learn some quick facts. This will be a better result than the reader thinking "dull topic" and closing the window immediately. Perhaps we can have a proposed rewording of this policy if the actual consensus for use does not match what this says. After all most image users do not write the policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A lead image that is emblematic of the topic as a whole but doesn't improve the readers' understanding, such as in Pain and Chair, is comforting when approaching an article. It confirms the reader is on the right page in a more immediate and less complicated way that a word does, and makes the article somehow more welcoming. What about:

Lead images
Articles do not have to have an image in their lead or infobox but an image depicting the topic of the article is frequently used in one or both of these locations.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversial images

There are (at least) three huge time sinks around images at the moment: Pregnancy, Muhammad and Suicide. They all revolve around the use of controversial images that some argue add little or nothing to the readers' understanding.

At Pregnancy and Muhammad, the board's May 2011 statement of principles and guidance concerning controversial content was invoked. This Foundation resolution says, in part

Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. [...] We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

That wording seems to say if content may be offensive to some viewers and has no real educational value, it should be avoided. But a number of editors have challenged this, asserting that, if an image is related to the topic and carries any information, avoiding it because it is controversial would be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED.

Most images in Wikipedia, per this policy, educate the reader on the topic of the article, some are worth a thousand words. But many others could be replaced by one line of text without losing one bit of information relevant to the article, or are simply emblematic of the topic and add nothing of educational value at all. (See the emblematic image I added to the infobox at Pain.) We tolerate such images if they make the article more welcoming and appealing. But I believe the Foundation is telling us we should not tolerate images that do not add to the readers' understanding of the topic if they are "controversial" per the Foundation's use of the term.

I'd like this apparent conflict between the Foundation resolution and WP:NOTCENSORED to be resolved. The issue at Muhammad was recently put to ArbCom but was declined as something that needs to be dealt with by community discussion. This seems as good a place as any to discuss it. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

The Foundation uses "curating" to refer to all aspects of managing images and other content, including placement of images in articles. [4] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There will always be a pool of people who use not censored to justify the useage of some ridicoulous images. Frankly i just wish people would use common sense and that we didnt have to revisit this over and over. Its a sad state, and it runs off so many users from this project. I personally am fine with 'that policy' but i can understand that it would be easily preverted around and used to suppress images that might be needed. The issue is where do you draw the line when you have hundreds of lines that are all in different places which people will never move, just some thoughts. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is older, has more community support, and is much, much less ambiguous. I view the foundation statement as a vague "let's say something nice to cover our asses" affair. Having reviewed all those threads recently, I personally see enough educational value in all of the images proposed to pass the value test set forth by the foundation. More broadly, if there's even a moderate amount of support for the inclusion of an image, it can be implied that enough people have decided that it has value that the foundation statement is not applicable in that case. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree; there will always likely be a minority of people that feel some images are inappropriate but as long as that's not the consensus view, then it makes no sense to block that. I do appreciate the statement of "least astonishment", meaning that the lead images should be the most tasteful ones, and thus to a point, the current lead image at Pregnancy (a fully naked woman during pregnancy) is probably inappropriate at that specific location in the article but not down lower in the text of the article. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback people. Ambiguity is difficult, but we deal with it on WP:DUE and other policies. I know it would meet a lot of opposition and I, for one, don't have the energy to push it through, but I reckon "only use a controversial image when the same educational value can't be achieved using an uncontroversial image or minimal text." would make this a better project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sven, Masem: while I appreciate what you've said, I need to point out that there's a serious problem lurking in it. On any controversial topic there are always going to be people with axes to grind on both sides of the issue - that's the nature of a controversial issue - and people with axes to grind will rarely respond to common sense. It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature that I think we all have ample experience with on project. In such cases, controversial images become weapons and NOTCENSORED becomes a tool for subverting or bypassing NPOV and Consensus to impose a bias on the article. I like Anthony's suggestion because it puts some rational limits on NOTCENSORED: people have to demonstrate that a controversial image does something meaningful and useful in an article, and are precluded from slapping some controversial image on the article and digging in under NOTCENSORED to wait out all protests.

In short, we should be more concerned about the positive aspect of adding information to the article and less about the negative aspect of preserving controversial images. As I read the foundation resolution, they are asking us to take a more nuanced, reader-centered approach to controversial material; still keeping the ideal that wikipedia is not censored, but not allowing that to be used as an excuse to trod all over our readers' preferences and beliefs for no good reason. --Ludwigs2 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, consider the three cases that are in question right now (as best I understand them):

Pregnancy - the use of a naked woman at late term (as to be clear that the woman is pregnant, not fat), including showing the impact of pregnancy on the mother, seems completely legitimate. The only aspect is that as a lead image, it isn't the first thing you'd expect to see nor immediately necessary to grasp the concept of the lead. Images of tastefully clothed women but their mid-rift bare as to see the pregnancy makes much more sense as a lead, simply to avoid unexpected shock of the topic.
Muhammad is to me a no-brainer. It makes no sense to have an article on the figure without having an image of the image to show what the prevailing belief on the figure looks like, and in the lead. It doesn't matter that its religion seems opposed to it; as long as it is accurate and/or what the religion states is correct, not to display the image would be harmful to readers.
Suicide involves the use of piece of art depicting suicide - most of the ones selected are tasteful (unless you're told and/or look closer, it looks like a figure sleeping), or it is the case that it is a obviously historical piece of art (like greek/roman figures) that shows the act. As I've read that, the issue is around giving any glorification to the act for fear that readers may try attempt it itself. Here's a case where I would ask myself "What type of image would I'd expect on opening the Suicide article?" and really, the answer I would give is "none", there's no easy singular image (like there is with the above two cases) I could assign to make the connection between the topic and picture easily. That's not to say the images can't be used (suicide has been depicted in artwork for centuries, that you can't deny), but its impossible to visually link the term to anything that is otherwise highly inappropriate.

So the one case that I would raise is that of the lead image, the one that is attempting to make the visual-verbal link between the topic and the image. The lead image needs to be of non-shock value (a clothed-verses-naked woman), but should be one that we would expect to see (eg the image of Muhummad) for that topic, but if there is no immediate answer to the question "What image is the best we can use to connect this topic to a visual image for the reader?" and the use of any related images is contested, it may be better not to use said images until later in the article and have an image-less lead. Anywhere else in the article is fair game (well, arguably, anything in the first screen's worth, but lets stick to lead to be clear). --MASEM (t) 13:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason a debate exists in all these cases is because all the images in question serve an immediate educational purpose. The question is not whether we should be using images that aren't educational in articles (we obviously shouldn't) but given two or more choices of images, what the right tradeoff is between educational value and offensiveness to some part of our audience. It's natural not only that some people place more value on one or the other, but that different people "rate" the educational value or offensiveness of a given image differently, which makes this a very complicated question. Dcoetzee 19:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're all educational, there's no question, and as I've argued for these three cases they should have no question being used on the article page somewhere. The issue seems to be specifically the lead image which is often not directly attached to any text discussing the image but as a means of visual connectivity. Given that this is the first image that a reader will always see when landing on this page, we need to avoid the idea of shock value, and thus goes back to my point above: the image for the lead only should be chosen to be one that one can reasonably expect to see on that article's page. See my three examples above. Again, what happens in the body is not as critical a problem, but the lead should be carefully chosen to be of generally community standards appropriate for the topic, understanding that some topics can only be demonstrated by a image that may be controversial but otherwise educational (eg "penis"). --MASEM (t) 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On the general question, it might be reasonable for this policy to send editors to the guideline at Wikipedia:Offensive material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never read that. Very apposite. I suppose I'm attempting to elevate elements of that into this policy, so that WP:NOGRATUITOUSOFFENCIVENESS can balance WP:NOTCENSORED. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The point that many of these approaches tends to miss is that some of the "offensive" issues aren't offensive in any secular sense. This is a secular encyclopedia, and we should not take notice of offense taken due to religious beliefs. It shouldn't tip the scale towards inclusion, of course, but it shouldn't bias us towards exclusion, either. Any effort to codify a policy based on offensiveness needs to clearly indicate what kinds of offensiveness are even candidates for consideration.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

I agree that it would be useful to have some guidance on lead images specifically. We wasted nearly a year debating the lead image for abortion, before finally settling on the obvious choice: no image at all. There seems to be a strong bias towards using lead images, even when it doesn't make much sense, such as in suicide. You can't always sum up a huge topic with a single image. Kaldari (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the above, I think it's fair that we should include advice (But not considered prescriptive guideline/policy) under "Content" for "Lead images", pointing out that these will always been seen and thus should have more careful scrutiny of inclusion than for any other image on the article. There's three points to make towards this:

The lead image(s) should be ones that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that we would want readers to envision when they are given the term.
The lead image(s) should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred. (eg the partially clothed pregnant woman over the fully nude one).
Lead images are not required, and the lack of a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic per #1.

It should be clear these are not restrictions or advice for article body images. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I like where this is going. I've placed it under a different section heading because it's addressing a different and much more straightforward issue, and is likely to get agreement and action much sooner than the issue I'm raising (curation of offensive images in general). Please revert if you disagree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this topic is better suited for the MOS page on images, rather than the policy page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The MOS is generally about issues like placement, captions, etc., eg the style issues around images. This is specifically about the choice of an image, which is already covered here under "Content". This seems like the best place for it, as long as it is cautioned that while this whole page is Policy, this is strictly guidance towards resolution of controversial images. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 3 seems to fit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. 1 and 2 could be combined into one statement, and this page seems their natural home to me, per MASEM's rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 3 could go to the image mos, but at the same time, if you are discussing the issue of controversial images, it is always the case that one accept choice is "no image", if there are other image choices available. Hence, discussion of the "no image" option needs to be kept here, though that one facet can be duplicated at images MOS ("a lead image is not required"). --MASEM (t) 12:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing that this is the wrong place to look for or insert that. The guideline WP:Images would be a more appropriate place to insert such recommendations. I don't see any hard or fast rules that would require mention in a policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead images make articles look very much more inviting, even when the image's informational content is not essential to the topic. I think they should be used whenever possible. 109.157.167.162 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the section headers at IMAGES. We've got some potentially useful advice in the comments above. Do we have any BOLD editor who is willing to take a stab at adding something about ===Images for the lead=== to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Choosing_images? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above, I will add it. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done and timely. --J N 466 22:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if, rather than (or in addition to) "the type of image that we would expect readers to envision when they think of the term", it might be worth saying something about "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Default image size versus infobox widths

WP:IMGSIZE "In general: do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images lists some (presumably) good reasons. I'd like to hear views on the pros & cons of a notion of promoting the forcing of right-aligned images to the same width as infoboxes on article pages so as to improve the look of pages. I prefer pages in which infoboxes and right-aligned images are of the same width to those which have narrower image widths than the infobox width - solely on aesthetic grounds. Am I alone in this preference? Is there reason to reconsider our guidelines on default image sizing for the stylistic reason I allude to?

The policy says "some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult." Presumably the same would hold for infoboxes, yet these invariably exceed 220px.

The policy says "In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference." Which could be overcome by adding a user preference asking if the user's preferred image size should override a forced image size.

Any views? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should not force image size (except the ones in the infoboxes). What may look better on your screen may wreak havoc on other people's screens. 220px is a sane default (it used to be 120px; which encouraged a lot of fixed image sizes), and we sould respect user's preferences for other sizes. Infoboxes simply need the space in the infobox to display the text, that is why it's default width is set to 22em. And as em scales with text size, you cannot reliably match the images (which are sized in px) with the infoboxes anyway. — Edokter (talk) — 10:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of this, we probably need a guideline for infobox widths. I recently tried to adjust the width of an infobox to more closely match the default infobox width (22em), as well changing the default picture size for that infobox (I reduced it from 300px to 250px). Just look at Rocket-powered aircraft: very wide infobox, the vertical half-right of which is empty space (outside of the picture, of course). The sole purpose of that extra width seems to be to display a picture way bigger than normal thumbnails. I was quickly reverted for the sole reason that the changed hasn't been discussed. [5] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Tagishsimon's suggestion is a good idea, especially for adjacent images (ones that abut the infobox). Pages look messy when things do not quite line up. If the resulting image size doesn't work on a user's screen then the infobox itself generally wouldn't work either, so it's not like we would actually be breaking anything much (generally, anyway; no doubt some pathological exceptions exist). The problem, as I understand it, is as Edokter says: we do not actually know how wide, in pixels, the infobox is going to be. I have in the past resized a few images to align with infoxboxes on my screen, before I figured that I did't know if they would align on anyone else's, or even whether I might be making things even less aligned for other readers. 109.157.167.162 (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The default infobox widths are specified in em units. The MILHIST ones are specified din pixels. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Nixon

Could somebody here please review the article Richard Nixon for compliance with the image use policy? I count about two dozen manually-sized images, with some sized as high as 470px. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What Yworo fails to mention is that he started a discussion at Talk:Richard Nixon and consensus was against him. He also fails to mention that the image use was discussed at the FAC, and achieved consensus. I believe the technical term for this is "forum shopping".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the only "forum" I've brought it to, and the correct one at that. Do remember that article talk pages are not forums, and that small cliques of editors do not get to override policy. I am completely within reason to ask for expert opinions on the matter, rather than editors with a heavy ego-investment in the article. Yworo (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've glanced through the FAC for the article and the discussion there, and I think I have to agree with Wehwalt and others - the use of block-centered, larger images as major section headers (at least, when they are free images) is certain a possible option. The various arguments on bandwidth, screensize, etc. are all met by the image, it just looks weird because many articles don't have a wealth of free images like that. I would probably say there's a handful of guidance we can write when these are appropriate, as I don't think every article can support that. But it seems like a completely reasonable option if it can be done. --MASEM (t) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A clarification on image galleries

May I ask for a clarification and opinions on galleries? In taxonomic articles on plants, animals, fungi, etc., we often struggle with plentiful small stubs with an abundance of excellent and beautiful images of the different anatomical parts of the organism. For example, an article on a little-known tree species might have excellent photo coverage of the flowers, fruit, seeds, bark, wood, leaves, young wood, buds, etc. These are all diagnostic features of the organism.

Some feel that on short articles where not much text has been written suffer without these photos. They argue that, as described under WP:IG, "... the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." They then promptly ignore the rest of the policy, or argue that it's irrelevant. I contend that these series of images are easily and adequately described by text, as we often do in the case of missing images of critical parts. For example, on the FA Drosera regia, I did not have photos of the pollen or roots, but I can described them without images. Images would help, but they can't stand alone. So when the text is lacking, I contend that an image gallery of the anatomy of the organism is inappropriate as the main goal is to cram more images into the article. And for the sake of argument, we're mostly discussing images already uploaded to Commons, categorized or in a gallery page there.

In these cases, I think a Commons link or template is preferable to the galleries, which are almost always under the heading "Gallery," which is telling. For an example of a recent gallery addition to a stubby article, check out Pachnoda sinuata. The headings are unnecessary and not in line with WP:HEAD and WP:LAYOUT, so ignore the length of the article, which should be just about one paragraph with what little text is there right now. Is this gallery compliant with WP:IG? If not, how can we amend WP:IG to be clearer that these "indiscriminate collection[s] of images of the article subject" should not be shoehorned into the articles? It's already clear to me, but I have had many discussions with other editors that I respect who believe the galleries fit within policy. And if consensus goes the other way, how could we amend the policy to make it clear this kind of usage, along with the 1750–1795 in fashion example, are implicitly acceptable gallery usage? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I contend that these series of images are easily and adequately described by text, as we often do in the case of missing images of critical parts". I strongly disagree with that statement. Look at bretèche for instance, and also look in the books cited, which contain plenty of illustrations in a style similar to the Wikipedia's gallery feature. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was making a point specifically about organism articles, where anatomy is often described without images. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as we're talking images from Commons, I'm not seeing a problem with having a one-line gallery (4-5 images at most) at the end. A 20 picture gallery on a stub article, yes, that's a problem, but one line of photos is not harming much.

I'm not sure on the matter of the 1750–1795 in fashion article. The disjoint between the image and captions is a problem - they should be inside the gallery, but as for having large galleries of free images, that seems to be ok, again specifically due to the fact that it is a visual element that is hard to describe changes and variations throughout the period. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

But what to call the section with the gallery? In every case I've seen, the title is merely "Gallery." WP:IG states that a rule of thumb could be that "if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." I can't think of any other descriptive titles for these galleries. They are simply an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. They are not generally used to compare and contrast or for any other function that for cramming images into the article that otherwise wouldn't fit because there's too little text. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps that rule of thumb isn't a useful one, since it seems to lead you in the direction of assuming that ten-sentence stubs like Pachnoda sinuata should only contain a single image, rather than the six clearly useful and non-redundant images that are currently present and whose acceptance at FA could be reasonably expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the gallery at Pachnoda sinuata is exactly what we want to permit: Five images showing three visibly different developmental stages, and the one stage shown in three pictures is shown from different angles (dorsal, ventral, and rear). None of them could possibly be described as redundant, and all of them have descriptive captions. I admit that the article is WP:NOTFINISHED, but each of these images might well be present in an FA-quality article.

What we're really trying to discourage is the problem of "Oh, look, there's a dozen pictures of people kissing at their weddings, so I should add a practically identical picture of me kissing at my wedding". We don't want large galleries, and we don't want redundant images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The example at Pachnoda sinuata is one of the better galleries. It shows valuable information, but the purpose of creating the gallery seems not to compare and contrast or any other valid function of the gallery. My perspective is that these galleries are inserted for the sole purpose of cramming more images into the article. A good question to ask yourself is whether the gallery would remain as it is if the article was sufficiently expanded so that there was room for the images to the left and right of paragraphs about those features of the organism. The answer would invariably be no, the gallery would be dismantled and images moved to near the associated text. So why should they remain when the article is a stub? At the stubby stage of an article, a link to a Commons category or gallery is sufficient and fills the same role as a gallery in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The images might some day be rearranged, but so what? If they should be in the article when it reaches FA status, then they should be in the article today. The specific arrangement of the images in between now and then is just not that important.

Galleries are not supposed to be an excuse for adding images that shouldn't be there in the first place. The gentle discouragement of galleries is not a rule that says you can't align images horizontally (e.g., in a gallery) if there isn't enough text to align them vertically right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. We seem to have a different interpretation of the language there. I see the words "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article..." and you take it to mean it's acceptable to shoehorn images as long as they're not redundant. I see it as a general discouragement of including too many images in any arrangement that overwhelms the existing text. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Shoehorn in" refers to adding images that should not be present at all in the article. It does not refer to adding images that do belong in a decent article on the subject. Assuming the images would belong in a well-developed version of the article, then presenting the images horizontally, on the grounds that you haven't got enough text to present them vertically, is not "shoehorning in" the images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The current policy was a carefully-crafted compromise between the "galleries are good/a picture = a thousand words" crowd and the "galleries are abused/most galleries are garbage" crowd. The consensus at the time was that many galleries are well done and improve their respective articles, some topics in particular can potentially benefit greatly from a gallery, but unorganized galleries made up of indiscriminate collections of images are generally not great. The goal was to ensure that galleries are crafted as carefully as the text of an article, and not seen as an afterthought or a dumping ground for unrelated images that don't otherwise fit in an article. I don't think the policy was intended to prevent the use of galleries in stub or start class articles - just because the images might not be presented in gallery form once the article is longer doesn't mean that a gallery isn't appropriate at this time.

I note that WhatamIdoing said "[t]he gallery at Pachnoda sinuata is exactly what we want to permit: Five images showing three visibly different developmental stages, and the one stage shown in three pictures is shown from different angles (dorsal, ventral, and rear). None of them could possibly be described as redundant, and all of them have descriptive captions." As someone unfamiliar with the article topic, none of that jumped out at me when I viewed the gallery. It did look like a collection of random and unorganized images, but based on WhatamIdoing's information, it wouldn't take much to make it a very useful gallery. Rename it "Development stages of the Pachnoda sinuata", put the stages in order, make clear that the adult (?) stage is shown from three angles, and you would have an excellent gallery for a stub/start class article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the history of the policy; I found that most useful. I, too, think that the gallery as it is right now at Pachnoda sinuata isn't put together nicely, but I see your point that it could be a decent gallery. Would it be useful to call it "Developmental stages" even if it's not complete? There are no photos of the eggs, and each instar is not represented. On plant articles, galleries are used in a variety of ways, some of which I don't think are useful. For example, on Geranium, the gallery is showcasing different species in the genus. This is already sufficiently done at List of cranesbill species. This usage is common on genus articles. The most common use of galleries on plant articles, however, seems to be of the distribution variety - indiscriminate images of the plant in similar habitats throughout the plant's range, e.g. in Drosera rotundifolia we have images from Oregon, Minnesota, and Newfoundland. I'm at a loss, though, on how to clarify this distinction in the text of the policy. The problematic area to me seems to be the discussion on usefulness and how encyclopedic it is. I've removed galleries where it was of the type on the Drosera rotundifolia article and then got into a discussion with an editor of that article. When I point to WP:IG, the proponent of the gallery points to the first paragraph and asserts that the images are useful, encyclopedic, and can't be replaced by text. So it seems that any indiscriminate collection of images can fall under the broad view of that first paragraph. I'll think about this more and perhaps propose changes if you think it's necessary. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, Wikipedia is a work in progress. There is no rule that says editors have to write the text before they add the images, or that they have to add good captions when they add the images, or that they have to add all of the relevant images or information (so yes: it's good to rename that section even if it is an incomplete list of developmental stages). Part of working collaboratively is figuring out how to build on the incomplete efforts of previous people. That means, for example, that (as Skeezix suggests) you rename sections from ==Gallery== to ==Developmental stages==, that you re-order the images as needed, and that you write much more useful captions, rather than saying "Oops, horizontal presentation of images currently using a 'banned' section heading in an incomplete article: delete!"

I'd also like to draw your attention to the wording of the line about section headings, since you seem to be quoting it on occasion. It's talking about what's possible for a section heading, not what's currently in use. If the images were truly such a mishmash that no alternative is possible, then IG tells you to either remove it or to revamp it (an alternative that you seem to be overlooking). But if a more descriptive section heading is possible, none of that applies. As Skeezix proved, "Gallery" is not the only possible section heading for the example we've been discussing, and consequently the existence of the bland section heading isn't a reason to delete the images. It's only a reason for you to WP:BOLDly improve the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Image help

I am in discussion with Wobbyprop (talk · contribs), son of this individual, who wants to upload images of his father. Wobbyprop took the images, so per Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images he has the right to them. How does he 'release' the images to Wikipedia? Images are something I struggle with still, even after 6 years... Giant Snowman 22:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

He just uploads them and tags them with whatever license he chooses. No special process is required for user-created images. I'd recommend that he use commons:Special:UploadWizard, which will take him through most of the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision

These rules really need to be revised. I have read these rules fours times over and still don't get how to get proper images. The page is just way too confusing to general users. Hate to say this about myself, but this page really needs to be dumbed down so anyone can understand. --71.215.198.69 (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to do? The more specific you are, the more likely that someone can help you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SVG vs. PNG

Hello. I've created an SVG version for this image. It's a bit different in colors and also the font is not enterely equal. As you prefer SVG because it allows more faithful scaling that raster images, I'm asking if I should upload it to WP? It's here. Thanks. - João Jerónimo (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to find Creative commons images

Would this page be the best place to include something like the following?

Where to find images for use on Wikipedia

There are websites that make it easier to find relevant images for Wikipedia Pages. These images are released under creative commons licences and should be added to Wikimedia Commons before use. Such images can be found from websites including flickr (e.g. the creative commons search) and deviant art.

-Tesseract²(talk) 15:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That kind of information is kept at Wikipedia:Images#Obtaining_images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Vehicle registration plates

Do these need to be blanked or pixelated in any image used in an article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any particular requirement to do this. The cars are visible in public, just as people are. There is no inherent right to privacy when in a public space. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Google Street View seems to take a different approach - they also pixelate faces as well, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Move of section

I've boldly moved the Placement section to WP:IMAGE, a guideline about the usage of images. It seemed out of place here; it has more exceptions, and it is similar in tone and presentation to the rest of the guideline. If you look at it where it now is, it is difficult to say that it is in the wrong place. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted those changes as numerous links and redirects and templates expect to find some or all of those sections here. 2.29.56.131 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll fix them up; it's not really a reason for not moving the section in the first place. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A notice might be equally appropriate. Obviously if you want me to fix them then the changes have to be in place. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the move is necessary, there's a link to Wikipedia:Image use policy right at the top of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images page.

Suggest you reach a consensus here first, and then if the move is to go ahead, update Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, then fix all the incoming links to the sections you're moving, and then (and only then) update the Wikipedia:Image use policy page itself. 2.29.56.131 (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You're creating an unnecessary bureaucracy here. You don't seem actually opposed to the move, and the hurdles are much easier solved once any move has gone ahead. I can't possibly rectify things before a "problem" exists. Which links are actually broken? (This section really isn't suited to its current location, and to keep content on the wrong page because of a fear of moving it doesn't seem preferable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally have strong objections to moving WP:IG, the subject of lengthy discussions here in the past, from here to a guideline. Those clauses are important to the overall IUP, are routinely referred to throught the project, and are treated as policy. I disagree that they are "out of place". Text need not be full of black and white directives for it to be appropriately be considered Wikipedia policy. In fact, the preference is many cases is that policy not be strictly prescriptive. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the difference between "Placement" here "Location" there? I would say that they were very close and that splitting them up causes disruption and misunderstanding. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So? This situation has existed for years - what disruption and misunderstanding has occurred to date? Moreover, policies and guidelines are not hermetically-sealed silos - they can, and do, contain advice that touches upon areas more fully addressed in other documents. This is a solution in search of a problem. As for your question, the guideline has general advice on formatting. The policy has specific directives on two specific tools, and actually addresses the issue of content more than placement or location (notwithstanding the heading). If you are concerned about potential confusion, add hatnotes below each section heading - that would address your issue completely. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

One additional thought: you might have a point about the section on Image queuing, which is more in the nature of formatting advice. I would support moving that section, leaving a brief note/link here (as image queuing is used as a stop-gap measure when removing unhelpful galleries).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that if image queuing is moved, the sections on galleries and montages might be moved to the content heading, which might also help address your concerns. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care which page it's on, so long as it's on one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Watermarks

Is there an approved way of removing them? I'm looking at the images at Brian Robertson - the watermarks could be cropped out, but I don't know if that's they best way. Any advice? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In this specific case, the fact that the uploader is likely the same as the watermark-placer (based on name only) you can go ahead and crop that out, but it may be better to approach the uploader and ask if he could upload a non-watermarked version of said photo if possible. As it is on commons, any derivative work is appropriate as long as you mark it as derivative of the original photo. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If one were desparate not to crop, in order to keep the bottom of his guitar (or his right knee), or even to keep the exact aspect ratio, I guess one could edit it in Paint or PaintShop and pixellate out the offending text? But not sure how far one could go with this process until it became "a different image" and thus an original new "work of art". I mean... you could cover a bald patch, or even remove a few crow's feet. Maybe it doesn't matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering only File:Brian Robertson in 2011.jpg this is CC-BY-SA so you are allowed to airbrush out the watermark, because doing that makes what is considered to be a "derivative work"; personally I would upload the airbrushed one under a different name. Both these actions are permitted by CC-BY-SA provided that the re-uploaded image bears the same photographer credit, and exactly the same license, as the pre-airbrushed one. There's a link at commons:Commons:Upload titled "It is a derivative work of one or several files from Commons" which simplifies the process. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And again, remember that the photographer uploaded that image themselves, so it is not out of place to contact them to ask for them to upload the non-watermarked version - their CC-BY-SA would still leave them the appropriate crediting sans watermark. If they don't want to, then you can make the derivative airbrushed version but I'd at least start with contacting the uploader to improve it. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above advice, except the suggestion that one upload the airbrushed version under a different name. Both en-wiki and Commons strongly discourage watermarks, and these watermarks in question do not appear to add anything. The usual practice at the Commons is to upload the airbrushed (assume the airbrushing is limited to removing the watermark) or cropped version (assuming it is a minor crop) as a new version of the same image. That way the watermarked version is still available, in the unlikely event anyone wants to use it, but the non-watermarked version is the primary version, and Commons isn't stuck with two near-identical versions of the same image. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Crop vs highlight?

In photos where the article subject is pictured in a group, as in sports teams, cropping can produce awkward, distorted-looking results (even if not actually distorted). See crop (right), compared to the original photo on Flickr. I'm suggesting broader cropping and highlighting for such photos where the subject is depicted with the group, such as this . Thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Does one really need to see his lower body for recognition? This would be a case where cropping to the upper torso may end up with a better aspect ratio. Of course, highlighting that player out of the wider group shot is an option too. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say that unfortunately the photo is just extremely poor for illustrating the person. I know it may be the best available photo, but it looks rather unprofessional regardless of how it's cropped. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the native quality, but properly deblurred and scaled, it might be alright. Head&shoulders crop. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Lexein, are you proposing that some guidance on that issue be included in this policy? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like group cropping and highlighting to be an approved option (as I mentioned above), in addition to plain cropping, as currently mentioned in the policy. Or does that belong in MOS? --Lexein (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought the MOS. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the head and shoulders version is best. Do we really need to "approve" this? If it's not actually prohibited, you're already free to do whatever best improves the encyclopedia. You don't actually need written permission to use your best judgement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Gah. I know that. I just think (my bad example above notwithstanding) some images of people are better as highlighted group shots, rather than awkward crops, when appropriate (teams, organized groups). If this was listed as a viable option, in addition to the listed "crop" option, this would release photo editors to consider this approach. You know as well as I that a significant number of editors tend to only "color within the lines", and nudge others to do the same; hence, more inclusive guidelines/policies would help the encyclopedia.

I partially brought this up because I wondered if anybody remembers why only cropping is mentioned in the policy. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny copyright on images

I have recently been reading over some bios and noticed that user Wikiwatcher1 has been adding many images with what looks like guess work on copyright. Where would someone go to have this looked at further??Moxy (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an in-depth investigation opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1 which sorts out all of the files and makes a nice workspace to keep track of which have been confirmed good/bad/etc. It doesn't look like any work has been started on that particular CCI, but feel free to pitch in. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - I have seen that page before - did not realize it was this user (old page)- I also got an email in reply to this message about an ongoing talk also at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1 - odd that he/she is still uploading images while this is ongoing.Moxy (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If their recent uploads continue to be disruptive/problematic (I couldn't say since I haven't looked at them, I just remembered the existence of the CCI) then a possible avenue would be to start community discussion about a topic ban for the duration, similar to RAN's restriction on creating new articles. That could encourage them to actively aid in the examination of all of their images uploaded to-date to resolve the CCI. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

...And I just noticed that they've been blocked for a month on commons for continuing to add questionable photos, so maybe I will have to look into their recent local uploads. <sigh> VernoWhitney (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And apparently there's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1 already started along with commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Request for Comments on En Wikipedia. This thing is scattered all over the place. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

proposing to add right of publicity

I propose adding a precaution against violating anyone's right of publicity.

In U.S. law generally (I'm not a lawyer), an image of a smiling adult wearing a Patagonia brand jacket, regardless of how or where the image was made, can be used in news media without concern for the right of publicity but cannot be used in a Patagonia advertisement without cosent from the adult for the use in advertising. I imagine the law is even stricter respecting children. Sometimes, the right of publicity extends to dead people. Wikipedia has articles about products, businesses, nonprofits, and well-known people and any of those articles might have images of recognizable people other than the article subjects. While an image being used in Wikipedia without the imaged person's consent probably does not violate the right of publicity, presumably any image in Wikipedia (other than those present by fair use) can be copied just like text can be and the copying into other media may be commercial use. Therefore, people should be cautioned that an image may not be usable in some contexts even if the content is truthful. We don't control subsequent use but we do generally authorize it by the license we apply, and we should caution people that they shouldn't misuse by violating someone's legal rights.

I propose approximately the following as a section, to be positioned after the section on the right to privacy:

==Right of publicity==

Commercial use of an image of a person or any likeness of the person may violate that person's right of publicity. Anyone planning to copy or link to an image so that the image appears in advertising or other commercial context should first consider the legal right of publicity. In the U.S., this is generally governed by state and federal law and may apply to any individual, dead or alive, whom at least one other person may recognize from the image or likeness. A likeness may include a photograph, drawing, video, voice recording, or autograph. This is separate from the right of privacy and from copyright. Even a vague association with the rest of an advertisement's content may violate that right of publicity, because the effect may be to mislead people who are exposed to the advertisement, even without lying. Use in Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects is generally permissible as an exception to the right of publicity, but even use in all of Wikipedia and Wikimedia and even usage intended to promote Wikipedia and Wikimedia do not make commercial use permissible if the law otherwise does not. If commercial use requires getting consent, being unable to get the necessary consent (such as if the imaged person's identity is unknown and the uploading editor can't be contacted) may not be an excuse. Anyone planning a commercial use may simply have to find another person whose likeness can consensually be used.

Comments? I've already been in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation and can share what I wrote and paraphrase or summarize what they wrote (I don't have permission to copy it), if anyone's interested. I'll wait a week before editing this policy page. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide links to appropriate independent reliable sources supporting the claims here: news, magazine, journal, book, notable legal writer blog, law, relevant court decisions; even photography magazine articles would help here. These can be wikilinks or <ref></ref>. Declarations made in a vacuum are pretty much automatically suspect.
The suggested text is too long and too convoluted to provide solid guidance for Wikipedia editors planning incorporation of images in articles, or guidance to outsiders seeking to use Wikipedia content.
We already have written guidance against the use of identifiable images of private individuals. How does this help?
It's bad form to hand down back-channeled fait accompli from WMF without there having been any public discussion.
This is a POLICY page. Without direct, public advice here from Wikimedia Foundation Legal, I don't see any justification for anyone to drop in such a large chunk of text without community consensus. --Lexein (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

All we at en.wiki care about is the legality of the image as stored on US servers. Yes, end users in more restricted countries will have to judge if the image can be used on there end (for example, I know there are several PD-US only templates for that reason). That said, I do believe some language about images (media in general) should be in a disclaimer, likely the content one, that while our text is all in CC-BY, some media may not be, and end users are responsible for determining how to reuse those files. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely why it's here; let's try to assume good faith, please. I did not edit the policy first. I came to the talk page and proposed it. It's suggested. It can be reworded. I'll look for a source, although that may not be difficult since I think I cited one already elsewhere and can copy the citation here when I'm back online. But the right of publicity is well established and probably most U.S. lawyers have at least a passing familiarity with it. The right of privacy is separate from the right of publicity, although it appears they're taken as synonyms. Specifically because they get confused, it's important that the less-well-known right of publicity be described so that it is respected. While our priority is with use in Wikipedia and storage on WMF servers, the freedom to copy and reuse including commercially will be confusing to users who are less aware of the right of publicity. The policy I am suggesting would not alter how Wikipedia would be edited; it simply tells people to be careful with subsequent use. If I'm right about what it needs to say, the passage cannot be both shorter and simpler; to make it simpler would lengthen it and to make it shorter would require more grammatical complexity. But rewriting is possible. I discussed the general subject elsewhere and was referred to WMF counsel and, after a reply from there, I posted here; since they did not give permission to copy (emails are presumably under copyright), I can only paraphrase. I offered to do so in the opening post of this topic/section and will prepare accordingly. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC) (Corrected spelling and syntax: 23:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC))

Without evidence, there is quite literally nothing at all to discuss. Please simply provide the requested support for the stated claims: emails are not the matter of first importance. On the topic of faith: the second problem I had with the proposal was the sense of that last statement(paraphrased): Thoughts? Oh, and I already cleared it with WMF. It's a bit thumb-on-scale once, and now you went there twice without evidence. And "a week" - what's the rush? I don't think any of my requests were inappropriate, even a little bit. --Lexein (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. This policy is 100% about using images on the English Wikipedia. It has nothing to dowith people who use images elsewhere. We therefore do not need to, and IMO should not, supply advice for people who want to use images anywhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I mean, I wouldn't have the advice, but I would throw a caution in a disclaimer that any media not under the CC-BY or a true PD license may not be usable in all parts of the world, and it's not WP's place to provide any advice further on that. --MASEM (t)

IMO it belongs in Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Images_and_other_media, not here. This policy is focused on using images here, not elsewhere. (We should probably have a ==See also== to that policy section.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

+1 Now this is making more sense. --Lexein (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We already have this covered over at Commons. See Commons:Template:Personality rights. I would advocate bringing that template over here. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Much better. I notice that it was not without its teething pains, but is pretty widely used: "69925 transclusion(s) found." --Lexein (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I complete agree we need to use it here on images of notable people that are otherwise not on commons. (Tagging will be PITA, but that's a different issue). --MASEM (t) 17:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Erm - instead of "notable people", I'd say "people" to avoid scope issues. --Lexein (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Post-Wikipedia use is already a subject of some attention and apparently there is confusion between privacy and publicity rights, leading to risk of misuse. My concern was first about use in Wikipedia but offsite reuse is a legitimate secondary area, too. Consideration of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Images and other media is an interesting idea and I'll follow up on that.

A lay law book by an attorney living in Oregon (I don't know where he is admitted to the bar but maybe it's in Oregon) has a few pages on the subject, giving a rough national sketch: DuBoff, Leonard D., The Law (in Plain English) For Photographers (N.Y.: Allworth Press, rev. ed. [4th printing? printing of [20]06?] 2002 (ISBN 1-58115-225-6)), pp. 59-63 (Commercial Appropriation of Another's Name or Likeness). Let me know if the history shows that I followed the wrong course anywhere. Professional law books, of course, will have more, but not written for laics; let me know if that's what you want. I didn't submit evidence because it would have been evidence, so to speak, of what the law is and a lawyer would already know this law in its general form. Once requested, supplying that information is not a problem.

Requests were fine. Accusations were problematic. I asked for comments; I'm not clear on why that seems wrong. And if no one had replied in a week, then presumably going to the next step would have been acceptable. A week seems to be normal for many comparable procedures in Wikipedia. What I said is I'd "wait" a week. I did not intend that to be confusing. Going to several places, including two by email, was simply following the course of events and advice. Following is the history of my efforts on this issue. Let me know if it looks like I followed the wrong procedure so far.

History leading to this policy proposal (corrected for omission)

((Outdent}}This is my recent history on this issue: I began a discussion at Commons Help desk (section on likeness law) on August 4th. An editor there advised me to go to where an image would be used, so I started Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 August 15#likeness law. There, I was referred to a list that led to an email address at Wikimedia (that was not the legal office, as far as I know).

I emailed as follows (quoting):

[Subject:] editing WP & likeness law (e.g., endorsing products/companies)

[Message body:] A likeness in a WP article might be illegal because it seems to endorse something commercially. I asked Commons and WP about editorial policy and the question remains essentially open. It's at the WP Help desk, with the subject "likeness law", with my sig, Nick Levinson. Wikipedia referred me to you, but I'd rather address this online within WP and may draft a policy/guideline. Please weigh in, if you'd like.

By error, I omitted the first email exchange, which follows here:

I emailed (quoting body):

It's for a real case in which I had a doubt about an image that led to its removal many months ago. The image included people in a context that could (I think) be interpreted as an endorsement, although back then my question was different. The picture or a similar one appeared at another website and perhaps it will be reproposed for Wikipedia, and before that happens I want to understand Wikipedia's requirement on the likeness issue. As long as I am researching the point, if the existing policies/guidelines are unclear, as an editor I'd like to help clarify them for all editors. Since posting the image to Commons would not be problematic as to likeness but including it in a Wikipedia article may be illegal, the policy/guideline needs to be in Wikipedia. The Commons chart is about pictures taken in public places, but that may not apply, if a place is not open to the general public, and I assume the law respecting children is stricter than for adults. If

consent is needed, I don't know how that is to be recorded, and that, too, should be in a Wikipedia policy or guideline. I'm unclear right now on the difference between personality rights and the right to control one's likeness but, if nothing else is needed, we need to add the word "likeness" somewhere, to facilitate searching. I'll work on this and will consider adding this email exchange into a Wikipedia talk page, so whatever I do will be well informed. Take part, if you'd like and have the time. Either way, thank you for your help so far.

The reply was from Thomas Morton and is paraphrased:

[This is a volunteer operation; the Foundation probably can't help; the legal team might, but it's busy. The link given you (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Consent_and_personality_rights) has something on personality rights, which is relevant. What you're bringing up as to endorsement is unclear, but use of a free-license image so as to suggest a product endorsement "is probably inappropriate", but that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, so the subject would make the decision about what to do. Proper consent is expected at Commons, mitigating problems you raise. Is there a specific instance or is this hypothetical? Disclaimer: I'm a volunteer and this is not officially for the Foundation; official correspondence needs certified mail.] . . . .

I received a reply from Thomas Morton by email, the message body of which I'm rewriting in my own words, for the sake of the emailer's copyright (otherwise quoting):

. . . .

> It's for a real case in which I had a doubt about an image that led to its removal many months ago. The image included people in a context that could (I think) be interpreted as an endorsement, although back then my question was different. The picture or a similar one appeared at another website and perhaps it will be reproposed for Wikipedia, and before that happens I want to understand Wikipedia's requirement on the likeness issue. As long as I am researching the point, if the existing policies/guidelines are unclear, as an editor I'd like to help clarify them for all editors.

[Morton: It's ok if an image looking like an endorsement is consented to.] . . . .

> Since posting the image to Commons would not be problematic as to likeness but including it in a Wikipedia article may be illegal, the policy/guideline needs to be in Wikipedia.

[Morton: Example requested; something is unclear.] . . . .

> The Commons chart is about pictures taken in public places, but that may not apply, if a place is not open to the general public, and I assume the law respecting children is stricter than for adults.

[Morton: Consent guidelines differ between public and private proerty but generally is required either way, per the Commons page.] . . . .

> If consent is needed, I don't know how that is to be recorded, and that, too, should be in a Wikipedia policy or guideline.

[Morton: Consent is the photographer's responsibility. Commons hosts. Commons is "not a rights holder." Legal issues are the uploader's duty. Other hosts, such as Flickr, act similarly.] . . . . .

>I'm unclear right now on the difference between personality rights and the right to control one's likeness but, if nothing else is needed, we need to add the word "likeness" somewhere, to facilitate searching. I'll work on this and will consider adding this email exchange into a Wikipedia talk page, so whatever I do will be well informed. Take part, if you'd like and have the time. Either way, thank you for your help so far.

[Morton: Probably don't get too specific; "[e]specially on Commons"; it's better to outline what people should consider, without rendering legal advice. If finding "an issue", it's best to proceed with a deletion effort. This email exchange is just the writer's "opinion" and not "legal advice", and the writer is unsure what issue I'm raising.] . . . . .

[End.]

I replied to Wikimedia, as follows (quoting):

Dear Thomas Morton --

It's a right of publicity. As such, it's not a Commons problem, but a problem in articles. The place where the photograph is taken being public or private doesn't matter.

Consider this hypothetical case: A smiling adult is wearing Nike shoes in a public place in the U.S. A passerby, not knowing who the adult is and acting without any consent, photographs the smiling adult wearing Nike shoes. In one scenario, the passerby sells the photo to the Daily News, which publishes it as news and also uses it in a subscription promotion. That's allowed by law. In the other scenario, the passerby gives the same photo to the Nike shoe company, which uses it in an advertisement for the shoes. Since the adult is smiling in the ad, presumably that adult endorses the Nike shoes, or at least people reading the ad would reasonably think so. That use of the photo would be illegal, at least in New York and probably in most or all states, because the smiling adult never gave consent to use the photo in advertising. The photographer would not need consent for use as news but would for use in advertising, but might never have gotten the consent and might no longer be able to contact the adult.

In Wikimedia projects, uploading into Commons generally would not need the smiling adult's consent, assuming the caption does not suggest endorsement of a commercial product. But I'm not sure the image could be added to an article on Nike shoes, because then the smiling adult would be understood by enough readers to be endorsing the Nike shoes.

I'm not sure if the liability would be limited to the article editor. I suspect the Wikimedia Foundation would also be liable. If the Foundation would be liable, the fact that the formerly smiling adult (perhaps now frowning at a computer) could delete the image from the article without asking for deletion and thus end the apparent endorsement (deleting from Commons would not be needed to achieve that purpose) would not erase the Foundation's liability for wrongful use prior to discovery or deletion. And the fact that a photographer whom the Foundation probably doesn't know supposedly has a written consent from the smiling adult may not be good enough: it may be that a copy of the consent has to be in your office files.

Wikipedia is an encyclopeda, not an ad medium. But an editor can work for a company an article is about, for example, and while that editor should declare a conflict of interest, they can still edit, and even with a COI declaration they don't have to say what conflict they have (they don't have to reveal their employment, for example) and anyway they might not admit to a relationship with an article's subject. In one of those cases, if they add the photograph of the smiling adult, I think the Foundation might be liable.

If so, and if the person in the picture is not an adult but a child, especially a very young child, I think the Foundation would be even more liable.

The most important State law is probably California's, if that's the Foundation's place of incorporation and location of all facilities (servers, offices, etc.) and I didn't look that up. But here's New York's: "A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeaner." N.Y. Civil Rights Law, section 50. "Any person whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided [perhaps in section 50] may [seek civil remedies] .... [Exceptions] ...." N.Y. Civil Rights Law, section 51. Both are per NY Consolidated Laws Service (LexisNexis) (bound set) (through Cum. Supp., February, 2011 (later supps. not seen). I did not look up the sentence possible for a misdemeanor.

Dead people may or may not have a right of publicity, too. That varies, partly by whether they exercised the right while alive and partly by State.

I recall a Federal statute, too, I think specifically about dead people (a rumor was that it was enacted regarding Marilyn Monroe), but I couldn't find it this time.

A lay law book by an attorney living in Oregon (I don't know where he is admitted to the bar but maybe it's in Oregon) has a few pages on the subject, giving a rough national sketch: DuBoff, Leonard D., The Law (in Plain English) For Photographers (N.Y.: Allworth Press, rev. ed. [4th printing? printing of [20]06?] 2002 (ISBN 1-58115-225-6)), pp. 59-63 (Commercial Appropriation of Another's Name or Likeness).

I recall that a likeness can also be an autograph and several other representations, but I don't have a citation for that.

The Wikipedia articles that might be problematic would be especially those on businesses, products, industries, nonprofits, and people other than the one pictured (for example, a picture of me smiling in a Woody Allen article might be illegal).

In Flickr, it seems people upload pictures into their own spaces and therefore the uploaders can be held liable. I apparently couldn't lawfully download a picture from Flickr, though, without an owner's consent, so I presume Nike can't download a picture of the smiling adult from Flickr without asking permission and put it into one of their ads, because doing so would likely violate the right of publicity. At any rate, what other websites do is not applicable to the Foundation.

I don't want to turn a Wikipedia page into legal advice. But a deletion discussion may be legally too late and Wikipedia does need to decide what should be impermissible under Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it does that already on legal issues, such as on posting images under the doctrine of fair use, not to mention BLP. This issue needs to be added. My approach would be to write a ban and leave it to other editors to create permissions or exceptions.

I anticipate someone reintroducing a picture with young children for a nonprofit institution. I want to know what to do before that happens. I don't want to wait until after a mistake is made, as that might cause irreparable damage. This is not a rush, so we have the time to create the right policy or guideline or to be certain that the law imposes no liability in any jurisdiction of concern to the Foundation.

I heard a moviemaker (I think of documentaries) say that making a film about schoolteaching requires consents from all of the students' families and thus is prohibitively expensive. I've seen news footage of children getting off a schoolbus in which faces were mostly omitted, the camera pointed at the bus and then at children's legs. That's anecdotal and not proof but it suggests caution may be wiser for most Wikipedia articles, i.e., that we be restrictive.

I don't plan to add your emails to a Wikipedia discussion. After I emailed you about that, I realized your emails would likely be under your or the Foundation's copyright and I'd need your permission. But I might post my emails. I'm not an attorney and I acknowlwedge that you are not rendering legal advice or representation. That, too, suggests that restraint in Wikipedia is wiser.

Is this on the right track?

[The sig was here; effectively, it's the end.]

A reply arrived, here rewritten by me as follows (otherwise quoted):

. . . . .

> In Wikimedia projects, uploading into Commons generally would not need the smiling adult's consent, assuming the caption does not suggest endorsement of a commercial product.

[Morton: Commons policy definitely requires consent. Maybe adding an image to a commercial-product article wouldn't imply that the subject endorses the product, but each case has to be considered on its own merits.] . . . .

>

> I'm not sure if the liability would be limited to the article editor. I suspect the Wikimedia Foundation would also be liable.

[Morton: Editors are liable; WMF has safe-harbor protection.] . . . .

> I don't want to turn a Wikipedia page into legal advice. But a deletion discussion may be legally too late and Wikipedia does need to decide what should be impermissible under Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it does that already on legal issues, such as on posting images under the doctrine of fair use, not to mention BLP. This issue needs to be added. My approach would be to write a ban and leave it to other editors to create permissions or exceptions.

>

[Morton: The Foudndations lawyer was consulted in the writing of the guidelines, which "require consent for photographs to be published". The tag for personality rights is generally applied to images of living people taken in puiblic places. The tag "warns re-users of the possible requirement to appropriate consent." If that's not enough for me, I could email a law office at the Foundation, although they're busy or I could suggest an amendment to the Commons policy on its talk page.] . . . . .

> I don't plan to add your emails to a Wikipedia discussion. After I emailed you about that, I realized your emails would likely be under your or the Foundation's copyright and I'd need your permission. But I might post my emails. I'm not an attorney and I acknowlwedge that you are not rendering legal advice or representation. That, too, suggests that restraint in Wikipedia is wiser.

[Morton: Copyright and privacy are not his concerns (regarding his emails); he's a volunteer not employed by the Foundation, his thoughts are just his, and he doesn't have authority in the matter.] . . . . .

. . . . . [End.]

I emailed a, or the, law office at the Foundation, as follows (quoting):

[Subject:] right of publicity and banning likenesses

[Message:]

I'm concerned we're not protecting the right of publicity and the Wikimedia Foundation may be liable.

A photo lawfully created, captioned, and uploaded into Wikimedia Commons, being of an unknown smiling adult using a branded product and lacking the adult's consent as to subsequent use may not generally be used to advertise the product the smiling adult is visibly using.

We have no policy or guideline on use in Wikipedia articles about products, businesses, nonprofits, or people other than the adult in the photo. Use may violate a right of publicity. This may apply to any likeness, e.g., an autograph, a voice, or a charcoal drawing of a face, if recognizable by at least one third party.

This has nothing to do with consent to be photographed. Assume that was done lawfully, all laws being met, but that consent to use in advertising or trade was not obtained and perhaps cannot be.

Months ago, a nonprofit added a picture showing children to the article about the nonprofit. The picture was deleted on another ground. The article is now okay, but the picture may be re-added or proposed, so I want to be able to respond well.

I think the Wikimedia Foundation may be liable for misuse even if the picture is subsequently deleted. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears New York statutory law treats advertising or trade use not consented to as a misdemeanor by the corporation and provides civil remedies as well; and I saw no safe-harbor provision. See N.Y. Civil Rights Law, sections 50 & 51 (NYCLS (LexisNexis) through February, 2011). I understand similar laws apply in all states and in Federal jurisdiction, at least civilly.

Children, I assume, especially very young children, enjoy even stricter enforcement of the right of publicity, with larger damages.

Commercial usability is required by the licensing applied by the Wikimedia Foundation other than for fair use, so I don't know whether use of a photo of a smiling adult using a branded product in an article about that brand of product could sometimes constitute advertising.

Editors agree to terms as a condition of editing, but probably not all editors are competent so to agree and are subject to personal jurisdiction and able to satisfy judgment, and that may leave the Foundation effectually solely liable.

Recording consent is a challenge already familiar to the Foundation for other issues.

I've discussed this at Commons Help desk (topic/section: likeness law), which referred me to English Wikipedia (Help desk (topic/section: likeness law)), which referred me to emailing info-en-o at wikimedia.org, which referred me to you.

I hope to clarify a policy or guideline, if only by adding terminology like "likeness" so a search will be productive. I prefer to draft a policy that bans all such use, including in possibly-lawful uncertain cases, and leave it to others to craft exceptions allowed by law.

Right now, BLP may be the most useful policy, if we assume that an appearance of an endorsement akin to advertising with a likeness is contentious. However, BLP does not apply to dead people, while the right of publicity may.

Are you certain that the Foundation never would be significantly liable and therefore that no restriction need be stated? If not, i.e., if a restriction should be stated, do you have any advice for drafting a policy or guideline on point and do you want to be apprised of progress when online?

And, as I plan to resume discussing this at Wikipedia or Commons, may I post your response/s to a talk page there? I'd like to be transparent for issues subject to consensus. I plan to post my emails on point.

This is applicable to all Wikimedia projects, although I'll likely limit what I do about it to English Wikipedia and Commons.

This is not a request for personal legal advice.

Thank you for your assistance.

I received an email reply, here rewritten in my own words (where quoting passages, any boldfacing was omitted), from Michelle Paulson, Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation:

The respondent disclaimed giving legal advice, representing Foundation views, creating a confidential relationship, or being centered on specific facts.

Right-of-publicity issues can arise with any "pictures containing identifiable people" but the Foundation would not have liability from posting in Wikipedia, Commons, or other WMF projects. The U.S. Communications Decency Act section 230 (in 47 U.S.C.) generally protects the Foundation as a 3rd-party host, and the Foundation is educational and nonprofit, making its use of an image noncommercial. E.g., California's Civil Code section 3344 and New York State's Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51 make a violation only from "commercial use" (quoting the emailer, not necessarily either statute) of someone's likeness or name. Actual claims would have to be evaluated, of course, for any possible exceptions. Judicial precedents also immunize the Foundation.

Re-users if they commercially reuse images might face claims, depending on particulars. Commons images of identifiable people probably should have notations about issues of the right of publicity. Some Commons pictures already have those notices. The emailer doesn't know if there is a "standard policy" about the notices.

The message (that was here rewritten) is "intended solely for the use of the addressees".

I replied to the counsel (quoting):

Dear Colleagues --

Please forward this to Michelle Paulson, Legal Counsel, WMF.

Dear Michelle --

Thank you for your response on the right of publicity. I have no further questions for you. This is what I'm doing.

I've proposed adding to the WP image use policy a caution against post-Wikimedia use of images unless the right is satisfied. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#proposing_to_add_right_of_publicity.

I'm also proposing extending a Commons guideline beyond photos to likenesses, nonphoto images, video, and partial inaccuracies. The proposal is at Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people at the talk page at proposing_extending_beyond_photos_to_likenesses,_nonphoto_images,_video,_and_inaccuracies.

I'm also proposing to make identifiability strict, by making clear that even just one person (other than subject and image creator) being able to identify the subject is enough for identifiability. That's at #propose_clarifying_identifiability.

For Biographies_of_living_persons, I'm #proposing_more_caution_for_children_and_incompetents (I'm surprised this wasn't already in BLP) and #proposing_commercial_endorsement_in_present_tense_as_possibly_contentious_and_ads_as_not_sole_source (to require the past tense and better sourcing in most cases), both on the BLP talk page.

I'm favoring strictness out of caution and prefer to leave it to others to specify exceptions allowed by law. Also, I'm not a lawyer and am trying to apply an abundance of caution.

Feel free to participate in any of these talk threads.

I'm not pursuing adding tags such as Template:Personality_rights to images, since probably most people images would have to be tagged, plus probably most people images posted in the future, and maybe some nonpeople images.

I tried some time back to get a Wikimedia image of a woman deleted because it was captioned as being of a woman in prostitution (in a place where prostitution is reportedly lawful) and several editors were vague about whether consent existed; I think part of my argument, in addition to defamation, was that if she couldn't be open about consenting and no one had filed her written consent at WMF even privately then that's all the more reason to delete, but my effort failed.

I suspect some editors confuse privacy and publicity rights, apparently believing, for example, that if consent is gotten for taking a picture then that consent allows publicity, too. They may think these are two names for the same right. I try to correct that misimpression.

I assume that if you feel secure about safe harbor protection for WMF then perhaps you find the federal law pre-emptive of state law's silence on point, arguably because the Internet transmits mostly in interstate and foreign commerce and perhaps also because the federal safe harbor law is newer than much of the state law, and I'll take your sense of security as sufficient for WMF/WP policy purposes.

Thanks again. No reply is needed; I assume you're busy.

--

Nick

Nick Levinson (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC) (Corrected omission of 1st email exchange in the series, including acknowledging the omission in the Collapse Top tag & in a preface to the exchange: 13:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

Holy crap, mate, nobody asked for a copy-paste blizzard: you implied "a letter". Thanks for the book citation - that's usable. Back later. --Lexein (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Several judicial holdings in New York State summarized in annotated statutes relied upon by attorneys are on point. All of these concern N.Y. Civil Rights Law, sections 50 and 51, which create a right of publicity in the State. I have not compared California's law, which governs Wikimedia's servers, but I'm not expert enough to be sure the laws of the 49 States besides California don't also govern in some factual situations.

"[A] photograph of the nude plaintiffs, mother and child, which showed their bodies full length as viewed from a position behind and to the right of them, and which did not show their faces, nonetheless revealed sufficiently identifiable likenesses to withstand defendant's motions for summary judgment." In State court: Cohen v. Herbal Concepts, Inc., 63 N.Y.2d 379, 482 N.Y.S.2d 457, 472 N.E.2d 307 (N.Y.Ct.App. (State's highest court) 1984), as annotated in New York Consolidated Laws Service: Annotated Statutes with Forms (hereinafter CLS) (LexisNexis, 2001 (ISBN 0-327-10666-2)), Civ. Rts. L., sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 20, 2d paragraph.
"[E]ven though reproduction of ... picture was of poor quality and ... faces were small", the people in the picture could assert claims, because the picture was of a World Series baseball team and thus the people were identifiable. In State court: Shamsky v. Garan, Inc., 167 Misc.2d 149, 632 N.Y.S.2d 930 (Sup. 1995), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 50, main vol., [anno. group] 12, 2d paragraph, & sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 13, 5th paragraph.
"[T]he question is whether the figure is recognizable, not the number of people who actually recognized it." The "picture" must be "a clear representation of the plaintiff, recognizable from the advertisement itself." The "fact that she no longer looked like she did in the picture" did not matter. She had been in a 1922 silent movie and the case was decided in 1971. The advertised product's first 4 letters matched her name. In Federal district court, ruling on State law: Negri v. Schering Corp., 333 F.Supp. 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1971), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 50, main vol., [anno. group] 12, 3d paragraph, & sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 13, last paragraph.
The "portrait or picture" must "at least approach ... likeness" and must be "a clear representation of a person whether by photograph, statue, imitation or word painting", thus "more than mere picture of scene suggested by a play". In Federal district court, ruling on State law: Levey v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 57 F.Supp. 40, 62 U.S.P.Q. 376 (D.C.N.Y. 1944), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 7, 5th paragraph.
Even though "the portrait ... is not an exact reproduction, slight changes having been made in the pose ... so as to adapt it to the purpose of the advertisement", the portrayed person still has a cause of action. In State court: Loftus v. Greenwich Lithographing Co., 192 App.Div. 251, 182 N.Y.S. 428 (App. Div. 1920), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 50, main vol., [anno. group] 13, 1st paragraph. But, the "[f]act that magazine had touched up photograph because, in the original, the subject's hair blended into the background did not give rise to cause of action for ... invasion of privacy where the magazine merely made an arbitrary delineation of the subject's coiffure which provided an inoffensive and natural appearing result." In State court: Bass v. Straight Arrow Publishers, Inc., 59 App.Div.2d 684, 398 N.Y.S.2d 669 (1st Dept. 1977), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 50, main vol., [anno. group] 13, 2d paragraph.
When a "look-alike's face" that "seems indistinguishable" from a real celebrity's face and advertisement's "context ... clearly implies that he or she is real celebrity", the "question ... is whether audience at whom advertisement was aimed" would have been fooled or not. In Federal district court, ruling on State law: Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612, 226 U.S.P.Q. 483 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 20, penultimate paragraph.
The "portrait or picture" need not be a photo as long as it is "recognizable as likeness". In Federal district court, ruling on State law: Ali v. Playgirl, Inc., 447 F.Supp. 723, 3 Media L.R. 2540, 206 U.S.P.Q. 1021 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (criticized in WR Acorn Eng'g Ass'n v. Ehrlich-Rominger Architecture 2000 U.S.Dist. Lexis 723 (D.C. Ore. 2000)), both as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 7, 6th paragraph.
"Publication of a fictitious biography of a public figure constitutes an unauthorized exploitation of his personality for purposes of trade". Starting and ending in State court and in Federal court in between: Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., ~~59 App.Div.2d 684,~~ 18 N.Y.2d 324, 274 N.Y.S.2d 877, 221 N.E.2d 543 (N.Y.Ct.App. 1966), vacated, 387 U.S. 239, 18 L.Ed.2d 744, 87 S.Ct. 1706 (U.S.Sup.Ct. 1967), on remand, 20 N.Y.2d 752, 283 N.Y.S.2d 119, 229 N.E.2d 712 (N.Y.Ct.App. 1967), on rehearing, 21 N.Y.2d 124, 286 N.Y.S.2d 832, 233 N.E.2d 840, 30 A.L.R.3d 196 (1967), appeal dismissed, 393 U.S. 1046, 21 L.Ed.2d 600, 89 S.Ct. 676 (U.S.Sup.Ct. 1969), "and remittitur amd", 20 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y.Ct.App. 1967), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 16, 1st paragraph.
A magazine "article relating to clothing styles" and having a photo of an actor was not protected by the First Amendment against the actor if the article really served the purpose of an advertisement because of "covert agreement between magazine publisher and clothing manufacturer." In Federal district court, ruling on State law: Grant v. Esquire, Inc., 367 F.Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 20, 13th paragraph.
A "manikin" is a "portrait or picture". In State court: Young v. Greneker Studios, Inc., 175 Misc. 1027, 26 N.Y.S.2d 357 (1941), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 50, main vol., [anno. group] 9, 4th paragraph, & sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 7, 3d paragraph.
If an author's "research article" was published without consent and if that publishing promoted someone else's product sales, that violated the author's right of publicity. In State court: Ravich v. Kling, 17 Misc.2d 683, 187 N.Y.S.2d 272 (1959), as annotated in CLS, Civ. Rts. L., sec. 51, main vol., [anno. group] 21, only paragraph.

I went a little beyond what you requested, but all of these have interesting implications for Wikipedia, if New York law applies or insofar as California law is essentially similar.

That First Amendment protection can be inapplicable to a magazine article because it was secretly an advertisement is a principle that could be applied to Wikipedia. I understand that a study found that many articles about companies are edited from IP addresses that belong to the respective companies, meaning that thousands of editors are almost certainly not being identified as having conflicts of interest and are probably editing articles consistently with promotional or advertising principles. Imagine that company X adds to the company X article a picture of a smiling person using the company's product. That's likely a violation, albeit more by the company than by Wikimedia. Wikimedia then would be dependent on editors' diligence in keeping conflicted editors from editing and on not accepting a payment from company X, something it might be remiss on regarding IP-based editors if it has no procedure for identifying IP-related conflicts of interest.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC) (Clarified for applicability of Calif. law: 15:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)) (Corrected by striking out legal citation that belonged to a dfferent case (my error) & without affecting discussion of case, for which correct citations still remain: 23:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

I'm with Masem, here. We as enwiki editors really can't argue merits of legal decisions. The on-wiki article Personality rights seems to me to adequately cover both uploading and downloading, and it's horribly thorny because it's a states-rights thing, not federal. I still feel, for this legal matter (other editors may disagree) we'll need

a clear (no legalese), concise (IMHO 50 words or less), first-person position statement from WMF legal, which can of course link to a longer position short essay/analysis, and
a concise, helpful proposed text for this policy as well as any warning intended to be added to the upload process or images, for the purpose of those who wish to upload Wikipedia-held (not Commons-held, it's already dealt with there), given that this will be added either to the upload process, and/or to every image containing a likeness of a person.

Whatever is written should be brief while meeting the challenging goals of being helpful to image uploaders while fulfilling any WMF-legal considered legal obligation. I feel that WP:NODISCLAIMERS merits attention. To me, minimalism rules in this policy, during upload, and on Image pages: If this is an image of an identifiable person or people whose image or likeness has not been previously published, their Right of publicity should be considered before uploading it. I make this point because right of publicity applies to name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity, not just images.

You're encountering resistance to adding more policies precisely because there are too many already. I've been here six years and don't know them all. So brevity would be welcomed in all aspects of this discussion, and potential implementation. --Lexein (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I created an essay at Commons: Personality rights, which is a start.

Responding to the above:

First use or not is irrelevant. The right of publicity is affected if a use is nonconsensual even if there were hundreds of prior consensual uses or prior uses didn't need consents.
Federal law, I think, also applies. I read the Federal statute a few years ago or so, although I didn't find it this time, so I can't cite its specific location in the published laws. I understand it was enacted because of Marilyn Monroe's likenesses. But most of the relevant laws in the U.S. are State laws.
Tagging every affected image is probably not worthwhile, because there are an awful lot of images that include likenesses. Some of the problem is already addressed by existing policies and guidelines; all that's needed for them is for editors to be attentive. Where policies and guidelines have gaps, those should be filled.
Disclaimers (at least those that are undesirable) should not be necessary as long as editors edit carefully, e.g., by not saying more than sources support.
Uploading is not affected by the right of publicity, except for the information supplied with the upload, such as information intended for captions. Use in Wikipedia and outside are affected.
We can evaluate law and often do, such as when we debate distinctions in copyright law. In this case, I used secondary sourcing, exactly as we would in writing a Wikipedia article. WMF's legal staff may weigh in, but doesn't have to, and I don't suggest passively waiting until they do.
I'd like brevity and concision is better, but sometimes issues need to be explained or they'll be misunderstood, as when publicity and privacy rights got conflated in some people's impressions. We may just have to take time to understand what we're dealing with.
Consent being certified or stored is a problem of logistics (if we store consents) or credibility (if we trust editors whom we don't know to have them), for which my proposed solution is that we simply don't do anything requiring consent, and therefore that we forbid that which would violate the right of publicity if without consent.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC) (Fixed a link for clarity: 16:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

File or Image?

Which is more proper to use when linking an image? I see use of both File: and Image, but they both arrive at File. I can't find anything on this on the main page.--Auric (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We used to use "image:" but now prefer the "file:" space for images or any other media. "Image:" still works but will likely be slowly depreciated out. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Essentially we didn't want a lot of unnecessary arguments about switching over. It is preferable to use "File:" but not necessary to go around changing "Image:" to "File:" nor to argue those people (not many, I think) who still use "Image:". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw a thread a year or two back on this matter - the gist was that when you are adding a new picture to an article, or replacing an old with a new, you should use the File: form, but there is no real reason not to use Image: if you really want to. Although all the image description pages have shown File: for some years now, it is extremely likely that Image: will never become obsolete, and will remain available as an alias, just as Project: and WP: are permitted aliases for Wikipedia:. More at Project:Namespaces#Aliases. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Differentiating between use on Wikipedia and Google

Recently, Google began highlighting Wikipedia articles when one did a search for people. You'd search the name and then an image of the person alongside a condensed version of their WP article shows up. These highlights include images - even if the WP article has none (presumably as no image satisfying the image policy could be located). Presumably, then, the images shown are not necessarily covered by this policy. Should a statement be included that usage of an image in a Google search result related to WP does not necessarily mean the image is cleared for use in the article? To explain what I mean, take the article Jenna Russell. It has no image. Now do a Google search for Russell as seen here. This brings up, as mentioned, a brief Wikipedia blurb and an image. Someone might see that image and transfer it to the article thinking it's OK to do so. Clicking the Russell image on the Google search takes you to a non-Wikipedia site. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Our policies are pretty clear you can't just pull a random web site image (even Google) and use it without question. I don't see this being a problem to address. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

the fact that google is front ending wikipedia with fair use images should give one pause: not that more BLP fair use images will be uploaded, but that a BLP fair use fork will occur; the internet routing around the policy restrictions, which it sees as censorship. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 02:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Users swapping jpg for png

I've notified Evan-Amos about this. I've noticed png photographs of video game consoles were used in articles despite their existing jpg counterparts. example: File:Nintendo-3DS-AquaOpen.jpg to File:Nintendo-3DS-AquaOpen.png. Users are opting for png versions probably because the transparent backgrounds match the infoboxes. Should the png versions be deleted, should Evan-Amos only upload such photos in jpg going forward, or is this fine as long as Evan provides a jpg counterpart? « Ryūkotsusei » 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as the images are free, there's no reason to delete either version. If anything, if it is the case that the png version is being derived from the jpg to add the background alpha-channel, then that should be tagged on their commons image page to show the derivation, but otherwise, the choice is fine. As to which version should be used at en.wiki, that's up to the various talk pages there. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The particulars for this case are that I started creating png images of video game consoles after others would make them from the jpg versions that I had uploaded, so I started to do it myself, and now almost all of the png versions are uploaded by me. The png versions almost solely exist for images that would be placed in an infobox and have a jpg counterpart. You can look at a gallery like this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Evan-Amos/VGGallery2 to get an idea of it. Evan-Amos (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User-made paintings of a subject in infobox?

I came across the Lightnin' Hopkins article and was wondering about the legitimacy of a Wiki editor uploading a painting of their own to use as a lead image. I see no policy that directly relates to this (maybe I overlooked it), but something about it feels kind of... wrong. It seems both like an unreliable way of showing the subject and self-promotion on the editor/painter's behalf. Any thoughts? Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We've had this sort of problem before. Seems a bit promo to me. It's also not previously published in an independent reliable source, nor is it a free or historical photographic rendering of an object or person, which would look basically the same no matter who took it. So although it's an original image, it doesn't meet acceptability criteria at WP:OI, because it's not a photograph. Here's the discussion from 2011 of a related problem. --Lexein (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow them, at least as a "free" replacement where a photograph can be likely be made. Half the problem is that these are usually based on deriving the painting pose from existing non-free media, making the user work non-free. Most of the other cases, the image is really just not that good. (See pasted discussion on Susan Boyle and Kim Jong-il ) --MASEM (t) 13:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This being a case in point. It's now nominated for deletion on Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OI does not require photographs. It doesn't even mention photographs, except to prohibit misleading photoshopping. If we required photos only, then we'd have all sorts of problems in Category:Chemical substances. You can't get a structural formula by photographing the chemical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Google's free to use licence filter

What templates would you use to categorize an image that was selected from Google's free image filter? Serendi ^pod ous 17:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Only images that would be identified as "free to use, share and modify, even commercially" would be appropriate as free images for WP's sake. All others, even the other free types, are too restrictive and would need to be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Public domain status of non-US currency

I know images of US currency are public domain because they're created by the federal government, but what about other countries' currency? Specifically, I'd like to add an image to Sanité Bélair, and as she has been depicted on Haitian currency it seemed like that image might be good, but I don't actually know if it's PD. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Commons has two images at Category:Banknotes of Haiti, and Commons only takes free image, so I'd assume that images of Haiti currency would be free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those are PD licensed, though? One is CC and the other indicates that its copyright holder lets anyone use it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Old photo

Hi ... just want to make sure I understand this correctly. This family photo is quite old -- the children in it were born in the 1890s. Is it therefore in the public domain, and can I therefore use it? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a few fringe cases that would be difficult to prove that may put it under copyright (if , for example, its first publication to the public was on that website), but knowing the age of the photo, it would be reasonable that we can consider as PD. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I know the ages of the people in it because of the refs in Ralph Horween and Arnold Horween. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of a replaced image

I just received a message claiming that File:Teddy Pendergrass; Heaven Only Knows (Album cover).jpg was orphaned and is prepared for deletion. The image is the album cover for the 1983 Teddy Pendergrass album Heaven Only Knows, which has been replaced, so I'm not contesting the proposed deletion. However, the issue of replaceability is covered on my version, whereas File:Heaven Only Know Teddy Pendergrass album.jpg says it's not available, although it does have a link Wikipedia:NFCC#1. Would it be wrong if I added the statement of non-replaceability from mine to the new version? -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

why the editor didn't upload a "new version" rather than duplicate the wall of text (not as well)? it is a depressing trend. how much of this "fair use" churning is replacing images deleting images without discussion? Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 13:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Flickr

What is the licensing situation of photos posted on Flickr? In particular, I am concerned about the licensing of this picture (not safe for work). Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's hosted on Commons, so it's not within Wikipedia's remit; you should ask your question st commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding the required unlimited-use license(s)

I know that if I take 50 or 100 hours I could probably research / figure this one out for myself, but I was hoping that someone might know. For example, let's say that the image is of a famous person, and is owned by that person. The required licenses that they are required to grant seem like a unlimited use license. For example, a license for the American Nazi Party to use that image as the cover of the American Nazi Party's magazine? Or not? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, yes: You are required to offer a license to anyone and for any purpose, including offensive purposes. There are separate laws about personality rights. So if it's a picture of a person, then the license grants free use in terms of copyright, but the person/model could sue for defamation if it was used offensively. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Images in Wikipedia certainly are tough. North8000 (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright regarding registered charity logos?

Hey. I would like to SVG-ize a logo from a registered charity in the United Kingdom (Birkdale School to be precise). What are the laws pertaining to this? I was under the impression we can do this; can we? --Boweruk (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice please

In the Fulstow article there is a picture[6] of a village hall with two children openly featured. I can understand it might be reasonable to add pics with crowds at distance, such as with markets and football where people can't be readily and individually identified, but here identification of individuals could be made, and appears specifically to be meant to be made. Pics of subjects of a BLP can be added, as can people images from times past, but this appears to me to be the equivalent, in picture, of either outing living people, or promoting non-notable people, in text. The children seem to be as much of the focus as the hall itself. Can children be reasonably expected to give consent for the uploading of their image ? Privacy rights doesn't seem to cover my specific concern over this picture, which may present a policy area that needs adjusting. Acabashi (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion that I think ended with no change in policy that as long as children are in a place where no privacy expectation can be made (eg, at public places like this) there's no issue about the BLP of the children or the like, so there's really nothing wrong with the picture that requires us to remove it. Replacing it with one w/o children would be preferrable however, but we aren't required to remove it until we have that. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Unpublished Photographs

What is the opinion of editors here on the arguments put forward for the deletion of the image here: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_20#File:Liverpool_District_Hospital_1918.tif

-- Nbound (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

JPEG vs PNG

Why does this policy prefer JPEG over PNG for anything? Well, PNG is preferred for software screenshots. But JPEG, more inferior, is to be used. Is there something wrong with using PNG? --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

JPEG for non-software screenshots (that is, things like television, video games, etc.) is lossy format compared to the lossless PNG, and thus is a better option in the sense that we further are reducing the duplication of copyrighted material as well as reducing the file sizes for these complex images. Software screenshots tend to be a lot more simpler and the file size comparison between a JPEG or PNG version will not be as great. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PNG uses lossless compression and was conceived as a replacement for GIF images but lacks photography-related features like storing EXIF metadata. JPEG on the other hand with its lossy compression is better suited for photographs. Portable Network Graphics#Comparison to JPEG and JPEG#Typical usage contain more info on this. I'm sure others can explain it better though. Regards So Why 18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikimedia software also does pretty poor thumbnails of PNG images sometimes, seeming to "blur" a little.

In general, jpeg is good enough, works well for photos, and file sizes are low, which is good and important for download times on web pages - but as Masem says, it is lossy. This, again, can be an advantage for non-free images if you want to consider that it reduces quality and reproduction of copyrighted work.

Jpeg doesn't do transparency though, so if you want an irregular cut out image with a transparent background, you are limited to GIF or PNG - and GIFs can't do enough colours for photographs - so you're left with PNG for transparent cut out photos. Because wikipedia infoboxes use a (249/249/249 RGB) grey background quite often, and for other reasons of placement, it's often preferable to have transparent cutouts - so you'll see very very many PNGs of photos of things like Oval portraits, or railway number plates, basically anything that isn't square, where a white background would be undesirable and jarring. Sure, one can include a grey background to match, but then the image looks wrong if used elsewhere, or with a different or customised theme/skin.

You can't have a hard and fast rule for this - each image needs to be considered on its own - but the general suggestions on the page are ok, provided they are not taken as absolute. Established practice does pretty well at dealing with this, and I added the word "generally" to the page to reflect that, and in case it might be taken too literally to the detriment of said practice, and good judgement. Begoon ^talk 18:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What about proposing exceptions? "Generally" won't make any difference, and adding or deleting it has no effect. As for quality thing, we can't compete or replace copyright claimant's commercial intentions without permission to use the item. Well, copyright laws are created to prevent unauthorized competition. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Generally" was the best quick thought I had to try to assuage over-literal concerns over pedantic interpretations of the letter of a general statement on a policy page. However, I see the stick is not that easily dropped. Good luck with it. (I have no idea what you think the copyright mumbo-jumbo in your comment means, sorry)Begoon ^talk 20:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

And see, here's another badly written part of that section:

Avoid images that mix photographic and iconic content. Though CSS makes it easy to use a PNG overlay on top of a JPEG image, the Wikipedia software does not allow such a technique. Thus, both parts must be in the same file, and either the quality of one part will suffer, or the file size will be unnecessarily large.

So we avoid them? Meaning we shouldn't have images like File:Sistine Chapel ceiling diagram overlay composite.png? Because the wikimedia software is limited and we can't do it properly? Well... ok, then - but I think having an image like that is of encyclopedic value, and so do the users I created it for. It's annoying that it has to be a png so that the software will display it properly - having spent a long time carefully creating it, I'd love to display it properly overlaid - but advising people to "avoid" that type of image seems wrong to me, and to the detriment of the 'pedia. But then I would say that as a graphist and the author, wouldn't I?

. Begoon ^talk 19:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The policy is meant for English Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons. Hope it helps: File:Sistine Chapel ceiling diagram overlay composite.png --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't help, George, and I think, with our history, I'm entitled to tell you that comes across as an unnecessary, smart-arsed response, especially with the pointy link. That file would be equally welcome (or unwelcome) here, and is a perfectly fine example of what I was describing in any case. The fact that it happens to be at Commons is supremely irrelevant, and, I have to say this, is an example of the kind of over literalism that makes discussions like this so frustrating. Prediction: you will now say "but we are discussing English WP policy". It doesn't matter. It's an example of a type of file to illustrate a point about the content of the policy page. It could be anywhere. I'm done here. Begoon ^talk 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Question on image copyright

Hi, there's a very good image over here (this one) which I'd like to add to an article (or propose for it to be added at least) I'm not sure how to handle the copyright, can I upload it if I cite the source? What if I reproduce the image using the data displayed there but plotting it myself, can I upload it then? Thanks. Gaba ^(talk) 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That web page has a Use & Copyright link near lower right. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I missed that, thanks Redrose64. The section reads:

Use of Photographs and Photograph Credits

You may download photos on this site free of charge. However, the photos come from a variety of sources, and may have different copyright restrictions and credits. Please read the information accompanying each photo before publishing it. Please provide proper credits for any photo you use

(...)

If the image does not have specific citation information on our Web site, we recommend the following citation: "Image/photo courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder."

Since the image in question says Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center I guess it's alright to upload it to Wikimedia providing the proper citation. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 17:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the above, you need to clarify:

(i) Adaptation/Modification rights -- to be allowed here, our users must be able not only to download, reuse and republish the image; but also to 'remix' it: to adapt it or modify it, and/or incorporate that adapted or modified image in some other work, and freely republish that adapted/modified work. The rubric on the website does not explicitly clarify whether or not this is allowed, so this needs to be clarified. [Indeed, the text doesn't really even properly clarify whether republication is allowed at all, or just downloading].

(ii) Secondly, given the absence of any cited photographer or copyright holder, it would be nice to know on what grounds the University of Colorado has standing to make this declaration. Are they suggesting that they are in fact the copyright holder? Are they relying on some implicit or explicit licence? Or they implying the image has previously been determined to be PD or free (or falls into one of the two previous classes) but they haven't been very good at keeping the paperwork? Really, we ought to know this. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Jheald. Given that the Use & Copyright policy of that site does not clarify these issues you raise, how do you propose we (I) settle this? Perhaps a mail asking for more details? Gaba ^(talk) 21:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but I think an email to them just to check on this probably is necessary, yes. WP has huge visibility, and we are very explicit in telling our readers that they are free in perpetuity to use/modify/republish any image they find here marked as free, pretty much without restriction. We have to confirm that that is correct. Jheald (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure. I have to confess I hadn't actually checked through to look at the image you were talking about when I wrote the above; I had in mind a photographic image taken in the field that you were writing about. For an image like that, the concerns above would have been appropriate, and we do have to be very hard nosed when it comes to vague rather unspecific permission statements. But in this case, where we're talking about this chart, rather than a photograph, (i) the chart almost certainly was made in house, so the caution I had about copyright ownership is almost certainly a non-issue; and (ii) there's actually very little about the chart that displays any of the originality/creativity needed to attract copyright under U.S. copyright law -- they've taken some data, and then plotted it in a wholly conventional unoriginal format in a purely mechanical way. If there's any copyright in this at all, it's very very slight.

Nevertheless, if we're going to slap an explicit CC-BY license on it, it's maybe not a bad idea to drop them a courtesy email, saying that this is what you propose to do, and that you just wanted to check this was okay with them because the CC-BY license is a little more explicit than the general statement on their website. I'm sure it should be absolutely no problem, but being able then to put a WP:OTRS ticket on an image never hurts; and for a topic like this it is nice to be able to use the original image, exactly as it was originally presented. Jheald (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain myself, but would we still need permission (in mail form) if I took the data and plotted it myself? Just checking, I'm very new to this whole copyright thing. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 11:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The key case in the United States is Feist. To quote our article:

The ruling has major implications for any project that serves as a collection of knowledge. Information (that is, facts, discoveries, etc.), from any source, is fair game, but cannot contain any of the "expressive" content added by the source author. That includes not only the author's own comments, but also his choice of which facts to cover, his choice of which links to make among the bits of information, his order of presentation (unless it is something obvious like an alphabetical list), any evaluations he may have made about the quality of various pieces of information, or anything else that might be considered "original creative work" of the author rather than mere facts.

The key question therefore was whether there was any creativity in the selection or creation of the data. In this case the data would appear to be physical facts about the natural world, and therefore fair game to replot, without a copyright angle.

However, in such a sensitive area, it is quite nice (if one can gain permission) to show the analysis as presented by what WP would call a reliable external source, as that removes any possible thought that this might be your own analysis. Jheald (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you very much for your time and patience Jheald! I'll see how the discussion goes over at the article and then, if the image is requested, I'll try to get a written (mailed) permission to use it. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 22:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No need for hard-copy mail -- email is fine, and then just forward a copy to WP:OTRS Jheald (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifying thumbnail sizes

This is what can happen when you remove image sizes.

The wording on this was recently changed from discouraging users to add thumbnail sizes to being agnostic on the issue. My opinion is that these instructions need to be more nuanced. In 90% of cases we should still be discouraging editors from setting thumbnail sizes. Off the top of my head there are 3 reasons:

It overrides logged in users' preferred defaults (which may be radically different)
Many editors set all of their thumbnails to a particular size because they think the default is too small. Every few years, however, the default is increased, and then all of these images are actually smaller than the default.
The specified sizes may not work well on mobile devices. For example, especially large thumbnails cause awkward single word columns around the images (or even overflow the viewport).

However, there are definitely cases where thumbnail size should be specified, especially for maps and diagrams that include text. In these cases we should be encouraging editors to set thumbnail size. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I remember a discussion maybe 4-5 years ago when we had the default thumbnail size increased that one should not specify thumbnail size (along with judicious use of the upright= flag) unless one is looking at highly horizontal images or if there's certain details that are lost at the default size. Basically, we want to avoid having editors try to make pixel-perfect layouts and let the page flow as normal. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The MoS is agnostic about this (or it was when I last checked). Editors do add sizes for various reasons; mostly because if you don't, the sizes often look out of proportion on the screen (one small, the next large; see image on the right for an example), and sometimes because you need to make images larger to see detail. Taking a position against this in the policy encourages editors who go around doing little but remove image sizes without checking the effect of this with different browsers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it's important to note the upright= parameter, where you can adjust the relative size of an image without specifying pixel count. (this is at 0.5) --MASEM (t) 22:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to the version of 21:54, 19 September 2013, which stated

In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences.

This discourages the use of explicit sizes in articles but encourages editors to use Preferences if they feel that the standard size is not appropriate to their personal needs. Compare the version prior to my revert, which stated

Editors may specify thumbnail sizes when they add images to pages. Logged-in editors can also select their preferred thumbnail size in preferences.

This implies that setting an explicit size in articles is permitted. It also implies that a user preference can override that explicitly-set size, which is not the case. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Most people coming to wikipedia from an internet search don't have accounts and don't even know about preferences. Many registered editors don't bother with them either as there is no 'one-size-suits-all' setting. There is no one default size that is going to work "in general". In practice, image sizes are adjusted all the time for a number of reasons. Existing policy allows some one to come along and say, 'opps, forced image!' even when the image is a practical size for its location on the page. A few days ago, before it was reverted, I added this note to the Rules of thumb policy #8 (in bold):

In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences. (Note: The average user coming to a page from an internet search doesn't have a user account and doesn't know about preferences, so sometimes a practical setting is called for by experienced editors when images are too small or too large with the default setting.)

This is just plain common sense and Wikipedia policy should reflect real life practices in its policy. Wikipdeia should also have more faith in its editors and give them the benefit of the doubt that they are intelligent enough to make such simple determinations. Imo, the policy should not read "In general there is no need..." This is simply not true. -- Gwillhickers 22:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would think it better we rewrite to say that fixed image size should be avoided, and the upright= parameter used to change relative image size for pictures that have tall or wide aspect ratios or for other purposes. The upright= parameter works with the user's default thumbnail size (225px IIRC for non-logged in users), so that's the optimal solution. There are times one may need to fix sizes (for example, using the multiple image templates to make sure each image is at the right size), but for most images that use "thumb" parameters, there's no need to use absolute pixel sizing. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Not from my experience, and it's extensive. Again, most editors are intelligent enough to make such simple adjustments themselves, and once again, nearly all unregistered users who come to WP from an internet search don't even know about preferences. Many images will still have 'upright' that can work, but there are many times when that simply doesn't work. They say it's okay to adjust the size (or "force" if you prefer, suggesting a wrongful edit) for maps and charts, and on that note WP (and those who tend to follow rules to the absolute letter) should allow editors to make adjustments as necessary, which they already do in practice. We need for WP, and various individuals, to recognize real life practices and have it's policy reflect this, not ignore it. Trying to fashion one default rule that pleases everyone is academic fantasy. Let editors decide. -- Gwillhickers 03:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Redrose wrote above that the change "implies that setting an explicit size in articles is permitted." And it is permitted. Like any other style issue, it should really be left to the editors on the page. The MoS allows sizes to be fixed ("The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed"), and editors regularly do fix them. Most readers don't have accounts or preferences that they can change, and they're the ones we're writing for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Which, again, why we should avoid fixed sizes, because the other factor is the device an non-logged in editor is using. A mobile app will struggle with images that are pixed-sized too large for the device's screen (depending on the app). On the other hand, a smart app can internally set a default size and use upright= to scale the other images appropriately. And we can change the MOS, that's not a fixed element. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The MoS has allowed it for years, so you would need strong consensus to change it. The point is that there are editors who go around removing sizes, not so much nowadays, but it used to be a real nuisance – and they would often leave the pages in a mess, with tiny images next to large ones – just as there were editors who would go around changing BCE to BC, or whatever their style thing was. It causes trouble, so the MoS allows fixed or non-fixed, and leaves it up to the editors on the page to decide. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Insert : (edit conflict) Any mess that may occur can be fixed. Often times default settings causes a mess. We should let editors make the call. Most pages that have higher and high traffic are watched. Let's not use the exception to fashion a rule like mindless and arrogant bureaucrats do. -- Gwillhickers 03:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Flat our removing sizes, yes, that's like CITEVAR/DATEVAR in my head. But if someone wants to replace fixed sizes with appropriate upright values, where it clear when there's no need to apply pixel sizes, would seem a fair improvement. (Mind you, I realized that one play we still used fixed sizes is in infoboxes, where 250 or 252px is used near universally) --MASEM (t) 03:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Animated images

Is there any policy on whether the arbitrary use of animated images is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

For me they are bad because:

They do my head in. I find it really hard to read static material next to an enticing waggly thing, I quickly get a splitting headache. Blocking the image loses me even a static rendering of something which may be referred to in the text, and I get fed up with having to do that all the time.
They often do my printer's head in. Animation is not compatible with paper.
They eat unnecessary bandwidth and memory.

In short, it would help me a great deal if they were treated as media files like say a PDF file, to be linked to but not displayed in the article.

But - this image use policy is silent on the issue. Is there a reason for that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

See MOS:ACCESS#Animations, videos and audio. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Would it be sensible to work the following extract into the present article:

To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either:

not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element),^[1] or

be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play).^[2]

In short, most animated GIFs should be converted to video (to learn how, see the tutorial converting animated GIFs to Theora OGG).

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeated image deletions at list

On this talk page, there is discussion regarding repeated (three times, today) deletions of an image of a person who is on the list in question. Input by others would be welcome, as the deletions continue despite the talk page input.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've concurred there, and spelled out guideline support. --Lexein (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

When are user-contributed images considered original research?

I came across the article for Eosinopteryx today and noticed the out-of-place-seeming Crayon or colored pencil sketch of the dinosaur. Looking into it brought me to this thread over at WikiProject Dinosaurs. A user created the drawing and developed it through discussion within the WikiProject. To me, while I appreciate the effort that goes into supplying Wikipedia with much-needed images, it seems like for Wikipedians to interpret scientific papers about a dinosaur in order to produce an original image of that dinosaur would fall squarely under the umbrella of WP:NOR -- but that doesn't seem to apply to images? Hoping someone more experienced with this policy than I am can clarify. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Image gallery discussion at MEDMOS

Please see discussion at TALK:MEDMOS on image galleries in Anatomy articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tag for insufficiently sourced images

I've just started running For The Common Good to migrate images over to commons, and I've found a number of instances where an image file (often a map) is marked with {{own}}, but it was almost certainly derived from another image. What should I be tagging these guys with? I have no reason to suspect that they were tagged in bad faith, merely that people don't understand that taking a map and recoloring all of the divisions based on election results needs to have a link back to the original map. Is there an tag for images that need more comprehensive sourcing information? Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Visual unbalance

Nowadays thumb does not give same size in images, but many times quite different sizes. And a lot of people go and add upright to certain images but not all, and all this results in a pretty unbalanced image use in most long articles. Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Are montages OK in city infoboxes?

Wikipedia:MONTAGE#Collages_and_montages says "If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred".

Despite this, I can see some montages used in the infobox of some city articles like Boston.

Is it acceptable? Is it a recommended practice? Should the montages be replaced with a single picture?

Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem assembling a free image montage that would fit into an infobox that highlights a city "at a glance" in associating the visuals and noted landmarks of the city with the data of the infobox. Anywhere else in the article - yes, it should be a gallery. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The language Nicolas quoted in WP:MONTAGE has more to do with maintenance than anything else. With a gallery, individual images can be updated and/or replaced, which can be far more difficult with a montage. Thus the practical preference for galleries in some cases. That's all - I wouldn't read anything more into that. So montages are okay for infoboxes, as long as they consist of free images, and as long as there is consensus to use a montage in the infobox (versus a single image) -- it is a contentious issue on the talk pages of some city articles.

And it goes without saying that even where a gallery is preferable to a montage, WP:IG still applies.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Need a definitive rule on expired copyright

I came to this page for a rule about when an old image can be considered to have expired copyright. This is important in articles about historical subjects which can become very dry and difficult without images to lighten them a little, and of course the only images are old ones.

Nothing in this page explains the rules. Yes, I can see the bit about copyright expiring in the US if something was published before 1923. As I understood it "because the servers of Wikipedia are in the US, then US copyright expiry arrangements apply to Wikipedia and Wikimedia materials". Is that right? Or do the rules of Azerbaijan, or North Korea or the Central African Republic also apply because someone in those countries might read the article and their own law would apply? If so, then this explanation needs to say so please, and also tell us what those countries' rules are, or at least what the most restrictive is. After all, on that logic if one country has a thousand year expiry rule, then Wikimedia will have to conform to a thousand years. If that is the case, could the article please say so?

Or do the copyright rules of the country in which something was first published outrank any other rules? See for example this from The Pirates of Penzance: To secure the British copyright, a D'Oyly Carte touring company gave a perfunctory performance of Pirates the afternoon before the New York premiere, at the Royal Bijou Theatre in Paignton, Devon (England).

Readers come here for a simple authoritative "what to do" article, not an esoteric discussion. Could someone who understands please put it here, in plain language.Afterbrunel (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, seeing as your recent problems concerned images which had been uploaded to Commons, and the rules for images hosted at English Wikipedia are not the same as the rules at Commons, you should really seek clarification there. Try commons:COM:VPC. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Artistic illustations

Hello. I inserted a statement about using artistic illustrations into Wikipedia articles. This followed a discussion which I had with T.Randall.Scales and Huon. If this rule would be better placed on another image policy page then feel free to move it. I know there is limited input on it, but it seems reasonable and there is consensus so far that it should be so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it applies more to just wikipedian-made works but any such work, with the key being on historically significant ones to judge inclusion. Eg the example given would still be confusing if a non WP source made it and licensed it freely, and would not be helpful for inclusion. Add to the fact that we're talking a topic that absolutely need secondary source to avoid the original research (the connection between COI and money). --MASEM (t) 23:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with what you are saying but I do not know know the best way to express this concept to incorporate what you say. If you have other ideas then integrate them however you see fit. Thanks for commenting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know either, hopefully someone can help. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Licensing question

Is there an acceptable license for a photograph created by a person who only wants to release it for use on Wikipedia. I have a photographer willing to release an image for use on a Wikipedia article, but doesn't want to cede it to the public domain or forfeit it commercial value by the CC-3.0 licenses. I'd look harder, but there is way too much legalese and conflicting licensing rules to bother trying to make sense of it and avoid a headache at the same time. Would be grateful for a positive answer.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's just going to be a non-free image, and whatever the general license for that type of work should be used, but you should also add {{Non-free with permission}} to show this (note, this can't be used allow and is not considered a valid license file, just helps to assure we have that word). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

300px is not upright=1.35

See here. Hafspajen (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" ("300px"). Well, it sounds good, but it is not the same thing, well, not if I am using it. It does not came out as same size. What am I doing wrong? Hafspajen (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Upright" modifies from the user's default thumbnail size. I'm using WP's default (250px IIRC?), and both images are on-screen 300px. If you are using a different default image size, you will likely have a difference. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The default thumbnail size is only 250px at Swedish Wikipedia. For all others (English included), it's 220px; and 220*1.35=297. I believe that the MediaWiki software rounds that 297 up to 300px. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I couldn't remember offhand, just that's not a setting I've changed on my end, and to Hafspajen's question, just that upright is a relative scaling approach based on that preference, and why this experiment may be different by user. (A good test is to log off/use an anon browser window to see what the default user experience is.) --MASEM (t) 16:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But why am I on Swedish Wikipedia default image size? This is an account I started back in .. 2007? Quite separate from them. Is NOT a global account and I don't want to have it as a global account. Is anyone mixed from the Swedish wiki with my account, after blocking Drmies and all the rest of the big Swedish- blocking-for-giving- Wikilove-scandal? Hafspajen (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, 250px is an option for the en.wiki software, it just is our default is normally 220. You can check your thumbnail size at Special:Preferences under the Appearance tag. There's only a limited # of values you can pick, 220px would be the default now (it used to be 180px up to a few years ago). But any value but 220px will cause your two images above to be at different on-screen sizes; at 220px default, "upright=1.35" is equal to 300px as Redrose64 explained. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I never mixed arround with those preferences. 180px is what it shows. Why is that? What is what MOST people use? Why am I different in that case? Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The setting for thumbnail is set on user account creation. If, as you say you made your account before the default size was changed from 180px to 220px (about 2012 IIRC), then that's why yours is set at 180px. Note that we don't have a "use default image size" setting, the value is just set to the default when you create the account. So if you have 180px that means the upright image must be smaller than the 300px. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, now they look almost alike. It is a weird world this Wikipedia. How is this working for the ordinary average user - not logged in and so- Are there differences there too? Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

An unregistered user has a default thumb size of 220px (and this cannot be changed w/o a user account), so they would see these images at the same size following Redrose's math above. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK; then it is reasonable to go for default thumb size of 220px , changed to that. Thanks guys for explaining everything so well. Hafspajen (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Content section TOC

There seems to be something wrong with the TOC with content as it redirects back to the mainpage of MOS Image USe without going to the section itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Unable to reproduce. Link to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content seems to be working just fine on Firefox 28. Ibadibam (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of Media Viewer?

Hi folks: because of your interest in image use, we'd love to hear what you think about Media Viewer, a new tool that aims to improve the viewing experience on Wikipedia and its sister sites.

This multimedia browser displays images in larger size and with less clutter, providing a more immersive user experience, as described here. It was developed in collaboration with many community members -- including over 12,000 beta users here on English Wikipedia, who have been testing it since November 2013. The current plan is to release this tool gradually in coming weeks: it is already enabled by default on over a dozen sites (including the Dutch, French and Polish Wikipedia), and will be deployed more widely throughout May, as described in this release plan.

Can you share your feedback about this tool, to help address any critical issues before its May 15 release on the English Wikipedia? To try it out, please log in and click on the small 'Beta' link next to 'Preferences' in your personal menu. Then check the box next to 'Media Viewer' in the Beta Features section of your user preferences — and click 'Save'. You can now click on any thumbnail image on this site to see it in larger size in the Media Viewer. For more info, check out these testing tips or this Help page.

Once you've tried the tool, please share your feedback in this discussion, to help improve this feature. You're also welcome to take this quick survey -- or join this in-depth discussion on MediaWiki.org, as you prefer. Thanks for sharing your insights! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Artistic content

This change added a prohibition on artistic content by Wikipedians—I think—but I'm not really sure what the goal is.

User:Bluerasberry, can you tell me what you're after, maybe with a couple of examples? It feels a bit like "don't even try to use photos to illustrate abstract concepts or psychological issues" (e.g., grief or depression). Also, why here and not, say, at WP:PERTINENCE? If I'm on the right track, then the other page seems like it would be a more natural home. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I do not recall exactly why I put that here. I remember checking pertinence, or otherwise having some confusion about pertinence over something important to me. Anyway, the history of this addition is at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_14#Artistic_illustations. There is an example in the discussion linked in that thread, and so far as I know, the example there is the only case of restricting illustrative media in this way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's only about a single image, then adding a rule about it is probably WP:CREEP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this gif within reasonable use?

This is similar to Prince's File:Prince logo.svg in use in lead sentence of Love Symbol Album, there's a A-like symbol used for "Ayu" on Japanese singer Ayumi Hamasaki's website http://avex.jp/ayu/index.php (actual text gif is http://www.avex.jp/upload/emoji/2.gif ). I'm wondering if it can be used at A Best 2 album in first sentence, like the Prince album. However the prince logo looks (?) as if a Wikipedia editor remade it (difficult to tell), wheras the "Ayu" symbol would be a straight lift from the artist's official website? Guidance please. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay to upload it in the absence of specific advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is okay to use it once but I would state is as the secondary title or a second sentence to explain the symbol's use one time, and that's it. Note this is not like the Prince situation in that you actually have a way to spell out that symbol in roman characters ("ayu") whereas Prince, during that time, gave us nothing beyond "the artist formally known as Prince" , which we simply say "Prince" for simplity. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent large-scale edits

I have reverted all of the changes made today: it is a policy document, and I cannot find the discussion where these changes were agreed. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've put them back. These changes are intended to express the same ideas more clearly and effectively, such as this one [7] which simply reduced verbiage in saying the same thing; or this one [8] which removes the "rule of thumb" reminder to "use the image description page to describe an image and its copyright status", which is something like telling editors to "use the article page to write article text"; or this one [9] which explains that "if any image with the same title has already been uploaded, it will be replaced with your new one" -- a classic example of overloading the reader with information that is better given to him if and when he needs it (i.e. if he tries to upload an image with a filename already in use, the upload interface will tell him that).

It is apparent that you simply reflexively reverted without looking at the changes to see if they are improvements or not. If you don't have time to do that, let others do so. And if you do, build on them (by revising or reverting selected changes) instead of just throwing them away. EEng (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching EEng's edits and I have not found any that seem bad (save for removing the advice about "shocking" images, but that was resolved) and most of the rest just better wording of what was already there. I would recommend to Redrose that if there's anything that EEng changes specifically are bad, to spell those out to review. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright then. This one for instance, doesn't "simply reduced verbiage in saying the same thing" - it twists the fair-use policy, by removing the instruction not to use fair-use images outside of article space. Fair-use images are never permitted on on talk pages, whether also used in articles or not. This one might be stating the obvious, but we do get people who upload images with a completely blank image description page. If you are an admin, have a look at Special:Undelete/File:URB logo edited.png to see what has been in that particular image description page. The image was uploaded twice, both on 18 May 2014, both times without any description or licensing whatsoever. If you're not an admin, you'll just have to believe me when I say that it was totally blank (until I added a {{di-no source no license|date=18 May 2014}}). Finally: WP:TALKFIRST. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right about fair-use on talk pages. Good catch. Did you fix it?
I believe you that one editor seems to have managed to upload an image with an empty description page. How do you think he or she did that -- by somehow completely ignoring the upload wizard's instructions? Whatever way they managed that, do you think such a person will be reading this policy page and thereby corrected? How many other examples of this do you have?
You see, we tend to always think of adding warning W or exception X, thinking of the nonzero increment of understanding that the reader will thereby be blessed with. But what's easy to overlook is that every additional word, whatever information it imparts, also reduces the ability of the rest of the document to impart its information, by dilution -- not to mention the inexorable ratcheting up of the probability that the reader will just quit reading because the document is too long. Every potential-to-be-added instruction needs to be evaluated in this way.
Anything else?

EEng (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the only case of a blank file description page, it has happened several times. That was the most recent instance that I have come across; the first time that I found one was, IIRC, Special:Undelete/File:300px-Flag of the United Kingdom svg.png (14 April 2012), but I have certainly seen several others. Uploads don't necessarily occur through the File Upload Wizard, they might use Wikipedia:Upload/old. Uploads may also occur non-interactively, through the API; there may be a fourth route. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't fix the point about fair-use images not being usable on talk pages, so I did that. If someone's uploading images via API without supplying image-page info, it's a mistake, not because they don't know image information should be supplied. EEng (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting link

See [10] It doesn't apply strictly to Wikipedia's policy on images, but it DOES contain some good general guidance... --Jayron32 17:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed ~~useful~~ interesting. It contains a giant flowchart on how to decide the copyright status of an image and so on, and it cracks me up that the first posted comment is the question, "Do I need your permission to use your flowchart in a class I'm teaching?" EEng (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's got errors. The first red decision box ("Did you take or create the image yourself"), has a "No" decision with two ways forward. If you don't go to the blue box ("Ask Yourself the Fair Use Questions") but follow the flow line leading downwards, you reach the bottom-right red box ("Will you be using the image for personal ..."), which is a decision with only one way out - through "Yes". I suspect that the flow line that we've just followed has its arrows pointing the wrong way. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You're always so demanding. You want two ways out of every decision box? EEng (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wildcat Championship Belts

I've been having an image deletion discussion, and I'm a bit confused on some points. If someone's feeling explanatory, here's the situation (top two). Most importantly, what specific licence do I use to Wikiformally agree to our informal agreement? And, if there's no such licence to allow permission on the terms we agreed, could I upload them as Fair Use, without worrying about the extra restrictions that would seem unreasonable to apply, in light of the informal permission? Like "only if no lesser quality image would suffice" bits. Some of these images are fairly detailed, which was the reason I asked to use them. It would seem a bit pointless to have to scale them down or blur them up. And the bits about justifying how this won't hurt the owner's pocket are a moot point, right? So could I just upload a mostly blank fair use rationale, and make a note linking here? Same goes for the original work rationale, I'd hope.

Stefan2 is helping me understand, but an outside opinion or two would be appreciated. Here, not in the deletion discussion. I'm not canvassing. If those are deleted, that's OK. I'd just like to know how they could be used, without Wildcat totally signing away their rights. I'm sure they realize that Wikipedia is widely copied and pasted, printed and redistributed, and I assume they're fine with that. But on the offchance someone starts selling things with cropped belt pictures on them, and it takes off, they should reserve the right to stop it or ask for a cut, right?

Thanks for reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Non-commercial use" archive sticky here answered a question or two (not sure how outdated it is after nine years, if at all), but still wondering about the fair use thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Vulnerable people

The immediate cause of this proposal is the apparently endless debate over the ISIL beheading videos (a nearly interminable discussion at VPP; consensus is solidly but not unanimously against hosting the videos for a variety of legal and moral reasons). However, I want us to consider a broader and only somewhat related issue of privacy during serious illness and death.

Question: Does Wikipedia benefit from having non-consensual images of identifiable people who are severely ill, dying, or being victimized? For example, should we accept non-consensual videos of someone on the street in the manic phase of bipolar disorder? A video of manic speech might be very educational, but should we accept such a video if it's recorded and posted by a friend without consent from the person being depicted (or someone else legally capable of giving consent for the person)? A video of an Alzheimer's patient being abused might be somewhat educational, but is it okay for us to make the abused person be a non-consenting poster child for the abuse of vulnerable adults?

We already restrict non-consensual images taken at a medical facility. We already restrict non-consensual images that interfere with the subject's personal or family life. We already restrict images of people in their swimsuits or underwear. Under our current policy, if you go outside in your underwear to pick up the newspaper or let in the cat, you're not going to find your picture at the top of Underwear that afternoon. All of this is subject to editorial judgment: If Queen Elizabeth goes outside in her underwear, we might write an entire article about it. But for non-notable people, it's consent or no image, and for notable people, it's consent or only if the image itself is clearly important (e.g., Gary Hart, whose political career was derailed by a single photograph).

Problem: However, if you're severely ill, perhaps emaciated from cancer, but not currently in a medical facility, then there's no explicit and specific restriction on posting your image without your consent as an example of someone who has a given disease. If your picture gets taken as you get into a taxi en route to a medical facility, then you're fair game to be at the top of Cachexia. If you're dying on the sidewalk, and your crazy brother-in-law decides to videotape your last moments, the world's image of you could be reduced to a video of you breathing your last at the top of Death rattle or Myocardial infarction.

And here's my concern: The English Wikipedia is a big place. There's always someone ready to cry "censorship" or wikilawyer over the exact wording of the policy to keep images that people object to on moral or privacy grounds. There's always someone ready to say that your medical situation or death isn't really part of your "personal life" (which is already nominally protected by this policy, although the policy doesn't define the term). Because this policy doesn't specifically and explicitly recommend against non-consensual images of vulnerable adults and terminally ill people, these discussions are needlessly disruptive, even though they almost always end up in the same place: we don't normally want those images in articles.

Proposal: I propose that we add one short item to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Examples that says "Images of visibly ill, vulnerable, or dying people".

This would not be an absolute prohibition. We would still be able to include such images when they were important or especially relevant; for example, dying AIDS activists involved in political protests could still be pictured as very ill people in article or section that talked about their activism. You could still post any image that the subject consented to. But it would have the effect of strongly discouraging non-consensual images of people with medical problems, especially non-notable people, and it might make some of these conversations much simpler: policy says (normally) no, so if your grandmother didn't agree to have her picture on Wikipedia under "dementia" then we're not using it.

I think the addition of this example would help. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. This policy already goes far too far to disallow images that might legally be permissible. This proposed extension goes much further. Assuming the Wikipedians involved aren't posting from Raqqa (I think we might be frowned on in those parts) then they are not posting self-made pictures if they post images from the decapitation videos. The "image use policy" is, theoretically, supposed to concern amateur first publication rather than censoring the public domain. For example, we have illustrations in My Lai Massacre and many other such articles. And the "this is not an absolute prohibition", far from tempering the impact of this policy, would only make it worse -- it facilitates racial/national based decision making and the suppression of specific ideas and concepts that certain authorities don't want discussed, while avoiding taking the heat on other examples they don't care about. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you've missed the point. First, I'm talking about images of people with bipolar disorder and Alzheimer's and terminal-stage cancer, not people involved in wars. Second, please go read the bottom third of the policy, which is all about protecting people even if the images are legal. There's even a whole section called "Moral issues" that begins with the words, "Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable." The policy isn't restricted solely to what's legally permissible, and never has been. (In fact, legal issues weren't even mentioned in the early versions of this policy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. How can you apply all this 'ethical' hocus-pocus to pictures taken by third parties, published elsewhere, released to the public domain? The rule will be that pictures released to the public domain by the British government, probably the U.S., are OK because they follow our ethics, and that pictures released by The Islamic State, Iran, China, etc. are not OK because they don't. It's codified bias, and an invitation for further bias by the editors. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We already have a policy (and so does Commons) saying that pictures of unidentifiable people that editors believe were taken unfairly, are demeaning, are inappropriately invasive, etc., must not be used. Do you propose to change that? Does your slippery slope argument mean that you support using non-consensual pictures of identifiable people entering psychiatric facilities or down-blouse photos, so long as the copyright is okay? Are there no other considerations in your mind? (Commons won't take any of those, by the way. We copied their policy pretty closely.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you know more about this policy and its Commons precursor than I do, because a few editors, yourself included, completely rewrote it recently. One aspect of which is that there is complete confusion about whether it applies to photos found free or photos taken by contributors and published for the first time here. But there is a difference between publishing a non-consensual picture of someone entering a psychiatric facility when you took it yourself vs. when it was already published by a third party and well-known.

I should add that I am thoroughly disgusted by the implication that "ignore all rules" supports the removal rather than the retention of images that can be found in reputable sources -- the implication being that destroying content, rather than creating it, and imposing personal bias under the flag of "editorial discretion", rather than neutral point of view, makes Wikipedia a better place. This site is going to shit with multiple kinds of hidden censorship becoming commonplace, articles being slanted and censored so far from what is publicly available like reputation management was our business (for all I know, for some people it might be), and our best work showcased on the main page being, half the time, slickly produced ads for video games. And you just want to throw in more concealment of the main data. I sure hope, for their sake, that if you have kids you've bought them a subscription to Encyclopedia Brittanica, because I fear the bottom line quoted from our little social experiment is going to be, if you want an encyclopedia you gotta PAY for it. The only thing you get for free is censorship, spin control, and legal threats. Wnt (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that anything in this policy or in my proposed change to it prevents us from using reputably published images.
I had relatively little to do with the update to Commons. The section of the policy here has been in place since 2008 or so, which is hardly "recently". If you'd like to complain about the changes to Commons, then try talking to User:Colin or User:Kaldari.
I don't understand how refusing to put an image of a specific, identifiable person in an article about Vomiting would make that article be "slanted" or "censored". Perhaps you could clarify? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

'Support I think this is a straight-forward and sensible proposal to promote ethical use of images. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments How do we determine that the image is "non-consensual"? Does this mean we delete all images that are questionable? (ie everything that is more than 10 or 20 years old because ethical standards may not have been as high back than) Or that anyone considers questionable? What about those images that are not identifiable versus identifiable? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think we determine "consent" the same way we already do for all sorts of pictures: The uploader asserts that he has obtained consent from the subject, and we trust that unless and until we have a good reason not to.
  The entire section of this policy applies only to identifiable people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose us getting into the line of work of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of the world. Within the medical environment they are the ones who have the staff, mandate and powers to address these issues with respect to the medical environment. We have neither the staff nor the authority to take this on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for the following reasons:

How do we determine consensuality? By community consensus for each picture? That only pushes the problem one level deeper.
How do we determine who is and who is not a "vulnerable" person? Is a wife grieving over a dead husband in route to the funeral "vulnerable"? How about an uncle? When does a person begin to die? Does a 90 year-old man out for a ride in his wheelchair with his nurse and dribbling meet the new criteria? (BTW, has anyone tried to add this rule to WP:BDP: Recently dead, probably dead or almost dead?)
This addition, by virtue of its placement in Examples, really implies to "use this as a very weak bias in consensus discussions because of community morals in favor of the victims". But the Example section doesn't say that explicitly. So people will quote this rule as policy and other people will think that settles the matter.
What other groups of people will we want to extend this privilege to later? Pictures of people brought into the police for questioning, mug shots of arrested but not convicted people, mug shots of people convicted of a misdemeanor but not a felony, soldiers with their heads blown off. I agree this is a slippery slope argument but, since this would be the first example of protecting a specific group of people, I think it's valid. Even the example of a child has some context (titled "An obese girl"). Do you really want to say "use this as a very weak bias in consensus discussions for all ill, vulnerable, or dying people" or just some?
The proposal text should really read (for consistency, without the "Images of" prefix): Visibly ill, vulnerable, or dying people (unreasonable intrusion because of moral considerations?).
@WhatamIdoing: Search your memory. Do you have any personal bias on this issue? Was there one specific picture that you were directly involved with? I only ask if it's pertinent. Otherwise, please forget I asked.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The same way we do now for pictures of naked people.
By using common sense. A vulnerable adult requires supervision and is legally incapable of giving consent.
People seem to manage just fine with the other examples, so I'm not sure why this would be any harder than the existing examples.
I'm not impressed by slippery slope arguments, and it is not the first example of protecting (or not) a specific group of people. We have an example that defines the specific group of people, "street performers", as not being protected, and another that defines the specific group of people, "nudes", as being protected.
I'm open to changes in the text.
I've got no particular images in mind. I've been in remarkably few image-related disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this will accomplish the stated goals without some problematic collateral damage. I don't think it's as nefarious as suggested above, but I'm not convinced it's the least disruptive way to go. Protonk (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose this proposal I would support strengthening and clarification of Wikipedia's policy on personality rights. If, for example, there was a photo of a person being used to illustrate an article on a stigmatized medical condition, then that use could infringe on that person's personality rights. It should be for Wikimedia Commons to decide whether to host that photo at all, but here on Wikipedia, we can modify, add to, or further discuss Wikipedia:General_disclaimer#Personality_rights. I am not convinced that this proposal is a medical issue, as it sounds like part of a broader concern about using people's likenesses in ways that encroach upon their dignity. In the Wikipedia LGBT community, people have requested to have their photos removed and deleted from Commons when they did not want to be associated in media with support for LGBT rights. That would be an example of what to me is the same concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Do file sizes of animated gifs still matter?

User:EEng took out the animated-gif optimisation tips and the line that "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size." back in July, with the rationale that "I'm guessing all this stuff about software-can't-handle-it and look-out-for-file-size is way, way out of date" and the invitation to revert this if this was incorrect.

I've no opinion on the first part, but how out of date is the file size issue? I know the Conway's Game of Life article had users desperately blanking the huge animations five years ago because the amount of rendering required was crashing their browsers. Technology has come on since then, but obviously some Wikipedia readers still use low-end computers, and somebody reading an article over a 3G mobile phone connection isn't going to be served very well by a 5MB animation. Given that the animated GIF is the one file type that doesn't compress much when presented at thumbnail size, do we still need a limit on animation file sizes? --McGeddon (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Irregardless of crashing, it is still a bandwidth issue , which is something we should be cognizant of, and as such we should still make it a limitation. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should still suggest a limitation but I think we can do without the optimization instructions in the policy proper. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

With two agreements I've gone ahead and restored the line about animation file sizes. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Does Hitler's baby pictures meet the requirement?

Look at this picture please. File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1989-0322-506,_Adolf_Hitler,_Kinderbild_retouched.jpg Does this meet the requirement that "Images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject."? How does looking at Hitler's baby picture help you understand him better? Those familiar with the rules and how they are normally enforced, please give me your opinions. Dream Focus 15:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Image Rights

Is there a way to give wikipedia, and wikipedia exclusively the rights to use an image? FrozenMan (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, WP doesn't accept material on this basis. See WP:IUP#Copyright_and_licensing: "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." EEng (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

We should really start accepting CC BY SA NC. But yes this is another discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the recommended way of referencing images inside the same article

Wikipedia articles mostly contain informative images. However, there seems to be no common-practise in referring to images inside the same article. A vast majority of scientific journals and books apply the technique of numbering images by preceding "Figure N:" to the caption. A later reference than uses a phrase like "as shown in Figure N".

LaTeX (another markup language for typesetting) makes this kind of referencing and labeling very easy by using keywords like \label{name} and \ref{name} to reference an image without the need of manually numbering it.

To my knowledge, a system like this does not exist in Wikipedia. This leads to most images not being mentioned in the text, so readers have to use a lot of context to interprete the figures. Referencing a figure at the beginning of an article at a section far towards the end is very clumsy. Users would have to write something like: "cf. the second picture from the top in section X".

So to sum it up and since I did not find it anywhere in the style guides or the FAQ: What is the recommended practise here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethur2 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sethur2,

The answer is that we don't have a perfect solution. Don't use "on the right" or other positional things, because images display in different places on different screen sizes/font sizes. "Figure N" is sometimes used, and it might be the best one. However, it doesn't help you find the image on the screen (without using ⌘ Command+F). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming images are numbered top to bottom (maybe with some left-right scattering woven in) then having them labeled "Fig. 1", "Fig. 2" etc. certainly helps the reader locate them easily, without needing a text search. EEng (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Just as a note, additional anchors in form of {{Anchor}} templates placed inside image captions could be used to make clickable "figure

N

" links, though I've never seen that used in articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding WP:WATERMARK

An editor has been citing WP:WATERMARK as the reason for removing numerous UN-created maps from Wikipedia articles, as the maps include a small OCHA logo. This has, in some cases, led to edit warring,[11] so I would like to solicit other editors' opinions about whether or not WP:WATERMARK necessitates removal of these maps. My personal opinion is that small, unobtrusive credits in images should not necessitate removal of the images (although the credits/watermarks themselves should be removed when possible). See Cotinusa for another example. Kaldari (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion that there are several problems with OCHA maps. For one thing, they were uploaded to commons under the condition that they would be used either with the logo untouched (which is explicitly against WP:WATERMARK) or with attribution below the image in the caption (which is ignored even by those editors who decided to restore the map without the logo). Another thing is the graphics - OCHA maps come with place names included, with a country name in a blue bar above the map, in a font and style that cannot be changed, so there is little room for modification for our use. A third thing is that these are maps and as such we can safely assume that there are free alternatives without these problems out there. It's not like finding another map of Cape Verde or Spain is a problem. A fourth problem is that these were all added by User:Unocha.visual, which raised concerns over possible WP:COI, brought up by another editor at the relevant noticeboard. Timbouctou (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the issue when the map is good, especially when the UN map is allowed, even intended, to be used freely. I suppose the fine points of the Wikipedia policy elude me, when there is no copyright infringement. It is annoying when the OCHA map is removed, and the editor who removes it does not replace it with one of these other maps Timbouctou finds exactly suitable, leaving that task to someone else. That someone else sees the article without the good map, and may not know that such maps are so very easy to find. Instead, there is no map, a step down for the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, there are no free vector maps of this kind for many countries, particularly developing countries. Vector maps (SVGs) are more useful for our purposes because they can be modified and reused easily for other purposes, for example different thematic maps of the countries, and this makes the maps a particularly valuable free content donation. Modified thematic maps would simply be attributed on the Commons description page, it doesn't have to be in the article itself. The inclusion of the small logo is simply so that people are aware the map represents the UN view of borders, etc, and because it is vector it can be easily removed for modified thematic maps (unlike a watermark on a photograph). Myself and other volunteer NYC Wikipedians have been involved with the preparation of these maps, and trying to facilitate their use on the Wikimedia projects.--Pharos (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

re: "OCHA maps come with place names included, with a country name in a blue bar above the map, in a font and style that cannot be changed" : the uploaded maps are all SVG with style properties that can be changed as necessary. So, they're not watermarked in the traditional sense. GChriss (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: There is also a fifth problem which I did not include in my original post, which is the issue of what the value of having two maps in country infoboxes really is. This was also brought up by yet another editor at Unocha.visual's talk page, and has not been addressed since. The user simply showed up on Wikipedia, added a series of additional watermarked maps to infoboxes between August 26 and September 4 and then left. The case had never been made that we needed those maps in the first place at all, so I don't see the need to insist on replacing them once they have been removed about two months later. Besides, the first six words of WP:WATERMARK are very clear - Free images should not be watermarked. Period. We wouldn't be having this discussion if instead of OCHA logo the maps contained the words "MapShop.com" or "Brought to you by Walmart" or "Drink Coca-Cola". Or if we used "free" maps of eastern Ukraine donated by the Russian government, or maps of the West Bank donated by an Israeli ministry, etc, etc. We have and we should continue to have a zero tolerance policy for this. Timbouctou (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If you go by the whole first sentence, it's specifically about "anything else that would hamper their free use". The small logo here is informational and does not hamper free use (because it is vector and easily removable, as the maps themselves are vector). As GChriss says above, this is not a "watermark" in the ordinary sense.--Pharos (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Timbouctou: I disagree with many of your statements above. It is already very common for us to use maps that include credit within the maps themselves (virtually all historical maps have such "watermarks"). We are also fine with using maps created by the CIA, for example, so I don't think the fact that it came from a particular organization is problematic. Identifying that the map came from the UN is actually helpful, in my opinion, for the same reasons that Pharos mentioned. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I just find it interesting how nobody thought we needed additional maps in infoboxes until Ocha.visual came along in August. Now it seems to have become essential, because, you know, location maps are hard to find, or something. And btw I was referring to sources of maps when indicated in the image itself. I'm not sure you would have a huge consensus for the use of CIA maps if they actually had CIA logos in them. Timbouctou (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I will give my interpretation. The image attribution requirements say For use with alteration: remove the OCHA logo and disclaimer following any modification to the map, but keep the data sources as mentioned below the map. Credit the modified map as follows: "Based on OCHA map". You are responsible for the content of your map.

It does not say in the caption, it says below the image. I read that to mean below the image where we have licensing information. Notice it says to remove the disclaimer, that tells me they meant the image page and not an article caption.

Our image use policy says Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free and All photo credits should be in a summary on the image description page.

To me it is clear that Wikipedia policy is that images should be credited on their file page and not in the article. The attribution requirements say that we can remove the watermark and modify it as long as we give credit on the image page to the original source.

It seems to me that the current versions are incompatible but we can remove the watermark if we credit the new image to the original source which is what we would have to do anyways.

Rather than our usual process of replacing the watermarked images on the commons we should upload them under new names so that we can link to the original for proper credit. Chillum 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Since svgs are text based it might not be too difficult to automate the logo removal process. Chillum 19:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup, looks like you just need to remove everything inside the <g id="Globe"> tag. Very automatable. Chillum 19:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's the globe top right which shows where the country is in the world. The logo bottom right may be hidden by altering one line - from

<g id="logo">

to

<g id="logo" visibility="hidden">

The title at the top left may also be hidden easily - there's an element which might look like this

<text transform="matrix(1 0 0 1 7.001 16.3076)" fill="#FFFFFF" font-family="'Liberation Sans'" font-weight="bold" font-size="13">CAPE VERDE</text>

all you need to do is add the visibility="hidden" attribute to that. The blue stripe which that title is placed on is the <rect ... /> on the line immediately above; that may also be given the same attribute. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification and the idea of using visibility="hidden" instead of removing the tags, much simpler. I think it makes sense to remove the title from the image and use the wiki markup in the article to label it. I am downloading them as I write, though I will need a bit more consensus before I start uploading them, there are a lot. Chillum 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I was able to remove the label and rectangle and logo from 151 of them automatically, the others used different syntax. Have not uploaded anything yet. Chillum 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this Chillum. Your solution may provide a good compromise. I agree we should retain the original images separately. Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure how the commons feels about mass uploads, there are over 150 files. I may have to poke about their policies regarding automation as I am not going to do this by hand. Chillum 23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum, for your helpful ideas here. I agree that another set of "stripped" modified maps would probably be a good long-term solution. But, as there is an important ongoing project we're working on with the UN at this moment, I am going to take the initiative of just stripping some of the original images of the logos for now (for high priority developing countries), in order to facilitate these being ok for articles this week. We'll follow up with you and other folks on a more permanent category solution and on the mass uploading process for Commons.--Pharos (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: As long as the images are properly categorized (Category:Maps by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (modified)?) and described, I don't think anyone on Commons is going to object to uploading 150 files at once. People commonly upload more than that at a time with tools like Commonist. You don't need a bot account or anything like that. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I will upload the 151 I have now tomorrow after visually reviewing each one and writing a script to upload and a template for the image pages. I will create a parallel category and leave it up to others to replace images in articles as needed on a case by case basis. Chillum 08:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Late to the party, but many thanks for that, Chillum. I had asked for a script solution to fix this at Graphics Labs' talkpage, but unfortunately nobody had a good idea for that. The OCHA-maps were clearly uploaded as part of their PR-activities (as evidenced by the usage of 2 involved single purpose accounts) and should not be displayed on Wikipedia as neutral encyclopedia. It's unfortunate, that even some administrators support such additions against our current policy. GermanJoe (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

^ "Setting animated gif images to stop blinking after n cycles (within 5 seconds)". Techniques for WCAG 2.0. W3C. Retrieved 1 January 2011.
^ "Allowing the content to be paused and restarted from where it was paused". Techniques for WCAG 2.0. W3C. Retrieved 1 January 2011.

[1] "Setting animated gif images to stop blinking after n cycles (within 5 seconds)". Techniques for WCAG 2.0. W3C. Retrieved 1 January 2011.

[2] "Allowing the content to be paused and restarted from where it was paused". Techniques for WCAG 2.0. W3C. Retrieved 1 January 2011.

[1]

[2]