Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Can I use this image?

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

User insisting on watermark

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

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

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

My advice is to take a SLOW cool look and then ignore it.Cuddlyable3 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as usual, Liftarn completely missed the point. He chose to meddle with my photos without the courtesy of prior communication with me. He was heavy handed and arrogant in his approach to me. All this was unnecessary, but Liftarn brought it about. Compare this to the following:

"Correct he does not own the encyclopedia, he cannot unilaterally decide that we must use those. However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away. Some assets are not so easily replaceable. For comparison the Wikipedia community can choose to cast you out for no reason what so ever, however treating contributing people in this manner, only does a disservice to ourselves. As Wikipedia leaks contributing users, I wonder at what point the curve begins to slope. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"

What a difference in attitude! "Seven" is a sensitive and perceptive man. "Litfarn," in comparison, is an intrusive sledge hammer. Motorrad-67 21:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Posting a question here about what to do seems neither heavy handed nor arrogant. The question at the top of this section seems like a polite request for help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the posting of the question, Carl, it was the way Liftarn treated me without any prior communication with me whatsoever. I draw a comparison between Liftarn's attitude and Seven's attitude. Seven notes, "treating contributing people in this manner, only does a disservice to ourselves." If Seven can see with clarity this fact, I hope you can too. If you want me and other contributors to go away, then treat us like Liftarn treated me. Or, you can adopt Seven's attitude and keep us around. It's your choice, apparently, Motorrad-67 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you weren't contacted, since you were the original photographer for these images. It's almost always worth a note when an image upload is reverted. On the other hand, we really don't accept watermarked images, so Liftarn was not acting unreasonably in reverting back to the nonwatermarked version. It appears that everyone was acting in good faith here, but perhaps not with perfect communication skills. I hope you will stay and contribute positively, but the decision whether to contribute is up to you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.

• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.

• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.

• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.

• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Wikipedia. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.

This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the basic idea of Wikipedia providing a free-content encyclopedia. Our conditions of upload require that user-created images be released under a free license or into the public domain. That's clearly stated on the upload page - If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under a free license or release it into the public domain.

Once the image is freely-licenced, then it can be placed by anyone on the Commons - or used by anyone for any reason, so long as they comply with the terms of the free license. That is what "free-content" means - it is a fundamental part of Wikipedia, and is not negotiable. You may choose to contribute your photographs to Wikipedia, or you may choose not to license your content freely, but you may not choose both.

It is a good idea to notify uploaders that the move has been made, but it is not necessary to ask anyone's permission to place free images on the Commons. The Commons is the intended repository for all such free media. FCYTravis 22:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What an attitude. Motorrad-67 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, why are you opposed to the images being placed on the Wikimedia Commons? I cannot make sense of your position - you want your photos on Wikipedia, but you do not want them on the Commons. Yet, you have released them under a free license, which means the Commons is the correct place for them.

Part of Wikipedia's mission is to provide, as far as is possible, an encyclopedia composed of freely-available and freely-distributable content, so that this knowledge can be disseminated as widely and as inexpensively as possible. What we are creating, is free knowledge. That is why we require all user-created images to be released freely. If you do not feel that you can contribute your works in a way that is compatible with this mission, then you should not contribute. That's not "attitude," that's the truth. FCYTravis 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also don't understand the objection to commons. Whether an image is hosted on English Wikipedia or on Commons is only a technical detail. It doesn't affect our ability to use the image, the license of the image, or the ability of others to reuse the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think people who start off contributing to en-wikipedia, and then start contributing photos, aren't always aware of Commons. Even when they realise that the photos on Commons are still available for use on en-wikipedia, they still feel a sense of "their" photos being taken away from them. Purely a misunderstanding, and those dealing with those with hurt feelings should be more sensitive to that. Equally, those who don't quite understand what Commons is about, or what releasing under a free license is all about, are sometimes shocked to find that their images are being used on other language Wikipedia's, or indeed are being used outside the Wikimedia projects altogether. Again, a natural consequence of the GFDL and other free licenses, but it can be a shock if you weren't aware of this. Again, sensitivity in handling this (and CBM's replies have, for the record, been very polite and helpful) really does help. Agressive cries of "we are free" (or, worse, condescending, "you haven't really understood what we are about" lectures) don't really help. Carcharoth 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing condescending about explaining our free-content policy. It's rather basic to what we do - and it explains why people might "find that their images... are being used outside the Wikimedia projects altogether." Part of our mission is to provide free content. Fairly simple. It is regrettable that someone may choose to cease contributing because they disagree with that mission, but that is their decision to make. When the goals of Wikipedia and the goals of the contributor diverge, then it's probably time to part ways.

I do believe it is a positive idea to require notification when moving images from WP to Commons - it's a simple enough and common-sense thing to do, to let uploaders know where their images have gone FCYTravis 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you share your excellent opinion with User:Liftarn. Motorrad-67 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Notification would be great, especially if it provided information (or a link to it) about how moving free images to Commons is an internal technical matter. It should point out that moving images to commons changes nothing about the availability of the image for us or others to use, except it makes it possible for Wikipedias in other languages to directly use the image. Maybe there is already a template message for this? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote Wikipedia:Why was the image I uploaded moved to Wikimedia Commons? to help explain what's going on. Please feel free to comment about that page on its talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "notification" may be taken to mean that the photographer will definitely be notified and nothing will be done until that step has been done, so may be interpreted to mean that nothing will happen until it is known that the person got the information. This might require certified mail with return receipt or a signed document, not merely a message in a User Talk page. The word "notification" should be avoided in messages about procedures. Yes, I also recognize that once stuff is GFDL then it may be edited and copied mercilessly, I'm pointing out a problem with the phrasing in the discussion. (SEWilco 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Notification for our purposes just means a note on the user talk page. If that's not clear, the policy could just say "a message should be left on the user talk page". But we usually consider that to be "notification". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to hear from Motorrad-67 how (s)he was made aware that images were reverted. Does (s)he have them on a watch list? Cuddlyable3 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think people need to be notified when changes are made to free content. This is a core benefit of free content. As long as the move is done correctly the image will still be very findable, likely at the exact same url as before. If there is a change in name, the articles using the images should have been changed. I don't think we have a problem with this process, so I will assume that is being done correctly most of the time. If people think of images they have uploaded to Wikipedia under a free license as being theirs we have a problem. Maybe we are not doing a good job explaining what free content is, or maybe the uploaders are not paying attention, assuming that things work in ways they have been accustomed to on sites like flickr. Regardless, if an image is freely licensed, and someone re-uses it, or changes it, and the licensor gets upset they have failed to understand their licensing arrangements. This is a problem. If they don't intend to freely license their images then they shouldn't tag them as such. - cohesion 20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Rules of thumb and requirements - splitting sections

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

• Endorse - this clarification was needed. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better. :) - cohesion 20:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Images of people

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

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

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

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

2257 and sexually explicit imagery

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

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

Note: This arises out of this discussion. Wikidemo 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to be something for Foundation legal counsel to decide, not the community. *Dan T.* 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The community is not qualified to make a legal determination as to the legality of these images. -Chunky Rice 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

SVG and PNG format

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

From Wikipedia talk:Public domain image resources

Is this statement sufficient to declare an image free?

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

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

Editing an image before it becomes PD

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

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

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

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

Proposal for a new problem tag

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

It's not a requirement that we have OTRS confirmation for every image. Would this be applied to some subset of images? If so, which ones? - cohesion 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be for those image which don't have an "online permission", that is they are from someone's private offline collection or from a website which doesn't have any free license text. Naturally, this wouldn't be required for those images whose author is the uploader. Samulili 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rude, unhelpful message on message upload

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

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

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

Upload warning ".bmp" is an unwanted file type

List of allowed file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, sxw, sxi, sxc, sxd, ogg, svg, djvu

(In red)

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

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

PS There's no mention of inappropriate file types at Wikipedia:Upload or at the "Upload a file" page that took me to. --Dweller 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem. I think it has been discussed a little bit before, but not that much. There are a few technical solutions, but they are not very good. The only one I am aware of that would work is to add JavaScript that tells the uploader, before he or she uploads the file, that the extension (in this case .bmp) is not an allowed file type.

Other than that, however, what would you recommend in terms of making the message less bitish? (Note that the message also limited by technical issues - i.e. the server automatically generates a list of allowed file types, so I don't think we could add a wikilink to each one - see MediaWiki:Filetype-badtype.) Anyways, thanks in advance for your input!  :) --Iamunknown 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We could add wikilinks, but it would have to be maintained, probably not that big an issue, does it change very often? To answer the other question, BMP is a very large uncompressed image format not really suitable for web images. - cohesion 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

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

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

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

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

Painting, maybe, sculpture, no, and only in the United States. --Carnildo 06:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but that doesn't answer anything. Maybe? Maybe not? Could be? Perhaps? Anyone else knowledgeable in this, please provide some input. -- VegitaU 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you like it more specific? According to the case, a mere photo of a 2D artwork (and by extension a flat representational photo of a 2D anything) does not achieve a copyright independent of the work. The ruling does not apply to photos of 3D objects, e.g. photographs of a sculpture, a coin, a stained glass window in context, a product label on a product (though that may be covered by other relevant laws). It applies only to US law, but we are only concerned with US law here I believe. To answer your question specifically, if you find a photo of a painting where the painting is clearly not copyrighted it should be safe to use. However, you should still say where you got it from and provide all relevant info in case someone later decides otherwise. Photos of sculptures do not count. They involve a much greater degree of creativity in lighting, camera angle, depth of field, etc., than required for a photo of a 2D object. Wikidemo 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right, but I'd be careful uploading anything from sources outside of the US, where this ruling doesn't apply. --mikaul^talk 00:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy on that? I don't believe we're compelled to follow the copyright laws of any other countries. Online jurisdiction is a complicated subject, but US copyright law applies within the US for all images, wherever they may come from.Wikidemo 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of policy on that, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image guidelines for example. We should respect copyright wherever it originates, and where there's no non-com CC or GFDL license, perhaps politely request one. The alarm bells start to ring when we're talking about loophole situations like the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. saga. The way I read it, images of 2D museum artefacts and artworks which can now be considered PD if they originate in the US should not be assumed to be PD if they don't.
With ref to the original question, there's nothing stopping anyone making their own photo/scan of a copyright-expired 2D artwork if they have authorised access to the original, wherever it happens to be. Outside the US, copyright does still apply to copies of PD original works made by someone else. In the UK, whoever makes that copy makes a new copyright; they are able to license it and we are bound by the Berne Convention to respect (or negotiate) the terms of that license. Only in the US can we automatically assume any such copies are in the public domain, and only in the US can copies of copies of PD images be made with impunity. I can't see any way this this would exclude old images in textbooks, for example, foreign though that sounds to my English ears... --mikaul^talk 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Help create a manual of style for maps and diagrams

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

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

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

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

ironically...

• Y'all deleted an image linked to from the project page:
• Screenshot - File:Najimy MaryPatrick.jpg
• Ling.Nut (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the 'project page'? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

this page is the talk page of the project page.. WP:IUP. If you see the cute little tabs atop the page (esp. when editing), you'll see links to "Project page — Discussion — Edit this page — + — History — Move — Unwatch."Ling.Nut (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Someone want to pick a different screenshot to use? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Try Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses. Briefly, a license is considered "free" if it gives everyone permission to use, redistribute, modify, and make derivatives of the image for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Technically you do not give up the copyright to the image (unless you want to), but this permission must be granted. In particular, you may not restrict the use of the image to non-commercial uses only, and you may not restrict the use of the image to Wikipedia only. It is okay if you want to require attribution for the image (so people must credit you as the creator). The reason for this policy is that the goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. —Bkell (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You should consider uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons; this is the default media repostitory from which your files will link directly to encyclopedia pages. The upload page there links to the licensing page where free licensing is explained in brief. The licensing tag I'd recommend is {{GFDL:SELF}}, which restricts further use (ie outside of Wikimedia pages) to publications prepared to reproduce that license in full. To see what I mean, have a look at the license. It effectively makes it impractical to use your pics under that license in all but free-content publications like.. wikipedia. Hope that's of some help. --mikaul^talk 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, a license is considered "free" if it gives everyone permission to use, redistribute, modify, and make derivatives of the image for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Technically you do not give up the copyright to the image (unless you want to), but this permission must be granted.

Errr.... So, you can have copyright, but not actually be able to invoke it at any point in time ever again? Nice.

Those terms are completely ridiculous. Why would anybody in their right mind ever agree to anything like that? My work has value, asking me to simply give it away for any use of any kind is ludicrous and laughable. It's one thing to allow text and code to be "free", but photographs are a whole different kettle of fish. I have no problem allowing non-commercial use, but if somebody is going to use my photos for commercial use, then they're damn well going to have to pay for it.

Thanks for the information, I guess. At least now I know that none of my work will ever make it to Wikipedia, nor will any of the other people I know. It's a shame, really, they have some great pictures too that would make quite an improvement. -- Otto 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You still retain legal copyright to the image, so if you attach conditions to the permission you grant (for example, requiring attribution, or requiring that derivative works be released under a similarly free license), then you can use your copyright to enforce those conditions.

I'm sorry to hear that you think these conditions are so ridiculous, but free content is part of the goal of Wikipedia; see the five pillars which outline Wikipedia's mission. —Bkell (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you dislike the fact that commercial use must be allowed because you don't want corporations making money from your free work, you may wish to read The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC [non-commercial] License. Restricting otherwise free content to non-commercial use only has some disadvantages that many people don't consider. —Bkell (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I read your link. However, I also disagree with virtually every single point made on it. It's fundamentally flawed in almost all respects. We're talking about PHOTOGRAPHS here. What type of "derivative work" would apply? The only point of using a photograph is, you know, to publish the photograph. Sure, you can crop it or use pieces of it in a photoshopped image, but the only reasonable commercial use is republishing of the work itself. It makes absolutely no sense to allow commercial use of photographs unless you attach a value of zero to them.

No, the entire concept is stupid, and I won't be a part of it. My photographs are my work (and not work that is likely to generate meaningful derivatives at that), so I'll be damned if I'm going to give up my rights to them based on "principle". I believe in open source, I believe in free software, I even believe in the idea of a free encyclopedia. But those are easily alterable things which can be used in other meaningful derivative ways. Those arguments do not apply to photos.

More to the point, this really sours me on the whole wikimedia notion to begin with. Is this whole thing nothing more than some kind of new age land grab? I give up my stuff for free, but the wikimedia people get to make money on my work without payback of any sort? All while claiming to be a non-profit and taking donations? Seriously, that's like the best scam ever. I do know that I'll never be donating to wikimedia or anybody associated with them if these sorts of "policies" are in place. -- Otto 20:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking at this from the wrong end of the beast. The ethos here is to freely provide illustrative material in a format which encourages other free content. As such, the "copyleft" principal of share-alike licensing, while it does allow commercial use, only does so under the same terms as you made it available, ie free for anyone to make copies of. First, no hardnosed commercial publisher is going to make his entire content freely avalaible just to include a few wikimedia images in it. The license requires that either the publication is also GFDL or the license terms are published wherever GFDL content is appears, and he's equally unlikely to want a GDFL license statement plastered all over the page on which your copyrighted material appears. The practical upshot is that any commercial use of wikimedia content outside of GFDL must be relicensed via negotiation with the copyright holder. In a nutshell: you don't give up your copyright, you give your images up for use in free-content publications like Wikipedia. You make them available to people for free, to use in exactly the same way. You give up the right to keep them stashed away on your hard drive for you alone to enjoy.. in my experience, you get a bit too involved and end up giving up way too much of your time persuading other people to do the same.. if the ethos of free-content and the terms of GFDL aren't for you, fair enough, I know it's not everyones cup of tea, especially not hardnosed publisher types ;o) --mikaul^talk 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, look, I get the idea. I do write and release lots of code. Admittedly, I usually use BSD-style licensing for code I don't much care about, and I use the GPLv2 (but absolutely NOT v3, under any circumstances) for code I do care about. I have no problem applying that same use to text as well. What I'm saying here is that I understand free licensing, I do it all the time. I get the principles and motivations behind it.

But I completely fail to see how those same principles can apply to photographs. Photographs have inherent value, and there's no reasonable case for derivatives that matters. See, if I release free code, and somebody modifies that code and releases it, great. That was the point of releasing it, so that somebody else can improve upon the work and I can reap the benefits of their improvements. On the other hand, releasing a free photo doesn't make any sense. Nobody's going to release a modified version with value that comes back to me. There's no GAIN in it for me. The whole concept is one-sided: I give my work away for free, and gain nothing in return.

What's more, recent events such as that phone advertising thing down in Australia that got the photographer sued for releasing his image under a CC license (accidentally, I believe) really only serve to drive the point home. It makes no sense to allow free commercial use of photographic work, from any angle. Unless you don't value that work, of course, in which case public domain makes a whole lot more sense. -- Otto 05:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you never use Wikipedia I guess you would see no benefit from contributing to it. If you could easily sell what you would otherwise donate, go release your pic's inherent value that way, rather than give it up to a resource you have no personal stake in. OTOH if you do regularly use Wikipedia, I don't see your problem: you regularly benefit from contributions freely made by others in your situation. It's not so different to your software releases, just way bigger in scope. You get out of it much more than you put in, but if no-one puts in.. bear in mind that the whole project is basically billions of hours of work freely-donated by people who, I think I'm safe in saying, consider their time to have every bit as much inherent value as you see in your images.
Incidentally, apart from having no relevance to the GFDL licensing I suggested, you got the wrong end of the stick vz that Australian story. The photographer isn't getting sued, he just didn't understand the implications of the license he released them under.. --mikaul^talk 12:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, look it up again. The photographer did get sued, but then the family dropped it and now both he and the family are suing Virgin Mobile and the Creative Commons people.

And you're also missing the point. You're not asking me to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm willing to do that. You're asking me to license my photographic work in such a way that I essentially have to give up all rights to it and all real control over it, just in order to contribute to Wikipedia. That's really freakin' extreme.

So saying that "you regularly benefit from contributions freely made by others" is not the point. I'm willing to contribute to Wikipedia. But that's NOT what you're asking me to do. You're asking me to contribute my work to everybody, for free, with no restrictions at all. The benefit from that that you're now telling me is "well, you get wikipedia", which is really, really weak. Where's the benefit to me from releasing even ONE photograph under such terms? I get Wikipedia anyway without giving up my rights.

The power of free licensing is the power to ensure that improvements are also free. That is its only power. In such a case, all parties benefit. But photographs cannot really be improved upon, unless somebody takes a better photograph. So the contributing party gets no benefit whatsoever from his work. The license is now one-sided. It makes no sense to release quality photographic work (work with value) under such terms.

So, is Wikipedia's goal to only have low-quality photographic work? Because that's the inevitable result of such policies. -- Otto 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you don't want to contribute your photos, don't. We aren't soliciting your photographs. You aren't going to change Wikipedia's policy, either, so there's really nothing to argue about here. If you don't believe that it's possible to get people to freely release high-quality photographs, fine, you're entitled to your opinion; but might I direct your attention to Commons:Featured pictures, which contains thousands of freely licensed photos that I would consider to be of high quality. I also disagree with your claim that the only power of free licensing is the power to ensure that improvements are also free—consider the four freedoms explained at Freedom Defined. But apparently no one here is going to change your strong opinion that freely licensing photographs is ridiculous, and you aren't going to change anything here, so I'm not sure why we're still arguing. I think your view is short-sighted, but of course that's just my opinion. —Bkell (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have absolutely no intention of releasing my works under those terms. But I really, really am trying to understand your point of view. It appears, however, that you don't understand mine, and so I'm continually getting the impression that I'm not making myself clear here.

What I'm REALLY trying to do is to get a reasonable response here. So far, all you're giving me is either a) illogical or b) more of a "if you don't like it piss off" attitude. Are you all incapable of reasoned responses? Hell, you might actually be able to change my opinion, if you could answer my questions with actual answers. Sorry, but I won't take nonsense just because you're fresh out of sense.

As for these four freedoms, you also missed the point. The first three freedoms do not benefit the licenser in a free licensing situation, they only benefit the licensee. If I take a photo and release it under a free license, then other people can use/study/re-release it. But I already could do all those things as the copyright holder. I've made no gain from free licensing my work. The only "freedom" that I could gain would be the 4th one listed, and that one makes no sense with photographs. Do you see my point?

Please tell me that somebody here is rational enough to actually understand what I'm talking about. Because so far, I'm not getting any feedback here that makes any sense. :( -- Otto 20:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree that you will probably not receive a direct personal benefit for releasing your photographs under a free license. If that's your point of view, if your only goal is personal gain, then you're probably right—free licensing doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is not created by people who are seeking personal gain; it's created by people who are volunteering their work for the benefit of others. So free licenses, which give benefits to the licensees, fit right in with Wikipedia's philosophy. I contribute here not for my own benefit but for others'. All of my contributions are gifts on my part, and I don't really get anything in return. Is this rational? I think so—I think of it as a small way to make the world a little better. Maybe you don't agree. —Bkell (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Altruism is a delusion; everybody does everything for personal gain, they just have to understand what their gain is. Maybe your gain is that it makes you feel better about yourself. :) -- Otto 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Altruism? (page break)

Otto: what you are explaining, that you gain the benefits of Wikipedia whether or not you contribute, is a well understood problem, known as the tragedy of the commons. The question is; given that the tragedy of the commons applies to so many things we do, beginning with the problem of individuals grazing their animals on common land, how is it that societies manage to exist in the way they do, with considerable altruism always being seen. One answer is that they adopt laws and policing, but the limitations of these is all too apparent in the Western world currently. Another is by religion, and the belief that good deeds bring reward in heaven, and that played a big part a hundred years ago. Another, and perhaps the most important answer in my opinion, is the seeking of status, approval, and trust. People who become known for generosity and altruistic behaviour, tend to be trusted by others, or even favoured. This works best in small communities where good deeds are remembered and reputations important, and many would argue that it is the breakdown of small communities and the impersonalisation of human interactions in western society that has led to the collapse of Western society that many now agree is taking place. Against this background, Wikipedia is perhaps an attempt to restore altruistic behaviour in a bigger network. I for one feel proud to have contributed to articles, and proud to show friends how great Wikipedia is. I might hope that this gains me some respect and trust with them. There's another point though that you might not have considered. I've had my success, made lots of money at what I did, and now I see meaning in trying to fix the big problem - trying to rescue society from the 'rat-race' of business. I'm very interested in the idea of memes in the evolution of societies, and so it is a privilege to put an article straight (in an NPOV way) or to have my photos out there if they help people see the world differently, or help them marvel at what Wikipedia can do. Yes, altruism is a delusion, you are dead right, but there's more to the story, and it's being unravelled in evolutionary psychology where status is currently regarded as important to the mystery of altruism. I agree that 'do-gooders' are actually being selfish (though they often argue against this), but while pretending to do good for the sake of it they are actually seeking status (as good generous citizens), and status brings rewards and trust which can make life easier. If your reputation or motives are ever in doubt, it may help that friends know you to be altruistic, and it will not help if they know you as a hard-nosed businessman. Status is the 'proximal' reward that evolution uses to make societies, just as it uses sexual pleasure as the 'proximal' reward to make children (people rarely have sex to make children but that's the 'distal' reason why they do it in evolutionary terms. Societies that lose altruistic behaviour die out, because being able to trust up-front oils the wheels of life, and complex laws and checks and identity cards and passwords all clog them up. Status in business is another matter of course, often relying too much on power, and not good for society. Perhaps I should use the word 'reputation', and reputation is quite different from 'feeling better about yourself'. Check out tit for tat. --Memestream 13:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your concept of "status" indeed makes sense, but the problem is that it only applies to small groups. You can gain status in a small community. You can gain status on a small internet forum, with a few hundred regular users. But this is Wikipedia; it has tens or hundreds of thousands of contributors. "Status" is therefore meaningless here except among a small set of elites who all know each other. Not being part of that group, and only being a part time contributor, there's no cachet in giving away my work for free. There's no "status" to be gained because the group is too large of a set in which that status can be recognized. The only reason I have for contributing is, mainly, boredom. Gives me something to do from time to time. Also, I tend to contribute on articles about my local area. What with it being a tourist spot, this sort of enhancement increases potential business in the area, which can directly benefit me.

In other words, I don't perceive any status to be gained from contributing here, so it cannot be a gain factor in my decision making process. The only time you can gain status in such a large groups is if you already have such status that you can perceive it as a smaller peer group, namely those among you who have such status. -- Otto 15:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did say, status works best in small groups and there is a problem with large groups, but you seemed intent on trying to find a reasoned answer, and I seem to have made some progress in that you agree status may be significant to the question. To take things a stage further, I suggest that the desire for 'validation' by others, is an inbuilt mechanism that is hard, maybe impossible, for us to escape (read R.D. Laings early books regarding 'ontological insecurity'). If we all carry on as though we are in a small community, then 'what goes around comes around' and we still benefit as a society. Some of us are trying to do that I think, while others, like you, are choosing to be 'freeloaders', although I suspect that you are looking for a reasoned answer because, despite the fact that freeloading 'makes sense' to you, it perhaps doesn't feel quite right. What can pull us together and make a big group behave as a small group is, I suggest, the concept of God, a father figure who notices what we all do and applies the checks and balances even if othes don't. I'm an out and out atheist, but I am beginning to think nevertheless that this is why large societies tended to be founded on religion. It's interesting that Benjamin Kidd came up with this idea in 1894 in the final chapter of his book Social Evolution. So if you can bring yourself to realise that the concept of God works without there really being one, provided most people behave as if there was one, then you have a reason for still persuing altruism in big groups. How am I doing? --Memestream 22:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're doing terribly, because everything you just wrote is total nonsense. Even the bits that do make sense don't apply to me.

First, I don't consider myself a "freeloader" of any sort. I'm just not going to do something that is, frankly, downright idiotic: give up my rights on my images. This is not about freeloading, I contribute to Wikipedia just fine. I'm making a specific use case for images here. I have no problem contributing words and giving up control over those. I have no problem giving up control over code. In both these cases, the loss of control over the work is balanced out (or exceeded) by the gain in value of the work. But there's no case in which the gain exceeds the loss for images. The gain is virtually non-existent, and the loss is quite high.

My point is that people generally make decisions based on risk/reward, or personal gain. In this *specific* case, the gain is simply not high enough. If you want quality images, if you want people to freely donate them, then the loss/gain ratio needs to be more balanced instead of being completely one-sided.

Furthermore, I'm more than willing to contribute images to Wikipedia or any other free project, just not under the given conditions. Allowing free and unlimited commercial use of my work is the sticking point here, it's just a completely insane requirement that no serious photographer would ever agree to. -- Otto 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem lies with that phrase 'serious photographer', which suggests that you value your ability as a photographer highly, and devalue people who 'just take photographs'. Wikipedia is not just for works of art, or 'creative' photographs. A photograph of a famous person, or building, or street scene that someone just happened to take can be of great value in enhancing an article even if it was not taken by a 'serious photographer'. If it is sharp and well framed and lit all the better, but that is not essential to give it value. Putting it in the public domain can help keep the memory of that person or time alive, and bring appreciation whereas trying to sell the photograph may be counterproductive because outside of the articles context the photo may have no value. --Memestream (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you're overthinking my choice of phrase. A "serious photographer" would be somebody who takes photos seriously and recognizes that they have value. The quality of a work is not what's at stake here. Even a quick snapshot has value. Even a poorly framed shot of a boring looking building has some value. And a photo with value is not even necessarily a photo that could even be sold either. The gain isn't monetary, nor is the value.

What I am saying is that if somebody values their work, then they would never agree to terms that essentially require them to give up that work without getting something in return. Heck, I'll even give you an example.

Back about 4-5 years ago, I got an iPod. This was before iTunes for Windows came out, so the choice of software to make the thing work on Windows was rather limited (there were 2 programs, both of which sucked). Linux had one piece of software that worked, but it worked very badly and could not support any real functionality (it could put on songs and that was about it).

So I dived in and reverse engineered the structure of the iPod's file formats, and worked it out enough to be able to put files on the thing myself. I also worked out enough to make playlists and a bunch of other things work. I wrote all this code to demonstrate how to do it, and then released it under a BSD-style license. I also documented it over on the iPodLinux wiki. I spent a great deal of time and effort doing that and gave all that work away for free. Why? Because in return, people took that code, and took that knowledge, expanded upon it, and now there's dozens of free tools that can talk to my iPod. That was the whole point, and it worked. I know of 4 open source projects directly using parts of my code, 3 more based on it, and virtually all of them have made use of (and contributed back to) the knowledge base that I spent so much time starting. So, I have gained much for my efforts.

And that's the beauty of sharing work for free. The gain happens in other ways than monetarily. But it doesn't quite work with photographs. There's no gain in it for me, as I have pointed out above. Without that gain, without something to encourage me to give away something I value, then I'm not going to do it. Nor should anybody who values their work. It's not about whether the work has value to other people, it's about whether it has value to me. I value my photographs. I'd like other people to see them. I'd like to contribute them. But I'd be an idiot to give them away and potentially let them be used in ways that I do not agree with.

The only way that giving them up for nothing in return makes any sense is if I assign a zero value to them. If I don't care about them in any way. Which makes it unlikely that I'd bother, really.

So no, I don't see the point in this sort of a rule. It's idiotic and counterproductive, in my opinion. It's even somewhat communist in nature. Your definition of "free" is certainly not the definition I'd use, nor one that I agree with. -- Otto 16:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding above that donating a copy of a photo involves giving up copyright. My understanding is that the copyright holder holds the copyright and is merely licensing the uploaded copy under a free license. The copyright holder still has the original and can sell or give away other copies of the original under whatever license they wish. -- SEWilco 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright is meaningless without actual control over the use of the work. -- Otto 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've been round that loop already (above) SEWilco, and Otto is right; once a photo is put in the public domain is loses all value as there is no point in anyone paying for it. However, I think you are wrong, Otto, to insist that there must be personal benefit. What you did with software was good, and in that case you saw a personal reward, but there can be a feeling of reward without financial reward if you benefit your society. I grant you that this was more likely when we lived in small communities so that we were increasing our status with people we knew, but some of us still feel the same. Another point might be that when most people die, very little ever remains of their life. Wikipedia might be for ever! Future generations might track your efforts with interest. You may say that this is no good to you once you are dead, and yet some people do feel the need to leave their mark. In the end, financial reward, which is all you are likely trade copyright for does not bring satisfaction. Many people who have more than sufficient money will confirm that. It's because money is one-dimensional, being traded only for work, materials, or ideas, but not for fortune or feeling (we are not compensated for death of a loved one for example, or for bad luck). What we tend to seek when we have enough money is something more, linked to status and doing good, and taking pleasure in seeing a joint project succeed. That's the essence of Wikipedia. --Memestream (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Forced thumbnail sizing

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

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

Multiple images?

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

Some admin input would be especially appreciated?

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

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

Driving Licence image question

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

If you're talking about this one: [3] , then it appears to be from a German government site. In which case I assume it's fake info. -- Otto 17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)