Wikipedia talk:Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page

A few notes on copyright restrictions, etc.
I think this is overall a very well written page. :)

After reviewing discussion at User talk:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS (now a deleted page, but discussion still available in the collapsed text here), I just made a few tweaks here.

I wanted to:
 * Note early on that uploading images to Commons requires free license.
 * Be careful about overstating attribution on Commons. Misuse may result in misattribution, which of course will be corrected if noticed but might be left to stand for some time.
 * Note that author attribution is not required for reuse if the uploader chooses a more liberal license and also try to clarify that it is the license, not Commons, that ensures attribution. (The legalist in me wants to put a footnote letting them know that it is their duty, not ours, to pursue license violations, but I'm not sure if that's overdoing it.)
 * Clarifying that artworks cannot be reused any way that people wish. Copyright restrictions are withdrawn, but there are other rights that may be reserved (moral rights) in some jurisdictions.
 * While "will be retained indefinitely" is technically quite right (since indefinite means it can disappear at any time), I want to buffer against people whose works are deleted immediately. :)

I'm not 100% sure about the image requirements section but unsure how to address my concerns in the text. Here's what it says right now: "If the picture already exists, you must own it or the rights to it. It must not be currently used at any other website unless that website explicitly states that all content therein is in the public domain, or, the website displays a Creative Commons license that permits both commercial reuse and derivative works of all content." My thoughts - the first sentence is not technically true, because if the picture is public domain or compatibly licensed, so long as that is verifiable, it may be used, whether it is published anywhere else or not. I toyed with language ideas ("you must own it or the rights to it, or no one else must have incompatible copyright restrictions on it") and then fell down the "further explanation needed" rabbit hole. With the second sentence, I'd add a link to WP:DCM or steal some of that text for those cases when the website belongs to uploader. I'd also recommend noting they must comply with the license in the second case. And finally Creative Commons are not the only compatible image licenses, but I'm not sure if that complexity will overwhelm.

I really like the bold comment in that section. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some remarks: is "own it or the rights to it" redundant and confusing; should it really just say "the rights to it"? The lone word "Commons" should be avoided, use "Wikimedia Commons" and "Creative Commons" instead. A link to Wikimedia Commons as early as possible would be great. We could give an example of proper attribution on some site outside of WMF websites. We shouldn't ask for them to make signatures minimal because signatures are not allowed per WP:WATERMARK. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 20:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Great notes, Moonriddengirl. I could really use some help wording it and getting this page nailed down. It is the only thing holding up the outgoing emails. Maybe a point-form presentation of rights and disclaimers or something. I am not very good at this kind of writing. Could someone please help? Maybe User:Finnusertop, User:SpacemanSpiff, or User:SebastianHelm? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm very hesitant to describe "your rights" to the artists. I would rather leave that to their reading of Creative Commons license and the other applicable article space pages. IMO being selectively descriptive here (albeit for clarification purposes) has the potential to lead to an unnecessary confusion at a later point. Also, they don't have to ask an editor to upload an image for them; it can be done through photosubmission@wikimedia.org (I can't seem to find the project page for it, maybe knows where it is), an example is File:H.M.S._Hunter.JPG that I uploaded after receiving it at that queue on OTRS; this process is a bit better as the OTRS agent can go through the licensing issue with the customer directly (I had a couple of back and forths on that image with the customer quite happy at the end of it as they got an understanding of how copyright on Wikipedia is addressed), but the negative is that photosubmission queue is quite backlogged at times and you may have to alert an agent to process a particular image. Also, very often we remove signatures and watermarks prior to usage and if there's some notes on that we could share a link. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a few more edits, . Hopefully they work for you. I'm okay with an example but have tried to clarify that it's not exhaustive., I don't know if there is a page that encourages the use of photosubmission@. There might be, but I know that it is far, far preferred that people upload images themselves. In terms of watermarks, Commons is working on a policy at Commons:Commons:Watermarks, but there doesn't seem to be any great rush to get it finished. Removing watermarks may not be a good idea, however; see m:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images. You might want to just discourage artists from putting their names on images at all, Anna, per WP:WATERMARK. Personally, I'm not uncomfortable with what you have, but if an image is going to wind up rejected or a watermark removed, it might be worth going a bit further with that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fantastic edits, Moonriddengirl. I can't thank you enough. As for watermarks, yes, maybe we should ask them to omit signatures. I can imagine all sorts of cropping out and reuploading and hard feelings otherwise. We leave the door open to problems allowing signatures. But do you think anyone will actually donate art without their signature, though? I hope it is not a deal-breaker to them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that would seriously impair artists' motivation to donate their works here. IANAL, but I don't see any legal reason why there can be no sig. The very model picture mentioned on these pages earlier, File:Nasrallah by Vinoba.jpg, has one, which doesn't seem to pose a problem for anybody. &mdash; Sebastian 20:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now that I see the Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page section, that portrait, too has a signature, even more prominent. &mdash; Sebastian 22:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let's not mention anything about signatures in the image requirements section. I suggest we just see how things play out and deal with issues if and when they become issues. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Notes on attribution
It might be worth pointing out that the artist can choose to be known only by their Wikimedia handle, or by their legal real-world name, or by some other artistic name. – Brianhe (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line on reuse and credits
According to TinEye, appears in 52 publications. I clicked the first few and found no credits:.

On the other hand, I see plenty getting used all over the place crediting me:. So, shouldn't we be clear with artists that this can and does happen?

And shouldn't we say that if someone modifies their piece and that derivative is used in a magazine, the original artists name will probably not appear? And if someone makes a derivative and uploads it to commons, sure commons will link to the original, but if someone uses that new commons derivative in a magazine, the creator of that derviative will be credited but not the original artist.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Dennis Bratland also keeps track of when his media is credited. It's not 100%. However I think both of us have gotten our Commons work published in printed books with credit, so it's not all bad. – Brianhe (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes often my stuff gets used with credit, and often without. Naturally. The problem is that some people will upload content thinking a copyleft notice is an ironclad guarantee? And so we need to warn them that copyleft is just words and some people on the Internet will copy your stuff without respecting the terms of use? I don't think it's possible in 2015 to be that naive about how copying works. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Bursted Wood carvings
'''Why has there been no information on the five giant carvings erected by the Council in Bursted Woods? They are rough depictions of creatures which can be found there and, for the most part, are pretty ugly, but they are art none-the-less. I have been inspired to add some of my own, which I would love to present pictures of here, but can't find how to transfer the images. Mine are all life-sized, from a wren, to a fox-cub emerging from a tree-stump. I will be repairing the tortoiseshell butterfly eventually, which will then become the smallest, but they are all created from dead tree-trunks I have sawn off and which could otherwise have been dangerous - a lot of them are capable of falling and one actually has fallen since I carved him - he is now reburied and staked with a metal angle-iron. Unfortunately, as a blackbird, he rather needs his beak, which has become buried where he fell; I hope I can replace it soon, but I keep forgetting to get more glue... At the moment there are nine carvings: the toad where there used to be a thrush(which was knocked off and disappeared) the rat, two woodpeckers, the wren, the robin, the fox cub, the blackbird and my current favourite the tawny owl. I have sawn off a few more trunks of the dead trees, which I will be attending to when the weather warms again this spring, but there are also some stumps the council created quite recently, which suggest much larger carvings - children and dogs come to mind, but I won't be able to touch them until they've seasoned a bit; maybe from July onwards?Madammare (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC) '''