Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 13

Signatures on artwork
The section about watermarks and credits needs to be clarified. Since some works of art have signatures on them, there are some editors that feel this violates the 'no watermark' and/or 'no credits' policy. Others, however, feel that signatures are not covered by this policy. The reason this needs to be better clarified is because on Commons, art can be uploaded as is, with signature and all, but some editors on the English Wikipedia feel then that such images are not permitted for use here. They may either crop, which might cause issue on other Wikipedia's who have no policy against an artist signing his work, or photoedit the image, though photo-editing then alters the image and no longer makes it artist's and would be an issue with historic paintings. Could it be specified if signatures are or are not allowed? If they need to be cropped out, or perhaps allowed if the signature is unreadable when used in smaller dimensions and only visible when enlarged, or allowed on historic works only, or just simply allowed no matter what? [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment for clarification Wikipedia has the right to set its own policies, separate from Commons, which accommodates not only this project but others and the general public. Historic paintings are already excepted in policy: "Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit forms an integral part of the composition." For clarity here, it's important to note that this question rises from a discussion where the image creator is also the uploader and the contributor adding the image to an article and hence easily in position to comply with policy. See the ANI discussion for background. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I always read WP:WATERMARK as "Free images should not be watermarked" (emphasis added), as opposed to "must not be watermarked". Obviously as MRG pointed out when the image creator is the uploader there should be no reason for them to use a watermark, but I never understood it to be a firm rule—and since user-created images must be a freely licensed they can always be edited to remove the watermark. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding your own watermark/sig/whatever to an image that someone else created (whether PD or not), or a derivative work (such as the coat of arms sketches in question) is inappropriate. If the original art as created has the mark or sig, we leave it in, but when it is being purposely added when it is not your own creative work to start with, is not acceptable. --M ASEM  (t) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Even "when the credit forms an integral part of the composition" is not itself clear on whether historic works can include the signature, since many works have the signature in the margins where it could be easily cropped out because it would not exclude anything "integral". The language is so broad that editors reading the same policy walk away with many different interpretations.

We need to clarify what a watermark is, and how it would be preferred that watermarks should not be used, especially when advertising or used in a repeating format. Watermarks may be acceptable when used as a digital signature which takes up only a minimal area of the overall image.

We should then clarify that signatures are acceptable on original works, especially on historical and historic works. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  17:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Especially on historical and historic works" is not so much clarification as a change. There has long been opposition on Wikipedia to the inclusion of watermarks and credits. For instance, this conversation in which a photographer wished to watermark his photographs and the rationale he was given for not doing so: "watermarks also don't fit in well with the typical sizes wikipedia scales too, what would be a reasonable watermark on the image at full size will become nothing more than an unreadable nasty looking artifact at the size used in articles. Also the way wikipedia normally works is to keep credit seperate from content (on history pages, image decscription pages etc) If we didn't do this then articles would become flooded with credit. watermarking tries to short cuircuit this and put your credit directly into the article. I'm sure you can understand how the major authors of the articles text could feel a bit uncomfortable with that especially since we already give images far easier to find credit than text." This was an argument advanced again in this 2008 discussion, where a user wrote: "watermarked images tend to look unprofessional and distracting. The issue of attribution is more complex, but as long as article authors are only attributed on another (history) page, it's not unreasonable to credit image authors on another (image description) page as well." Are there reasons to modify this long-standing practice? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Another way to put this: if you are creating an image primary for the purposes of use in Wikipedia, adding a signature or watermark is not acceptable. If you created an image, had added a watermark/sig to it, and later found that it could be used in Wikipedia and it is now impossible to remove the watermark/sig, then it is improper. --M ASEM (t) 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be an unevenly applied rule; anything deemed historic may bear a signature, but anything old and historical may as well. But new things can if the artist or his work is liked by editors. Of course, those that editors do not like or whatnot should have their signature photoedited or cropped out, because history has not yet looked kindly on them, they are not famous, they are not popular or they have the grave error of not being born centuries ago. There are far too many exceptions to the policy for it to be a policy.


 * The argument that watermarks look unprofessional and often show highly pixelated when condensed is valid, but that is due to the fact watermarks are usually added by digital means. Signatures look very natural, even condensed, because they are written in the hand that made the drawing or painting. So the 'unsightly argument' would not be alid agaisnt signatures.


 * To say it gives 'extra credit' to artists is a moot point because the very same argument said that watermarks (and signatures could be applied here) would be too small to read in articles, and if it can not be read, it can not give credit. To read the signature, one would have to go to the file page to enlarge the image, where the artist's name already appears. Hardly any 'extra credit' when the name appears just a short bit beneath the signature anyways.


 * Either way, the policy should be expanded to better explain what each item is, watermark, signature, digital signature, credit and so on, and explain what the policy clearly is, what is acceptable and what is expressly prohibited. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarification could be a good idea, if consensus could be reached for language. This conversation has come up a few times, usually in regards to watermarking or signing images. As I understand it, consensus is that contributors should not submitted their own signed works. Do you have examples of signed materials that are not historic? I'd be happy to tag them for attention with Imagewatermark if they're hosted locally. If they're hosted on Commons, we can create new copies without the signatures to comply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The image above is not historic, just an old sketch. Yet, it bears a signature. Or shall we exclude historical images from the policy as well? Who decides what is historic, and what process will be used to judge more modern works? How old must a work be to be considered historical? [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While the earlier comments have covered the issue, I would like to point to an example I have used before: DNA is one of many extraordinarily good articles (with images) on Wikipedia. In my mind, there is no reason for Wikipedia to accept unnecessary watermarks/signatures in images when there are thousands of articles like DNA with no visible attribution. Re "who decides": generally the community has no trouble deciding something like that; it's only when a person insists on a non-consensus result that there is trouble. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is historic, just not historically-significant. That is, because of its age, it is unreasonable to try to remove the watermark/sig/whatever from the work. If it is work under a Wikipedia's editor control, we should always strive to remove identifying marks whenever possible - if this was a sketch from a Wikipedia editor, it would not be unreasonable to assume the watermark can't be easily removed, and thus we'd allow it to stay. But if I just made that up but didn't sign it before, then later came back and added my sig, that would be a problem.    It doesn't matter if its a watermark, sig, caption, or whatever -if we have some type of control on the origin of the work, we need to avoid adding identifying marks. --M ASEM  (t) 02:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is not historic, it is historical. Historic implies it needs to be remembered in histories, while historical merely implies it is of significant age. Anything will be historical at some point, but only a few things historic. To give exemption to historical images merely means anything of significant age, say a hundred years old or older, would be allowed a signature regardless of its significance. To give special privileges to only things historic means that even old images would need to be cropped because they were not very important, even if centuries old, but that even something created yesterday could be allowed a signature if it will be or need be remembered for all ages. My ancestors are unknown and are thus not historic men, yet they are still historical. George Washington is historical because he lived centuries ago, but because of his role in history he is also historic. This is another thing that needs to be clarified. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  04:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. If you make the work with the intent to include it freely on WP, there better not include watermarks, signatures, or other attribution marking, as it is both inappropriate and can be made without it. But any other free image where the intent was not for inclusion on WP and where there is no likelihood of being able to recreate that image, we don't ask for the attribution remove, regardless of age. The historic/historical issue is a red henning save for the fact that most works that will fall under this are old art pieces that have fallen into the PD.  But that's not being discriminating due to age, that's just due to free content requirements. --M ASEM  (t) 05:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to update what I said a few years ago - it still holds true now and I actually still feel this sections needs to be updated, more so now, to reflect the current allowed uses at Wikipedia. One of the biggest changes is that the accepted, and preferred, license is now the CC Attribution 3.0 license. Also all current CCL's are now attribution one, meaning they all require attribution to be given if required. Beyond that, and how it all applies to this, is that per the "full legal code" images are to be accepted "as is" and must "keep intact" any sort of copyright notice or other information as required by the copyright holder. That all plays a very important role in this discussion now - in October 2010.

If a file is uploaded, in this discussion we are talking various forms of "signatures" including anything that could be considered a "watermark", with some sort of text it would automatically be in violation of this policy unless it was the source of discussion (i.e - an article about watermarks). The problem is this policy has never truly been enforced across the board. And it needs to be stressed that when this policy was created a lot of things were different, including saying "no thank you" to anyone who required attribution and the misunderstanding of some admins that any uploader who stated, via a watermark or otherwise, their image was copyrighted meant it was someone else's work or not "free". As we are having this new, 2010, discussion the "copyright" stance has been replaced with a growing "self" tag use means the opposite - no matter what the source, or what a watermark might say, if an image is using a "self" license than the uploader is the copyright holder and the given license is valid. If anything the use of watermark in 2010, in may cases, aids to establish that the uploader is or, more importantly, *isn't* the copyright holder. But those issues aside for a moment, this section is now almost unenforceable because of the CC 3.0 license terms. An image using that license means Wikipedia, and any other end users, agree to it's terms. So, as some examples, File:AMoF Shoalhaven aviation 2 of 4.jpg is clearly a page of some sort - but it does contain a lot of text. Most would accept this and not question it, but what if it an image with this same exact text was uploaded? Or even much less, such as this image, which has simple text at the bottom of it - barely noticeable. After I used it an an example it was transferred to Wikimedia Commons and cropped. And I also used this image as an example because it had a time/date stamp on it,. That, too, was cropped. Some would invoke this section of the policy if any sort of "credits" are used but nobody seems to mind image such as File:GCS Website.jpg, File:SNUB Website.JPG, File:Abuse - credits.png or File:AxxonPalm186 credits.png. But, again, according to the accpeted CCL the end user must "keep intact" items such as these - which means this image should not have been cropped. And what about images such as File:Allergy to Antibiotic Cefaclor.JPG, File:Abdominal hair patterns cmg.jpg, File:Classic OS X Screenshot.png, File:Banate Fishing Port.jpg, File:Cybernoid computer game cover.jpg, File:Trail.jpg and File:VictoriaPark.jpg? All of which are tagged with watermark. Than there is my favorite image that has never been speedied, or nominated, for deletion and never tagged with watermark - File:01-16-06 0006.jpg. Clearly if this section of the policy was enforced that would have been the first image to go.

In the modern age "watermarking" is, is many cases, a form of placing a signature on work. And it was common for portraiture photographers to print signatures into their prints as well. Websites do it all the time, numerous photographers do it, digital artists do it. The accepted license *allows* for it. So what I proposed still would work:

(New text in green) ''Also, user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits text in the image itself, or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the text is part of the image or is small and unobtrusive and used for descriptive reason or to give a basic source credit, 1 or is intended to demonstrate watermarking or distortion etc. and is used in the a related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page. The watermark tag can be placed on images that do not follow this. Note that this tag should not apply to fair use images. '' 1. Free images with text such as "Source NAME" or "photo by NAME", provided they are small and unobtrusive, artistic images, digital paintings, graphs and images with a digital time/date stamp are allowable. However any free images that contain a website URL, email, phone numbers or other direct contact information or solicitations are not allowable and may be nominated for speedy deletion under G11.

Use that as a starting point. The "footnote" was added because of the discussion, much like this discussion, that would help to clarify some things. But, again, that was then - but clearly blatant SPAM (ie - To purchase this image contact...") could still be speedied as such despite the license. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Xander, I'd have no objection to altering the word to "historical", if you think it more clear. Soundvisions, your favorite File:01-16-06 0006.jpg is only used in userspace. Neither of the objections to text would apply, and the text seems more a creative part of the image than a credit, unless the photographer has a very odd nickname. :) There has always been great latitude permitted to content in userspace; we don't enforce WP:V in user bios, either.


 * On the CC question, CC permits modification. Unless the copyright holder specifies that a watermark must remain, there is no implicit duty to retain the watermark, unless (arguably) the watermark is a copyright notice (cf. CC-By, sect. 4(b): "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:"). I say arguably because CC indicates that credit "may be implemented in any reasonable manner". There is no requirement to retain a signature, as long as credit is given. Beyond that, it is completely within the discretion of the project to flatly reject any works that contain signatures and watermarks. Accordingly, I oppose your (eta: I am still speaking to Soundvisions, whose points I am addressing here. This has evidently caused some confusion, and clarity is important here.) proposed alteration to policy. There is no reason we should accept embedded credits in user-created images and the same reasons you were given before that we should not apply: we do not promote credit for text contributors; credits on an image face detract visually. Those who want prominent credit for the images they create are free to publish them elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are opposed to clarification? I said either way, the policy needs to be clarified. Words are mixed up, like historical and historic, which changes the meaning of the policy. Watermark is used as a catch all when a watermark is a specific technique and distinctly different from a signature. If you type "watermark" in Google, signatures don't pop up. Otherwise the policy gets stated in arguments, then the editor comes in and says "what I think the policy means is", or "what they really meant was", and that is no way to have a policy. MRG, you see here how other editors differ on opinions on what the policy means. VernoWhitney took it as a guideline, but not as something set in stone. MASEM believes the reason behind the creation can alter the way the policy is applied and stretched to cover certain situations. I see errors in the terms used. If an image is put up for review under this policy and we each walk away with a different interpretation, then clearly the policy is flawed and needs to be clarified. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No. You were addressed in my opening sentence, where I used your name. After that, I was talking to Soundvisions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xander - and although you were addressing me you did say you opposed the changes, which are meant to clarify. Thus - yes, you seem to be opposed to clarification of the wording here. And your reply proves my point in regards to why it needs to be clarified. This is part of a policy called "Image use policy", not "image use policy in userpace". Accordingly nowhere do this section does it state "There has always been great latitude permitted to content in userspace, thusly watermarks are freely permitted." Unless what you are implying is that an image used on userspace fall is not the specific exemption making all userspace images "historic images." And that is what I meant when I stated if this is to remain it needs to be clarified or it needs to be enforced across the board.


 * As for how it relates to the CCL, even though Moon restated what I said their implication of why it *doesn't* apply is missing the point - for example I, as a photographer, have the right to offer a user one of my images in a form that I wish, or "as is." That may include some sort of text on the image. I also have the right to require attribution be placed somewhere, be it on the image or wherever the image is used. When Wikipedia (or any other end user) accepts that image and uses it, the license agreement becomes valid. The only exceptions would be, as an example, Moon contacts me and asks "Can I crop out all of the text and not give attribution in the article where your image is used?" and I agree to it. Otherwise, no. Yes, the right to "remix" is given, however their are requirements in the license for derivative works as well. Through all of it things such as any copyright notice, attribution, a source URI - all remain intact. Clearly if any of these are part of the image their removal without prior agreement would be cause for concern by the copyright holder. So this section is not really enforceable as currently written, because it implies two things. First is the wording of "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use..." and second is that "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page."  The wording "watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself" is wide - it is not specific and as written could apply to any number of images. And because it is not enforced it *does* become more of a "guideline" than a policy, and because it is rarely enforced overall it seems to drop down to a line from an essay. For anyone using the CC 3.0 license that has attribution required on the same page as the image the line "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" is not enforceable as policy either, it can only be suggested - no longer demanded. That also applies to the comment moon made pf "we do not promote credit for text contributors." If text is used, that has been licensed via an attribution license, it is required to be given. Unlike the excuse of a "image page" containing credit being good enough, text has no "text page" and is normally attributed on the article page via several methods. Likewise there is all kinds of attribution provided in all sorts of articles - on the pages, in the articles. There is Citation and quote to give attribution to the source of text, in the article, on the article page. There is no "historical" requirement for use of these. Wikipedia uses standard info boxes for a film, book, CD and television shows that all provide attribution to various people - musicians, producers, distributors, engineers, directors, writers and so on. If one looks at the wider scope currently it is mostly a photographer or other visual artist (I.e - working in a "still" format, outside of an article *about* that photographer or artist) who it is argued by many has no rights for attribution via a by line/photo credit of some sort whenever their image is used, on the page their work is used on. It comes back to this section of the policy in many ways because it is the basis for many of the deletion criteria and guidelines that came after. Again - by way of example - we accept DVD covers and CD covers via fair use and "self" and there generally not be any issues with any sort of text (Which could include a "watermark" or simply "text" in the image). "Fair use" is currently *not* addressed in this section of the policy being discussed - but it *is* in what I proposed.


 * If File:Ruhefinden cd cover.jpg were simply uploaded as a picture that did not have the "CD" in it's name chances are it would have either been cropped or deleted. This File:Outpost 2 CD Cover.PNG clearly contains credits and watermarks - to both Dynamix and Sierra, but it is allowed because it is "fair use". File:DANGEROUSNEWMACHINE PROMO PHOTO.jpg is obvious that is fails this section of the policy as currently written. File:Juliette Compton, promo photo 1931.JPG so would this, although one could argue because it is from 1931 it is historical. And same with File:Salteenspromo.jpg. I, personally, don't care about those but if someone wanted to invoke this section of the policy they could. Bringing it back to what Xander said - "If an image is put up for review under this policy and we each walk away with a different interpretation, then clearly the policy is flawed and needs to be clarified." Currently this section of the policy is not clear at all, nor is the watermark tag's use. It has already been practice for many years to do what I proposed, by "spelling out." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to the little bit of the above I've read: to be specific, I said "Xander, I'd have no objection to altering the word to 'historical', if you think it more clear." I trust now that I've quoted myself, there will be no further confusion as to what I have opposed. But, just in case, I have annotated my comments above. The leeway permitted in User Space is documented at User pages, where it says (in nutshell) "considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages". Unless a watermark brings the project in disrepute, I suspect there would be no objections to using one. Unless it becomes a problem (and is not merely a hypothetical issue), I suspect that trying to anticipate any image that might arise could lead to significant instruction creep. Your clarification looks very much like alteration to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The arguments being made here by Soundvisions and Xander sound like a lot of Wikilawyering because something didn't go there way. I think most people understand the difference between the addition of text to an image that makes it an attribution (as in a watermark, signature, or direct attribution), and text on an image that is part of the branding for that image - typically on logos or covers of works to identify who made that work (but not necessarily the cover image). Branding is an essential part of any cover or logo image and should not be being talked in the same manner as watermarks or the like.  We cannot strip branding from images period. --M ASEM  (t) 16:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is the policy is not well written and does not cover everything. When editors have to say "what the policy really means" or "by watermarks, it really means everything" and so forth, it means there are clear holes in the policy. No one should have to correct a policy's wording to implement that policy. There are too many exemptions for it to really even be a policy at this point, too. What happens is when an editor wants to cause an issue about an image, he can cite this policy and then give his interpretation of that policy, then wait to see how many people agree that his interpretation is right or what other interpretations arise and take hold in the relevant discussion, and after the policy is decided on what it really meant, then can it be decided it it should be implemented as was decided that time. A policy should not be so ague that it requires a consensus on what it really means before one can take a consensus on whether it applies. It would be like going to a baseball game and asking the crowd each time to decide what the rules are in baseball, then playing the game that way, then seeing who wins with the rules decided for that game. You will have different rules each game. That is what we have here, editors deciding what the policy 'really means' each time the policy comes up in discussion, which is different form when it was last brought up and applied, different also from the time before and so on.


 * Again, explain what watermarks are and why they are unacceptable. What signatures are, when they are and when they are not acceptable and why. What credits are and why the are unacceptable. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact Moonriddengirl had to refer to another location to try and explain something page shows that *this* section is not clear in that regards. And even than it not really clear that the wording of "considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages" translates to "There has always been great latitude permitted to content in userspace, thusly watermarks are freely permitted." I know that most have not gone back and read prior discussions but, "in a nutshell", I had explained the method in which images are uploaded at Wikipedia. I set up what happens when the actual photographer does this vs somebody else. This somewhat ties into what User:Masem said when they imply that "things didn't go" my way. But reality is this is not about me, it is certainly based on real world "reality" however. And I can, and do, speak form personal experience. Based on past experiences in "wikiworld" say a photographer comes in and wants to upload an image - they do so and Masem or Monnriddengirl delete it on the spot and when questioned "why?" they are told "It was speedied because it was watermarked". Based on the upload process the next quesiton is "where does it say that?" And Masem or Monnriddengirl would send the user to another location, perhaps here or perhaps CSD. Now, to be fair, maybe Masem or Monnriddengirl would not have handled it that way, but there is the problem - just because two who participate here may not have, clearly others may - and have. Beyond that just because Monnriddengirl says there is no problem on userspace does not mean that is what every single admin reads - because it is not at all specific. Just because Masem may feel the "most people understand" does not mean they do. Not everybody "gets it" and *that* is the issue, and in order to see that one needs to step outside of "logic." As a fair question to Masem or Monnriddengirl - are you photographers? Have you found your work being used on the internet with your permission or without proper credit? Have you found your work uploaded to a distribution site such as Wikimedia Commons, but not uploaded by yourself? The bottom line is that the addition of text (Call it watermark, call it credits, call is shit on a shingle) to an image means various things. From the source it came from, to the distributor of a product, to a description of a product, to the signature (Digtial or otherwise) or the author. In 2010 this discussion needs to be about what is going on right now in relation to the issue(s) at play. I, personally, think most people would understand that "attribution" means a by-line or photo credit for images or text. I think most people would understand the language of the CCL is generic to include all forms of copyrightable material. But my time in "Wikiworld" has shown, without a doubt, this is not true at all. It is not too uncommon for some editors to remove required attribution because of this section of this policy, without bothering to read the license. The same goes for "watermarks" and I have seen this cited in some deletion discussion where an image is "distorted", and that is usually followed by discussions of what is "artistic" or not.
 * Again I gave numerous examples and the overall response has been "Well, those are ok because..." yet the exact wording for this section does not say that a self made CD cover is not the same as a self made image that shows the exact same thing and contains the exact same information. It does not say that a promotional photo that states the photographer, label and artists name is not the same ans the exact same photo using a "self" license containing the same thing. It does not say that and image that is "watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself" is perfectly fine as long as it used in userspace. And so on, and so on.
 * To be 100% clear in what *I* feel - as currently worded, overall, I invoke IAR with this section because it is not followed, and overall ignored by most people. I rarely see it invoked unless someone has a personal axe to grind with another editor. Others "clean up" images when they have free time, using this an a reason to make a derivative work if there is text in the image they personally don't like. I feel there is zero reason why the date/time in this image, the description in this or the "signature" on File:VictoriaPark.jpg are any more in "violation" than they are on File:HarrietWheeler.jpg, File:McMath painting.jpg, File:Ikarus-Painting.jpg, File:Ganesha digital art.jpg or File:Speed-painting-digital-photoshop-art-f1-crash-missfeldt.jpg. So to be vague, because nobody else has yet suggested new wording, I Support clarification as proposed by Xanderliptak. To be somewhat more specific I support actual wording of this section that will explain what watermarks are and why they are unacceptable. What signatures are, when they are and when they are not acceptable and why. What credits are and why the are unacceptable. In addition to that I support striking the phrase "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" as it is not enforceable via a Wikipedia only policy when a users license trumps Wikipedia policy once accepted by Wikipedia. (*or* I would support the clarification that this *only* applies when there are no attribution requirements specified, and that it *does not apply* to what is contained *in the image* itself - pending of course further clarification as proposed by Xanderliptak) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen my words copied without credit around the internet on many occasions. Like the photographers and artists who submit their material here, I have the option of not submitting my material here if I wish to avoid this. I do not have the option of demanding credit on the face of the article. Currently, photographers and artists do not have the option of demanding credit on the face of their art. I have no problem with clarifying the policy, but I oppose the language you proposed above, as this is not a clarification but an alteration. And I disagree that "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" is unenforceable. People donate text content to Wikipedia all the time that is deleted because it is not appropriate for our project. It is to our community what standards apply...and this extends to saying, "Thanks, but no thanks" if people wish to impose restrictions on their images that we do not care to accept. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Briefly: it first depends on what your definition of "demand" is. If you use, as an exmaple, the CC 3.0 license the copyright holder has the explicit right to *require* the end user to display whatever information they ask in whatever form they ask. This depends on the media so what is required, and where, can greatly vary. A basic photo credit might read that "Photo by: NAME" must appear whereever the photo appears. A more detailed attribution requirement might have requirements for the image user on posters, in films, in a book, on the front cover of a book, on a t-shirt and so on. So if you define "demanding credit" as "required attribution" than you do have the right to do so. As the CCL are generic to cover any and all material this right also applies to text, music, paintings, films, television shows, printed music - in a word the right for attribution extends to "everything." As I tried to explain above if Wikipedia, or any end user, accepts the license by using an image that contains an explicit requirement stating where a photo credit is supposed to go the line "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" is not enforceable, *unless* a prior agreement has been made. And I 100% agree that Wikipedia can say "no thanks" to any image, however that should be done *before* the image is placed into any use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I read it, "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" is perfectly enforceable as a policy--if the photographer demands credit in any unusable manner (to go to extremes: "Credit should be supplied in 24 pt. font, blinking red letters"), we have the right to say, "Sorry, but your attribution requirement does not meet our usage policy and accordingly your image is unusable. If you wish to consider changing your attribution requirement, we may reconsider." I don't agree that this should be done before the image is placed into any use; at any point that an image (or text, or any other content) is determined to be inappropriate, it's fine to remove it. Wikipedia is all about modification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And another point - we allow EXIF embedded in the file to be used as attribution information which is respected across all WMF projects, so keeping in line with attribution. --M ASEM  (t) 19:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Expect what these are is defined by common sense. Unless you are trying to find loopholes in policy, I think the average editor can recognize the difference between these in the broad sense and known when it is proper and when it is not.  If you seriously do not know what a watermark is (even with the help of watermark), I don't think this policy can help you. --M ASEM  (t) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The way things work, as long as you upload something that isn't yours with a signature, that is fine. But when you upload your own artwork with a signature that somehow is seen as crossing the line, or trying to find a loophole. It simply could be that thousands of years of custom across all civilizations dictate an artist sign his work when completed that actually causes an artist to sign his work when completed. A policy should not exist to grant favour to some and cause trouble for others, depending on who the editor is that takes issue and how he personally feels about the author of an illustration. Those that feel this policy is correct in restricting use of watermarked images and so forth should have no issue to clarify the policy, because it would make it much easier to apply this policy if it were not left so vague. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What you describe applies to text as well. We routinely cite previously published works in writing articles, but we do not sign our contributions. What clarification do you seek, other than changing the word "historic" to "historical"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An odd argument, you just pointed out that original text has the author's name added to the article in the works cited and often a link to the book itself where the author's name again appears. So why can an artist not sign his original work since his name can not appear in captions or the article? If author's can have credit in the article, why not an artist? Especially since most signatures could not even be discerned at the small dimensions images are posted in articles anyways.


 * Anyways, the terms need to be clarified. A signature in the artist's own hand is not a watermark, that would be akin to saying baseball and football are the same sport because they both use balls. The policy needs to cover and define what a watermark, signature, digital signature and credit is, and give clearer reasons why they are or not allowed, and when they are allowed under what circumstances. It is not enough to say anything historic or historical can have a signature. Why do ancient and old artists get preference over modern ones? Why are old artist allowed to sign work but modern artist not allowed to continue that millennia old practice? What would be the standard to be considered historic? Who would decide this, especially when such things are not decided for generations after the artist has died? [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an odd argument; it is analogous to using credits in historical images. Content contributors do not display their names in Wikipedia; currently, that is true of both images and text. It seems to be images for which you want an exception. A signature in the artist's own hand is "credit". "Credit" is covered in policy. New artists are permitted to sign whatever they please, just as I may go host a blog and say whatever I like under my own name. That doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors do not get their name in the article because (1) there are so many, so it is more appropriate they appear in a list on a subpage, and (2) they are considered "editors" and not "authors", but the original authors whose work the editors base their work off do get credited in the references section. So if original authors are allowed credit when their words do not appear, but merely a paraphrasing of their work, then by the same standard an original artist should be allowed to have credit in the article as well, even if it is his signature rather than his typed name. Signatures in images usually can not be seen given the small thumbnail sizes used in Wikipedia anyways, and is almost a pointless discussion. To argue that a signature can not be in an image because the signature should not be seen in the article even though when the image is added to the article it is too small to see the signature. It seems more that you are upset that you as an editor are not granted as much credit as authors or artists, so you wish to restrict them as much as possible. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is another reason they have been opposed in the past, as I explained above--that they are virtually invisible. I am not in the least upset that I am not granted credit, but I do not find the argument that one category of contributors should sign their work while another does not compelling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should move to have the policy clarified. The current language is so vague and excludes the most common mark added to artwork-a signature.


 * However, please note that authors get their name on their book and artists get to sign their paintings. A book can be cited or paraphrased with a small reference to the artist at the end of an article, however paintings can not be cited or paraphrased this way. The argument you give is compelling to me because you are comparing two completely different things, what is thought and what is seen. When you write a book, your name is written on that book. When you paint an image, you paint your name on that image. You can not compare thoughts and how they are attributed to images and how they are attributed, each are given credit in the same fashion that they are presented. Vague policies do not account for this, they seem haphazardly strung together. They need to be clear and detailed enough to allow every editor to come to the same conclusion. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In your specific case (based on what I read of ANI that led here), when you are creating a utilitarian image that is specifically designed to be included in Wikipedia with a free license, attribution on the image itself is pointless and unnecessary and thus why we urge self-made images to not have such.
 * As a counter example, say you were an artist 20 years ago and you created a work and signed your name to it (in a manner where it can't just be cropped away) Today, you want to allow WP to use that work for free because it is appropriate for some article.  No one is going to expect you to strip away your signed name from the painting to be used on WP because you didn't create it as a utilitarian piece. --M ASEM  (t) 00:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every drawing or painting I make is for Wikipedia. The Ghana arms were, but heraldry is a hobby and part-time-profession of mine, and many images I created before I contributed to Wikipedia and merely discovered a use for them here. So I should only sign the images I created for use elsewhere? Those specifically designed for here should be left unsigned? What about if an editor brings a blazon to my attention on here, but I will have use for elsewhere? Can I sign that, or does the origin of the idea, not the utility, decide when a signature may appear? [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On the good faith assumption that you made these images years ago and now just found good use on WP, how the work was signed becomes important. Again, your images, you are still in control any modifications to them, so if you signed it on a corner in a manner that would be trivial to crop or remove, we would probably expect that to be done. On the other hand, if you signed them really close to the object, we would likely not expect you to ruin your work to remove it. But if you decide to sign what was previously unsigned now to get it up to WP (which some may consider gaming the system) they would likely be deleted.  Basically, the "exception" is the case where you have uploaded signed art that you had created well prior to WP; otherwise, art or works under your control we expect no attribution on the image itself. --M ASEM  (t) 00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * While that may be an acceptable compromise specific to me, it could never be implemented as a general policy. So what of other artist and their works on Commons? Should the best work be ignored because it was signed, and lesser works used because they are unsigned? Are we going to be forced to accept children's work when the good art is all signed? Are we going to have to have a discussion and interrogate every artist to determine when he made a painting, when he discovered Wikipedia, when he signed the painting and so on? [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Me aside, this does not change that the policy is still too vague. Were it clarified, this discussion would be unnecessary because I simply could read the policy rather than have so many editors try to give me there take on what was really meant and implied by the policy as is. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So, let me see if I've got this clear. You want: (a) the word historic to be changed to historical and some explicit standard supplied for historical; (b) a definition of watermark; (c) a definition of signature; (d) a definition of digital signature, and (e) a definition of credit. Moreover, you want this policy to justify itself by giving "clearer reasons why they are or are not allowed". Is that the long and short of it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to allow historic and historical images to allow a signature. Picasso and Dali are not historical just yet, but are historic. And, yes, clearly define each mark so anyone and everyone can understand what is being discussed and an explanation as why or why not they are allowed and when. For example, it is easy to reject an image with this policy when a watermark that lays over an entire image in a repeating pattern, but does not clearly identify why a painting is rejected when it shows a small signature in the corner. Or why other paintings are allowed to have signatures shown. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia avoids precise rules (see WP:BURO) because such precision is an illusion (consider the wasted resources in tax avoidance schemes, legal battles, and attempts to write definitive legislation). There may be some tricky cases regarding images which will need discussion, but there is currently no such case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the policies can not be ubber specific, but this one is so vague and inconsistently applied that it really deserves refinement. Editors come along and say what they think it means, they use phrases such as "I think" or "most would understand it to be" and so on. This is a policy that exists when editors want it to exist and one that can be ignored when they want to ignore it, no standards, no rationale to the application. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  03:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you're interpreting a bias where one doesn't exist or that you haven't shown exists. If there was a bias problem with people constantly misapplying this, I would argue to fix this, but there's no evidence its needed. --M ASEM (t) 03:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about me, please do not mistake my cultural speech patterns as indication of uncertainty. I do not see the ambiguity in this policy that you seem to. In respect to your note below, I believe that you are using a definition of "distort" that is at odds with standard interpretation of the word (which I've defined at the RfC on your image). But unless there is widespread confusion on this point, clarifying it within policy may not be needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You attempted to circumvent the policy, saying that technically only distortions are not allowed, so modifications could be made. You then linked an art website that defines distortions, which is nice, but that website has no entry on modification, so there is not a clear distinction between modification and distortion as you tried to imply. You are playing on technicalities where you want the policy to not be applied, but then stating elsewhere with where you agree with policy that the terms are meant to be generally broad and applied as such. You can not have it both ways in the same policy. You basically say in one place, "oh, c'mon, everyone knows that credit means signature and they're close enough in meaning to apply here", but then later say, "but technically modification does not appear in the policy, so if we call if modification and not distortion we can get away with it." Really, if this is how the policy is applied, it needs to be stricter and more clearly defined. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards your accusation of bad faith: "You attempted to circumvent the policy" I have no motivation whatsoever to circumvent policy. I'm not the person with a personal stake here. It's astounding that you would claim that removal of your name from a rock--even if performed by you as the artist--would constitute "distortion." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about me. You have been playing unfair with the policy. You say credits and signatures are close enough, so when the policy states credit and does not mention signatures it should still be applied to signatures. In the same sentence it bans distortions but makes no mention of modification. By your first argument, we would assume that distortion and modification are close enough that it means both should be banned. However, you say that this is not the case, that the policy needs to specifically mention modification before modifications are not allowed. You are not following the policy as harsh when you wish something to be included, and you are applying the policy with a 0-tolerence attitude when you want images excluded. You are not being fair and even with the policy and its wording.
 * This isn't about me. You have been playing unfair with the policy. You say credits and signatures are close enough, so when the policy states credit and does not mention signatures it should still be applied to signatures. In the same sentence it bans distortions but makes no mention of modification. By your first argument, we would assume that distortion and modification are close enough that it means both should be banned. However, you say that this is not the case, that the policy needs to specifically mention modification before modifications are not allowed. You are not following the policy as harsh when you wish something to be included, and you are applying the policy with a 0-tolerence attitude when you want images excluded. You are not being fair and even with the policy and its wording.


 * But if you want to make this about me, we can. You say my images should not be on Wikipedia. We are at odds over what the policy states and requires, and other editors have yet more opinions different from our own. You say currently the policy bans my images. I say they do not. You say that it doesn't matter, you say that they are banned therefore they are banned. I say the policy does not clearly state that, change the policy to ban them more clearly. We are trying for the same end goal, so why are you being so obstructionist to updating the policy to make it more clear? Then you would have no need to be so schismatic on how you apply the policy.


 * Oh, and just because you have no images involved does not automatically dissolve you of an interest here. The fact you have been so involved and seemingly inflamed by this conversation, and that you continued this on another talk page, seems to indicate you have a personal or emotional stake in this, even if you have no images concerned here. If you had no interest here, then you should be more open to clarifying the language, to make your end goal a reality, since the language I am trying to introduce would only help aid you in that aspect. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  03:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please point out to me where I've said "credits and signatures are close enough". It seems an odd thing for me to have said, since that's not what I believe. I believe that signatures are credits, not close to credits. In terms of my involvement: you should be well aware that I became involved in this as an administrator reading ANI where there were accusations that you were edit warring. When I looked at the image that was said to be central to the dispute, I realized it was against policy. I removed the image accordingly, notified you (with the suggestion that "As I noted at ANI, you're obviously a very talented artist and are welcome to create images without incorporating your signature for use on Wikipedia") and, when an RfC opened (here) about the image in question, left a comment noting its problems under policy. That I "continued this on another talk page" arose entirely from your responses to that comment. This: "You say that it doesn't matter, you say that they are banned therefore they are banned." is flatly untrue. I said, explicitly at that RfC, "I'm sure that if the community supports your contention that including your name in the coat of arms of Ghana is not 'credit', they will make that consensus known." The only "emotional stake" I have here is ensuring that our policies are maintained. (And I am open to clarifying the language here. I've already agreed multiple times to clarifying historic to historical.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Several images have been posted throughout. Some are allowed because they only appear on user pages, others are allowed because they are old, others seem to just not have been noticed, others allowed because of fair use rationale and so on and so on. Please take a look at some of the links scattered throughout the discussion. I would also like to point out that Moonriddengirl has suggested that the no watermark or signature policy must be applied absolutely without exception, and suggested that I merely distort the image to remove the signature. This is in violation of the no watermark or signature policy, which states distorted images are also not for use on Wikipedia. The idea that one person would so absolutely apply one part of a policy, but suggest the last part of the very same policy does not need to be applied at all shows there is bias in how the policy is applied. If no signatures are allowed, no ifs ands or buts, then no distortions could be allowed, no ifs ands or buts. However, this is seemingly not the case, and bits and pieces of the policy are picked and applied random at will. Seriously, that so many different opinions have arisen, and that editors and admins even apply different portions of the policy, even pieces of the same sentence, differently shows that this policy is vague and weak. [talk]  XANDERLIPTAK  04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be having trouble remembering the precise details of our conversations. If so, direct quotation rather than improper paraphrase may serve you better. I did not suggest you "merely distort" the image. I suggested you modify it. Again, according to the Art Dictionary, "Distortion presupposes a norm or order from which to depart and in representation it must have a recognisable reference to the norm which is distorted for example a distorted circle." That you define "distortion" to mean "alteration" does not mean that I do or that others do. If the confusion of terminology here is not yours alone, then perhaps that should also be clarified in policy, like "historic". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While you point to this "Art Dictionary", which is just a website that has definitions of art terms, that dictionary does not distinguish between "modification" and "distortion" as you do. While you point to the website to define "distortion", you do not point to the website to define "modification", instead, you give your own. That is because there is no entry for "Modification" on that site, because modification and distortion is only a semantic difference. Distortion come from a Latin term meaning that something was twisted, where as modification comes from a Latin term meaning something was altered; whether it is altered or twisted is in the eyes of the beholder, but they mean the same thing in the end, that what is made is not the original item.


 * And while you maintain that "credit" and "signature" are one and the same, the definitions of both words do not include the other. "Signature" is not defined as credit, and "credit" is not defined as a signature. I find it odd that you maintain these two terms to be the same but somehow find "modification" and "distortion" to be clearly separate. That the denial of credits means no signatures are allowed, but the denial of distortion means that modification is allowed because of a technicality. You are not applying the rules and policies, you are distorting... I mean, modifying them to fit your notions on what the policy should state. Why not simply alter the policy to clearly state it then? It would be much easier if you added in language to better clarify that by credit, that signatures are really meant. Or that while distortions are not preferred, so long as it is a modification approved by the author that the image is still acceptable. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "so long as it is a modification approved by the author"? The requirement of Creative Commons were explained to you at length at the Commons thread "edit war over relicensing". The only approval you must give of modification is in selecting a license that permits them. You seem to be the only one at this point who finds the distinction between "modification" and "distortion" unclear. If this is a common problem, I don't doubt others will weigh in agreeing with you, and then--as I said above--"perhaps that should also be clarified in policy". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to do, make a CC argument now? We are talking about policy of what images to use here. Fine, no modifications or distortions allowed, even ones approved by the author. That better? Any cropped image, not appropriate. Any detail, not appropriate. Me editing out my signature for use on Wikipedia. Not appropriate. Happy with that now? You wanted modified work before, now you don't. Pick one, or the other. Don't try to make a policy argument, then a CC argument out of everything, it is not productive at all.


 * Oh, and saying "oh I think others this or that" isn't a valid argument. I can argue that I think most people know Nazis were really peace loving humanitarians. That doesn't mean we delete everything bad out of the Nazi article because I like to think everyone sides with me. I am not delusional like that. And what is this distinction you mean? You're little art dictionary doesn't make a distinction between your terms. The dictionary lists the terms as synonyms. The policy makes no distinction. So where are you getting this "widely accepted distinction"? From your head, because it is merely your opinion, and since you can't prove it, you are relying on unproven arguments of "I think people agree with me and not you, even though I won't ask anyone or get input". You have provided nothing but your opinion as to what the policy means, and that because you think everyone must agree with you, that the need to clarify the policy is unneeded. Since there have been at least four or five opinions given on what the policy means, it is clear that your reading of it is not the as widely accepted as you had hoped. The policy needs to be clarified, plain and simple. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  02:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "What are you trying to do"...clarify that "so long as it is a modification approved by the author" is an erroneous understanding of the situation. "fine, no modifications or distortions allowed, even ones approved by the author. That better?" No, that's a complete misunderstanding, though it would certainly put considerably more control in the hands of image creators, which I gather would not disappoint you. Here's what I have been trying to explain to you: this is a policy. Changes to policy must reflect widespread consensus. If you are the one who wants policy changed, you need consensus. Until you demonstrate that people agree with you that "signature" is not clearly a subheading of "credit" or that "modification" counts as "distortion", the policy is presumed to be fine. This talk page is specifically for the development of policy. Any one of the 428 people who watch it or who just happen by it is welcome to weigh in and give input. At this point, though, I begin to feel there is a larger issue that can be resolved in this conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that is a mischaracterization of that conversation. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Others who read that conversation, in which I was not a partipant, may not see it the same as you do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps if you were not part of the conversation, you should not try to summarize it? The issue was about moral rights, preventing, say, something like a political party that commits genocide form using my artwork in ads promoting that genocide. There was a user who followed me from Wikipedia to that conversation that tried to distract editors and make it about him, however the discussion ignored him and it was upheld I had my moral rights and could assert that my art could not be used in any aspect that I would morally object to. I am sorry if you feel I am controlling because I do not wish my artwork ever to be used in a negative or offensive fashion, but to characterize the conversation so simply as that is disingenuous. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no point in continuing this digression. The conversation here has long since devolved beyond the point of usefulness. I have agreed with you that "historical" is better than "historic." Others have not yet weighed in. Feel free to propose the language you would prefer, and consensus will promote it...or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What about redefining the difference between what may be watermarked and what not? If "historical" isn't clear enough, then we can be more specific: images made available under a free licence by the creator (namely, us or another web site) should not be watermarked; images whose copyright has expired should be left with it. Photographs and diagrams should not be watermarked, other works may be. With those definitions combined, I think we convey the current usage in the desired clear terms. MBelgrano (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry just an aside the German Bundesarchiv images used on Wikipedia all are credited which doesnt appear to meet the rules. Example. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a question from someone not normally associated with this topic might help (well, it'll help me, anyway...). Why do we want to prevent people from adding watermarks or signatures? Aren't creative works regularly marked by their creator? I mean, I would say that we would still restrict watermarks that serve as advertisement (i.e., that have a url in them), but why don't we want the watermarks or signatures? Is this a licensing issue? An aesthetic issue? Something else? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been extensively involved in the removal of watermarks from hundreds to thousands of images on Commons. The removal of labels, timestamps, and other artifacts is usually not contentious, but some contributors in the past have been distressed about the removal of the author's name or signature. The issue is essentially an editorial decision that reduces distraction and clutter; it also avoids unfairly giving special, highly-visible credit to image authors while text contributors remain "in the background" (particularly in articles with large numbers of images). Obtrusive, highly-visible watermarks can also obscure portions of the depicted subject and lower image quality by distracting from the content and producing a garish contrast (watermarked images are never featured for example). On Commons we advise authors to include their name and license information in the image metadata, so that it will remain available if the image is copied without giving proper attribution.
 * There are some clear exceptions: where the signature itself has encyclopedic value (as is often the case for public domain works), or where the artist is notable (such as a famous painter), the signature is not generally removed. This is not a simple "public domain" versus "copyrighted" test; some modern notable artists are beginning to release a limited selection of works under free licenses. Even in these cases a version without the signature (such as a crop) might still be uploaded separately as a derivative work, if some article finds it useful to do so. Finally, an exception is obviously made for images where the watermark is entirely the point (such as illustrations for articles on watermarks).
 * There are some interesting borderline cases - for example some public domain documents contain text like handwritten or printed captions, or the name of the publisher and/or a copyright notice. Similarly an "artistic" freely-licensed image may contain elements that distract from the depiction of the subject. Usually it's good to have more than one version of such images, since it all depends whether articles want to focus on the subject depicted by the work or on work itself in its original form. As a rule, I always remove watermarks that were added digitally after the fact, regardless of who added them, since these cannot be said to be part of the original document. Dcoetzee 07:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Signatures on artwork should be allowed. Watermarks added by digital manipulation, or anything on a photograph, should not. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow - just read all of the above. First, that thread on Wikimedia Commons shows a huge lack of understanding about the CCL's in use. (I.e - You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation is directly out of the license. As is You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.) In general this thread is beginning to loose focus as well. Bottom line is that the Creative Common license allows the author/copyright holder to make explicit requests for attribution. From comments made here, both in this thread and elsewhere, it is highly doubtful most of the admin/editors whp participate have ever dealt with contracts, release forms or anything else related to this sort of thing in the real world. Is the CCL a legal binding "contract"? Yes it is. (TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.) Does it apply to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons)? 100% yes, as it is not only accepted but it is preferred. Is there a required "submission" process at Wikipedia that allows the copyright holder to submit their work to be considered and than approved for use, overseen by a knowledgeable "staff" that deals with contracts in the real world? Not at all. Anyone can upload any image. It may be deleted before it is used for several reasons, but once it is actually placed into use what I said above happens - it's use is considered acceptance of the contract. How many admins and other editors actual read *and* understand the terms of use contained in the CCL? I would have to say, based on how many time I find myself explaining sections of it - not many, followed with a "some read but do not understand". A Creative Commons license is a valid legal document in the real world, throwing out "Wikipedia policy does not allow for that" has no standing in the real world - or, in plain English, Wikipedia policy does not override the accepted license. Oh, there is an exception - No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent. What is being suggested here by some is that portion has been done because of this section of policy, and other, policies. But that is not true at all. The only thing close to that in use here would be the OTRS system, and that is not what it is really in place for. Dcoetzee raises some good points, and they are logical but, again, use of the CCL is not an "in addition to" Wikipedia policy anymore, it is a requirement that exists "above" the Wikipedia policy as the file in being "licensed" to Wikipedia (like it or not - that is what is going on when a file is being used at Wikipedia) - the "since these cannot be said to be part of the original document" comment is irrelevant because Wikipedia, as well as any end user, accepts any file "as is". Nether the license, nor Wikipedia, require only the "original document" be uploaded; but in the same vein, any file that is uploaded can be considered the "original document" if it does not exist anywhere else. As such, any changes made to the file, *including* removal of "distortions", "watermarks" or "text", make it a derivative work (Adaptation) and need to be marked as such. Or, to use the wording direct form the CC 3.0 license: the end user (In this case Wikipedia and Dcoetzee) must take "reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work." While the thought may be a "summary" comment in the edit log is good enough (i.e - "remove watermark") it is not good enough for other uses. And if a file is "moved" to Wikimedia Commons there may be no indication there was any information removed from the image. As minor as it may sound, that would be enough for a license to be revoked ("terminate").

I again must also stress that, overall, Wikipedia allows for all sorts of attribution. Everyone is ignoring that fact. Infobox album, Infobox film, Infobox DVD all give attribution and are all used in a main "info box" on the article. I would say {{tl|Infobox book)) certainly gives attribution to various people as well - including the author or authors. Whenever one has to use quote there is certainly attribution given - directly where the quote is given. And than there is a mandatory {{tl|reflist}} for most every single article that lists websites, books authors names. There is also {{tl|Source-attribution}} and {{tl|Citation-attribution}} to be used on public domain text in articles. There is also {{tl|CCBYSASource}} for text licensed under a CCL. But if a photographer wanted to release an image into PD using, say, {{tl|PD-self}}, or under a CC-BY license they do not have the same "rights", according to many at Wikipedia, for article use. And before anyone says "Wikipedia follows the CCL because a credit on the image page, but not anywhere else, is considered 'reasonable to the medium'" it is not close to being a solid reason because of what I have just said in this paragraph. (Keeping in mind that when "Council" made that argument it was also before Wikipedia beginning to prefer the CC 3.0 attribution license. A move which I still am amazed at because of the prevailing attitude seen in this thread about attribution) Or, in plain English, Wikipedia allows for credits in articles - either in an "infobox", in "references". in "quotes" or via tags placed at the head or the base of articles. As it relates to this discussion, Wikipedia also allows "signatures" and other "text" to be contained on/in images. They are all "reasonable to the medium" one might say. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that derivative works (versions with the watermark removed) should be clearly labelled as such, and that any attribution information included in the image should be clearly stated on the image description page or in the history, as a matter of courtesy regardless of what type of license is in force. In most cases, it is unnecessary to make changes to the description because the attribution information was already present in the description. I have always endeavored to take these necessary steps (in fact I created the attribution from metadata tag), but it would be a good idea to have clearer guidance on Commons about where and how this information should be retained. There is strong consensus on Commons that the CC license does not allow the author to determine the specific manner in which they must be credited. Dcoetzee 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Credits
Credit is the additional of written information that is added to an image after completion, and is therefore not considered integral or part of the work itself. Credits usually include the author name, location, subject matter, date and copyright information. Since all credit and information is listed on the file page, there is no need to add credits to an image, and images that include credits should not be used in articles, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate credits. Credits may be removed by cropping if it would not misconstrue the original subject or intent of the author, after which the image would be acceptable for use in articles.

Distortions
Images which have been distorted or modified should generally not be used in articles because they can misconstrue the original intent of an image (much akin to taking a quote out of context). A common exception, however, would be cropping an image to better show the object in question in more detail, which would otherwise be lost in expanse of the full image; or cropping an image to exclude credits or watermarks that can not be removed otherwise. Another common exception would be aesthetic changes, which may include adjustments to brightness, contrast, reduction of noise and leveling. Distortions or modifications that were made by the author, or that the author gave consent to, could be used in articles because the original author gave his approval of the alterations and the resulting derivative work can not be said to twist, defame or misconstrue the original intent of the image or author.

Signatures
Signatures are a tricky and delicate issue since it is custom for an author to sign his work to show its provenance (like an author of a book having his name printed on the cover, spine and title page within), and is usually the only way an author can prove the work is his creation less it mistakenly be attributed to someone else. A signature is not an addition to the work after production, as credits or a watermark typically are, but is an integral part of the artwork itself, and unsigned works typically are rejected by the art community and hidden away in archives of art galleries, museums and collections because the provenance can never be fully and accurately determined. So, as a general rule, any historical or historic work of art with a signature may be displayed in an article.

Newer works, especially works created specifically for Wikipedia, needs to be decided by the community case by case, which may be done on the article's talk page. Things to consider are:
 * Is the signed work the only example available? If yes, then the work may be used until a free unsigned image becomes available.
 * Is the signed work superior to the unsigned works? If the signed work is overwhelmingly superior, the signed work may be used. If not, or the difference is marginal, an unsigned work should be preferred.
 * Is the signature visible when the image is introduced into the article? Since images are placed into articles commonly at a much reduced size, signatures are often not discernible and lost in the size reduction. When this occurs, signatures should not be a point of contention or a reason to refuse the use of an image.
 * Does the signature appear abnormally large given the size of the work, is the work created in a way that draws attention to the signature or does the signature appear to advertise the author? An author may have purposely signed his work large enough to be seen in articles even when the image is reduced in size, or signed the work in a bright and contrasting colour to draw attention to the signature. These cause distractions from the work and article itself, and appear to be a form of self-promotion or advertisement, and should not be used in articles.

Digital signatures are often added to digital media for the same reason an author would sign his work, and may be opaque or transparent (in this latter sense it would then be a watermark as well). These should not immediately be excluded. Digital signatures, even those that appear as watermarks, should be treated the same as hand written signatures, and only excluded when they fail to meet the standards set forth above. It should be noted that such attribution could be entered in the metadata of digital media as an alternative to adding a visible digital signature.

Watermarks
A watermark is a transparent image, symbol, pattern, word or other mark that appears by varying the degrees of lightness and darkness, which is then lain over an image. This is typically done by digital editing, and is a distortion that is added to an image after completion and not considered integral or part of the work itself. Watermarks generally are added to give credit, express ownership, state copyright or be a form of digital signature (at which point the policy of signatures should apply). Since all credit and information is listed on the file page, there is no need to watermark an image, and images that are watermarked should not be used in articles, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking. Watermarks may be removed by photoediting, which would not be considered a distortion as it would return the work to its original form, after which the image would be acceptable for use in articles.

-

How does the above sound? Anything that I missed, or are there any suggestions? [talk]  XANDERLIPTAK  18:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is way too much explanation that most clearly understand already, and in fact with some false statements (such as signatures, and the differences between "distortion" and "modification"). There is no need to include anything of this degree. --M ASEM  (t) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you take a poll that stated "most" already understood what is presented above? Or is this just your assertion? VernoWhitney and I already stated we came to different conclusions about what the policy stated, and I wrote this because of what I thought the policy failed to say. What harm is there by adding this to the policy page since you feel the policy implies it already? It would be the same policy you believe it to be already, just clearly defined so there is no argument. As for things being false, I do not know what you base this off since the current policy mentions nothing on signature and fails to differentiate between modification and distortion. I tried to summarize current practice. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Because we link to articles that explain what credits and watermarks are, and its not necessary to go into detail of what they are. --M ASEM (t) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are links. People say signatures are not allowed and link to watermark. Should that not link to signature? Especially since when you read Watermark, it is clearly different from a signature? Shouldn't the policy, if it is used to limit images with signature perhaps mention "signature" somewhere in the policy? And to say there isn't enough room to add one sentence to explain what a watermark s is laughable, this is the Internet, there is almost unlimited room for data. All I hear form you and Moonriddengirl is "I know what I think the policy says, so why do I need to change it?" The problem is, while you too come to a close agreement (note your opinions do not match exact;y, either), that there are already two other distinct opinions that "think they know what the policy says" as well. One policy, and four understandings so far. That is a problem. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is part of the confusion. People say that signatures are not allowed and link to WP:WATERMARK. This is not the same as linking to watermark. This is a "shortcut" to the part of the policy picking one of the words of the subheader. It incorporates the whole section by reference. Your proposal doesn't simply clarify policy; it alters policy. For one instance, there is nothing in this policy whatsoever that requires approval from artists to alterations in their images, and good thing, too, since many of those artists are dead. Even with living artists, you are throwing up unnecessary roadblocks. They already consented to modification. We do not need to write them to ensure that they don't object to our making a derivative work when they've already said we may. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * MRG said: there is nothing in this policy whatsoever that requires approval from artists to alterations in their images, and good thing, too, since many of those artists are dead. Even with living artists, you are throwing up unnecessary roadblocks. They already consented to modification. We do not need to write them to ensure that they don't object to our making a derivative work when they've already said we may. Mostly that is a broad reading that becomes a misconception in relation to more current material, licensed under a CCL. And this is one of my main issues from above - Wikipedia is *not* Creative Commons but Wikipedia 100% accepts material that is licensed with a CCL to Wikipedia. That license is explicit that certain "modification" may *not* be done, or would require written permission. In specific: You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties., No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent. Of course, as with "everything", common sense should be applied, but this is Wikipedia where common sense does not always work. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with Masem. For specific points, "Credit is the additional of written information that is added to an image after completion" is far too open to gaming, and credits may consist of as little as a last name, as opposed to "Credits usually include the author name, location, subject matter, date and copyright information." I flatly disagree with your "signature" section. Signatures are not distinct from credit, but an element of it. "Images which have been distorted or modified" is inappropriate, as images are modified in many situations, including color adjustments and cleaning up artifacts. Too, "Distortions or modifications that were made by the author, or that the author gave consent to, could be used in articles because the original author gave his approval of the alterations and the resulting derivative work can not be said to twist, defame or misconstrue the original intent of the image or author" is unnecessary; by licensing the content appropriately, the creator has already consented to modification. We do not have to seek his consentfor every modification, and this is very much in line with what I referred to above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, your opposing on the grounds that someone could just insert their last name as credit, and I wrote credits may include a name? Was I to write name, first name, last name, initials, pet name, pseudonym...?


 * As for credits and signatures being the same, that is your opinion, which is not based on the definitions of those two words, and two editors have already disagreed on your understanding of the policy. So perhaps an argument of "the policy doesn't need changing because I know what it says" isn't a good reason to dismiss changes, because others do not 'know' the same things you do.


 * Oh, and because I missed brightness and contrast adjustment is a poor reason to oppose something, and a better notion would be to add that language in (which I will do). As for the whole licensing already allows for modification and distortion, that is true, but we are discussing policy on what should be used in articles, not what is allowed under a CC license. I could randomly edit in a pickle to every image, allowed by the CC, but not appropriate for use in articles because of the modification (so please keep this clearly about policy, and not CC licensing). The policy states nothing distorted should be used, and does not mention anything about modifying work and does not state what is the difference between the distortion and modification (a distinction you insist to 'know' is in the policy, even though it is not). We use work that is distorted, as you point out, such as cropping, adjustments to light brightness and so forth, so language needs to be added that states such a thing is acceptable in certain situations. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  19:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm opposing because I agree with Masem. And I have some specific objections, which I spelled out. Others will weigh in, and if they think you're right that signatures are wholly distinct from "credit", they'll surely let you know. --Moonriddengirl (talk)19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In these objections, you and he hint that the policy already implied what I have mostly said. Why leave it to implication when it could be written out? Why not try to help rewrite where you think there are holes? Why do you have to insist that credits and signatures are one and the same when it can just as easily mention both and leave no question? I don't see the reason to drag your heels in the sand; all anyone needs to do right now to get their signature in is to repeatedly ask "where does it say signature?" and "where does it say credits are the same as signature?" And when a few editors agree that signatures are out, say "the policy was a consensus of the broader community, which a few editors can not override. If the broader community wanted signatures out, they would have said it. Whatever you think it should have said does not matter."  [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In part that policy is not rules, WP is not a democracy. Policy and guidelines are meant to help guide consensus, and do not need to be fully complete as one would normal expect from legal code or the like. Spelling it out opens loopholes that are ripe for abuse as well, whereas consensus can determine when images are being misapplied. -M ASEM  (t) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So you were lying when you said "Please note that the second image is not currently usable under Wikipedia:Image use policy, as the uploader artist has placed his name within the image." Or maybe you meant to say the image without a signature would be preferred, since the image policy is merely a guideline? [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're accusing Masem of lying to you for something I said? . Interesting. Note that I fully thereafter explained the difference between policies and guidelines and standards of consensus with quotes from policy: . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you okay? How do you conclude that using your words mean I am accusing someone else of lying? Yeah, you know explain the difference, but at the time of the quote you proposed it as an unwavering rule that must be absolute. You didn't say the guidelines recommend, you said that the image was out. End of discussion. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I assume you know how to thread; perhaps I assume too much. I don't explain it now, I explained it then; the link is timestamped "22:37, 21 October 2010". I answered you 8 minutes after your question. Until that question about whether or not the participants at the RfC could ignore the policy, I assumed you would know how policies, guidelines & consensus work, since you've been here a while. Again, perhaps I assume too much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I assumed you could recall your words and read your user name. You spoke as though the image policy is set in stone, unmovable and absolute. Now two editors (three with me included) state differently, that we thought it more vague and ambiguous than you presented it. So, were you lying when you mad such a declaration? Did you misspeak? Or is it perhaps that the policy is open to other interpretations other than your own? [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  02:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my username? I can't, when you didn't use it. In any event, I quoted to you from Policies and guidelines. I quoted to you from Consensus. There are no lies there. But I done talking to you after your behavior here. I have no interest in talking to somebody who will lodge an accusation against somebody else and, when proven wrong, deceptively alter the accusation to make it appear that he did not do so. I will respond to you here only to oppose or support any proposals you make, though I may interact with others. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

comment Recently an editor brought his case to WP:VPP and it ties into the discussion here so I request comment on his case. The editor was a train spotter who had amassed a large collection of particularly South African trains. In order to catalogue this collection every image was overlaid with a Watermark that contained The Model of Train, The Particular Train's Number, The Location the was in when the photograph was taken, The Photographer's Name, The Date and Time of the Photograph. Uploaded to Commons this was fine but when they started to get used in articles about those classes of train, the editor quickly got some pretty blunt messages about his uploading of watermarked pictures. I maintain that if the images exist with watermark as part of an existing collection (as the German Bundesarchiv pictures do) then they should retain that on commons and if the watermark requires to be removed for WP the a derivative work should be created for this purpose - we seem to already do this for historical collections and indeed retain the collection watermark in WP articles i.e.Mafalda Salvatini so why are we butchering modern collections that the owner has titled for the same reason? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The longer version. But support the overall idea. Also it does need to be about the CCL in part because that is now a preferred license. The wording in that goes "before" the wording contained in a policy like this. To be clear: It is fine to state "Wikipedia does not accepted image under a NC and ND license" because when any file that is marked as such is uploaded it can be deleted. However when a policy sates "Files should be uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license" it also means just what it says. That license contains very relevant information that relates directly to this section being discussed. Likewise the needs to co-exist with may other file related polices and guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The discussion makes a number of incorrect assumptions; for example:
 * That credits can only be removed by cropping (they can usually be removed by cloning or content-aware fill or more complex editing with less damage to the subject of the image).
 * Re distortions: Sometimes images can be and have been modified for aesthetic reasons for use in articles, and although this is a debatable practice I don't believe there's consensus about it (a common example is flipping a photograph or portrait so that the subject faces left).
 * The "is the signature visible" point is an insidious loophole, as print versions of articles such as those generated by the PDF converter use higher resolution versions of images in which small signatures may be visible. Moreover, users may change the size of an image for presentation or aesthetic purposes at any time. There is no excusing a signature no matter how tiny.
 * Opaque digital signatures in many cases are not added by the copyright holder but by a third party who distributes the work (sometimes they are added even to public domain works). These cannot reasonably be considered any sort of "signature".
 * Watermark is defined very narrowly here - I almost never see this kind of watermark in images, although it is technically the common definition of the word. On Commons the word "watermark" is used more broadly to refer to watermarks, signatures, captions, etc. and the same jargon is used here.
 * Dcoetzee 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Nolelover
I have been discussing this article with Riverofrock, and he just asked me why the album picture for one of the band's albums' article was deleted off Commons. I really know very little about this, and I'd appreciate any comments at my talk page. Thanks --  Nolelover  It's football season!  00:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't Commons, and you'd be better served asking there. At a guess, it was probably deleted because album covers are almost always copyrighted. Commons accepts only material available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although Fetchcomms answered previously.  Nolelover  It's football season!  15:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Doctored" photo
Another editor and I are attempting to deal with an editor who has doctored a photo in an interesting, imaginative, artistic manner, but one in which we feel distracts from the actual subject itself. Is there any policy on "doctored" photos? Student7 (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While many disagree with the actual meaning there is the core Image use policy - Content which says Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. If you want to read a discussion that was supposed to result in a clarification start at Signatures on artwork and read down, if not then just read a proposal that was an attempt to make it more clear from above. While I opposed the wider changes I do agree with this to clarify "distortions": "Images which have been distorted or modified should generally not be used in articles because they can misconstrue the original intent of an image (much akin to taking a quote out of context)" Beyond this core policy there are other policies that deal with Copyright - Images and fair use, both of which relate as this image as, from what you say, it is a "doctored" file - making it most likely a derivative work. Wikipedia no longer has a image template for a parody image, but you may want to read the deletion discussion for Template:parody to see if any of the comments are of help. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you point to the image/discussion in question? --M ASEM (t) 17:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the original image and this is the modified image -Seric2 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The first issue I see is that these are both hosted at Wikimedia Commons, not here. Fair use would not apply, but the policies here are not the same at Wikimedia Commons. The next issue is that File:Pergamon, Turkey.jpg, the derivative work, does not say it is a derivative work and the "source" of this derivative (Ancient City of Pergamon) is licensed as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 - the license is not acceptable at Wikipedia Commons or at Wikipedia. The supposed original, File:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg, is licensed under PD but in doing more research I see the user was blocked. Unsure why. In looking over their uploads I see a lot of various shapes and sizes and quality of images. I don't even find File:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg at the "source" but I do find side 1 and side 2 which seem to be of the same subject. It is also important to note the photos are credited to "ozgur mulazimoglu", who also is the name of the Flickr account the derivative comes from. Having said that there are also license differences with their other works - 50-50 grind.jpg on Turkish Wikipedia is PD, at the "source" (Flickr 50-50 grind, Ankara, 2001) it is attribution 2.0. With Ozgur mulazimoglu ollie.jpg it too is PD at Wikipedia but at the "source" it is also attribution 2.0. Back to the image(s) in question - Other Flickr source/s for File:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg and derivatives are at: Bergama harabeleri, Ancient Pergamon, İzmir, Turkey - 1 (All rights reserved), Bergama harabeleri, Ancient Pergamon, İzmir, Turkey - 2 (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike), Bergama harabeleri, Ancient Pergamon, İzmir, Turkey - 3 (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike) and My first photoshop attemp. Bergama harabeleri, Ancient Pergamon, İzmir, Turkey (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike) Most all, as well as other images at Flickr, all link to Ana sayfa, a project using wikimeda software.


 * So, "in a nutshell" - the discussion needs to happen at Wikimedia Commons. The license issues needs to be cleared up. Overall as the derivatives appears to come from the actual author, once the other steps are taken and correct license verified the derivative issues, used in correct context, would be non-issues. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Soundvisions1 has ID'd the licensing issues on Commons, but to the larger question with the given example, that much "doctoring" when we have both the original and doctored image, we should always use the original image, unless we're talking about a type of "photo doctoring" effect article as a demonstration. EG, if we're talking about the site in Turkey, there is zero reason to use the doctored image. --M ASEM (t) 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My two cents: Such derivative works are obviously legal, and would be accepted at Commons if they serve some potential educational purpose (see commons:Commons:Project scope). However, as an illustration of Pergamon this image is inferiour to other images; I can only imagine it being useful if it illustrated a particular style of art or technique for photo modification. Dcoetzee 22:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian famine picture
which is described as "Child victim of the Holodomor. 1933 archive photo made in Ukraine" gives the following source: "From: Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933: Western Archives, Testimonies and New Research; Edited by Wsevolod W. Isajiw. - Toronto: Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre, Toronto, 2003 http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php?35 The website is the official Ukrainian archives.  The source says that the picture was from Theodor Innitzer, who published pamphlets about the Ukrainian famine in the 1930s.

My concern is that there is no reliable source that gives a description of the picture. While I have no reason to doubt its authenticity, claims have been made that some of the pictures in circulation were forgeries. I have been unable to find this picture in any rs. Does anyone know how to find an rs or how to describe the image if one cannot be found?

TFD (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, not here so you will have to bring the discussion there. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction - non-commercial images usable or not?
I have taken a photograph I would be happy to use to improve an article on Wikipedia, so I've been reading these pages trying to get a sense for how pictures are handled here. I came across these sentences regarding non-commercial-only licenses that seem to contradict each other in cases where the owner gives permission for the work to appear in Wikipedia:

So which is it? Am I correct in assuming that Image Use Policy would take precedence over WP:Uploading images? As for the image I wish to contribute, I am the owner and I have authority to give permission for it to appear in Wikipedia, but I need to know whether or not non-commercial-only images are allowed if permission is given by the owner. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy trumps everything else - and the uploading images page is not really a policy, it is just an overview to inform people how to upload material. Yes it is based on policy but it can be thought of as a more detailed set of instructions, a sub set of Upload and Special:Upload. When Wikipedia came into being images that people had uploaded "with permission" were allowed as were images marked as "For use with permission" or the like. There was a listserv discussion about "free" images verses other images and it resulted in the Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted stance in May of 2005. It was clear that images in Images used with permission (no longer a valid category) should be reviewed and either deleted or, taking due account of "fair use" be marked as such and kept. To a photographer that meant only you could upload your own work, unless it fell under fair us. It also meant that a photographer could no longer upload their own work and license it to Wikipedia under a non-commercial license, such as the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license. The only exception would be if the image fit all 10 of the Non-free content criteria - also a policy.


 * So the direct answer to the questions are that the copyright holder/photographer ("author") should be the person uploading the material, and legally they are the *only* parties who can "give permission", or license, the material. Beyond that, as of 2010, the accepted "free" license at Wikipedia are found at File copyright tags/Free licenses. If the materiel is not licensed using one of those it will be deleted *unless* it meets all 10 of the Non-free content criteria. There is no policy that forbids a copyright holder/photographer from uploading their own previously published work and claiming fair use on it, so if what you want to upload has been previously published and falls into the fair use policy that you may do so. What I suggest is first, look at the Mini how-to and provide *all* of the information as suggested, this falls in line with number 2 of the Image use policy - requirements. See Information for more details. Now if the material is "non-free" other requirements kick in. As I have already stated, first the material must meet all 10 of the Non-free content criteria. You can add a FUR using the Non-free use rationale template. There is a generic tag (Non-free fair use in) that seems to be a default for some but I would advise using one of the more specific ones found at File copyright tags/Non-free. You can also find more at Non-free Wikipedia file copyright tags. Now if the material meets Wikipedia's fair use criteria *and* is also no derivatives/non-commercial a tag such as Non-free with NC or Non-free with ND can be added and, if the material is the uploaders own, the Non-free with permission tag can be added.


 * The "with permission" wording only applies to "free" images, it is common practice by many to ignore any licensing restrictions, or lack of permission, when "fair use" is claimed. Both can live hand in hand however. See File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg as a perfect example. You can also contact OTRS stating permission for use at Wikipedia. See Volunteer response team for more details. Hope that detailed response helps. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Seems for my own image I will be needing to choose one of the free licenses then; that's fine.  So... am I correct in understanding that, if it's not fair use and it's not meeting the non-free content criteria, there is no way for the owner of a non-commercial-only work to give permission that would make it abide by this policy?  Because if that's the case it seems like the sentence in WP:Uploading images needs to be changed to better reflect that.  At the least, the guideline shouldn't seem to contradict the policy.  Perhaps the phrase except by the express permission of those owners at the end could be removed -- is there anything that phrase could ever apply to?  (It's quite possible I'm misreading the entire thing, but still :)  )
 * -- Joren (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Uploading images is unclear and confusing - what it actually means is that images licensed under a noncommercial license may not be uploaded, unless their copyright holder also licenses them under a license we accept (which does allow commercial use). Dcoetzee 20:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and no - if fair use applies images with a non-commercial license can be uploaded provided they are claimed, and meet, the policy. Conflicted licensing terms are normally not accepted. (i.e - an unpublished image found at Flickr using a NC-ND "free" license could also be uploaded here using an accepted "free" license however when found standard practice is to tag for deletion immediately via Db-f3. When it is found "after the fact" it is common to either tag the file with Di-no permission and the uploaders page with Di-no permission-notice. The user can change the source page license or they can submit an OTRS if there is no "source page" - which is sort of what the "except by the express permission of those owners" suggests. And then there is always Instances of obvious copyright violations where the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission (e.g. major studio movie posters, TV screenshots) should be speedily deleted per "Unambiguous copyright infringement" above, unless fair-use can be claimed.) The wording being suggested does lead to conflicted terms. It is akin to the wording found at Image use policy - requirements that says "When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images." A few years ago that lead to more than one admin deleting any image where the uploader claimed copyright. I think it is more clear now, for example, that all of the CCL's allow copyright to be retained. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of cases where e.g. Flickr users who post images on Flickr with NC licenses also submit CC-BY-SA releases through OTRS, so I think we're in agreement. Another case is multi-licensing - e.g. some authors release works both under CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC (consequently noncommercial users are not obligated to freely license derivative works). Of course any image can be used under NFC if it fulfills the requirements, regardless of license. Dcoetzee 22:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So... is there a way we can make WP:Uploading images seem a bit less contradictory to WP:Image use policy? I would be happy to be my usual bold clueless self :) and remove the phrase "except by the express permission of those owners", but what do you guys think?  Given that the policy says permission can not be sufficient unless the license allows for commercial use, is there any reason for retaining that phrase?  I just don't feel right about leaving it as is for someone else to trip over later on.
 * -- Joren (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It can probably be rephrased to make it more clear that permission isn't sufficient. Of course we need to remember that people rarely read those upload instructions and follow them even more rarely.  So while we might be tempted to keep the blurb about permission in due to some feeling that it will reduce mis-appropriated images, that is likely to be fruitless. Protonk (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would go with clarification of it rather than removal. Remember that Wikipedia does accept images that are not free with the "the express permission of those owners" - if we didn't File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg would be pointless. Is the main issue here that "free" and "fair use" are slightly blurred in this case? Would it work better if "free" was added? As is "...where their owners have stipulated they be can be freely used for non-commercial purposes only..."?


 * For example a studio may release a publicity photo for free use "in any and all media" for things such as reviews or articles about a band/artists/film/show/CD/DVD/etc but not allow commercial use of it. Normally that type of image would only be allowed with a fair use claim *and* a FUR, but in the broader sense such material is already allowed with the "the express permission" of the studio/label/artist. My thought has always been that such material should be allowed "freely" (As opposed to be "free" - a slight, but huge, difference which I think is perhaps the issue with the wording being discussed) at Wikipedia because, in most all cases, there is already permission to use them as Wikipedia would use them (Think fair use claims and tags such as non-free promotional but with out the actual FUR being needed. Tha tag actually sates Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license.), in which case tags such as Non-free with NC, Non-free with ND and/or Non-free with permission are 100% applicable. What is needed is the "proof", so to speak. And that goes back to the "except by the express permission of those owners" wording, and why something like File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg is allowed *and* also follows the current wording. But, again, I am not against making it more clear if that is what is needed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Protonk - Heh.  The whole reason I'm here is because I bothered to read the upload instructions and wondered why it seems to contradict the Image use policy.  I just want to see the contradiction resolved somehow so someone else doesn't have to trip over it.  Of course, if I'm the only user in the history of Wikipedia ever to read these instructions, that's ok too :)


 * Re: Soundvisions1 - So, sorry to make us run around in circles, but I'm trying (and failing miserably) to see how it's not ignoring the plain meaning of the sentence to say that it's ok to use those AP images you brought up (unless they qualify as fair use).  "Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. noncommercial use only), or are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted"  seems pretty cut and dried to me.  If there's no fair use, then with or without permission it can't appear here unless it is free.
 * This statement explicitly defines free as meaning it has to not be restricted to non-profit or educational purposes only, and its permission cannot be limited to Wikipedia. An image has to meet both of those criteria in order to avoid deletion.  If it's meant to be saying something different, then it should be changed.  People reading it have to go by what is said, not what is meant.  If I'm missing something blindingly obvious, I'd appreciate a pointer so I can stop worrying about it, but from what little I can see it seems something needs to give.
 * -- Joren (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Soundvision1 is mistaken. The release described by File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg is absolutely not sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. It was only uploaded so that the image could be marked with Non-free with permission, which says, among other things, that "[t]his tag must be used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag". The decision of whether to accept the image under fair use is based entirely on its compliance with NFC, and the permission letter is not taken into account (in this case, we would have uploaded it anyway). You can verify for yourself that the photos described in that letter are not uploaded to Commons, and are only used on En under fair use. Dcoetzee 07:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dcoetzee is mistaken, greatly. This is Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons and I NEVER said those AP photos were at Wikimedia Commons. The AP letter was an example of what a permissions letter for a non-free image could look like. Because there is explicit permission for a given use the FUR does not need to be used where those images are being used per the permission. If you notice an editor wrote: Permission notwithstanding, we still assert fair use. and that is fine nobody dais it wasn't.

Overall - There is a different between "free" and "freely usable" and that is what I am seeing the issue as.
 * A file licensed as free and also says any of the following, or variations of, are not acceptable:
 * "non-commercial use only"
 * "use with permission"
 * "My friend said it was ok to use this photo"
 * "No derivatives without permission"
 * "no derivatives"
 * "I created this logo for use on Wikipedia"
 * "This is a work for hire for Wikipedia use"
 * "Only for use in the [ARTICLE NAME] on Wikipedia"
 * File of those type that are licensed as "free" are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted.


 * A file that is FREELY DISTRIBUTED (Such as a promotional image) or that carries a restricted licensed AND has been previously published may be claimed as fair use where all 10 of the Non-free content criteria are met and/or with the express permission of the copyright holder.

In plain English - Dcoetzee can not upload an unpublished photo of their backyard for use in an article about backyards and claim fair use. Dcoetzee can upload the unpublished photo under one of the accepted free licenses. If the photo has been previously published than Dcoetzee can claim fair use in which case they have given "express permission" for use here, even without the FUR.

Image use policy - Adding images - Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use.

Image use policy - Free licenses - (What follows the wording in question) In short, Wikipedia media (with the exception of "fair use" media—see below) should be as "free" as Wikipedia's content—both to keep Wikipedia's own legal status secure as well as to allow for as much re-use of Wikipedia content as possible.

''If a source does not declare a pre-existing free license, yet allows use of its content under terms commonly instituted by them, the source must explicitly declare that commercial use and modification is permitted. If it is not the case, it is to be assumed that it is not unless verification or permission from the copyright holder is obtained.''

As I said it appears to be the "free" part that is causing the confusion here.
 * Free = (In Wikipedia) unrestricted use per the license terms.
 * Freely available/Freely distributed =/= free for any use. It means a file is being made available for a specific use. Doing an article on a film? The studio will send out images for use in that article - the image is "freely distributed" for such uses, but the image is not "free." It means it can not be uploaded, legally, using any of the accepted Wikipedia accepted free licenses.


 * A free images does not need to be claimed as fair use *or* tagged with a FUR. There is a misconception that any image that is also under a copyright requires a fair use tag and a FUR. This is not true.
 * Most all promotional material already has "explicit permission" for use in articles about the subject of that promotional material. At Wikipedia it has always been a requirement to provide a FUR when using such promotional material.
 * Finding an image in a book that you want to use, scanning it, and uploading claiming a "self" tag is considered a copyvio. Uploading it and claiming fair use is allowable. Contacting the publisher and asking for use is also allowable.

The idea that, if a person seeks permission and obtains it, permission is available for use but an editor feels it doesn't matter defeats the core purpose of seeking permission. The idea with all of this is that if it is not clearly free, or there is no permission for Wikipedia to use the file, than don't upload it. Simple.

Uploading images - ''Before uploading images at Special:Upload, make sure you read and follow the image use policy. Please note that most images you might find on the Internet are copyrighted and not appropriate for uploading to Wikipedia. If you did not create the image, or if you are unable or unwilling to verify its copyright status, do not upload the image. Also, in the cases of images where their owners have stipulated they be used for non-commercial purposes only, under new guidelines such images may no longer be uploaded into Wikipedia except by the express permission of those owners.''

If one reads everything and puts it into context it makes sense. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I might understand where the disconnect is happening (I've been wondering why you keep bringing up fair use). You seem to say that obtaining permission automatically makes it fair use, and therefore doesn't have to follow the free licensing stuff at all.  Of course in that case it isn't going to appear on Commons.  Fair enough, but I cannot follow the logic that permission implies fair use.
 * You said
 * "A file that is FREELY DISTRIBUTED (Such as a promotional image) or that carries a restricted licensed AND has been previously published may be claimed as fair use where all 10 of the Non-free content criteria are met and/or with the express permission of the copyright holder. "
 * I'm not seeing the "or", and I don't see anywhere in Image use policy that suggests that obtaining express permission entitles us to a waiver of the non-free content criteria.
 * Again, to clarify - we're talking about a case where someone "gives permission" for it to appear on Wikipedia, but only for non-commercial purposes. I'm guessing you would consider this fair use.  However, reading the non-free content page, I don't see that:
 * So we know that all permission-only and non-commercial-use-only images are considered non-free. They therefore have to meet all ten of the non-free content criteria.  Right?  Also, from the image use policy:
 * So we know that all permission-only and non-commercial-use-only images are considered non-free. They therefore have to meet all ten of the non-free content criteria.  Right?  Also, from the image use policy:


 * This section shows that I cannot even upload a work unless I own the rights, it's freely licensed, it's public domain, or it's fair use. In the case of another person granting permission for a work to be used on Wikipedia, but not freely licensing it, not being fair use, and not being public domain, how can it be uploaded and obey this policy?  How can a non-commercial-only license that we've already established is not "free enough" for Wikipedia's purposes possibly be considered "free"?  Again, I'm not seeing how it could be uploaded here as fair use if it doesn't meet all ten of the non-free content criteria.
 * -- Joren (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, No. I am not saying "obtaining permission automatically makes it fair use." Maybe this will help - oversimplifying greatly:
 * 1. Free use would equal any media that the copyright holder allows "free use" of.
 * 2. "free use" does not automatically mean "free to use in any way you want".
 * 3. A "free" image does not mean there is no copyright on the image.
 * 4. Not all copyrighted media is unusable, nor does all copyrighted media have to be claimed as fair use.
 * 5. Any material that is licensed as "free" can also have "restrictions" in the real world. It does not mean that the material is not "free", or the license is not valid, it just means its use here is "not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted."
 * 6. Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use.
 * 7. "Fair use" =/= "permission". Fair use is often complicated. Rather than claim it, it is always best to obtain permission. A copyright holder has a legal right to allow, or disallow, their work to be used - that is the core of the U.S Copyright law. Fair use is an extension of that and many editors at Wikipedia love to "argue" in deletion discussions that "It doesn't matter what the copyright holder says. We take what we want from where we want because that is what fair use allows". That is not fully true, and partly why Wikipedia's policy on it is stricter than the real world copyright law in that regards. Even with the thread below, a case where an admin took the time to obtain permission from a commercial content provider for two iconic images and obtained it 5 years ago, it is now being questioned with the core concept of: "we're using the image under fair use, not under permission". But, again, "fair use" =/= "permission", but "permission" is always preferred.
 * 8. Wikipedia is not the real world. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has created it's own set of "rules" that are based on the real world, and in many cases the Wikipedia "rules" are more narrow than the real world. One of the problems is, at times, each policy has it's own set of sub guidelines and sub policies. In a perfect world they would all be in sync.


 * Time to bring in the policy. The second line of the first requirement can be misread - When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images. This is what leads some editors/admins to feel that only material in the public domain can be used. (NOTE: Not saying you are one of those) It also can lead some people to feel that the Wikipedia accepted free licenses are all variations of PD somehow. "Free" =/= (or automatically mean) "no copyright", but "public domain" = "no copyright". This is why step 2 is important - the source (Author, copyright holder, website, etc) must be provided in order to verify that the license is correct. It also ties into fair use because, in order to claim fair use, the source needs to be verified. (more on that in a moment)


 * Now when you jump down to the Adding images section of the policy it breaks it down further, as you have said above. The key wording is "Before you upload an image" and after that it can become confusing for some people. By way of example:


 * A business, or a publicist, or a band, uploads a promo photo. They, in most cases, "own the rights to the image" so they stop right there. What I was trying to explain above is that, in the real world, use of such material is allowed for "free use" but the licensing for Wikipedia becomes a bit blurred. The best tag, as opposed to the best license, is the non-free promotional tag. In order to use it it must be in conjunction with a FUR, one that shows how the material is allowable by meeting all 10 of the Non-free content criteria. In most cases, but not all, promotional material remains the property of the copyright holder and is not "free to use in any way you want." In Wikipedia terms that means the material is "not free enough for Wikipedia" so it can not use a "Wikipedia accepted free license", *unless*, there is "express permission of" the copyright holder. But even then it can become an issue - look at Concerns about imposed conditions of use below.


 * This is a real catch 22. And this is where, in my opinion, Wikipedia really needs to overhaul policy. What you say in the final section, the "question" of I'm not seeing how it could be uploaded here as fair use if it doesn't meet all ten of the non-free content criteria is very valid. In an archived discussion I raised a similar question (The scenario being a copyright holder can not upload their own work to Wikipedia and say "non-commercial" or "no derivatives" but anybody else can do it by simply claiming "fair use", which basically means its use is limited to Wikipedia and can not be used commercially or have derivatives made - all the things that would get a "free" file speedied) and an admin, also a photographer, stated It seems fairly ludicrous that if I publish a photo that meets those requirements, that someone else can add it to Wikipedia and I can't. A response from another admin clarified it by saying that long as the material was "already published somewhere else, the original photographer could add it." That is consistent with NFCC 4 - Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. The admin went on to explain that that criteria was placed to prevent users from creating images for Wikipedia and then releasing them here under a non-free license.


 * So, again:
 * 1. A "free" image can not be uploaded as "free with restrictions" as a "free" image using a "Wikipedia accepted free license".
 * 2. A "free with restrictions" file can be uploaded with a fair use claim by anyone, provided it has been previously published. (it also must still meet all 10 of the Non-free content criteria)
 * 3. Any materials license can be submitted via the OTRS system. It can be done to verify the license given if the uploader is not the copyright holder. It can be done by the uploader when they are the copyright holder as well. It can be done if the image would otherwise be unavailable to Wikipedia, that is in line with several policies that inform uploader to have permission before uploading. Whoever is dealing with the ticket at OTRS would hopefully do research and determine if the permission is acceptable or not, that would include taking into account "promotional" material as well as commercial content providers material.


 * Part of these issues come from Jimbo himself in early discussions that led up to the Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted policy requirement in 2005. Reading the following might help to understand where the "express permission" came from in regards to this type of image. And also to the, current, gray areas and the "catch 22" of a copyright holder uploading their own work as fair use.

"::If an image meets our fair use/fair dealing guidelines, which basically means that it is easily fair use for us, and likely fair use for most contemplated reusers, then we can keep it (because it is free in the relevant sense) *even if* we are *also* able to obtain a license of some sort. It can be wise for us to have licenses for content that we could use without a license, just to make things more clear."

"::What we should *not* do is get lax about using non-free content as a crutch because it is easier or more convenient."

"::There is no current effort to remove them because we have decided that the *first* priority is to get everything tagged, and then the *second* priority is to try to convert as many of those noncommercial-only images into free images. If those efforts fail, then they will eventually be removed or used under "fair use/fair dealing" where that can be properly applied"

"::As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use"."


 * So there is no "or" type wording found in one spot. It is spread out. That, to me, has always been one of the issues with uploading images. Reading one page may send you to another, and that, in turn, will send you to another. I agree that, at fact value, saying Wikipedia does not accept one class of images, but than indicating it does, is confusing. I can tell you from personal experience the polices are ignored at times, even when the person doing it it denies invoking IAR. As one example that brings a lot of what I said above into context, a few years ago I came across an image that had a free license and it was clear the uploader was also the "author". The problem was they had manually stated in the summary they had created the file for use on Wikipedia, *and* it was uploaded for use in an article about their project/company. The article was in the process of being deleted, or just had been deleted, I don't recall which - so the image was also/would soon be an orphan. That fact it was "for Wikipedia use" is not allowable per policy, so I tagged it for deletion. An admin came along, removed the tag and "re-licensed" the image as fair use. I asked the admin to reconsider as it was licensed for Wikipedia *and* it was *created* for Wikipedia. Their response was Wikipedia could take anyone's work and claim fair use, and as this was a logo it was ok as they are used all the time via fair use. It sat unused for at least one year until I re-tagged the image as an unused, non-free, image. Having said that this discussion is/should be about this policy, and this policy should always be step 1 for anything image related, and all other image related policies and guidelines branch from it. However Logos is not an offshoot of this, it is an offshoot of the Non-free content guideline, which is an offshoot of the Non-free content criteria policy which is a more detailed offshoot of Image use policy - Fair use images.


 * To me it all comes back to "free" and how it is defined. If it is not "free enough" than fair use becomes the next option. But I see nothing wrong with permission either. Publicity photos is one of those "archived" pieces that says Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there may be an implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted. This assumption of an implicit license may or may not include for-profit commercial activity, however. Because Wikipedia no longer uses restrictive licenses, their usage on Wikipedia must fall under normal Wikipedia fair use policy restrictions. It goes on to say If you have personally contacted an official promotional agent, modeling agency, or talent agency and have received written support for the use of a promotional image on Wikipedia, please additionally add Withpermission to the image's description page, along with the relevant correspondence. For me I think wording such as that were/are more clear than perhaps what you are discussing. And again, there is the very real issue of what is done - clearly not every new image that is "non commercial only" and "with permission only" since May 19, 2005 have been "deleted on sight" and it is just not the pre May 2005 "older images" that are "taking due account of "fair use"". I recently had one admin even quote that last part in a discussion of why my tag of a recently uploaded image marked as "With permission" was wrong, and that any such (current/recently uploaded) image marked as any of those were perfectly fine to keep by just tagging it as fair use.  Soundvisions1 (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Section Break
On a related note - I stumbled upon this today: File:FireBrig kommunal M.jpg. A very recently uploaded file upload claimed as fair use, nominated for a speedy as failing the fair use criteria, declined when permission was obtained giving permission for Wikipedia (only) to use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about imposed conditions of use
I just took a look at File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg and noticed this text:


 * Permission Note -- written permission was received from AP on 1 April 2005 which states:
 * Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press
 * Please tag all thumbnails with the following to ensure compliance:


 * Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press

It's clear that this permission is insufficient and we are only able to use this image because it also happens to satisfy WP:NFC; if we had merely uploaded the image under WP:NFC without this "permission" attached, there would be no conditions on its use other than NFC policy, and certainly no caption requirement. Yet by giving us this grudging permission they have somehow acquired more control than they otherwise had? I'm all for acknowledging the original artist as a courtesy, but it should not be described as "ensuring compliance" with something that we have no obligation to comply with. I'd like to either remove this text or modify it to request use of the text as a courtesy. Dcoetzee 07:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is a case of an extreme outside exception to all policies; to not have the raising of the flag image on WP would be a serious omission (if ever there was an image that met "historically important"...), but as a press image, it would normally not be allowed. The unique permission provided by the AP (including the need to include the specific terms in the caption) is likely the only exception of its type on WP, but seriously is necessary to make us able to use the image. --M ASEM (t) 14:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dcoetzee - permission was obtained to use these images in their related articles. Period. That is 100% allowable and ludicrous to feel that seeking out permission is wrong. As for the "certainly no caption requirement" comment I still fail to see why so many have an issue with this. Attribution is an allowable requirement - even in the accepted free licenses. In CCL's the "by" can mean photo credit for an image. And, in this case, even if it wasn't a requirement of the permission letter, to feel that Joe Rosenthal should not get a photo credit for the image use in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, on an entire article about their image, is ridiculous. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Free licenses do not specify the manner in which the author must be attributed, and we don't accept free licenses that impose such requirements. I don't think the author shouldn't be attributed, or that seeking out permission is wrong, just that the image description page shouldn't specify such a requirement, because there isn't one - we're using the image under fair use, not under permission. I don't even object to including the permission letter on the page, even though it appears to serve no purpose. I don't understand Masem's claim that "as a press image, it would normally not be allowed" - we have many press images used under fair use without any accompanying permission letter, see for example File:Kent State massacre.jpg. Dcoetzee 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa - you said "Free licenses do not specify the manner in which the author must be attributed, and we don't accept free licenses that impose such requirements." That is 100% false. You are aware that Wikipedia now prefers the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license right? And since 2004 their licenses have all been attribution licenses, and have been accepted here. Remember the CCL's are worded very generic to include all forms of material, but at its core is the full legal code, which is explicit about Attribution, and that it is laid out by the "Licensor", *not* "You" - in this case Wikipedia - and that any any changes to the terms must be in writing. (That would include *not* including required attribution if required) Remember the CCL's are licenses, they are contracts between one entity and another. Not only that but The United States Court of Appeals stated in an opinion about these types of "free" licenses that that The attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of the copyright holder that the law will enforce. In plain English it means not providing attribution, if required, can be enforced via law. There is also a footnote that states Open source licensing restrictions are easily distinguished from mere author attribution cases. Copyright law does not automatically protect the rights of authors to credit for copyrighted materials. See Gilliam, 538 F.2d at 20-21 (“American copyright law, as presently written, does not recognize moral rights or provide a cause of action for their violation, since the law seeks to vindicate the economic, rather than the personal rights of authors.”); Graham, 144 F.3d at 236. Whether such rights are protected by a specific license grant depends on the language of the license. And that, in plain English, means that the wording, such as the wording found in CC by-sa license's full legal code, contains attribution rights that are protected. (JACOBSEN v. KATZER)


 * To be even more specific, in 2005 a user asked Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig, about Attribution:
 * Question: "I'd like to know why I can't plug in my own attribution requirements. For instance, if I release a picture under the CC, I want to specify that any page using that pic must contain a specific link. According to a discussion I had on cc-community, apparently I can't do that under the CC."
 * Answer: "Actually, you can use the new attribution license to specify the attribution, including a link."
 * Source: and so it begins


 * As for the press image useage - I think what they meant was the simply taking a press image and claiming Fair use is not enough. It is well established at Wikipedia that use of such images can only be used where the image/file itself is the subject, not showing the subject. In other words, such as the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima article, the image is actually the subject of the article. Using the image to show a "war" or a "battle" would not be allowed. (although, because Wikipedia does have that permission letter the image *could* be used to illustrate "war" or "battle". The permission letter is not as narrow as Wikipedia policy is about like images normal fair use) There is also The Falling Man, which does not give an actual photo credit but the article is about the photo and starts off by stating ""The Falling Man" refers to a photograph taken by Associated Press photographer Richard Drew...", Use of that image in an article about "suicide" to illustrate suicide would not be allowed. And the Kent State shootings article uses the image you mention in the infobox, which IMO is pushing it a bit as the article is not actually about the image, but there is no denying that image became, and still is, a very iconic image of that event. Even though it does not have an actual "Photo by" credit it does state "John Filo's iconic Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph ..." in the caption area. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll mention that for the longest time, the Iwo Jima photo was used on several articles, each with a fair-use rationale. Eventually, the requested attribution notes were removed from each of the articles. It was about a year ago that someone went through and removed them and did a large cleanup on the file's page. It looks like the attribution notes were restored to the two remaining articles the image is featured on (the article for the photo itself, and the article for the photographer).
 * It seems to me that even if we weren't required to attribute the photos as stipulated, it would be a good idea to do so as a courtesy to AP. The request is quite reasonable (not intrusive or promotional), and establishing goodwill like that can only help the encyclopedia in the long run.  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTRS
I would like to add to the image use policy that any user created image which is likely to have it's origins challenged should be accompanied with an OTRS ticket. We have had a number of high quality images in music related articles at FAC, from the 1960 and 1970s, before digital cameras became common, which we cannot be sure of the origins of, the overwhelming majority have been fine and the WP:OTRS has been submitted but occasionally we do catch copyright violations. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Image Use
Inasmuch as this wikiproject directly relates to image use on wikipedia, people at it may perhaps have interest in the RfC relating to the use of images that is taking place at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups .--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Municipal police department photo
I know U.S. federal government photos are usually free. What about a photo by a city police department, such as this, in an article about the living individual shown? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a little late in response, but the answer is generally no. Some states have laws which place state works in the public domain but would not apply to municipal works (or contractors, etc.).  There should be templates for individual states which have PD laws. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to reword Rule of thumb 9
Current rule: "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article." Considering that the above rule is rather vague and it is not clear in what situation it would actually apply (other than obvious vandalism), I would like to replace it with the following: "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used in inappropriate contexts." In other words, don't use SuicideGirls to illustrate girl or a photo of a severed head to illustrate head. Sexual or graphic images are fine in articles related to those topics, per WP:NOTCENSORED, but shouldn't be used indiscriminately to illustrate other subjects. This wording should make the intention and applicability of the rule more clear. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as less vague but more broad. I'm not sure it is an improvement and I'm not sure the current rule results in us using a severed head to illustrate Head nor that the proposed rule would alone serve to prevent such an image from being used. Protonk (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are simultaneously arguing that the wording change is both overly restrictive and ineffective. Which is it? Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How are they mutually exclusive? Protonk (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One restricts more content, one doesn't. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I wrote. "Inappropriate" strikes me as too broad.  At the same time, I fail to see how the current rule prevents the normal process of editing (which does/should remove images which are a poor fit for articles all the time) and how the new rule would clear up confusion about which images are ok.  The first sentence is a statement about the scope of the rule, the second is a statement about the effectiveness.  The two can coexist. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I would say that the current rule is extremely narrow, as it basically equates to vandalizing an article. I think there are more situations where images can be used inappropriately besides blatant vandalism. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The wording is fine as is, "bring attention to an article" is more direct in its meaning - "inappropriate" is not as it is too wide of an interpretation. Even in your suggestion I would say that using a model from SuicideGirls to show a "girl" is not at all "inappropriate" as the models are clearly females. However using an image such as this to illustrate Virginity would clearly be "used simply to bring attention to an article", and, yes, it would be seen by most as "inappropriate", but that is not that same as combining both an image *and* a name - using a person to illustrate Asshole would also be seen as "used simply to bring attention to an article", but, depending on who the person was, may not been seen as "inappropriate." Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Using an explicitly sexualized image (SuicideGirls) would most certainly be inappropriate to illustrate a general topic like girl, as would the other examples you cite. And I don't think an editor would do this to "bring attention to an article". They would do this because they don't care about exercising editorial judgement for audiences broader than 20-year-old heterosexual males. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from the telepathy needed to infer that motivation, that doesn't seem like a problem that needs to be resolved by editing the image use policy. Normal editing should allow people to discuss images and reach a consensus to remove obviously inappropriate images for an article.  If normal editing is insufficient than maybe dispute resolution can be tried or maybe the image isn't obviously inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need telepathy to decide appropriateness, but you would need telepathy to know if someone was trying to "bring attention to an article". And you can't very well reach consensus without any useful guidelines to point to, especially when we have editors arguing in all seriousness that pornography (SuicideGirls) is appropriate for illustrating the article girl. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You need telepathy to determine " they don't care about exercising editorial judgement for audiences broader than 20-year-old heterosexual males". Protonk (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing that that be part of the Rule. Please refer to my initial post. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. I agree that the current wording is too vague.  I just don't know how much the wording actually matters in practice (especially if we are trying to use the policy to effect change) and I don't know how I feel about just using the word "inappropriate". Protonk (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm open to suggestions. I'm afraid anything more specific would be seen as instruction creep. The nice thing about "inappropriate" is that it is open to case-by-case debate (as you suggest earlier in the thread). Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it some thought. I don't have any good suggestions off the top of my head.  But I mean what I said about effectiveness.  The overriding "policy" is always WP:COMMON (not really a policy, hence the scare quotes).  Don't put pictures of dicks on articles that aren't really related to dicks, etc.  If people aren't using their heads then I don't think rewording the image policy will change that too much--everything can be wikilawyered.  But I do agree that the current wording kinda sucks.  I think it was originally meant to match WP:NOTCENSORED but didn't really get it right.  Heh.  In fact WP:NOT basically says "don't include stuff that isn't appropriate for the article". >.> Protonk (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, if only common sense were a universal trait of Wikipedia editors! :) Regarding WP:NOTCENSORED, I think my proposed wording actually matches the WP:NOTCENSORED policy about as closely as you can get: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we kinda have to build rules around the presence of common sense otherwise we would end up with a bigger rats' nest of provisos and caveats. Would it be possible just to link to CENSORED with a bit about appropriateness for a given article?  Also...and this is really nitpicky, but I think "appropriate" is a better word than inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We actually need more than NOTCENSORED as an editorial policy. For example, a year or so ago the community wasted umpteen kilobytes on whether it was "appropriate" to have the goatse image in the goatse article. One lot said, "Of course it is appropriate: the article is about the goatse image; how could the goatse image not be encyclopedically relevant and 'appropriate'?" The other lot said, "Of course it's not appropriate. It's a shock image, and it will make readers throw up." What we should have done is look at reliable sources: Do any reliable sources plonk the goatse image on their pages when they discuss it? Very quick answer: No. And if reliable sources don't do it, why should we? We present a link under External links, and if people still want to see it, after having read the article (which many actually may not bother to do if the image is there), then they can follow that link. -- JN 466  01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Images like these are actually not suitable for girl. Really. I think we are doing fine with the illustrations we currently have in that article. ;) -- JN 466  23:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "that pornography" is "exactly" what I mean with "inappropriate." I don't see a nude model as being "pornography." I am sure File:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg is seen by some as "inappropriate" as well because it appears to be a very young "girl" in a modeling pose. Some might say she is a bit of a Lolita. But that is more of an opinion that can not truly be a policy. It is sometimes often obvious when a source is meant to "bring attention to an article" - ever watch reality TV? Or read gossip rags? The context of "inappropriate" is broad and varied - many feel The Biggest Loser is "inappropriate", while far more seem to not feel that given the success of the show. Want to draw attention to something? Than you "exploit" something - you use "sensationalism". Ever hear of the New York Post? (Headlines such as these were commonplace) How about The Sun? (typical front page) I take the line in question to be akin to that. An article whose title is "Naked girls!" and is an article about File:HaremPool.jpg or File:Danae painting.jpg is clearly meant to "bring attention to an article". Likewise an article entitled "pornography" which was an article about File:Bouguereau first kiss.jpg would be the same. That is what I meant about a title and an image that went hand in hand. For image use the same is true in the *context* of what this says - "Shocking or explicit pictures". In that context I, personally, don't feel SuicideGirls is either of those. Coprophagia on the other hand, if it used this image I would consider both - even if it isn't what is really gong one. (Again - a title *with* an image very much sets context many times). As Protonk has tried to explain "Normal editing should allow people to discuss images and reach a consensus to remove obviously inappropriate images for an article." Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So sites where you pay money to see young naked people in sexually alluring poses aren't "porn sites"? What would you prefer that we call them? "Nudity appreciation sites"? Come on. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on the content - if is *only* people with no cloths I never use the word "porn", that is extremely an puritan view of things in 2011. I would have to pay to read Study of Breast Biopsies Finds Surgery Used Too Extensively, so does that mean The New York Times is a "porn site" if there was an image of a breast in the artlce? I can see why you would want the word "inappropriate" because was can start to weed through articles with nudity saying they are "inappropriate" images - and that goes back to Wikipedia is not censored Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're curious, the only photograph in the NYT article is of a surgeon who is quoted in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that. (The article is free to view for account holders; accounts are free, too.) -- JN 466  14:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SuicideGirls is definitely more than just nudity. It's obviously designed to be sexually alluring and gratifying and that's why people pay money for it, not for the compelling prose! If you think I'm proposing this wording change because I'm a "prude" and I want to remove all nudity from Wikipedia, you are completely wrong and have violated WP:AGF. I just think the current wording sucks and it should reflect our existing policies instead. Have you actually read WP:NOTCENSORED? It uses the word "appropriate", I didn't just make it up to suggest here so that I could go on a nudity deleting rampage. Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It may surprise you but I have real most of the polices and guidelines that deal with files and copyright here at Wikipedia. My "work" here is akin to real world work where I deal with such matters. Real world =/= Wikiworld however and I spend a lot of time here trying to explain that to people as well. As I had suggested below Wikipedia is *not* an endeavor into exploitation films or Yellow Journalism, and that is is the context of the wording. "Inappropriate" is part of that, however is not *only* that. Your use of a modeling site that one must pay to use as an example of "inappropriate" is not a good one, and based on further discussion it opens up a lot of like discussions. A pay site =/= inappropriate for example. "sexually alluring and gratifying and that's why people pay money for it" is a subjective view, some people find image of feet "sexually alluring and gratifying" but that does not mean every image of a foot is "inappropriate." Some people find eating shit "sexually alluring and gratifying" but that does not mean Coprophagia is "inappropriate", even if it were on a website where one had to pay for it. Sexual fetishism is an article where images could be used to illustrate it and it would be hard to argue, in the context of Wikipedia not being censored, how an image that related to that topic would be "shocking" or "explicit" in the *context* of the subject, but certainly anyone could argue that such image were "inappropriate" on their own. I am going to respond more way down below as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. As an additional point, consider that all our basic content policies -- WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV -- are based on the premise that we should model our textual content on reliable sources. Images are article content, too, and the same principles should apply. While we usually substitute our own images for copyright and other reasons, the general style of our illustrations should mimic that of the illustrations commonly used in reliable sources covering the topic. -- JN 466  22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't change The rule of thumb is good. If there is to be a change it should be made to the section on content, where I have added language with respect to images with irrelevant or distracting subtext which is what is involved with use of an image such as File:Petit Bullet.jpg to illustrate girl. Certainly a few girls do present themselves in this way, but that is a subject for another article, such as SuicideGirls. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI I reverted your edit as, at the time I saw it, had not been discussed anywhere. Also in reguards to "girls" and the image - SuicideGirls is an image that is more and more common. Your comment starts off very good (Certainly a few girls do present themselves in this way) but end in the ironic "but that is a subject for another article." Take a random look at the real world today - here, here, here, here, Avril Lavigne, Demi Lovato, Taylor Momsen. You get the idea. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We could use those to illustrate nightmare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fred, your proposed wording means exactly the same thing as my proposal so I don't understand why you are opposing it. Kaldari (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually no; the rule of thumb concerns surprise, content deals with sexual or other inappropriate subtexts. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If something has an inappropriate (sexual or other) subtext wouldn't that cause surprise? Kaldari (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the rule of thumb is a restatement of the general principle that images should illustrate the subject of the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note - I got a chuckle out of this because of this thread: Eddie Cibrian's ex, Brandi Glanville, slams LeAnn Rimes on Twitter: Singer is 'highly inappropriate. I don't see the words "shocking or explicit" mentioned at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

100MB??? is that true???
According to rules: "Upload a high-resolution version of your image whenever possible (unless the image is being used under fair use; see Fair use images for details), and use the automatic thumbnailing option of the Wikipedia image markup to scale down the image. MediaWiki accepts images up to 100 MB in size. Do not scale down the image yourself, as scaled-down images may be of limited use in the future. Is that true if a Wikipedia's server can conatin a picture file in 100MB??? or maybe just 100KB??" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpson H (talk • contribs) 00:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the server can handle files that large (with some searching I found File:1 Wild Turkey.jpg for example that's, 99Mb), but it's not true that you can necessarily just use the automatic thumbnailing option on that large files. It works ok if they are JPG files, but PNG files (and anything that result in a PNG thumbnail) is limited to 12.5 million pixels (something about those files types having to be loaded entirely into RAM to resize, while JPG files can be "streamed" though the processor in smaller chunks). You can still upload those files, but the system can't create automatic thumbnails for them (see File:Lexington original configuration edited.gif for example, only 7Mb, but too many pixels to thumbnail). --Sherool (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Coin images
I'm a little uncomfortable with a tag that has been placed on an image I uploaded:File:Na1guilderobverse.png.

I understand the low resolution argument (and "specimen" watermarking) when applied to bills. Makes perfect sense to me. I'm not sure how well it applies to coins, though. Certainly we aren't suggesting that people are going to counterfeit coins based on scans of my pocket change, are we? Or that the amount of infringement a picture of a coin produces is related to the resolution of the picture?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's straight up seeking to minimize the use of non-free image, which includes using the lowest-resolution image possible that still carries the necessary meaning for the work. That image, at half size (1/4th as large) would be sufficient for what it is illustrating. --M ASEM (t) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still think it's a misplaced concern, given the media difference: a picture doesn't compete with an object, and the resolution is immaterial. Reduced it anyway.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems moot since the image was reduced, but I think that the reduced image is a silly policy where the image itself can't compete with the object in question. Protonk (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really moot, and merits further discussion. This wasn't the only high-resolution picture of a physical object on Wikipedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well my stance is that reducing the image size serves two purposes, both valuable. The first is to blunt claims of competition for publishers of the original content.  Take Tennis Girl or File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg as two examples of reduction for this purpose.  The second purpose is to prompt free image use.  The chain of thinking goes if we do not restrict (arbitrarily in some cases) the quality of non-free images then they will crowd out free images and downstream use will be hurt.  I'm not mentioning these two to remediate, just to establish a starting point for discussion.  I feel that the policy as it stands conflates both the necessity and the consequence of both reasons.  Rather than have a policy which requires reduced resolution images for certain kinds of photos (say press or wire photos, just to pick an easy and narrow example) and somewhat higher resolution on others, we tend to slap non-free reduce on everything.  A photo of a bill or coin cannot stand in or compete for the original (or, more precisely, a given photo on wikipedia of a coin cannot really compete with another photo of the same coin) and a free image literally cannot be taken of the coin.  Likewise photos of web-pages run into this very same issue.  We give readers a 400x200 image of a web page for no particularly good reason.  When someone uploads a higher resolution image because the lower resolution one looks like shit (pardon the language, but it does), we tend to slap some tag on their page and treat them like a copyright criminal.  It doesn't make any sense. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. A low-resolution restriction makes a lot of sense when we are reproducing an image: in a very real sense, our image competes with other sources for the image. Once we have an image of something that isn't, in itself, an image, the resolution doesn't matter. A good picture of a coin interferes with the rights of a mint to precisely the same extent that a poor image does. We can argue about what the nature of that interference is, but it isn't resolution sensitive.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

NFUR images question
If an image being used under NFUR rules was to be hidden by use of, would it then be liable to deletion as an orphan? Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I don't know if the bot (there is still a bot, right) will read commented sections when considering image links. But if I were scanning manually unless the image was in the infobox I would be shocked if I saw a commented out image before tagging one as an orphan. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Source question
This image of is on Wikimedia Commons. And it is currently in use on the German Wikipedia. It has no source information. My question: With no source information, should I refrain from using this image? Maile66 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are there NEVER explanations in Wikipedia articles (about Wikipedia Image-use) on How to Actually Determine If an Image is Copyrighted Or NOT?!!
Why doesn't this article, for example, tell you HOW to find out if an image is copyrighted or not? Or if an image is fair-use or free? Or if an image is free or non-copyrighted? These pages NEVER tell you that. It's maddening.

OK-- so now I know what I can and can't use-- but HOW do I tell whether or not an Internet image is copyrighted, or has any other designation or is just free.

And WHY doesn't this, or any other Wikipedia image article, just spell this out clearly in an easy-to find manner?

Telemachus.forward (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no clear explanation of whether or not an image is fair use. Sorry, but it's complicated. :/ In terms of determining if an image is under copyright, that's a bit complicated, too. It depends on when it was first published, where it was first published, and by whom. If you have a specific question and aren't sure, you can ask at Media copyright questions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It always more easier to start from the assumption that any image on the web is copyrighted (eg we treat is as non-free) and set out to find if it actually is in the public domain or licensed appropriately for free reuse. --M ASEM  (t) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses!

Masem, how do you know if an image is in the Public domain?

Telemachus.forward (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you know how to figure out if the text on a website is copyrighted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To tell if something is public domain, it may have been released to the public domain via a declaration, it may be created in the public domain, eg US government, or it may be too simple for copyright, or it may be copyright expired. To tell if copyright has expired you have to know which country it was published in, when it was, who the author was, and may-be when they died. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, this might be an awful answer, but here it is. It's immensely complicated, and the best thing to do if you don't know is ask. There exists a few experts in copyright (at least experts at copyright as related to Wikipedia) that can be called upon. Moonriddengirl happens to be one of them, I'm sure she can provide links to the standard outlets for copyright questions if she sees this. There are also specialists in specific areas, I consider myself at least intermediate in my knowledge as it relates to sounds and images. Outside of going to law school, the only real way to pick up the know how is by watching others, reading up on different discussions and policy pages, and, as I said, asking when you need to.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  09:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple rule of thumb is: if you didn't make it yourself, it's probably not free. The one usual exception is that if it's clearly quite old it might be free (and you can check into that). All other exceptions are rare. And as for fair use, if it's not free, a good rule of thumb is: don't use it. (Granted, there are exceptions. But it's much easier, and usually correct (some would say always correct), to simply forgo using fair use images.) Yes, these rules of thumb are kind of draconian, but certainly simplify life. I'm not saying anyone else should follow them, but if you don't, yes you will expect to have to do some detective work. Herostratus (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A basic way for starters is to check this page. If an image is free, it will be free for a certain reason, and that page lists a number of tags of such reasons. So, check if the image you are interested in using can use one of those tags, or not. You don't need to check them all, usually you will check the general ones, or the ones from the source country. The usual info about the image that you will need are the author, the year of death if dead, and the publication MBelgrano (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This page needs a flow-chart.
Someone please make a simple to follow flowchart for how to find out if an image is "fair use" or not. I'd like to use http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52300000/jpg/_52300851_011770030-1.jpg to illustrate a pertinent article about salafi jihadism. The image has a watermark-ish little "AP" thing down in the corner, obviously put there by the people who sold BBCnews the image so that people would know where the image came from. To me, that means the image is now out on the internet where anyone can just right-click and "Save As" and then re-use it. Would presumably be nice to leave the "AP" mark in there so they would get credit for being a company that's good for sourcing images, i.e. essentially doing their advertising FOR THEM and increasing their brand awareness. I really don't see how this is not "fair use" as long as whoever is re-using it doesn't profit from doing so or seek to re-sell it and in fact helps them advertise their services - but I have a sneaky suspicion that other people don't share my opinion and will tell me I'm flat out wrong, so I won't bother making a bold edit to the page I want to put the image on. Which kind of stifles the use of images on wikipedia. Someone explain this?Pär Larsson (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "AP" is likely Associated Press. This means this is a press agency photo.  Their business besides wire news stories is to sell these photos to others.  While you can use it for "fair use", Wikipedia has a stronger standard of  "non-free content", which means that when we are disrupting commercial opportunities, we cannot use such photos unless they are the subject of critical commentary and discussion.  Even if the AP thing wasn't there, you're getting the image from the BBC and so without other evidence would make it a press agency photo.  --M ASEM  (t) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Galleries
I have |slightly re-jigged WP:IG to clarify what was the clear intention of the lengthy discussions two years ago (also here) that led to the present wording, which has been pretty stable since then. The "rule of Thumb" only makes sense in terms of the old-style gallery-articles, not the one or two or more rows that are now well-accepted in articles on visual subjects. The question arose at Talk:William_Hogarth. I also recently added "inappropriate" to the wording on Template:Cleanup-gallery, which now reads: "This section looks like an inappropriate image gallery. Wikipedia policy discourages galleries of random images of the article subject; please improve or remove the section accordingly, moving freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons if not already hosted there." A recent check on a sample of articles (mostly on art) with this template showed over 50% that were imo fine, though also many that weren't. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually not the "clear intention" of the discussion two years ago. While there may be exceptions for visual arts, lets discuss, but not rewrite history. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Having said that, the William_Hogarth discussion suggests that a clarification is needed for visual arts, as Johnbod suggests. In such cases, the word "gallery" might actually be quite appropriate. Any suggestions for wording? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. We never really got a consensus on a new rewording at all.--Crossmr (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Image notability question
Can someone clarify if WP has a policy about image notability. I've noticed many articles which contain images of questionable usefulness. No problems about copyright/fair use, etc. but they make me think "was this really necessary in addition to the written description?"

I know adding images as a general practice is encouraged, but I would think there would be some guidelines, if not an out-and-out rule stating what determines when an image is appropriate. It puzzles me that notability would be so strictly enforced for text, but not for images. IMO an image should add something significant to the reader's comprehension about the subject. In other words, what makes one topic notable enough to merit multiple images while other articles of similar length/quality/notability have none? Perhaps it's the case that ALL articles need many images but the community just hasn't caught up yet? Or perhaps certain topics have few fair-use images that can be used?

Anyway, if such a policy exists, I can't find it. If it doesn't, can someone explain why not? Nemokara (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

- So ... no?Nemokara (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy language
I wonder if anyone would object to changing IUP's "source" language to something that can't be confused with "source" as used by WP:Verifiability and other major content policies? Perhaps "origin" would be an adequate substitute. For example, under ==Requirements==, we could say "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source origin)..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In the absence of objections, I made a first attempt at this today. Please feel free to clean up or improve any others.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends on what we think the policy actually is. My understanding is that the absolute requirement is to state either where you found the image or where it ultimately derives from; with there being strong encouragement to give as much information as possible about both.


 * In some cases it may be impossible to say what the ultimately original source of an image was (eg often for very old photos, one might very readily be able to say what archive holds it, but not where it ultimately derived from); but looking at the image, along with the general assessment of common sense by the community, may be enough to assess whether there is any particular plausibility of an NFCC #2 problem for fair use; so in such a case, this would suffice.


 * On the other hand, before an image can be declared "free" one would certainly need to have a very good idea of its full likely copyright history. Jheald (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold ...
... and made quite a lot of changes. This sure was one heck of a chaotic policy page. Large parts of it were really not policy text but some technical manual material. Other parts were quite severely outdated. The whole page was extremely unstructured, and showed signs of very unsystematic additions motivated by long-obsolete considerations. I think it should still be condensed and streamlined much more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you've deleted chunks as "belongs in a help page, not a policy page" - which help page(s) have you pasted them into? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * None yet. The whole area of image-related pages seems so chaotic I haven't yet found where they would best fit, and if indeed they are needed anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And strictly speaking, it need not be moved over if the removed material is sufficiently confusing. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is such a mess. There are: WP:Uploading images has a hatnote pointing to Media, which however is only a disambiguation page, with one entry pointing to WP:Creation and usage of media files and another pointing to Images. – Sorry, but I really don't understand well what the division of labour between all these pages is supposed to be. There is doubtless a lot of material duplicated between them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Images, marked as a content guideline
 * Help:Viewing media (with a redirect from Help:Images), which is only a very short overview
 * Help:Files (with a redirect from Help:Images and other uploaded files), which is supposedly a summary article for two sub-articles:
 * Uploading images
 * Picture tutorial
 * Creation and usage of media files, marked as a "how-to guide".


 * I stepped through all the changes, and support all but one—the absolute minimum requirements should not be buried in a list of optional-but-nice advice—but I do think that it is important that the removed material end up in some sensible location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The opposite of the usual problem
OK, what's the procedure when you discover that an image is marked as copyright, but is clearly a PD image. File:SS Elbe 1881.jpg is an image of a ship that was sunk in 1895, and is from a postcard dating from between 1881 and 1895, so it would appear to be in the PD. Is it simply a matter of re-licencing the image and marking it for moving to Commons? Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's probably PD-US-1923, but unless you know things like the place and date of publication, the date of death of the photographer (or if it was published anonymously), and so on, you can't make any stronger claims of PD status and you shouldn't mark it for moving to Commons. --Carnildo (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * PD-US-1923-abroad would seem to be a better fit. The uploader is still semi-active, I'll contact him as he might be able to shed some further light on this one. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed the licence to PD-US-1923-abroad as it is obvious that the photo must have been taken before 1895. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of dead/deceased persons
I have searched for a firm answer to this and have not found one. Despite having an entire policy page on biographies of living people, there is barely a mention of bios of deceased people (BDP). More specifically I am interested in policy of images for the infobox. On the non-free content page it states that "for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."

My concern is about deceased individuals for whom no free image exists, or for whom no image of decent quality (worthy enough to be used in an infobox) is available. I have found no guideline on this, nor any instruction on the proper language to declare fair use for such an image during upload. Can anyone provide some insight? Can non-free images be used in the infoboxes of deceased people and if so, what is the stated rationale to use? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically, the policy that talks about this for living persons is based on the replacability factor, WP:NFCC - it is nearly always possible to get a free image of a living person. Obviously, that doesn't exist for deceased persons, so it is generally acceptable that barring the known existence of a free image (eg; we will not be suddenly replacing our previously-existing free image of Leslie Nielsen just because he's now passed on) a non-free image of a deceased person is appropriate for an infobox image.  But you still need to explain why such an image is necessary - typically you're giving the reader context that this is whom the article is about, for example... --M ASEM  (t) 13:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)