Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 7

message: Is there a policy? I think as long as they are not porn pictures we should be able to post them
* It has pretty much been decided that clinical-esque photos (such as those on penis and clitoris) are just at the edge of what is acceptable. →Raul654 03:15, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Eh? Decided where? Don't remember that at all. I don't think we have really
visited the question at all. I think that the question would merely be of
showing that there is a reasonable rationale for the image, and that it is
suitable for the subject of the article. For example images of porn have
been posted in articles, but mostly only from "classical" era or previous.
This question has yet to be seriously tested. -- Cimon
*I think each picture would have to be discussed on its own merits, probably on the talk page of the article the image is added to.  What are you proposing?  Everybody will have their own boundaries of taste.  For example, I'd readily accept a black and white nude photograph taken by a respected photographer if it was indicative of his work and we had permission to use it.  However, I don't see that a picture of full, penetrative, amateur sex is going to add much to pornography. --bodnotbod 15:25, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
We allow people to link all sort of pov links both pro and con to certain people and topics why can we not allow people to post extral links to nude pix?
We do accept images of people without clothes -- Penny Rimbaud hasn't offended anyone for months. --Zigger 14:35, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
:I would say that Penny Rimbaud is an example of appropriate use. From what I can tell, that photo is actually not unrepresentative of who he is and what he's about.
:In contrast, I refer you to the history of Reese Witherspoon, where there are over a dozen attempts by (I believe) one user to link a nude screen cap of Reese in the one movie I know of where she actually did nudity. There are also over a dozen reverts by 7 or 8 different users. Did she do a nude scene? Yes. Is the image representative of her work? No. 
:The poster's rationale was "The human body is beautiful" as far as I can tell. (Now his rationale is probably "let's see how many times I can post this and annoy people" but that's a different question.) He's not contending that it's representative of her work or personality, just that it's a cute picture. 
:Would you argue that this is an acceptable place to put a nude photo? - Kenwarren 20:48, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
yes i think any picture of a nude person is acceptable place on wikipedia look at some of the articles we already have why not allow nude pix. How do we know it a he? I think it is representative of her personality I am sure Reese is probably naked everyday like most people are naked everyday.
:I would say that including a link to that photo isn't really right, as it's nowhere near representative of her work. That said, images of a porn starlet should probably be hidden behind links, but available, as reflective of her work. Also, unlike Bodnotbod, I think pornography would be more NPOV with a better external links section and perhaps a few examples--again, hidden behind links. Meelar (talk) 00:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people would be suprised and even offended to see nudity in articles unrelated to nudity. Why offend them just because we don't think it's a big deal?  It's part of the Neutral Point of View -- we present the facts relating to an issue in a neutral way, without trying to win people over to any opinions we hold ourselves.  It would be kind of like putting pictures of bacon in articles about Israel; to me, "it's just bacon", but to many people interested in Israel it would seem like an insult.  It wouldn't add anything to the article and is likely to make people question the neutrality of the 'pedia. Lunkwill 18:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nude Pictures

message: Hi, I'm want to use  ofthis picture on Elmer Flick's page.  My question is whether it is public domain or fair use.  I think it is public domain because it was created/published in 1903, but on the 'Rights and Reproductions' page, it says its fair use.  It seems like the 'Rights and Reproductions' page is just a general page they use for all images from the Chicago Historical Society.  Are there any exceptions to the rule of things being published before 1923 are in the public domain?  What are your opinions? Thanks for your help. Mattingly23 14:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this photo fair use or public domain? 

message: To me, the 300 pixel size was a good idea for photos that seems to have gone by the board. It is an ideal size to add visual impact to an article, without overwhelming browsers or slow connections. 
The glory of Wikipedia, I thought, was that, as a non "dead tree" publication, we could "waste" a few electrons, and make the articles really live. Our layout options are somewhat limited by the format, but good pictures can make some articles real gems.
But a bunch of people have, in my opinion, been running amuk, thumbnailing everything. Why!?
There is a place for thumbnails; I use them myself. But many articles that were greatly enhanced by an appropriate photo, are now degraded by unintelligible thumbnails that require an additional step, and the viewing of more info that often has no relevance to the article.
On a few occasions I have reverted thumbnails. I've been tempted far more times. I am aware that not all my photos are brilliant, and sometimes have just let it go, but I find my enthusiam to contribute photos is declining. Naturally I keep best track of my own photos, but I would think this to be true for other photographers as well.
I think Wikipedians should establish some guidelines. At least one full sized image that adds to an article should NOT be thumbnailed.
And many images that "go to pieces" cannot be thumbnailed. Non-photographers need to be especially cautious about thumbnailing, as they may not have the "eye" for good photos or layout. Some thumbnailing should not be so bold, but should be done only by consensus.
At any rate, I toss these ideas out for discussion. How about some policy specifications?  Pollinator 16:36, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
* Actually, you'll hate me then. When there's no need to resize an image, I like to use the "frame"  option to add a frame and caption. It just looks so neat and tidy and pretty. zoney ▓<FONT COLOR="white">█</FONT>▒ talk 16:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thumbnailing craze 

message: What about images from Wikimedia Commons? --.:Ajvol:. 08:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (Since no one else has said this, and it's not clear on the article page) You automatically have access to Commons files. No special prefix is required. If you want to use an image foo.png on commons, all you need to put is :Image:foo.png. But it will try to access a 'local' version of the file first - so if foo.png exists on en:, it will use that. I don't know if its possible to write something extra to force it to use the Commons file. pfctdayelise 01:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Commons 

message: I recently uploaded an image, and realized I’d given it a bad file name. This project page and Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page both say there's no easy way to rename an image. So I uploaded the image with the correct file name, and left a request for speedy deletion on the first (incorrect file name) image. It's already deleted. Then I took another look at the image page and saw a move tab. When I went there, it looked like an easy way to rename an image. I didn’t use it, though. Gun shy.
What is the current preferred way to rename an image? If no one answers in a week, I’ll assume that uploading again, but with the correct file name, is out of date, and I’ll change the project page texts to reflect that. Rmeier 00:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When I clicked on the move tab, and actually tried the Move Page, it didn't work. I received the following error message - “Error: could not submit form”. Therefore the correct method to rename an image is to upload the image with the correct file name, and leave a request for speedy deletion on the first (incorrect file name) image. I use the   template. Rmeier 05:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming an image 

message: I'm trying to upload an image that is public domain (PD-USGov-DOT to be precise). The upload page insists I check a box "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." But I can't affirm that; by definition there is no copyright holder, and I probably can't go and ask a random person at the FAA for agreement to license it anyway. Should the checkbox be clarified along these lines: "I affirm that either this image is not subject to copyright or..."? Until this is resolved, I ain't uploading the image. David Brooks 20:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affirmation that the copyright holder agrees 

message: There's a huge collection of tree and forestry photos at http://www.forestryimages.org/. Most are taken by private individuals and copyrighted, with (usually) a non-commercial licence note attached; fair enough. 
However, some are marked as taken by United States Forest Service personnel - these photos carry the same non-commercial license restrictions on the page (typical example: this one). Yet surely as US Government photos, these are in the public domain and free of copyright? Can I ignore the stated restrictions as being incorrect, and use these USFS photos with the tag ? - thanks, MPF 19:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone?? - MPF 00:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: forestryimages.org

message: How should this page be updated to reflect Wikimedia Commons ()? Hyacinth 04:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons

message: Macromedia Fireworks [10] (http://www.macromedia.com/fireworks/) A mildly popular imaging program, primarily used for creating animated gifs and static JPGs. Contains only basic editing tools.
Fireworks is far from "basic editing tools". It is atually best image software for making images for web. For photos, yes Photoshop may be a bit more suitable, but for rest ... Could somebody with better language skills correct this in article. Thank you  --TarmoK 21:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macromedia Fireworks 

message: While checking on articles for Wikipedia:Press coverage and Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source, I came across this news article. They used Wikipedia not as a source of text, but as the source of the picture. I was excited, since I'd never seen Wikipedia used like this before, until I checked the image and its copyright status is unknown. I don't fully understand fair use, although I am fairly certain that this image is not public domain as the uploader originally asserted. I think we should be careful about using copyrighted photographs; as Wikipedia gets more popular, reusing photographs will probably occur more often. And copyright holders may start getting annoyed to find their photographs being reprinted in news stories and such. I don't normally follow the image discussions so I don't know what's in the works for  images, but just wanted to leave a heads up. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame I left out the information on that picture.  I tend to rush through things like that.  But just for the record, it's been fixed.  It won't happen again (hopefully)! --ROY YOЯ 15:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{unknown}}</nowiki> -- remove from articles? 

message: Knowledgable users, please lend a hand @ Talk:Arthur_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington. Thank you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help 

message: Since there isn't a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Photos) page, I am not sure where to ask this question: What should one do with old photographs that you are planning to upload to the Wikipedia? I've uploaded a few old photos from the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, like many of the pre-1923 public domain photos at the LOC, they were darkened and yellowed. Most of the photos I uploaded I have used "as is". For one of the photos, however, I cropped the image, and then converted the image to greyscale and lightened up the image, which I think gave a much better picture. I am wondering if there should be any sort of Wikipedia guidlines for this type of photo manipulation. BlankVerse ∅ 13:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old photographs? 

message: Should it be mentioned in the article to recommend using greyscale PNGs for monochrome pictures (incl. black and white photos)? Or would JPEGs still be better for monochrome photos? --Zilog Jones 13:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend PNGs for greyscale images? 

message: I have an idea for a policy using portrait images. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before or if there is already a page for it...
Some of my ideas are:
* When adding a portrait, find one that is simple and clear looking that shows the persons "features" easily. Isn't that what a portrait image supposed to be about?
* Don't upload a high-res pic for a simple portrait as it's unnecessary. Instead provide a link to a high resolution picture at their official web site or whereever a stable link is at. Unless the picture is rare.
* Don't needlessy change around someones portrait. I see this alot for famous musicians and singers. Just find an image you fans like that clearly shows the person and leave it alone.
* Keep it simple. No fancy photo editing that makes it hard to see the picture.
I got this idea from seeing people constantly changing famous musicians portrait images for no real reason. This really bugs me because the picture usually gets changed from an ok picture to an ugly one that doesn't show the persons face. 
Any thoughts? --Arm 19:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait policy idea. 

message: What, if any, are the legal concerns regarding photos of people taken in public places without a model release (e.g. a photo of people in a rowboat in New York's Central Park)? -- Avocado 17:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Ditto. Are there guidelines about using non-famous people? e.g. I have pictures I want to use for sports, but they're amatuer players. What if they're not easily identifiable? pfctdayelise 01:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a tough one. There are some countries with stupid privacy laws. I am not aware of any preexisting guidance on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you avoid pictures with identifiable people when at all possible, since that will probably provide sufficent protection. I think it's not a bad solution overall, since except in specific circumstances, I believe that it is generally distracting to have identifiable people in our illustrations when the people are not the subject, and overall such photographs look less perspective. ... A discouragement for photos of people where they are not needed will also be useful when someone decides to play wheres waldo and get a picture including him into every article on Wikipedia. ;) --Gmaxwell 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of people in public places 

message: See .  A 700 KiB animation was removed for being too large for dialup users.  Is there any policy on this?  I don't see why we should limit ourselves, but as a compromise, a static image could be created and leave a link to the animated version.  Don't just delete it.  — Omegatron 13:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added something to the policy to that effect. Tweaking (eg. what is "very small") appreciated. See also #Animated GIFs above. ··gracefool |☺ 22:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on large animations 

message: Booo, you suck! Get off the stage. TIA! El_C 02:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, huh?  Are you trying to make a WP:POINT, or what? In any case, I think the Image use policy is quite well written and useful.  If you have any substantive suggestions, please speak up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OiHA! (don't touch my seal of approval, my beloved Image policy!) Anyway, in answer to your question: the former. [W]ell written [possibly, I haven't —and will never— read it] and useful, I see you are  sucking up to the hated Image use policy, which, in the long-run, is probably a wiser course than the one I've chosen (one which will likely bring about my untimely demise). Thanks! El_C 02:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear [[Image use policy]], 

message: This question is about the usability of pictures I took myself of historical artifacts in a museum; if this is not the right place for my query, can somebody let me know where to take it?  The museum in question had no policy against taking pictures, and the images are of historical artifacts (specifically, old scientific equipment) and not of art or specially-designed exhibit displays.  Can I post and use the pictures I took on wikipedia?  Thanks, -- SCZenz 23:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, and IANAL, such pictures would be just fine, and very much appreciated.  Of course, you would state on each image description page "This photo was taken by me, SCZenz, on >date when you took the photo>, in >name of museum>.  ".  Thanks in advance for the pictures! JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures taken in museums 

message: I posted about this on the Silent Film Talk Board, but I thought this might be a better place to ask:  I'm pretty new here, but I'm hoping to spruce up some of the silent film actors' articles, particularly with photos.  After looking at all the copyright image guidelines, however, I'm pretty much too scared to do anything.  I certainly don't have any physical photographs at home, but the internet is teeming with pre-1922 photos of somewhat forgotten stars.  I found the Library of Congress site both difficult to navigate and somewhat devoid of photos of stars lesser known today.  Does anyone know of a reliable repository of old silent photographs, or are any pre-1922 photos good to go if I tinker with them in Photoshop long enough?  Or am I better off just e-mailing a lot of websites asking for permission (although most Silent Movie fans want to spread the word about their forgotten genre and probably don't mine sharing, some are very protective about their personal collections).  Wencer 02:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of Silent Film Actors 

message: Asking people to consider the appropriateness and necessity of the images they include isn't the same as saying that we practice censorship.  Was this edit discussed anywhere? -- SCZenz 18:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell it wasn't. I've added the text back, although I've trimmed it a bit... because the link-vs-inline isn't something there is consensus about. As far as I can tell the shockingness of an image an editoral consideration, and that all other things equal we prefer to use less shocking images where we can. The text has be long standing in one form or another, ... it used to say 'offensive', but I changed it (a month ago?), as 'shocking' is more general and more related to our goal (high quality vs censored and 'kid safe') --Gmaxwell 21:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  It looked like a bizzare edit to me, but I hadn't been keeping track of this long enough to know for sure. -- SCZenz 21:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of lines from image use policy 

message: I'm interested in uploading(My computer is finally fixed :) ) one of these flags for the Courland article along with Courland colonization, etc. I understand the flag policy but the copyright, IMHO, of these flags is unclear. If it can't be used(or best not),  is there a specific site to redraw it. I have gone through several sites but unfortunately have been unsuccessful.   
*The Flag
*Copyright and Disclaimer Thanks! Falphin 01:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Question

message: Rule of thumb #9 says "Don't put photo credits in articles or on the images themselves; put them on the description page": this appears to put us in breach of licenses which require us to be clear about the copyright status of the image. The issue came up on Talk:Main Page#David Blunkett photo. Comments? Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 13:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo credits

message: I've posted this on Meta, but I thought I'd post this here as well:
Does anyone know of the Wikimedia Foundation's policy of hot-linking images on the Wikimedia servers? I know that hot-linking images on other people's servers is often considered leeching. However, I would like to hear of the Wikimedia Foundation's stance on hot-linking to images on its servers. Thanks. --Ixfd64 08:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Foundation's image hot-linking policy? 

message: What is this for a strange "official" policy, if I can find such Pictures: :Image:GudeaLagasch.jpg - on 20 February in 2004 (!!!!!) this Image was tagged as picture with unknown status and should be delete after 7 Days. And now? There's the image, it's not deletet after 7 days or 7 weeks or 7 months. More than 20 month later such pictures are here. The english Wikipedia should do more against this pirats! Kenwilliams 02:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These images are beeing actively deleted. Problem is the sheer number. There used to be ~12.000 of them, now it's down to ~2.000 (see :Category:Images with unknown source. It takes time is all, especialy since you have to sift though the category to find images that have in fact been tagged for more than 7 days. You can help out by tagging images that have been marked with "no source" or "no license" for more than 7 days with the  speedy tag, they should be dealt with in a timely fashon after that. Thanks for the heads up by the way I'll delete :Image:GudeaLagasch.jpg right away. --Sherool (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It also doesn't help when people upload a thousand images per day, many of them copyvios, and then threaten admins for doing their job by clearing them out. If you want to help, go through the images that are not orphans and remove/replace their uses in articles, since we don't like to have articles that reference deleted images. Stan 14:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it is not appropriate to blame admins for this. Bear in mind that there are thousands of images being created in Wikipedia every day. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange Policy

message: I noticed that several software references, and links to various image manipulation tools were removed a few months back.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Image_use_policy&diff=next&oldid=24130754 )
I didn't find any discussion on the reasoning/rational behind it.   Several of those tooks were some of my favorites to use, and I would reccommend to others.
Would it be ok to put them back, or point me to the discussion on keeping them out, or are they somewhere else now?
Thanks,
--Iain 21:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several painting / image manipulation tools, removed ? 

message: I've got a bit of a query regarding Images. I'm writing an article about an educational system, and I would like to include a picture of the system's crest. Now I understand from reading this FAQ, and other pages that the creator of the image is required to release it to free domain for it to be able to be included. I remember from a discussion on another article's talk page (the name escapes me now) that such a declaration can be requested for in an e-mail and is valid. As this is the first time that I'm doing this, I'd appreciate a bit of advice as to the type of e-mail request to write and what exactly is required. Thanks in advance.Kaushik twin 07:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Question

message: For public domain images published before 1923, is it ok to use them, even if you didn't scan them personally? --Dara 19:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not belive that simple duplication of a 2D image is generally considered sufficiant to get copyright (thier was a big lawsuit about this in the U.S. setting precedent not too sure of the situation in other countries) so yes it should be ok. Plugwash 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's right. You should tag them as  if they are not old enough to be tagged with . But remember that it has to be published before 1923 -- it can't just have been created before 1923. --Fastfission 03:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we should probally have a  like we have a . Plugwash 17:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a good idea doing this, Plugwash. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old public domain images 

message: In connection with tagging things as , the question came up as to what is the "detailed source" of something like a scanned book cover. A casual reading of the policy seems to say that you have to say whether you scanned it yourself, or collected from Amazon's thumbnails, or whatever. However, this seems irrelevant at best - the actual source is the book's publisher, irrespective of what intermediate steps the image's bits took to get here. (Much like the Bridgeman v. Corel argument, where PD-ness of art is unaffected by accurate scanning and copying processes.) Rewording the policy would be tricky though; perhaps phrase it as requiring "ultimate source" which for book covers is the publisher, while "immediate source" of scan or website is helpful but not critical. Stan 22:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree (though if someone upload a new image without any info I make a point of tagging theyr images and delivering the whole "no source" speech, even if it's fairly obvious, in a hope of educating the user. If the image is usefull I can alays tag it later if they turn out to be inactive), the important bit is to say who owns the copyright (wich I asume is usualy the publisher in case of bookcovers, as they have probably paid for it to be made). So so how and where the image was obtained is more or less irrelevant (though it's nice to know), what is important is that we have enough information to be eable to verify who originaly created/published the work (and in case of "PD-old" stuff when and where). Same with screenshots and such. Saying "this is a screenshot from Half-life, developed by Valve Corporation and published by Sierra Entertainment" rather than "I found this image on gamespy.com", nothing wrong with doing both though. --Sherool (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for "self-sourcing" images 

message: If there are not objections, I have copied the statements from Wikipedia:Logos on to the relevant sections here that logos should be in PNG format. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Logos]] 

message: *MJJSource had some really good pictures on their site. It was an official website run by Michael Jackson's people, but the site no longer exists. Does this mean that all images on the site are no longer copyrighted? Street walker 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, presence/absence on a website doesn't change copyright status. It does, however, make it harder to verify the source of the images. Internet Archive may be helpful? Stan 15:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images from a website that no longer exists 

message: According to the policy: "Also note that in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright — for example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing." Does this mean that images taken from coin auction catalogs, like this one, could be uploaded under a  license? This and similar images are clearly either scans or straight-on photos, with little or no creative work involved. Can they be used in compliance with copyright law and Wikipedia policy? <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally speaking, I see no problems with this. But just to make sure, you should check this with other users on Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright status of U.S. coin photos/scans

message: Can I give Wikipedia a general yet exclusive permission to use images from my web site?
The point is that since I like Wikipedia, I'd like to contribute those pictures, but I
do not want them to be reused in other contexts. Could it work if I state on my site
something linke "I will consider any use of my pictures by Wikipedia as fair use"? 84.189.175.229 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. All user uploaded images must be licensed under GFDL, Creative Commons or released to the public domain or as copyrighted free use. -Nv8200p talk 22:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately no, we don't accept "permission-only" images, since we actively encourage people to use our content, even commercial projects (for instance, the DVD edition of de:Wikipedia).  You can either license a set of images that you feel comfortable with under a free license, or come up with a fair use rationale and tag the images :Template:Permissionandfairuse.  Jkelly 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclusive licence for Wikipedia?

message: I have looked at many different articles on the subject of uploading images here on Wikipedia and I have to say, I cannot find a clear answer to the following question (maybe there is not one!):
In a nutshell, am I allowed to upload an image, which if I had a hard copy in front of me would clearly be in the public domain, if an online gallery (such as this one www.topfoto.co.uk) has digitized it and is claiming copyright?   Does the fact that the website is based out of the UK make a difference?
It would be safer to exercise caution and not upload it, even with an accreditation to the website, but would appreciate some succinct guidance on this.  Please direct me to the right article on Wikipedia if that is simpler.
Thanks a lot!  LeighBCD 19:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain Images stored on Internet Galleries 

message: I've been going around swapping some PNG versions of graphics for SVG versions (for example :Image:Achtung.png → :Image:Achtung.svg), thinking that this was a good thing as per Commons:Images for cleanup. However, while waiting for a reponse to a notice I placed on the  talk page (which is protected, otherwise I would have done this already), I've now read at Meta:SVG image support that all processing is done on the server end, and it spits out a PNG for the browser anyway.
I know that all (or most all) PNG country flags have been replaced with SVG equivalents. Is there any guideline for PNG → SVG swapping in templates and other areas? Thanks. McNeight 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG vs. PNG in Widely Used Templates 

message: I've noticed multiple copies of the same image, sometimes pre-scaled and sometimes with a background color added. For example, :Image:Warning.png is similar to :Image:Cscr-important.png which is a scaled version of :Image:Important.png which is a scaled version of :Image:Nuvola apps important.png which is superceded by :Image:Nuvola apps important.svg and are all incredibly similar to :Image:Achtung.png and :Image:Achtung.svg. While I'm not advocation the merging of all of these graphics into a single one (some are GFDL, some are public domain and some are dual-licenced), is there any way to declutter some of this? McNeight 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Images That Appear Identical 

message: Is there somewhere in one of Wikipedia's policies that explicitly says we can't use images/"screenshots" from Google Earth (with the exception of the article, Google_Earth, itself to illustrate the software)?  If so, where does it say that?  If not, I think we should add it here.  When I remove such an image from an article, it would be helpful to point that user to some explanation/policy. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what specific images you are looking at, but at the bottom of the actual Google Earth application, there is a very clear copyright tag as to where the data you are looking at came from, and whose copyright it is. Unless they can prove otherwise, I would assume any data from Google Earth is copyrighted. McNeight 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across :Image:Pentagon_ariel.jpg (now removed) in The Pentagon article.  Some of the imagery data might be public domain (e.g. from USGS).  However, Google also gets much of their imagery and data from commercial sources, including Digital Globe, Tele Atlas, and Navteq, who I'm sure wouldn't be amused to see it on Wikipedia.  And the software features for manipulating the data (e.g. oblique angles, as in this example), are also proprietary.  Because of all this, I think there is no way we can/should use Google Earth images.  But some people don't realize this; therefore, I think it's worth explicitly adding to the policies. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Earth 

message: I don't think the quality reduction is worth it for the file size reduction especially with dial-up use dwindling. Would anyone object to the format section being changed to say photos may be PNGs? Discordance 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We would much rather people used maximum quality JPGs (for which there will not be any visable quality loss) because we are then able to thumbnail them down to small size for transmission (we must keep things in like formats when we downsize). However, it would be useful to increase our quality setting on thumbnailed jpgs since we do get visable artifacting on the thumbnails of some images. Someday we may allow users to select their own image sizes and jpeg qualities but the way we handle images today won't work for that. --Gmaxwell 04:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JPG or PNG

message: I recently uploaded a a 3-D image and linked to it from the Helictite article. I think it offers an interesting perspective and is a worthwhile contribution. What do you guys think? I couldn't find any policy literature on this. Can we mention this in the Image use policy for other would-be 3-D photo contributers?
:What's the point? How is one supposed to view that? (BTW, you can sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). When you save, the software replaces that by your login name and a timestamp. Lupo 08:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that those who have 3D glasses can gain a three dimensional perspective, giving them a better sense of scale. Jason7825 10:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought so. How many people in the world are likely to have 3D glasses? (I don't.) I would think it's a vanishingly tiny fraction of Internet users. Therefore, I don't see the point of uploading images that can be viewed properly by only that very tiny fraction, but that show a blurry mess of red and blue lines for all the others. I suggest that if we change the policy to say something at all on that topic, it should be by stating that one shouldn't do it. Lupo 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've already seen other 3D pictures with a tag that shows 3D glasses. just can't remember where. so this might be a good idea to ask someone about it. Unixer 09:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:3dnatureguy was the original proponent of 3D images on Wikipedia. He's uploaded a ton. There was a lot of discussion that resulted in a guideline over at Wikipedia:3D Illustrations. ~MDD4696 22:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-D Photos 

message: The image use policy page does not state anywhere that image with only noncommercial use allowed are not generally permitted.  One has to look Wikipedia:Image copyright tags or Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Noncommercial-use.  This has led to confusion in some quarters; see e.g. Talk:Jordanhill_railway_station#Aireal_View_Image:Jrs.jpg. --Saforrest 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about noncommercial use 

message: I'm creating very small images for use in the film stub templates, using images that are already in Wikipedia (such as smileys, clipart, etc.). What type of images should I not use, in terms of copyright? Fair use? GFDL? Thanks - Her Pegship 01:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use the fairuse images.. Anything which is freely licensed is fair game. --Gmaxwell 03:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in templates? 

message: I want to know is there any requirement of tag to image which is available on other wikipedia language page. If yes, which type of tag should be used? Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 12:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely required to properly source and tag an image lifted from another language Wikipedia and just saying "from German Wikipedia" is not a good enough source. Ideally, the same source and tag from the other Wikipedia should be used. -Nv8200p talk 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least copy everything thats on the image page on the other wikipedia. If possible translate into english. Leaving a link back to the other wikipedia is a good idea but only really nessacery if it was created by a user there. Plugwash 18:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images from other languages wikipedia

message: # Is my fairusein tagging for :Image:Jamnalal Bajaj 2006-03-17.jpg correct? Source page says, "© 1996-2005 Kamat's Potpourri. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without prior permission. Standard disclaimers apply". While WP:IDP states, Fair use is okay if "it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual;"
# Is my personal drawing of the same picture :Image:Jamnalal Bajaj.JPG legal to be released GDFL?
Could someone please take a look at these and advise? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your fair use claim looks fine. Depending on when that photo was taken, it is possible that it's even public domain. I'd say that since your drawing required artistic expression to create, that you can release it under the GFDL. It's not identical to the original, so I can't see why there'd be a problem. ~MDD4696 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairuse Tagging question

message: hello everyone, I have a question regarding this case:  :Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg. the image has no source, it has no authorship, nothing. It could be old, it could also not be old, to me it's not clear. I am trying to tag however it always gets removed. Can someone please give me some insights please, thank you... Gryffindor 14:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, all images should have sources. Paintings should have immediate image sources, title, and the name of the painter, together with at least the painter's year of death. However, for things clearly several hundred years old, one may indeed assume PD, even if the painter is unknown. For that particular image, I have now supplied the imemdiate image source—it wasn't hard to find. The painter is still unknown, but it's one of those very old works. The source says it's from 1752, so in any case the painter is long dead, and thus the work is PD. Lupo 08:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what happens when an image has no source and no author? 

message: I primarily contribute to Vikipedi, the Turkish Wikipedia. I would like to ask some questions about using the fair use tags of English Wikipedia in Vikipedi.
When we want to use images of copyrighted items (album covers, movie posters, film screenshots etc.) in Vikipedi and tag them with fair use tags (template:Albumcover, template:Movie poster etc.) in a similar manner as it is done in English Wikipedia,
:* given the fact that Vikipedi is also served from the servers in USA,
::# Is it okay to use related fair use tags (rather, the direct translations of them into Turkish) of English Wikipedia ?
::# If the translated tags are usable, is it also applicable to use, say, "Vikipedi, the Turkish-language Wikipedia" phrase (of course, the translation of it) instead of "English-language Wikipedia" and "Vikipedi" instead of "Wikipedia" in the sentences
::::* "on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,"
:::: and
::::* "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement."
:::: respectively ?
Tnaks in advance...
--Doruk Salancı 21:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: tr: has decided to allow copyright-infringing images defended by the U.S "fair use" doctrine?  In case you have not done so, it is probably best to first check with a Turkish copyright lawyer to ensure that Turkey does not have any "primary audience" clause (such as the one in Germany that caused concern for de:).  If there is no such problem, and tr: wants to allow unfree content, then direct translations of the en: "fair use" tags may be helpful for tr:, but keep in mind that these are primarily an organisational method and that the phrasing you seem interested in is directed at warning re-users that these images are unfree.  If that's what you want, there is no reason not to translate it, linking back to en: as the source for authorship.  Jkelly 21:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about fair use tags... 

message: Hi, just to make sure; if I am given a picture free-of-charge, to be used in Wikipedia only see example here, and the original author has the copyright, yet, gives non-exclusive rights to, I--is this the correct tag for it?; is PermissionAndFairUse tag correct, or should I use another tag?  Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmmz (talk • contribs) 
:The media also needs a fair use rationale.  This would really only be fair use in an article about the photographer as a discussion of their work.  Using it to illustrate our article about Iran is pretty dodgy.  See the Art of Iran category at Commons for lots of images that are free and reusable.  Jkelly 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that you have permission is almost totally irrelevant. ed g2s • talk 21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Because our goal is to be a free, reusable encyclopedia.  We want people to be able to take our content and use it however they like.  Allowing contributors to specify that content is "Wikipedia-only" means that we become less reusable.  Jkelly 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Er, actually yes, per WP:CSD I3, if the media isn't being used under a valid Wikipedia:Fair use claim.  Perhaps the photographer would agree to a more permissive license?  If not, perhaps you can ask a Wikipedian to take a similar photograph, or find something close to what you are looking for on Commons.  Jkelly 21:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission and fair use? 

message: Many users think that just slapping a "XX-self" tag on an image is good enough and self-explanatory without adding any kid of summary even though the image use policy states "If you created the image, for example, write image created by John Doe on Jan 1st, 2000 (replacing John Doe with your name, and Jan 1st, 2000 with the image creation date). Don't just write image created by me." I would like to modify this paragraph to:
An image summary and image copyright tag are required for all images. The image copyright tag provides a standard template for the licensing of the image. The image summary provides necessary details to support the use of the image copyright tag. The recommended image summary contains some or all of the following:
Description: The subject of the image 
Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the webpage the image came from 
Date: Date the image was created. The more exact, the better 
Location: Where the image was created. The more exact the better 
Author: The image creator, especially if different from the copyright holder 
Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Wikipedia with the selected image copyright tag 
Other versions of this file: Directs users to derivatives of the image if they exist on Wikipedia 
Examples: 
*Public Domain images - :Image:Vehicle simulator.jpg
*Image by author other than uploader - :Image:Big red boat 1998.jpg
*User-created image - :Image:Caldwell courthouse 2005.jpg.
*Fair-use image - :Image:Louis gossett jr.jpg
-Regards Nv8200p talk 14:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with putting more extensive recommendations for image descriptions. However I am fairly sure that they will not be followed, unfortunately... --Fastfission 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding images

message: Hi, would it be possible to use PD for pics of things that were dug up from some archeological site and ar now in museums or archives based on that the original author is dead for a couple thousand years? The museum I have in mind does not say anything about their copyright policy.
*The question is not the authorship of the piece but the authorship of the photograph. If the photograph does not incorporate any "creativity" in its creation (i.e. a 2-D picture of a 2-D thing -- such as a photograph of a painting), then the photographer (under US law anyway) receives no copyright claim. But photographs of 3-D things (urns, pots, statues, whatever) introduce creativity by means of choosing how to photograph the object, what sorts of backgrounds to put with it, what angle to do it at, etc., and the photographer probably does have a copyright claim. Absence of a statement about a copyright policy does not mean one can assume it is in the public domain -- under the Berne Convention copyrights do not need to be declared in order to exist. --Fastfission 17:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of archeological artifacts?

message: :Image:Hawai - sunset.jpg has a url in the lower right hand corner, which looks like it directs to a commercial site.  Should these images be removed, or may the offending URLs be edited out, and a new version of the image uploaded?  User:Clifden seems to have done similar things with other images they've uploaded.  --JereKrischel 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you belive the license tag is genuine and its realatively easy to do so then get rid of the mark. Otherwise use WP:IFD Plugwash 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Plugwash is correct. However, a word of warning... Such watermarks are often a surefire sign that the licensing information is incorrect.  I corrected a batch of dozens of images on commons which had their watermarks removed, the uploader thought it was okay because the images came from a federal goverment site.. but the images were not made by the federal goverment, they came from a commercial photo agency. The removed marks made this quite clear. ... So make double darn sure that any image you remove marks from is kosher, and expect to be bitched at, tarred and feathed, etc  if you get it wrong. :) --Gmaxwell 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a very specific note to that: I don't know about the images in question you are referring to, but sometimes photo agencies do take photos which were in fact made by the US government (and can be proved as such) and scan them and say they "own" the copyright on it (i.e., Corbis claims they have the ability to sell the copyright on Klaus Fuch's Los Alamos mugshot photo. I e-mailed them about it, they told me they thought they owned the copyright to the scan of it, which is clearly legal nonsense according to Bridgeman v. Corel. I told them it sounded like a good opportunity for a class action suit against them from people who had mislead into thinking they had bought licenses for using the photo itself, and they stopped corresponding with me. Sigh...). But these are pretty rare cases and we should give the photo agency the benefit of the doubt unless we have really incontrovertable proof about the origin of a photo (the mugshot was, without a doubt, created during WWII as part of the Manhattan Project and as such by the Army Corps of Engineers). --Fastfission 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. Just for the record I was referring to [adam medical images] .. at one time we had what looked like 1/2 their collection uploaded as pd-usgov. In the future when some sleezy company pulls that game, make sure you get their position in writing before mentioning legal action. ;) --Gmaxwell 00:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images with URLs embedded

message: When I upload an image, why can't I automatically mark it as being a screenshot of open-source software? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 03:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no {{tl|free screenshot}} choice on upload form

message: I want to update an article with photographs I have shot related to the topic. The photos (of telescopes shot at a public event) have recognizable people in them. They are not celebrities and the photos are not about them--- they just happen to be "in the shot". Do I have to avoid having random people in the shot? Crop or blur them out? Get a release from them? Or is it ok to have a photograph that has a random anonymous person in it? Halfblue 15:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically we have not worried about such pictures. In the United States, If you were in a public place and the people had no cause to have a special expectation of privacy and were only incidentally captured (i.e. they aren't the subject of the photo, which reduces the risk of right of publicity complaints) then there is not a significant issue.  But be aware that if one of the identifiable people in the picture complain in the future, we may remove the image not necessarily out of fear of lawsuit but out of a general desire to be kind to our fellow man. In general, the gratuitous inclusion of identifiable people in images creates a distraction and they should be avoided for such editorial reasons, but legally we should be okay.  For images where the person is the subject of the image (and for all images with clearly identifiable people in some countries, like France), *we should* be obtaining model releases. Even in US we should do this in order to prevent the subjects from obstructing commercial use which is permitted by all the free licenses we accept. Wikipedia doesn't yet have a boiler plate model release, but we should write one and encourage photographers to use one where they can. I'd like some help from people knowledgeable with the privacy laws in other countries (esp France) to help craft a document which will satisfy any obligations there as well as closing the right of publicity issues in the US. --Gmaxwell 17:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should photos with random people in them be avoided?

message: Any limitations on the content of images used on Wikipedia? Anyother guidelines or policies regarding content? See . Hyacinth 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, as long as it is legal (i.e. child pornography as defined by U.S. law - not acceptable) and not a copyright violation -Nv8200p talk 22:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: I noticed when licensing several images that there is a stipulation of "one screenshot per article"; is this true? Terek 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of screenshots per article

message: Is it ok to upload images from Flickr with this license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ ? --Dara 23:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  But you can use the Flickr message system to ask the photographer to change the license.  Jkelly 23:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flickr images 

message: The Featured Article for June 5, 2006, was Keratoconus. The image chosen to represent it on the Main Page was from the article; it's of a bulging human eyeball with someone pulling the skin away from it on top and bottom. This image squicked out a lot of people, and generated a lot of debate on Talk:Main Page as to whether the image was appropriate to put on the Main Page.
I'd like to see some sort of policy on this before the same kind of thing comes up again. For example, say one day the featured article is Cancer, and it's decided that the most helpful and illustrative picture to go along with it is of a patient on an operating table, cut open with a doctor holding internal organs aside to show a cancerous growth?
I'm not talking about removing images from articles; this is not about censorship. It's about showing courtesy to people who visit the Wikipedia home page at en.wikipedia.org and don't expect to be presented with an image which could make them lose their appetite. What's your opinion: should there be limits on the kinds of images which should be placed on the Main Page? Or, in the interests of representing the Featured Article as well as possible, should Wikipedia not be influenced by the squeamishness of its readers? - Brian Kendig 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting 'gross' images on the Main Page? 

message: I was looking for images of Senate House, London, and found two that very nice high resolution pictures ( ), which come from this page. On the top of the page th author states: "Feel free to reproduce these photos on other sites; all I ask is that you credit me as the photographer and make a link back to www.zardoz.net." My question is: is this statement alone justification to put it up here, properly sourced, under a Cc Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 license, or a similar license, or do I still need to get explicit permission from the creator? --Daduzi talk 06:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing's for sure - you cannot tag a photo as CC when the creator hasn't. Best course of action would be to contact the photographer and ask them. /wangi 08:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way here's a cc-by-sa-2.0 licenced photo of Senate House: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/169284 - If you decided to use that please upload it to Commons and tag using . Thanks/wangi 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about licensing found image 

message: At the moment the policy boldly claims:
*Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.
*Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images claimed as fair use should be in PNG format.
I'd like to add or GIF for the special case of icons here for various reasons discussed on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive11#Wording_of_I1. In short (1) inline GIFs work with "any" browser supporting images at all, unfortunately not the case for inline PNGs. (2) It's sometimes possible to create smaller GIFs (in relation to PNG or SVG) for simple icons by reducing the number of colours to 16 or 64.
For important icons (used on process templates, e.g. "blocked"), a smaller GIF can be better than the SVG at the moment, until all old browsers including my dinosaur die out. Under the listed technical conditions, this deserves a new "icons" subsection of "formats". Closely related to "size" issues, that could be also arranged as subsection of "formats". -- Omniplex 07:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support this proposed change.  It's extremely frustrating to constantly see perfectly good GIF icons (which often are comparably small or even smaller) replaced for absolutely no valid reason.  Time and again, I've been told that "because our policy says so" is adequate justification to disregard common sense, reducing compatibility without any real benefit.  It would be nice to finally fix the policy, thereby eliminating the need to cite WP:IAR.  —David Levy 12:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes very little sense to expend massive amounts of WikiEffort converting GIF/PNG icons to SVG, that are then converted via rsvg to...24-bit PNGs for display to the user! Taking into account the alpha transparency bug in Internet Explorer (which most Internet users still have, WikiDislike or not), and 8-bit PNGs or GIFs still have a very valid use, especially for images that are ONLY meant to be used at one size, like icons. This standard seems to date from the days when BurnAllGIFS was all the rage... -- nae'blis (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also support the use of GIFs in such cases. Any file format Wikimedia supports should be usable in cases where the benefits to doing so outweigh the drawbacks. This is clearly such a case. SVG and PNG should be the defaults, but not the only options. --CBD 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formats for icons 

message: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jean.png. Other editors are replacing the image I uploaded with a completely different image, not a new version (quality, file type/size). Why didn't they just upload their image with a different filename? Can I get them to stop? --Facto 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you upload you image under a more unique name? -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other editors replacing image I uploaded 

message: I haven't seen anything about this, although maybe I haven't looked hard enough.  Some postcards, including older ones and antiques, carry copyright markings; not all.  But is a postcard more like a public-domain image, i.e. not reproducible for commercial purposes but OK for public education?  I'm thinking of location shots for certain things I'd like to illustrate....examples on my own webpage at http://www.cayoosh.net/fountain.html (for example, among many others).Skookum1 23:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are under the same rules as any other copyrighted media, the same as any photograph. Being a postcard does not change its copyright status. If they are published in the U.S. before 1923 or outside the U.S before 1909, they are in the public domain in the United States. --Fastfission 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postcards, antique and otherwise - public domain/fair use?

message: What is the copyright license for material meant for promotion, such as the profile image of a popular director or writer? While these are copyrighted, they are released to be used in the public domain for promotional purposes. Some of these are only available on profile websites of the director. Also, what is the status of photos of specific people under specific circumstances? Take for instance Viktor Bout, of whom very few photos exist. What license would these fall under? Thanks, Gabbahead 09:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the types of images you mention can only be used as fair use and must meet some or preferably all the factors required by United States law. -Nv8200p talk 02:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional material

message: When using text in an image, is it best for the text to be monochromatic or made to have more of a grayscale, anti-aliased quality? Theshibboleth 10:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on which looks the best in that particular image, I'd reckon. There's no other reason for doing one or the other. --Fastfission 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text in images 

message: Until I commented it out, under Image titles and file names this page said:
:Currently there is no easy way to rename an image — they will not "Move" to new titles in the ways that articles will. The currently accepted  method to rename an image is to 1. download the image to your hard disk, 2. re-upload it again with a new file name, 3. mark the old (incorrect file name) image page with a speedy deletion tag noting that the image has been replaced by an exact duplicate of the file (for example, ). Note that duplicates images which are not exact duplicates of the original file contents (new scans, different file formats, etc.) cannot be speedy deleted and must be listed manually at Images for deletion. Before you place the speedy deletion notice, make sure that all the articles that linked to the old image now link to the new image. A list of articles linking to an image is found at the end of the image's description page.
This is a terrible recommendation, because doing this will destroy the entire history of the image, and all that is gained is a presumably better-named image. Until we get a way to move images, it is better to have a badly-named image with a full history than a better-named image with none. I felt that I could comment this out pending further discussion since this is just a "currently accepted method", not policy. —Bkell (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming images 

message: There's a nice image of Mary Anning taken in the (British) National History Museum. Since we're unclear about the policy, I figured I'd ask here. This is a reproduction of a painting from the 1800s. The reproduction was made in 1935. Is this copywritten material? No one wants to violate WP policies or copyright law. At the same time, there doesn't appear to be a clear answer (I checked a half-dozen image help pages, and didn't find anything that seemed to apply). For the record, the image would go on a page about her (fair use?) and on pages about fossils she discovered. Can you direct me to the relevant policy?--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to crop out everything but the image in question.  Jkelly 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary Anning painting

message: I have uploaded several photographs of x-rays.  These x-rays were taken at a clinic I work for, but do not own.  Am I essentially uploading a photo of a copyrighted 2 dimensional object, which as I understand it, would not be allowed?  There is no personal information visible on the photo (names or ID numbers).  And if they are copyrighted, should we delete these images?  --Joelmills 03:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: X-ray photographs are copyrighted by the "photographer" (the person operating the machien) unless otherwise specified. --Fastfission 20:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are x-rays copyrighted? 

message: Is there a way to make the title appear in the center at the bottom of the image? --Wikindian 23:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see example.  It renders a little strangely.  Jkelly 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternatively: don't do it. If captions were supposed to be centred they would be. The left alignment is part of the skin and should be preserved for consistency. ed g2s • talk 12:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Caption 

message: What do pictures published in magazines fall under? Are they considered promotional? For instance, this image of Stacey Dash was in an issue of Smooth magazine. Is it promo? or something else? --Jaysscholar 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and I know magazine covers are fair use, but what about a pic inside the mag --Jaysscholar 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring truly exceptional circumstances, it is a violation of copyright to use an image from inside of a magazine.  Magazine covers may be used to depict the publication of that particular issue of the magazine but we may not use anything from inside the magazine.  --Yamla 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?? Anybody can pick up a mag off the stand and skim through and see it so I would assume its fair-use. You may have a better understanding though. Where would I go to argue this? --Jaysscholar 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the situations are entirely different.  In your example, it is debateably fair-use because at least theoretically, you are considering whether or not to buy the magazine.  In the case of Wikipedia, we cannot use the image because we are not using it to depict the publication of the particular issue of the magazine (and the cover would be the appropriate image to use if we were).  The magazines pay substantial amounts of money for the images that appear inside of them and they very firmly exercise their copyrights over them.  We can't just go about using someone else's copyrighted material.  If you are an intellectual property lawyer, I can put you in touch with Wikipedia's legal staff where you can argue the case.  Otherwise, there's not really much else you can do.  Wikipedia's legal staff have already ruled on this issue.  --Yamla 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. The cover is fair-use to describe the issue, so could the pic be fair-use to describe the person in the image? --Jaysscholar 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Imagine there's a cover of, say, Playboy with Jennifer Aniston on it.  And furthermore, this cover generates a lot of controversy.  You could now use a scan of that cover in the article on Jennifer Anison but only in the section of the article that talks about the controversy.  You could not use it as the first picture right at the top-right of the page, for example.  But let us look at another cover.  Jennifer Anison on the cover of Cosmo.  No controversy, no discussion of that particular issue in the Jennnifer Aniston article.  That image could NOT be used in the article, then, because it would simply be used to depict the person and that is not fair-use.  --Yamla 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what about if there is a pic in a magazine and she is just simply modeling. no controversy or anything. regular modeling. can this image be used in a section describing how she has modeled in magazines, when she is mainly an actress? could the cover? could an image within the magazine? --Jaysscholar 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, such an image could not be used at all.  The cover could be used if there's a specific discussion of that particular issue of the magazine.  No image within the magazine could be used.  --Yamla 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine Pictures 

message: What is the opinion of this group on personalized image copyright tags?  I nominated  for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 16#Template:C-CPW, but looking through :Category:Image copyright tags just now, much to my surprise, I found it was not the only one.  There is also .  So my question is this: am I right or wrong?  Are user-specific copyright tags allowable under current policy or not? BigDT 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally I think these sorts of things should be in the user's own namespace if they exist at all. I think that in the case where people are just simplifying common text they type in (i.e., I have started using a personalized template which I subst on commons which itself contains the CC-BY-SA template and also automatically specifies how I want to attribution to be), it is perfectly fine. But if they rely on other templates in this case it would better if they are not subst in general, so that if we ever do any sweeping changes (i.e. decide someday that CC-BY-SA is no longer allowed) we can change all the templates uniformly. So... yeah. I think that they should be moved to the user template, and should not subst any internal templates they call themselves, if that makes any sense. --Fastfission 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal image copyright tags 

message: Are there restrictions on using images from articles on userpages? DJIndica 04:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key restriction is that fair use images are not permitted on user pages (or, for that matter, on any pages outside of the main, article namespace). --Daduzi talk 04:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images on [[Wikipedia:User page|userpages]] 

message: Firstly, I should admit that I don't have a clue about epilepsy... but I'm worried that animated GIFs such as :Image:Parrot rgb3.gif could trigger epileptic seizures. Shouldn't there be some advice on this issue somewhere? --StuartBrady (Talk) 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that's one of the few examples which is problematic enough to warrant a link rather than rendering. Maybe we should add a line that incorporates the W3C recommendation: " Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker. Note. People with photosensitive epilepsy can have seizures triggered by flickering or flashing in the 4 to 59 flashes per second (Hertz) range with a peak sensitivity at 20 flashes per second as well as quick changes from dark to light (like strobe lights)."--Fastfission 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be something like that (but maybe without the reference to user agents).  I can't imagine anyone objecting to this, but I can't just add it to the policy without a consensus... so comments, please! --StuartBrady (Talk) 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilepsy and Animated GIFs 

message: I am trying to find images for a page on slalom-skiing, the current image being rather ugly. There is a nice image that a company has published as a "download" on their site. If I ask their permission to copy the image, can I use it? Do I need them to declare it copyleft (or something of the sort)? I can't find any guidelines relating to this type of situation. Thanks Yandman 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the image use policy. They must give you permission for free use of the image or GFDL or Creative Commons licensing. The communication must be in writing with contact info for the person giving the permission. this communication should be posted on the discussion page of the image. See  for an example. -Nv8200p talk 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta very much Yandman 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy permission? 

message: I've uploaded two images and a logo, but I'm not sure about the tags I've put on them.  Both the image of Hap Moran and Morgan Taylor are photos that were widely used for publicity and in various publications without copyright or credit.  Moran is my father and Taylor was a good friend of his, so I have these images in a private collection.  I've dealt with Time-Life books (see New York Giants, 75 Years, by Jerry Izenberg, Tehabi Books, California, 1999, pp. 23, 128, 185) with some of the images of my father, and even though they were obviously taken by a professional photographer at one time, they paid me for the use of the image and credited them to "The Moran Family Collection"  I also uploaded an image of the logo from my now-defunct high school, McBurney School Again, being a novice, I'm not sure I used the right tags or license designation.Revmoran 13:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely used publicity images and logos 

message: I'm having a little trouble following the GFDL and CC licenses. If I don't require attribution on usage of my images, is "release to public domain" my only option? Or is there some licensing option that would still apply? -Freekee 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you can use  -Nv8200p talk 21:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any practical diference between that and  ? -Freekee 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With PD-self you are giving up your copyright on the image with No rights reserved you are keeping your copyright. The way the image can be used by a third party is pratically the same. Although with public domain, I believe someone could create a derivative and claim copyright on that. With No rights reserved, they cannot claim copyright on a derivative. -Nv8200p talk 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing of own picture 

message: Regarding this article: Gia Darling
In no way should this article be sensored, but should the cover of a film containing adult content (the cover also being of this type of content) be sensored?  The cover is being used to represent the subject of the article.
:Wikipedia is not censored -Nv8200p talk 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorable Image Content 

message: After a lengthy debate on the AN/I about how much proof is required that a model has really given permission for a photo of her in a sexual pose to appear on wikipedia I've started a proposed new policy page Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifiable models. Please come an edit it. Note that this policy has nothing to do with the copyright status of the images in question, as copyright is amply covered in existing policies. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New policy proposal

message: I need help with images I've uploaded to the article Succubus (film). They're promotional images taken from the film's official site: http://www.bloodceremony.net/Home/leffat/Succubus/body_succubus.html . I've uploaded the film poster and the second promotional screenshot (with the pentagram thingy). At least the second image was deleted so far.
I have asked permission from Sami Haavisto, who is the producer and director of the studio, and the webmaster of its site, so he owns full copyright to the images. Here is a transcript of the discussion:
*Me: Can I use the Succubus promotional images freely in Wikipedia?
*Haavisto: Yes - the images are public in connection with the film.
*Me: It turns out Wikipedia has to allow the images to be used elsewhere too. Permission to use them only in Wikipedia is not good enough. Here is a link: Wikipedia:Image use policy.
*Haavisto: Let's not give copyright fully away. The images may only be used in connection with the film.
As I understand it, no one is giving copyright away. Sami Haavisto will still own the full copyright, all we need is a license to use them. What, specifically, is required for Wikipedia to accept them? Do I need a license that allows anyone to download the images and use them for any purpose, even for commercial uses, as long as the proper copyright is mentioned? Does it need to allow the images to be used without any relation to the film? Does using an official promotional screenshot in a Wikipedia article constitute fair use? If so, then is the film screenshot template found in the image copyright tags list enough? And if it isn't, what else do I need? JIP | Talk 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For these images you will list the source that you mentioned on the image description page and also the tag  for the poster and   for the screenshot. Add fair use rationale after the tag to justify use in the article.-Nv8200p talk 12:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So this will be enough? What exactly does the fair use rationale have to contain? What about possible use of the images by themselves, without mentioning the film? Sami Haavisto seemed to expressly deny this. Is it enough to mention the film name and the copyright holder in the description, and provide a link to the official homepage? I have full permission to use these images on Wikipedia but I'm not sure about usage anywhere else. JIP | Talk 12:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this will meet the requirement for use of a copyrighted image on Wikipedia. Fair use rationale should explain why the the images meet the doctrine of fair use such as the images are used for non-profit purposes to enhance an article on the film and provide a visual identification to associate with the film and that it is believed use of the images will have no impact on the market for the images. You cannot use the images by themselves or for any other purpose other then an article about the film. To do so would be a copyright violation. -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with film promotional image use