Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos

message: What is the status of this policy proposal?  Jkelly 17:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's under discussion, I guess.  I'm unhappy with the page in its current form.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Our two comments are the extent of the discussion?  Okay... so, why are you unhappy with it?  I'd suggest that it could use some copyediting.  Jkelly 17:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that it is pretty rough.  If anyone has any other comments I'd be interested in knowing so that they can get fixed.  JYolkowski // talk 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - You stated on 5th February 2006 (on the same day it was re-categorised as not being a proposed guideline for Wikipedia) "this is never going to be a policy or guideline but is a useful description of what publicity photos are", but you didn't remove the wikiproject template on this talk page - which I think you put there last November in response to tha above query as to its status. Do you still regard it as to be developed for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use. Thanks in advance for any info--luke 03:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status?

message: Actors' Agent Search is an online database search for the agents of professional actors.  When it succesfully recognizes a name (which happens less often than one might wish) it returns the actor's agency and that agency's phone number.  It might be useful for helping people obtain actual publicity photos as opposed to the "it's a photo of someone famous so it is a publicity photo" method often employed.  Jkelly 20:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Helpful website?

message: The images are available in high-resolution TIFF versions
Should these images be resized before uploading? I'm assuming yes. (about to upload :Image:Pale Forest.jpg)
- Trevor Peacock 12:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you trying to illustrate? What is the copyright status? What is the source of the picture? Fair use depends on a lot of issues.--24.94.190.164 19:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: The page seems to confuse criteria for being a publicity photo with criteria for fair use. --24.94.190.164 19:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Publicity photos are a subset of the images usable under Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 00:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  criteria for what? 

message: People keep adding photos from Channel 4's website to Big Brother UK series 6. I'm fairly sure I've got it correct, and I've explained it OK. As far as I understand it, these images are not fair use. They are tagged for deletion, uploader notified, then deleted.  Then someone else comes along and thinks it would be a good idea to add them... I've resorted to putting a hidden message in the source.
Anyway, please let me know if I'm wrong. The JPS 15:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And currently (15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Big_Brother_UK_series_6#Images]] 

message: The text of this article has a good description but there's no guidance on special tags or a template to use for uploading publicity photos.  Can someone please advise? Burns flipper 13:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: We need to put in huge bold letters, "Images from award shows and premieres taken by photo agencies such as WireImage, AP, Reuters, etc. are NOT publicity photographs."--Fallout boy 07:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wireimage/AP/Reuters/etc.

message: I'm a little confused about the distinction between publicity photos (as described here), and images of celebrities which fall under fair use, under the pretense of being used to illustrate an object. In particular, I raised some concerns at . As far as I can tell, it's a low-resolution image taken from this site. If the image falls under fair-use, then any image of a celebrity found on the web can be used under fair-use, thus undermining the whole point of publicity photos. Can someone clear up this distinction for me? Cnwb 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your only confusion in your comment is that all images uploaded to Wikipedia are hosted on the Wikimedia servers in Florida; that has nothing to do with the origin of the image.  The image is an incompatible copyright infringement, just like thousands of others inaccurately labelled with :Template:Fairusein.  It isn't a Publicity photo; there is no evidence that it is a work for hire or that it comes from a press kit, that the copyright is held by David Tibet or his agents, or that the image was intended for wide distribution.  The source provided gives no information about the authorship or copyright holder of the image.  The best thing to do is to take it to WP:IFD as a copyright infringement with useless sourcing and no rationale.  There are plenty more in :Category:Fair_use_in..._images if you're interested in hunting them down.  Jkelly 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publicity photos and fair-use images of celebrities

message: Hi all. I propose that we remove  from the licensing drop-down list at MediaWiki:Licenses. I've deleted a lot of images from CAT:NL that were improperly tagged with it, and I don't think very many people actually visit this page to understand what "publicity photo" means. It's easy for people who know what they're doing to tag an image manually, or if they don't know about the tag, to leave a note in the image summary. ~MDD4696 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please.  Jkelly 21:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please! Many people think it's a picture of a celeb, therefore it's publicity. I like the table used at Commons, which gives people the extra hint that source is required. The JPS talk to me 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please!.  After  and , it's probably the most-misused tag on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 21:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What exactly was the goal of the drop-down, anyway? I know that "having everything tagged" sounded like a good idea at one point, but honestly, I wonder what the track record is? Users seem to select them at random for the most part. --Fastfission 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, new uploads are tagged correctly about 62% of the time. --Carnildo 06:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Promotional has been removed. ~MDD4696 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This eases up a lot of work on image uploads, very nice. feydey 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing {{tl|Promotional}} from licensing drop-down 

message: Note that failing Wikipedia:Fair use criteria now means that an image can be deleted forty-eight hours after uploading.  Many of the images in this category fail criteria 1.  Many fail criteria 2.  Many fail criteria 10.  We have been very conservative about deleting images in the past, largely because it could not be undone in cases of accident.  Image undeletion is now possible, and there is no good reason to be republishing images that we are not entirely confident about our use of.  Jkelly 20:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #10 is adequately handled by , , and .  I see no reason to enforce the 48-hour limit on those, since it's a record-keeping error that can be fixed by the uploader, who might not check Wikipedia every day.  Enforcing it on #1 and #2 makes sense, because those are fundamental problems with the image that no amount of verbiage on the image description page can fix.  --Carnildo 22:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your reasoning, Carnildo, though I personally prefer to use the 7-day processes anytime they can be made to fit. Any fair use rationale that doesn't address criterion #2 isn't worth a thing, so WP:CSD#I6 (no rationale) is certainly an option there.   Could it also be used for images whose rationales do not address #1?   If not, is there any chance of involving OrphanBot in the 48-hour process (which need not be completed that quickly, of course) once it's been initiated by a human?   It would be nice to have it help out at least with the orphaning step. I'm always happier deleting images that've already been removed for the article, not for my own convenience, but because it means that all of its article's watchers were aware that the image was in danger. ×Meegs 02:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediate solution 

message: So let's take a tangible example: :Image:Smoosh 1 main.jpg. I contacted the band's management, asked them what we could use, and they directed me to two photos in their press kit, of which this seemed the more appropriate. As you can see on the image page, I remarked on that. But as far as I remember, I didn't get any formal documentation of the permission, because (as far as I can tell) that was not at that time standard practice. It's an excellent photo, probably better than anything someone is liable to be able to shoot at a show. Are we saying that we are now liable to remove this? And, if so, and if I want to prevent this from being removed, what exactly do I need?
Please note: I'm not asking because this one photo is that terribly important, but because the answer you give me is roughly the answer we will have to write up to give to several hundred other people. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem with that image is that you tagged it with , which is for a "work or product", rather than , which is for human beings. But since your link is to a press kit, I think it's okay. The problem is the large number of photographs with these tags on them where the source is clearly not a press kit. User:Angr 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've now changed the tag. Do I understand from your remark, then, that a large part of the problem is that people have been using this tag on images that are not promotional, and without obtaining any permission to use them? I don't believe I've ever knowingly done that with a copyrighted image. But more to the point: is there anything more I should have done than what I did here? In other words, what are the instructions for doing this correctly? - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo Wales' position seems to be that the correct thing to do is to write to the publicity team and say "All you need to do in order to get the image you want of your band on a top twenty website is to freely license it."  We cannot very well do that, however, while having thousands upon thousands of images that contradict that.  In terms of dealing with what we actually have already, we need to be clear to users that they should never get attached to their unfree contributions, and delete things in the category that we don't know were intended to be widely distributed, which doesn't seem to include the one you mention above. Jkelly 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A tangible example 

message: We need someone with a properly tagged fair use image to sue Wikipedia—a so-called "friendly lawsuit".
It's that simple.
Only by establishing within the confines of a court of law that which is or is not acceptable fair use can we stem the piddle in which we sit, in a corner, with our tails between our collective legs, cowering at the whim of one person (two at the most) whose overprotective nature(s) defy law, logic and common sense.
We are either building a 100% free encyclopedia, or a 100% free content encyclopedia in which fair use is carefully governed by law; any attempt to further regulate away from the latter will make the former mandatory—eventually. There is no "this is fair use, except..."
It is time. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyday I get more convinced that calling Wikipedia:Fair use criteria "Wikipedia:Fair use criteria" was a grate error. Think about that as Wikipedia:Unfree material criteria. If it was just about copyright law, why on the earth we would be speedy-deleting Wikipedia-only licensed images? They are completly court-safe. --Abu Badali 23:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all about the 100% free encyclopedia fallacy that you continue to espouse. The statement stands. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't a friendly lawsuit be the wrong way to make a point? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not off wiki, no. It's used all the time in the real world. Daniel Case 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "friendly lawsuit" wouldn't settle anything. There is little or no question that using publicity photos to illustrate a relevant topic in a web-based encyclopedia falls within the legal definition of fair use. At worst, it would be a re-user who might use in an infringing manner. The issue is one of policy. And I agree with Abu Badali that "fair use" was, on the whole, an ill-chosen term. - Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I see only one solution

message: No discussion whatsoever; apparently, it's done, and I'm pissing in the wind... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a bit of discussion. But perhaps your specific proposal has gotten lost in the shuffle? I, for one, am not sure exactly what was the proposal (obviously, wikirazzi was a straw man, not a proposal). - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is that it, then?

message: Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Email_templates
declaration of consent for all enquiries
Due to the large number of ambiguous answers to enquiries concerning a permission of reuse for an image, text or similar (like "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos.") it is advisable to attach to the enquiry email a standard declaration of consent (and point to it in the email), which in return will be used by the author/copyright owner in the answering email, supplemented with the according correct information:
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].
I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [ choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right use the image in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my image, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the image will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in violation of another law such as trademarks restrictions, libel, or geographically specific restrictions.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER
: This would avoid a lot of interpretations of received permissions (e.g. Yes you can use it) --Historiograf 03:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't this rather broader than what is needed? "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right use the image in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs." This is only true if the resulting work is GFDL, right? - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission.  Jkelly 01:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider to copy the Commons Email template for all permission enquiries 

message: In light of the above "This page is dangerous" by Jimbo and the draft new GDFLs it might be an idea to begin fresh consideration of how Wikipedia is to treat fair use images for the 21st century and the future. I understand the present policy to allow such images was decided by a vote, (see meta:Fair use) so maybe as a start we could have 3 options: allow fair use but under  very restricted controlled conditions as Jimmy Wales suggests, don't allow fair use images as most Wikipedias in the world seem to do - or thirdly to allow them under US copyright law as at present.
I suggest the debate, perhaps including invited experts in US and world copyright, experts on images, etc could lead up to a call for consensus at the next Wikimania conference in 2007. This would give very ample time for input and discussion from all sides so Wikipedians  arrive well prepared and hopefully able to arrive at consensus during the Conference.--luke 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on English [[WIKIPEDIA]] use of [[fair use]] and pictures? 

message: The minimum to do with the templates is to ask for a mandatory source and allowed destination article, à la { { promotional | source | article } }. Then a bot could easily remove abusive images, after having warned the uploader. --Marc Lacoste 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory source and article 

message: Using promo photos as fair use is dubious from the start. They aren't really FU, but a solution have to be found when banning non-free image licenses. There is a vicious circle between their usage aim and their permission here.
There is two alternatives:
* put a specific allowed case for copyrighted, non-free images for those coming from a press kit, for which no publisher would licensed it under a non-commercial license. But the non-free interdiction rule is sound.
* do not put promotional images under a fair use blanket, which is abusive. This would remove every promo. The risk is that not allowing this kind of possibilities for novice uploaders will lead to abusive use of free license tags, in a way too great number to be controlled, and led to the risk of a legal enforcement. --Marc Lacoste 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative one: Considering we have :Category:Promotional images that already seems the case. (that category is a mess though). Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the moment, promo images are fair use and aren't used under a non-free license, as I propose ni the first alternative. They aren't used under a license at all, by the way.--Marc Lacoste 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternative two: Why is it abusive? Fair use on wikipedia is not the same as fair use in law. Basically every image which is not free content is tagged as fair use, which sometimes gives weird results, but does make sense. The goal is, not always possible, to replace all fair use with free content. Concerning uploaders, I don't know. From what I see in commons (they only allow free content there) they do a good job of checking against abuse of the free license tags. Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's abusive because real FU images are as Jimbo said↑ those historic photos, like Elian. only for those irreplaceable. But promo shots are always replaceable, so the FU claim is a bit abusive.I think commons isn't polluted because of the much lower traffic than WP. --Marc Lacoste 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  More precisely (and I progress on the subject at the time), for promotional product images, the Fair Use claim is only valid when the product isn't available to the public. This noice could be add to the essay and the template,if someone back me up. --Marc Lacoste 06:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One can make a rendering of a person, loosely based on copyrighted images, but which is not a tracing of any of them; such an image would be the artist's own work and thus free. (I'd stay away from Photoshop in doing so, though; such artwork is probably best done by hand.)  Historical events may be tougher, because they occurred in such a manner that the way people posed and the artifacts around them were important. However, there may be a way of rendering, say, the Elian Gonzalez incident from a different perspective, through using talent and educated imagination. 204.52.215.107 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I was finally able to get that licensed under GFDL. - Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicious circle 

message: I see that the Marat Safin-item has no picture of him. I can find one on the Adidas-site See http://www.press.adidas.com/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-78/. However, the site says: "For editorial use only! Additional clearance required for commercial, wireless or promotional use. Images may not be altered or modified."
Is it allowed to use these pictures?Jeff5102 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because we don't accept noncommercial licensed media, and we don't accept "no derivative work" licenses, and, as a living sportsperson, it is possible for someone to take a photograph of the subject and license it appropriately.  See Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission to see some examples of polite letters you could send to tennis fans that have photographs asking for them to license them for our use.  Jkelly 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marat Safin/Adidas

message: Hi! Publicity photos are under attack on Wikipedia. After failures in getting any image deletion stopped or even to get the other side to listen, I'm trying a new tact. I believe people who share my viewpoint (That publicity stills of people have a rightful place on Wikipedia) needed a better place to organize our dissent. So, I set up the framework of a Wikiproject to help save fair use on Wikipedia. Everyone's welcome, especially people who disagree. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Promotional_Photo_Advocacy. --Jeff 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Promotional Photo Advocacy 

message: Does anyone have a problem with deleting this, or marking historical? It's not being maintained, and the information is available elseware. If there is anything important maybe it can be merged? - cohesion 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting would work for me. Since it is an essay tagging it as historical seems strange. Garion96 (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, do not delete! Mark it as historical and protect. It's an important part of the history of how Wikipedia's tolerance with this kind of non-free image evolved. Indeed, the whole replaceable-fair-use crackdown started with Jimbo's "This page is dangerous" above. --Abu badali (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, you're right, somehow this page was never on my radar, but the above discussion should be maintained. I'll tag as historical, but leave the essay, and it will be a historical essay I guess. I don't know if it's the only one, but the idea of a historical essay isn't that weird to me. - cohesion 01:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very good reason, I did not thought of that. Garion96 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The combination seems ok to me too, and the big red x in the historical template should be enough to stop people from taking the essay's advice. ×Meegs 07:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This tag came as quite a shock to me. This is the page I routinely point people to in order for them to understand that not every professional looking portrait of a celebrity qualifies for the  tag. Also, that tag itself points people here! Where should I and it point them instead? Was this page marked historical simply because Wikipedia doesn't allow nonfree publicity photos of living people? If so, please remember that there are also dead celebrities whom people would like to have images of and for whom no free image has been found. Dead celebrities can only be illustrated with publicity photos if there are no public domain or freely licensed images of them: nonfree screenshots, book covers, album covers, postage stamps, etc. cannot be used to identify the people on them. —Angr 15:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just so extraneous, is it really necessary? It seems like just one more place people will have to keep up the policy while introducing instruction creep. The impetus for this came from that talk page Template_talk:Non-free_promotional#Wikipedia:Publicity_photos although I didn't realize it was linked from that template. Should it be? Do you think it is useful in a way that WP:NFC and WP:FURG isn't? I just think the educational benefit is overshadowed by the costs of keeping the page up-to-date and the confusion new users will have if it isn't absolutely in agreement. - cohesion 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is really necessary that we have one page where the term "publicity photo/promotional photo" is clearly defined. (Is there a difference between them? I don't know myself.) Many editors think that any professionally made portrait of a celebrity is a publicity/promotional photo, but as I understand it, only those that are intended for distribution to the media fall under the definition. This needs to be made clear. If there is another place where the term is defined, then you're right, this page is extraneous. But I'm not aware of any place where the definition is clearly spelled out. Now, this page should also make it clear that nonfree publicity/promotional photos of living people currently in the public eye are not allowed, but if I understand the policy correctly, nonfree publicity/promotional photos of dead people, and perhaps living recluses as well, are allowed. —Angr 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't think anyone was using the page, but if you are by all means do with it what you want. Maybe it would be easier if WP:NFC defined these though? But it would probably have to be a lot shorter, and maybe it can't be made any shorter. I don't have strong feelings about this at all though, like I said it confused someone on that template talk page so I thought I'd ask. Maybe someone else will respond? :) My vote is "don't care" though. :D - cohesion 23:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete. 

message: Does this apply to pictures of yourself? Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question