Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Definition of "low resolution"

message: For scans of printed material i was thinking we could have some sorta dpi (dots per inch) recommendation for scans of fair use images. I recommend for people to read dots per inch and other related articles though to make sure you know what you're talking about (I'm gonna need to read over it again myself). --WikiSlasher 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. My feeling is that 72-96 dpi should be more than enough for our purposes on the Wiki, when it comes to scans. But in any case its really the final pixel count which matters more, and that could vary quite a bit depending on the media. --Fastfission 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems way too complex for the average person to understand. Couldn't you just set a value like less then 100Kb or something? -Nv8200p talk 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: File size would vary depending on compression and file format. It is not a reliable metric for its physical size, which itself is not a good metric for its legal value. Personally I think that an elaborate definition is necessary; a totally arbitrary definition will meet primarily with challenges that it has nothing to do with actual law. There is no "magic number" for this and I doubt people would ever agree upon one. --Fastfission 02:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a quick "in a nutshell section" to try and sum it up. Let me know if that clarifies things for "the average person". --Fastfission 02:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Printed material

message: I made a comment about the resolution of CVG screenshots in view of its fair use implications at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Fair_use_reduce. - Hahnchen 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a paragraph on computer game screenshots in this proposed guideline — do you find anything about it which doesn't address your particular situation? --Fastfission 19:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think they've ever gotten complaints at all about the size of an image. The size of the image is just part of a hope to avoid complaints from the beginning. I don't think upsampling (for the purpose of making the pixels easier to see) wouldn't seem to have any fair use implications IMO — it wouldn't really make the image "high resolution". --Fastfission 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't have any fair use implications because it in fact makes it look worse :/ WikiSlasher 05:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer game screenshots 

message: I've come here via the discussion on :Template:Non-free reduce. I'm happy to comply with WP fair use guidelines but it's hard to comply with something that isn't explained.
What size is acceptable? There's no point in sticking messages on images without telling contirbutors what size is actually acceptable! Is that so difficult to make clear?
I have some website screnshots - they're historical websites, they could not possibly be "usable as substitutes for the original work" (as the template warns me) because they're non-interactive images.
I can take a wild guess and agree to downsample the images to 500px at 72dpi, but what if this isn't enough? I really don't want to have to keep repeatedly reducing the images to guesswork-defined sizes until the bot gives me the green light. 
Any guidelines please? Cnbrb (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious about this too. Personally I'd say that web shots are already low resolution (anything under 1 megapixel is not what I'd consider high resolution). If they otherwise meet the criteria of fair use, I see no justification to reduce the resolution even further just for the sake of it. I'd also argue that, unlike say photos or other artwork, a screenshot of a webpage (or a piece of software, come to that) is already of limited value, so satisfies fair use without needing to have an even smaller resolution. Mdwh (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixel size definition for web screenshots 

message: Could the low resolution / high resolution be determined by the copyright holder? He is the one which should choose and in fact, he choose often. For example, I sometimes create new aircraft articles, were the only image available is from the manufacturer and is a good case of fair use. e.g. Airbus photos are labelled as high resolution (9.27 Mpixel) and low resolution (.45 Mpixel, 1/20), certainly for print / web use. Is Airbus wrong or does its labels are sufficient? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That rarely makes any sense, if you can ask the copyright holder for permission to use the picture at a low resolution, and at which, chances are they will agree to encyclopedaeic usage anyways, eliding the whole problem to begin with. Marcusmueller ettus (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low / high res determined by the copyright holder 

message: There's been technical progress in the last ~17 years that renders a 330×330 px² image laughably low-quality, and even the "very high end of quality" of 1000px along one edge is, depending on the material (say, a photographer's art book cover), not "high quality" anymore, and thus don't serve any purpose in commercial misappropriation of the material.
How would one initiate an overhaul of this guideline?
I see keeping it this low is actively harmful to WP's mission: Not only does it lower the usefulness of the encyclopedia if people can't, for example, tell band members on an album cover apart, or can't find the defining features in a even moderately filigree art style. It also prevents building an archive of these images that is useful for future non-commercial usage. Marcusmueller ettus (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline is ca 2006; time for an update of the 0.1 Mpx rule?