Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 8

message: I have amended the first sentence, as there was a contradiction here. It recommended using the "thumb" option for setting image size, and then said that if it is done manually it should be 200-250 pixels. This is not a manual equivalent to the thumb setting and is not recommended as it will then prevent preference image default settings from working (as is stated in the following paragraph). Tyrenius 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Displayed image size

message: I'm not sure about this recent addition. I'm fairly sure it's perfectly ok to at least crop, color ajust and otherwise enhance fair use images without any kind of legal problem as long as it's done within the fair use factors. I'm all for simplicity, but simply saying "it's illegal to edit fair use images" seems to be a bit too blanket a statement. Next thing you know people start running around deleting cropped rezised screenshots in favour of full sized ones because the smaller ones where edited... --Sherool (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly fine to crop them, at least; in fact, cropping them should be encouraged, as the less of the copyrighted work we use, the better. Cropping an image to show only the relevant part, instead of using the entire copyrighted image, is equivalent to using a quotation from a novel instead of an entire paragraph. —Bkell (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot crop an image that a copyright owner uploaded.  The image is an "as is" image.  Cropping is the same as editing, and if you read the clause on Fair use, it does not give permission to do any of that stuff.  It is strictly a "copyright" violation.  Why is everyone on Wikipedia so hung up and eager to mess with people's items anyway?  If it has a copyright logo and a Fair Use attached to it, leave it alone.  Because messing with it causes "undue" battles with the owner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pebs96 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody ever touched your uploaded images labelled "Fair Use." You licensed them as GFDL, and you're making it clear you still haven't read the GFDL yet. Fethers 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You cannot legally edit Fair Use images." 

message: Image*After.com terms of use states: 
*WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH IMAGE*AFTER IMAGES AND TEXTURES? 
:you CAN modify our images and textures in any way you see fit 
:you CAN use our images and textures in your own work, wether it be for personal or commercial use 
:you CAN redistribtue or sell our images and textures ALTERED OR UNALTERED as part of printed work (e.g. posters, cd-covers, postcards etc) 
*WHAT CAN'T YOU DO WITH IMAGE*AFTER IMAGES AND TEXTURES? 
:you CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE our images and textures as part of an online resource site like our own, i.e. use them to directly compete with us.
Is that free enough for Wikipedia? -Nv8200p talk 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. To be compatable with wikipedia the image needs to be free of any distribution restriction, including commercial use. HighInBC 04:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And including something as vague and legally indistinct as "direct competition". --Fastfission 23:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Image*After free enough?

message: I think the consensus is that source for screenshots means source the screenshot is taken from (i.e. what the screenshot is of) rather than source of the screenshot file (e.g. self-made or from URL xyz).  I suggest we clarify this in the policy page.  Specifically, under "Rules of thumb" #2, add For screenshots, identify the original the screenshot is taken from. and under "Adding images" add an example of a fair-use screenshot with a description accurately identifying what it is a screenshot of.  If there are no objections by Monday, I'll make this change. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made this change, using :Image:TB-Patricia-Fearing.jpg as an "exemplary" screenshot.  If anyone can find a better one, feel free to update the example. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though we strictly speaking don't demand fair use rationales from screenshots (yet anyway) I think it would ge good to pick an image that actualy has one if we are going to hold up an "exemplary" image as an example. Like :Image:Leia Organa Ep5 DVD.jpg or :Image:Scooby-gang-1969.jpg (aside from the fact that it's used in a bunch of other articles with no rationale too) or whatever. --Sherool (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal related to above discussion

message: This may have been asked before, but... . I've recently run into some images whose source info are urls to password protected sites. Some of these sites simply require a free registration, others have a free registration but subject to site's approval, and others are even paid sites. I'm concerned on how it is possible to verify the source info in each of theses cases. Are password protected websites acceptable as images sources? Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? Just like a book that not everybody owns is an acceptable source, or a journal that only exists in a few libraries. Providing a source doesn't require that access to the source be effortless for everybody any time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image source is a password protected access website 

message: Is it acceptable to generate map images (using curved lines and colour blocks) in PNG, rather than SVG? I have access to drawing software but it doesn't output as SVG. Would such PNG images compromise later promotion of the articles in which they were used to Good/FA ? Espresso Addict 12:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much doubht it, if you can'd output SVG a PNG image is leaps and bounds better than no map. Effort should be made to use the "prefeered" formats, but I very much doubht it would affect the status of the article they are used it as long as the map itself is good. Someone might convert it to - or base a SVG map on it at a later time. --Sherool (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and use PNG for maps, I prefer maps to be in PNG anyways due to the sheer size maps are (and SVG maps can make things a lot harder). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sherool & Zscout370, that's useful to know before I start tracing... Espresso Addict 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNG format for maps 

message: I want to upload some photographs of a few bands that were taken by Dixon Coulbourn (see this site). However, he passed away last year, so what kind of permission would I need to get to upload these files? I already e-mailed the person who runs the site (Ryan Richardson) and he says it's cool as long as we credit Dixon and the site, so is that sufficient enough? Paulcleveland 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coulbourn's inheritors presumably own the copyright to his work.  They would need to confirm that the images can be modified and used commercially.  Otherwise a Wikipedia:Fair use claim would need to be made.  Jkelly 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. What kind of fair use tag would I have to use without a confirmation from Coulbourn's inheritors? I haven't uploaded any photographs (besides album covers) so I'm unfamiliar with how to properly tag. Paulcleveland 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do when photographer recently deceased 

message: Can someone adivse as to the accetpability of using screenshots of open source software taken from the developer's website? See links & discussion here User_talk:Ocarbone#Image_copyrights. The uploader believes that since it is open-source, the screenshots are in the public domain, and I don't know if that's true. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL but I would assume that a screenshot would be a derivative work. Some free software licenses explicitely define what kind of licency applies to derivative works (e.g. the same as the one under which the software was published). There is also the issue that while the software may in some case be free, the screenshot may depict the software editing data, which in turn may or may not be freely available. Shinobu 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot of open-source software 

message: Sorry for the header that may have sounded like jibberish. It makes sense, to me atleast.
I found this image, :Image:MISTEEQ.svg, it is an SVG which is a text format that allows you to give mathematical shapes describing an image. The expected result from a SVG file is a small file that describes how to create an image at any resolution.
All well and good. But this image that uses an SVG feature I did not know about(In the image tag: xlink:href="data:;base64,...) that allows you to embed a pixel based image(an image where every pixel is given a color as opposed to a vectored image) into an SVG file.
This is a waste of resources, SVG stands for Scalable vector graphic. If it contains only an imbedded pixel based image then there is no point in it being a SVG.
So, for those of you who all that made sense too, thank you, and what I want to know is, what method can I use to replace this image with a lossless convertion to an appropriate format, and is there a template to label such images.
Sorry for the message that may have sounded like jibberish. HighInBC 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An SVG file containing encoded pixel image data 

message: Fine, I am giving up [almost] of getting an answer to this problem. Where do I go for full guidance. I have one particular image, that is copyrighted, and [mirabile dictum] the copyrignt holder has given me full use on Wikipedia as long as the image is ta a website, not publishable, resolution, and has attached to the e-mail to me such a version. But, there used to be a tag, release by 'x', for a Wikipedian to upload. I can't find this, and it seems to me to be very subject to misuse, so I feel it is not a good way to go even if I could find the tag. But what must I do? Send the e-mail from the copyright holder to Wiki? ask them to directly contact Wiki? Help and understanding is urgently needed. I have the subject image, and at least two more in the same category. And multiple posts in user talk in several places and on discussion on several sites have taken me absolutely nowhere in my quest for a final answer. --Dumarest 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't accept "Wikipedia-only" images, any more than we would accept "Wikipedia-only" text.  They're not free content.  Low resolution versions that can be used commercially and allow derivatives are absolutely fine, but we need a specific license (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc.).  Once we have that, you would add the license template to the image description page.  Note that the email indicating the license release should go to permissions AT wikimedia.org, not to you.  I hope that this clears everything up.  Jkelly 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, that is what I sort of thought. The permission is full, except that the image I upload must be the low resolution item [with the copyrigtt holder identified so that if a full resolution version is wanted, the 'owner' can be contacted. But I gather the e-mail MUST be from the copyright holder to Wiki, not fron copyrignt holder to me and I forward it to Wiki. --Dumarest 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image allowed by copyright holder

message: :Hi, I would like to use some images of infrastructure in Mumbai and Delhi and have found some pics of the Mumbai-Pune Expressway and the AIIMS Flyover in New Delhi.However, I am unsure of the licenses and would like some help in figuring out if it is allowed for me to upload them to wikipedia. The image url's are below:
# Tribune India (News Source)
# Image Shack
# Image Shack
# Businessworld India (News Source)
This appears to be the rules page of imageshack.us (where other users upload images):
http://reg.imageshack.us/content.php?page=rules
I find it a bit confusing and was wondering if somebody could explain the rules more clearly so that we could figure out if they are compatible with wikipedia policy of image copyrights or not?
Also, are google earth captures allowed on wikipedia?
Thanks.Hkelkar 02:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Help with image licenses

message: Many public domain historical images are scanned from printed copies.  The guideline has been updated to tell editors to say if they scanned the image. Rjensen 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scanning 

message: I took some pictures on my digital camera for an article and uploaded them to my computer.  Can I use them?  User:Kochdude388 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Pick a free license from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Free_licenses that applies to your picture, or release it into the public domain using :Template:PD-self. I like to use :Template:cc-by-sa-2.5 for my pictures. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital camera 

message: *Support per Van Helsing nomination. Royalbroil T : C 13:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true, the reader usually specifies nothing, in which case 180px applies.--Patrick 15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're being technical, most users haven't set anything in preferences, either. I want the wording to encompass the facts that a) most users are not logged in, and hence have no preferences at all beyond the default 180px, b) most logged-in users haven't changed their preferences from the default 180px, and c) we should respect preferences when they have been set. The current wording is a little clunky, I was just taking a stab at streamlining it. -- nae'blis 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: This was discussed before: Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax as well as here: Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax/Archive 2#Image_Markup.2F_New_Preferences_.28suggestion.29. Would it have hurt anyone to leave a message there so that people who might be interested in the debate have a clue what's going on? As well as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, that is also affected by the proposal? I happened to stumble on this vote or debate, whatever it is essentially by accident, so there was a large change that I would have missed it entirely and only noticed after the fact.
As for my take on this matter, I can simply quote myself (from the first discussion I linked to):
I agree we should discourage literal pixel sizes. After all, 100px may be 8.5cm or 8.5mm depending on the device used to view the page. Perhaps it would be nice if there were "magic words" to indicate sizes like "larger than a usual picture", "icon", "a multiple of the line height" (ems?), a percentage of the default size, or the like. Shinobu 00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussed before 

message: Here's a new vote, since everyone agrees the original proposal was confusing.  Mark  variations that you like.  Suggest other variations as their own subsections.  — Omegatron 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we to indicate if we consider the wording to be intended as policy or guideline (MOS)? Having a recommendation in a policy page already caused confusion. --Van helsing 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Slightly too late yeah, sorry. 4th proposal was implemented; see Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Do we have a winner?, hope you find that one alright. --Van helsing 12:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, but am struggling with the wording that gets the difference across. Maybe:"When the subject of the image covers the entire essence of the article. In most cases this is the lead introduction image." What I basically want to say is: when an image tells more than the words, or the information contribution of the image is considered “significant/essential” with respect to the written part of the article. --Van helsing 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not an overwhelming participation but yeah, think we do have one. Issue is open for a month now. Would you agree to put it in guideline/mos only or would you want to include it as policy as well? After solving that, think requesting your new image abilities list would be our next step. --Van helsing 22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur  Appraiser 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does the lead image get special treatment?  I don't see any reason why it should.  Otherwise I support the last version as well. — Omegatron 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Spark’s rational and the explanation of Bishonen capture it quite well. I just wasn’t able to capture it in a short statement. If you can improve the wording, that would be most welcome. --Van helsing 23:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no objections to Spark's call to proceed, so I said nothing. To make it official, I concur, as long as it is in the MOS/guideline. Royalbroil T : C 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: sorry to come to the discussion late; I've just noticed it. I like the wording in the final option, but since it gives several cases where specifying a size might be acceptable, I'd like to see "balance" (even though this isn't an argument, as such) by also giving at least one reason why not to specify. Personally, I'd see this as an ideal place to point out that some people are stuck with small screens – for example on mobile devices or low-tech computers. If you've got 600 pixels to use, a 400 pixel image is ugly, it's an accessibility issue (because it makes reading harder), and it's a cause of unwelcome extra scrolling. – Kieran T (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definately support the inclusion of the lead introduction image clause. G-Man * 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced image size reworded poll 

message: The last option seems to be the crowd favorite, even if the last condition (the introduction image) is a little up in the air.  Any objections to proceeding with this reword?  --*Spark* 21:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an overwhelming participation but yeah, think we do have one. Issue is open for a month now. Would you agree to put it in guideline/mos only or would you want to include it as policy as well? After solving that, think requesting your new image abilities list would be our next step. --Van helsing 22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur  Appraiser 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does the lead image get special treatment?  I don't see any reason why it should.  Otherwise I support the last version as well. — Omegatron 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Spark’s rational and the explanation of Bishonen capture it quite well. I just wasn’t able to capture it in a short statement. If you can improve the wording, that would be most welcome. --Van helsing 23:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no objections to Spark's call to proceed, so I said nothing. To make it official, I concur, as long as it is in the MOS/guideline. Royalbroil T : C 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: sorry to come to the discussion late; I've just noticed it. I like the wording in the final option, but since it gives several cases where specifying a size might be acceptable, I'd like to see "balance" (even though this isn't an argument, as such) by also giving at least one reason why not to specify. Personally, I'd see this as an ideal place to point out that some people are stuck with small screens – for example on mobile devices or low-tech computers. If you've got 600 pixels to use, a 400 pixel image is ugly, it's an accessibility issue (because it makes reading harder), and it's a cause of unwelcome extra scrolling. – Kieran T (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definately support the inclusion of the lead introduction image clause. G-Man * 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we have a winner? 

message: What's the policy on Google Earth screenshots? I guess they're copyrighted, becuase at the bottom of the screen there are several copyright notices from organizations. Is there any way to get them in an article under fair use? -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick answer is no, there is no way I can see of a sat image ever being fair use (unless in an article about the satellite). The images are copyrighted (by various companies) and taking a screen shot does not change that. BTW, your sig is excessive. Thanks/wangi 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Worldwind is a comparable program created on behalf of NASA. Its images are all PD-USGOV. -Will Beback · † · 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Earth screenshots? 

message: I have been wondering, what is the policy on postcards?
I mean like old postcards, Historical ones? Pictures from the past? Early 1960's and older? I have not found mention of this, and if there is mention somewhere please forgive my ignorance. The copyright holder and creator would most likely be dead and the Image is not duplicatable, seeing as how it is from the past. I don't know what the policy on this is or what the image tag would be, I mean like for a scan of a postcard? --MJHankel 18:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Postcards are not a special licensing case, except insofar as they are often produced anonymously.  Jkelly 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are they usable? and in which case what image tag would correspond to them? --MJHankel 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything from  to  -- they are not a special licensing case.  Jkelly 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I did not want to get accused of copyright infringement. --MJHankel 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postcards? 

message: Hi - sorry if this isn't the right place to ask about this. There are a number of images on Mitt Romney that were uploaded from the State of Massachusetts website. See, for example, :Image:RomneyFreeRally.jpg. I am concerned about the copyright claims/tags on these images. The uploader claims the state released these into the "public domain" by citing item 3 from the website's term's of use . First, it never says that content is released to the "public domain," but rather notes that some content on the site are in the "public record" - I don't know if that is a meaningful difference. Second, it seems the site is referring more to government documents or files that are part of the public record, and not the photos from the website. In fact, the site seems to state that the design elements of the website are indeed protected by copyright, expect for "fair use." So, now is this a fair use issue? Are these photos of Romney acceptable under fair use? If so, should their tags be changed? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest re-posting this question in Wikipedia talk:Fair use.  The people who read that page care much more about such issues than the people who read this page. Appraiser 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State website images ([[Mitt Romney]]) 

message: A bit of a 'newbie' question: I have a photo that I took myself of a logo that I want to add to the article for the Penn State Blue Band - I'm unsure on the policy in this regard: since I took it myself and will be licensing it under GFDL/CC, the photo itself is okay to use, but if the photo is basically entirely comprised of an organization's logo, will it still need fair use rationale? -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered that too.  In particular, Campbell's Soup Cans has lots of fairly high quality photographs of Andy Warhol's work, but the uploader is claiming that the work is his own, since he took the picture of the artwork.  I don't believe this use is acceptable without release from the the copyright owners.  On the other hand, I think a fairly low resolution logo is much less of a problem.  I have uploaded photographs of flying flags, such as the one on the right of this screen, which I doubt anyone would have an issue with, but I'd like to hear input from others.  - Appraiser 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Think of it in terms of Matryoshka doll:russian dolls. You own the photograph of the flag. Your right to copy the flag in your photograph is fair use of material created by others in your copyrighted work. The curve of the flag in the wind, the angle of the rope holding the flag, the blue sky in the background etc. is all yours. Fair use is always an argument. Your fair use argument depends on how you use the picture. You own the copyright on the photograph as a whole but some parts may be subject to other copyrights. Keep in mind that the trade mark issue is a separate issue with different rules. --Gbleem 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal photographs of copyrighted/trademarked symbols? 

message: Wikipedia's image use policy does not allow for photo montages of fair use images. Is :Image:Bonds-6.jpg, an apparent derivative work, considered a montage? --Oden 11:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo montage of fair use image