Wikipedia talk:Uploading images

message: (apologies for duplicating this on several talk pages that don't see a lot of traffic, because I don't know which one is most likely to get a response)
This picture has a watermark on it that advertises the photographer and his website. I didn't delete it because it IS a really great picture, but I'm asking if that watermark is an acceptable element when it's on the Venice article. Alternately, would it be permissible to crop that top 3% of the photo and use that one instead? Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fred Zepelin - Good catch with your eagle eyes. I see where this very suggestion was followed on 28 September 2023 by Beao (talk | contribs). Yours, Wordreader (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images which include an advertisement for the photographer watermarked on them 

message: Hey everyone, it would be great to submit an image to an AI model to automatically determine if it is able to be uploaded! Wesxdz (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using LLMs/visual models to automate image copyright evaluation 

message: This item is regarding the edit to add the following text to this wiki -
"The only Creative Commons licenses allowed are CC BY-SA (BY = Attribution and SA = Share Alike) and CC BY (Attribution only). Creative Commons licenses such as CC BY-NC-ND (NC = No commercial use, ND = No derivations or adaptations) are not permitted as such licenses do not allow totally free, credited use."
Although the allowable CC's are listed in the linked wiki Wikipedia:File copyright tags, the fact that only CC BY-SA & CC BY are allowable and all other CC licenses are not should be stated here. Also in the Upload Wizard it does not state that some of the CC licenses are not permissable, perhaps assuming that this is implied by its listing of the various CC BY-SA and CC BY licenses only - however the last Wizard option to put another license in wikitext format wrongly hints (to some I would say) that other CC licenses are acceptable.
A layperson (eg this layperson) may assume that any Creative Commons CC license would be acceptable to Wikipedia. And the Creative Commons website does not happen to mention that only CC-BY-SA & CC BY are the only of its licenses acceptable to Wikipedia (even though I would guess Wikipedia users would make up a very large part of its webpage's audience). And there is no information elsewhere online easily accessible about this.
To give an example - in this user's case, I found an artwork to use in a wiki which had no image (its TALK page highlighted this and invited someone to upload an image). I then connected with the artist to grant a CC license and suggested CC BY-NC-ND. Only to have it made clear the error of my ways when I finally found this article saying CC BY-NC-ND is not allowed. See this Quora article: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-CC-BY-NC-images-not-allowed-on-Wikipedia-The-Creative-Commons-site-says-they-can-be-redistributed-in-any-medium-or-format . Hopefully the artist will be happy to have his work in Wikipedia with the allowed CC BY-SA.
I suppose the bigger point is that given the high bar Wikipedia on the 'freeness' of images, etc, there is high value on the user-friendliness and clarity of the information and tools for uploading images, to optimise image contributions which of course can be so beneficial to a wiki.
Regarding the edit, not totally sure if my placement of the text is the best. Also whether to add the above Quora link to the wiki or not (I didn't).
Glenn.mar.oz (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowable Creative Commons licensing