Wikipedia talk:Image use policy: Difference between revisions
Valjean1969 (talk | contribs) |
→Using images: new section |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
Do we have any policy regarding displaying an image above its uploaded size? Say an image is 960 pixels wide, it seems like a bad idea to display it at 1400 pixels wide, but I can't find any policy or guideline that says not to do it. This came up at [[Talk:New_York#Removal of waterfall image from panoramas]]. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 15:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC) |
Do we have any policy regarding displaying an image above its uploaded size? Say an image is 960 pixels wide, it seems like a bad idea to display it at 1400 pixels wide, but I can't find any policy or guideline that says not to do it. This came up at [[Talk:New_York#Removal of waterfall image from panoramas]]. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 15:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Using images == |
|||
An editor is seeking to delete almost all images from an article, because - as he said in his last edit summary - in his opinion they are "unnecessary photos." |
|||
The article is about Olympic athletes from a country who performed in an Olympics. |
|||
The photos are of (some of) the athletes. |
|||
Can others take a look? |
|||
It is the last discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics#Images |
|||
Appreciated.--[[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:9DE8:6DBF:9D60:CE98|2604:2000:E016:A700:9DE8:6DBF:9D60:CE98]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:E016:A700:9DE8:6DBF:9D60:CE98|talk]]) 04:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:57, 8 September 2016
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
|
||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Image use policy page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Comments sought about logos giving credit in videos
Per WP:Watermark the community advice is that images used on Wikipedia should not have watermarks giving credit to copyright holders.
I am seeking comment at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Advice_on_noting_non-free_logo_animations_in_freely_licensed_videos on whether people feel any differently about film credits. As Wikipedia establishes more institutional partnerships, there is the opportunity to accept more videos. It is fairly common for videos to end with film credits, and common also for institutions to use logos to identify themselves.
Is there a relationship between the watermark policy for images and the concept of credits at the end of videos? Does the Wikipedia community allow uploaded videos to have credits at the end? May those credits include copyrighted logos on a de minimis rationale?
I would appreciate any comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Watermarks and logos on still images are intrusive and ugly, as they are in the "main" part of a video. End credits are completely different in that regard. EEng 16:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Reading the above again I think maybe I misunderstood the question. EEng 16:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- EEng - There are two questions. One is whether video credits are allowed. Another is whether video credits can take the form of a copyrighted logo. It seems like you feel that under some circumstances, videos can include some kind of credit. Other thoughts, perhaps on the logo issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think an end-credit's appropriate for the reasons I gave. Re logo, I'm in vacation and left that kind of brainpower at home for the duration of the trip. Several of our esteemed fellow editors will drop in to argue about it presently, however -- you can count on it. EEng 17:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- EEng - There are two questions. One is whether video credits are allowed. Another is whether video credits can take the form of a copyrighted logo. It seems like you feel that under some circumstances, videos can include some kind of credit. Other thoughts, perhaps on the logo issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Question about image usage
Are images denoted with "This media asset is free for editorial broadcast, print, online and radio use. It is restricted for use for other purposes." suitable for use on Wikipedia? TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- We would treat it as non-free, and thus must meet all requirements for non-free use, since it has restrictions on its use. It's fine to use on Wikipedia as a fair use, and arguably our use would fall under editorial online use, but others that might use the image do not necessarily have that so it's not a "Free" image. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Request for guidance
I wondering if a more experienced editor wouldn't mind guiding me through my first swing at adding photos from Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia entries, particularly to be sure I understand the copyright and acknowledgement rules (I can figure out the syntax for placing them in the entry.) In short I've found four images that correspond to BLPs I've worked on:
- Sylvie Tissot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sylvie_Tissot.jpeg
- Crissle West https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Read_Podcast_Live.jpg
- Aparna Nancherla https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aparna_Nancherla.jpg
- Jenna Wortham https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArtAndFeminism_2016_MoMA_01.tif
They have different sources (two directly uploaded by photographer, if I'm understanding correctly; one from Flickr; one from a blog) so I just want to be sure I'm understanding the criteria for using them, and how/if there's supposed to be a crediting of the photographer (caption?). Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Innisfree987: with regards to copyright, you do not have to do anything. The people who have taken those photos and uploaded them onto Wikimedia Commons already have taken care of it. They have all licensed said photos under free use licenses that allow anyone to use them for any purpose, including adding them to a Wikipedia article. The licenses do require attribution ("giving credit"), but Wikipedia takes care of that for you. Images added in articles can be clicked and clicking them will take the reader to the page that specifies the author of the photo (the same page you have linked to above). A link like that will suffice as attribution, and adding image credits to a caption is unnecessary (and stylistically discouraged). All you have to do is to add the image to the article by using the syntax:
[[File:Sylvie_Tissot.jpeg|thumb|Some caption about Sylvie Tissot here]]
- – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Individual image noticeboard
Is there some sort of noticeboard where we can discuss the copyright compliance of individual images?--Prisencolin (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Try Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. But if the image is hosted at Commons they won't be able to help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes there is: WP:FFD – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hand-drawn images
Do we have a policy about hand-drawn images, an editor's own work, for which we have no indication of the reliability of the information? We don't ask for references for images. In the last week I've found two instances:
- Cerovica (Istria) (this version), a hand-drawn map
- TESPAL (this version), a group of hand-drawn images in a medical article - one of them on a page of lined paper from a notepad.
We encourage editors to create their own images, to avoid copyright problems, but I have my doubts about whether these ones are a benefit to the encyclopedia. I'd rather see an external link to a reliable source which has a copyright image which can't be added to the article but can be accessed by the reader. I can't find any policy or guidelines about this question - but then, I suppose, any photographic image can be uploaded with the title "This building, this town", when it's actually of somewhere completely different.
@Valjean1969:, @Musketeers.svu: as the creators of the images concerned, so they know I'm discussing them here. PamD 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Hand-drawn_images to get the attention of people interested in images. PamD 10:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- And see also Uncinectomy for more images, by a student on the same course as TESPAL. (@Paint.sbks: PamD 11:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Original images by editors should reflect verifyable information, and thus should have links to sources where an original version of the information can be found. If this can't be provided, then the image is original research and should be removed. While there is nothing technically wrong with hand-drawn works, it would probably help if the editor seeks help from the Graphics lab to recreate the image in a better digital format (for example, the Cerovica map can easily be remade as a digital map). --MASEM (t) 14:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's perhaps overstating the requirements a bit. You can post a photo of your neighborhood without a source that proves that it's the location you claim, and a drawing of the same thing is treated identically. Diagrams, whether hand-drawn or copied, should reflect verifiable information (as, indeed, should photos). It's wonderful when contributors of images cite any sources that they used, just like it's wonderful when contributors of text cite any sources they used. But there is no requirement to cite sources on the description page. You can verify the information by looking it up elsewhere, just like you'd attempt to verify the information if s/he'd written it out in words.
- User:PamD, the official policy is WP:NOR, but may not be very satisfying to you. Basically, we're trusting image uploaders to get it right, and we're trusting editors to notice when they don't (which does happen, sometimes even for images that name their alleged sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
RE: Hand drawing. I added a note to the map on the page "Cerovica (Istria)". I this is not good I will delete the map. Thank you.Valjean1969 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Blowing up images beyond their uploaded size
Do we have any policy regarding displaying an image above its uploaded size? Say an image is 960 pixels wide, it seems like a bad idea to display it at 1400 pixels wide, but I can't find any policy or guideline that says not to do it. This came up at Talk:New_York#Removal of waterfall image from panoramas. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Using images
An editor is seeking to delete almost all images from an article, because - as he said in his last edit summary - in his opinion they are "unnecessary photos."
The article is about Olympic athletes from a country who performed in an Olympics.
The photos are of (some of) the athletes.
Can others take a look?
It is the last discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics#Images
Appreciated.--2604:2000:E016:A700:9DE8:6DBF:9D60:CE98 (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)