Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Image use policy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Screenshots

With today being January 2, 2008, I have a pseudo relevant question. Since it is a performance, Would a screenshot of a television program first broadcast prior to Jan 1, 1958 be free-use under a 50-year-from-performance copyright policy? Or is there an overriding policy that messes this up? TheHYPO (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No information? This must have come up at some point...? TheHYPO (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Parental consent for images of underage persons

I am wondering whether there may be legal problems if some person uploads photos of children claiming some kind of copyright. Should not there be also any proof of parental consent for public release of photos? I know that when my grandchildren take part in some productions (school theatre, jazz dance, etc.), the parents are required to sign release forms that photos of their children may be used for various purposes. `'Míkka >t 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a copyright issue. The subject of a photo does not normally own the copyright, the photographer (or their employer) usually does. We don't require proof of a model's release for any photos, as far as a I know, since we don't use images in a manner requiring a model's release (such as commercial endorsement). The only copyright issue would be if the *photographer* was a minor when they licensed the image, and then later decided they wanted to take it back. Underage contributors retracting a license might be an issue worth discussing, but probably not for this page. --Rob (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

License status of over 150 years old colour plates, reprinted recently

I would like to ask, if the upload of over 150 years old colour plates is allowed, if they are taken from recently published reprints. For example I want to upload zoological colour plates of spiders, originally published 1827, using a reprint of 1988 --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The original image is out of copyright. A copy of an image does not generate a new copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. In other words, you can use these images as they are PD. For relevant template to use on the image page see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#Art. Tyrenius (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tyrenius, thank you very much. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But this is only true in the US. Here in Britain that law does not apply. For example, I have taken high definition photos of Joseph Wright of Derby paintings which I would like to put in place of existing rather poor ones used on Wikipedia pages, but the existing ones were taken while the paintings were on loan in the US, while mine were taken in Derby museum where they normally live. Odd, isn't it? If someone had taken hi-res photos while they were on loan that would be fine! There are very few high res photos of paintings on the Web, partly for this reason, which seems a pity. --Memestream (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Memestream. Thanks a lot. Could someone prove, if my images in [[1]] are legal or not? If they are not, I will delete them. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image autoscaling wastes traffic

i hope this is the right page to address this issue, if not, a redirect will be appreciated: i found this picture [[2]] and noticed that Wikipedia's image autoscaling feature made a >600KB scaled down image from a 163KB original and didn't even use the interlace option. i usually wouldn't notice things like that, but this image loaded visibly slow even on a broadband connection - and not everybody has a broadband connection, so it must be worse for many others.
i don't have a problem with pics on wikipedia (though this one wasn't even particularly helpful), but as long as traffic is an issue (for both the user and wikimedia foundation), we can probably do better. so i suggest doing the following:
instead of scaling down to the same format like the original image, try several formats and use the one that yields the smallest file size (maybe combined with the option to deactivate scaling down to .jpg for certain images, if that would degrade the quality too much). i scaled down the image myself (with IrfanView) and got the following results: .gif - 61KB, .jpg - 38KB, .png - 111KB. the .jpg-version was without visible artifacts (unless you zoom in quite deep). and even the .png-version was much smaller than the autoscaled one, so this indicates a bug or especially bad compression in the autoscale feature.
Of course the utility of this improvement depends on cost of CPU Power vs. traffic cost, but a size reduction by factor 15 (autoscaled .png to manually scaled .jpg) may well be worth it. Catskineater (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The key problem is that we don't have any mechanism in place to provide settings other than size to the scaler and noone with a strong enough knowlage of mediawiki has come forward to write one. the scaler setup is optimised for quality rather than size (e.g. it antialiases) and this can sometimes end up producing output larger than the original :(. Plugwash (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The main cause of the size increase is that the scaled version is 16 bits per channel, while the original is 8. This seems like a bug to me, and is something that should be easy to change. --Carnildo (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I knew there had to be a bug. Catskineater (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

screenshots and copyright

I have uploaded photos I have taken myself earlier and had no problems and no comments. Now I have uploaded a couple screenshots taken myself and I have a lot of comments from the robot. I have read so much now, but I'm not able to figure out how to do this right. When I click on edit, it is nothing to edit.

Any advise appreciated!

screenshots--{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I forgot to say the screenshot was off my own website. --{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image size

Is there a limit to how big a free pic can be? Image:Wii Charge Station.jpg is 1.26 MB, IMO that is much much larger than it needs to be. TJ Spyke 07:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there was some trouble at one time with images sized larger than 10,000 by 10,000 pixels. Was it that ImageMagick had trouble working with them? I'm not remembering clearly. Anyway, the photo of the Wii charging station is well within normal limits. See Don't worry about performance. More resolution is almost always desirable. The Wikimedia software downsizes images on the fly to display them in articles. —EncMstr 07:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

uploaded pdf of what appears to be unpublished original research

Someone has started a new section, 'Between Malta and Sicily' at Location hypotheses of Atlantis, Now not only is this about a virtually unknown author, it's clearly POV and hype. He's also uploaded what looks like original, unpublished research - File:ATLANTIS.pdf. I've rewritten, deleted, etc. his stuff and it keeps coming back, and at one point he posted as Dougwellera but that was quickly banned. Is Image:ATLANTIS.pdf a legitimate use of the facility? Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wanted posters

What are the rules for using these items? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarify sourcing requirements

The sourcing requirements on the policy often use "or" when it's correct, but lead to confusion that the uploader may supplier either information whereas that is not the case. For example, "The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" on the IUP implies they could stay "US Census Bureau" which would satisfy the source because they listed the copyright holder, but in reality, it isn't a sufficient sourcing information because one can't verify (easily) the source and copyright information and they should provide a URL to where they got it on the web. The former part really only matters when sourcing from a Book or under fair use (the website taken from wouldn't matter, the copyright holder does). I would like to rewrite and/or clarify the requirement of sourcing information with this information (or if someone else wants to, go ahead). I'm putting it here to get some feedback before making the uncontroversial (in my opinion) edit(s). MECU≈talk 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is relation to image deletion criteria. I support this change, but only in terms of improving image sourcing, not as a means to allowing easier deletion of images where the paperwork has been incorrectly filled out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made my change. I hope it helps clarify the requirement and think the examples given do just that. MECU≈talk 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress image / additional restrictions...

I wanted to use this image in the Spencer Penrose article. I assumed it was ok, since the copyright appears to have expired. However, I clicked on rights and reproductions and it says: If you wish to publish or reproduce the materials in any physical or digital form beyond that permitted by fair use or use them for any commercial purpose, including display or Web page use, you must obtain prior written permission from the Denver Public Library. Do we need to adhere to those restrictions since it was created/published March 1894 according to the LOC page? --MattWright (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your link to the image isn't working. --Carnildo (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As Carnildo says, the link isn't working. When doing Library of Congress (LoC) searches, you get a temporary link from the search results page. To provide a permanent link, you need to provide the Digital ID number. This should be on the page you were looking at, somewhere near the bottom. When uploading the image (either here or at Commons, though preferably at Commons), you can use the {{LOC-image}} template to provide source details and a link. If you have problems doing this, just provide the Digital ID number and someone else will show you how to use the template. If you don't have a Commons account, upload it here and it will eventually be transferred to Commons. If this is a Denver Public Library image, as it seems, then have a look at Category:Denver Public Library images. It depends whether or not it is public domain. If so, no problem. If not, give the details here and we can advise. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for whether Denver Public Library's claim include public domain pictures, the answer is no. If it is public domain, they can't place restrictions on use of the images. The only question mark over whether the images are public domain is whether they were published before a certain date. If the film for an image in question was only found, restored and developed recently, then the copyright clock would start at that point, depending on whether the rights over the material were correctly passed to Denver Public Library. Ultimately, they aren't providing enough information to determine that, but most images will have been previously published. For example, Image:WSStratton 11008875.jpg, in category Category:Denver Public Library public domain images. So it depends on the picture in question and the photographer/artist (if known). Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. The digital ID is 10000602. Hopefully that works. As mentioned above, it states "created/published March, 1894." but I am not sure if it was truly published then, or only created then. --MattWright (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is public domain. If you decide to use it, you should use Template:Denver Public Library public domain images. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help -- added a slightly different image! --MattWright (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on a web image of a 1497 woodcut

I came across this image on this page, which is clearly just a zoomed-in image of this work, which appears to be drawn from a work called Hortus Sanitatis by Johannes de Cuba that was published 21 October 1497 in Strasbourg. The super-quality dkimages.com is oddly tagged copyright. Is this a public domain for our purposes or fair use? I'm baffled how a high-quality scan of a 511 year old wood carving can be copyrighted. Lawrence § t/e 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is an exact mechanical scan of a two-dimensional artwork that is in the public domain (as this 1497 artwork certainly is), then the scan is also public domain, no matter how high the resolution. If you log into their website and use the images, you may be breaching their terms and conditions for using that website (similar to the cases of people taking photos in a museum that doesn't allow photography), but that it a matter between you and them, and nothing to do with Wikipedia. The copyright claim by Dorling Kindersley is standard stuff. Many commercial organisations slap a copyright claim on old public domain material they have - it doesn't mean they are right to do so. For a second opinion, try WP:MCQ. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do, I'll cross-post to MCQ. I had a feeling the copyrighting claim was bunk, but wanted a sanity check. I obviously don't have access to an original volume to scan, and wanted to grab that higher-quality scan for Toadstone. Lawrence § t/e 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested - image policy

With regard to a failure to find consensus here about this image and caption, I would appreciate any advice from more experienced editors about the meaning of "shocking or explicit pictures" from rule 10 of this policy. The fox hunting article is a difficult one to find consensus at. Thank you. MikeHobday (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should seek a wider input for consensus about the image. A single instance of application of this policy isn't really valid for discussion here. Perhaps post at the village pump or try WP:3O or the WP:DR process. MECU≈talk 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the "Free licenses" section

I just noticed that the "Free licenses" section has not been updated since the Foundation enacted its resolution on licensing and copyright policy in March 2007. It still references an old e-mail by Jimbo, and in particular makes no mention of the fact that licenses which do not permit derivative works are not considered free. (This came up as I was clarifying the text of {{FairusewithND}} and looking for the appropriate policy page to link to.)

I'd like to propose that the current text of the section be replaced with something based on commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, which (though the layout could use some improvement) makes all the relevant points and explicitly references the Foundation policy. Any comments or objections? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)