Images and Media (inactive)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Images and MediaWikipedia:WikiProject Images and MediaTemplate:WikiProject Images and MediaImages and Media

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years § RfC: Removal of image collages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a relevant edit to the section "Free licenses" that should be taken into account would be:

If an article has a CC-BY license, this doesn't necessarily mean that all figures in this article have the same free license. As mentioned here, CC-BY licenses allow the use of copyrighted material, provided that this is explicitly identified as being excluded from the free license. Always scrutinize figure captions for statements like "Reprinted with permission from", "©" or "Image:Source", which signal that these figures are not covered by the free license.

What do you think? Should this be added to the page?

User579987 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User579987, it sounds like you are concerned about someone mistakenly uploading an image that is non-free, because they saw it in a larger publication (e.g., a book or article) that is free, so they assumed that everything inside the publication was free. Do I understand your concern correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Exactly; that's what I meant. I believe it's an important exception that should be looked out for. I admit that some of the words I used are a bit complicated and difficult to understand. Perhaps we can rephrase it using simpler language. User579987 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing : Maybe a version like this :

Important note: If an article has a compatible free license, this doesn't necessarily mean that all images in this article have the same free license. Despite the general freedom granted by the free license, there might be specific components that are copyrighted and these copyrighted components should be clearly identified as being excluded from the free license. Even in free articles, always check image captions for statements like "Reprinted with permission from", "©" or "Image:Source", which signal that these images are not covered by the overall free license.^[1]

What do you think? User579987 (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty good, and I wonder if we can make it even shorter. Perhaps as short as "Watch out for sources using multiple licenses. Sometimes an article will have a compatible free license for the text but use a non-free license for specific components (e.g., a photo or diagram)." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing That's great as well, but I think clarification is slightly better as the paragraph I sent isn't very long and to avoid templates like Clarify since this article is normally read by beginners and in my opinion needs to be as clear as possible. I also think it's worth clarifying by mentioning examples like "Reprinted with permission from", because some articles clearly mention this exception by saying, "The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material", while others use more vague statements like "Image: Oxford University Press" for example to state that images are copyrighted. Perhaps some clarification won't do much harm. User579987 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a credit line alone is evidence of the material being non-free. A CC-BY license is free and requires a credit line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing I had the same doubt regarding statements like "Image:Oxford University Press". Does this mean this figure is excluded from the free license or not? However, after asking a question here about a figure in which I found this statement, I was told that this was a method of informing that this figure is excluded from the free license. Not quite sure though. Do you prefer omitting this example "Image:Oxford University Press", and keeping the other two: "Reprinted with permission from" and "©"? The latter two are stated in the reference I provided, which says, "For instance, some licensors individually mark pieces of content to which the license does not apply with explanatory text such as “(c) copyright holder--used with permission” or “The CC license does not apply to this picture." So these two are without doubt, but "Image:Source" may be a bit doubtful indeed. Should we remove it and keep the other two?

User579987 (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would reasonably argue that if work by group A that is published CC, but includes an image or other element that they credit, without mention of copyright, to group B, it is best to assume that group B's work is copyrighted, unless specifically stated by the credit that it is used under some type of free license. So the "Image:Oxford University Press" is where we should assume that it is copyrighted unless proven otherwise, and included in the CC work via fair use. Masem (t) 03:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem @WhatamIdoing After some consideration, I think we can add the first two examples: "Reprinted with permission from" and "©-Copyright holder" because these two have a reference to support them. On the other hand, "Image: Source" till now is lacking a reference. I kinda believe it means exclusion from overall free licensing, but without references, it can be easily challenged (WP:CITE). Maybe we can start an RFC or another similar method to verify if "Image: Source" really means exclusion from overall free licensing and should be added to a Wikipedia policy page to make sure it reflects consensus.

What do you think?

User579987 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be better than what we have, so you should do that.

(The problem with credit lines is that "Image: Oxford University Press" is probably copyrighted but "Image: Wikimedia Commons" is not, and the difference may not be immediately obvious.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really uploading screenshots from Youtube now? That almost feels like cheating. It was funner when we had to take the pictures ourselves or scour flickr for scraps. That was more like the wiki-way. Anyways, thoughts on this image? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What issue is there with the image? -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading this and wanted to confirm that the image was free to use. Looks like it is? Thanks for the quick reply. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9, it looks like it's licensed correctly. c:COM:VPCOPY is usually a more reliable place to ask about the copyright of images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed a recent spate of editors adding collages to infoboxes for military conflict articles. These might consist of four, six and sometimes more images. In my view, these are too noisy. If they do not significantly increase the footprint of the infobox, they are too small to be viewable. Furthermore, detailed captions add to and bloat the infobox. Infobox size is a particular issue for mobile devices. It is my view that collages as a lead image are generally inappropriate and contrary to P&G on several points.

1. Per WP:COLLAGE, collages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. Such collages do not satisfy image use policy. The rationale for use appears to be largely decorative.
2. Per MOS:PERTINENCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. This is consistent with WP:IMGCONTENT (policy): The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central [emphasis added].
3. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would tell us (in essence) not to try to write the article in the infobox and that, [t]he less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose ... Collages would appear to be inconsistent with this.
4. Cognative theory and good presentation practice would tell us that too much visual information in one place is counterproductive (ie a sensory overload) and hence, my view that such images are too noisy.
5. Editors adding such collages would apply a justification of other stuff. However, this is only a reasonable justification if it represents best practice represented by our best quality articles. Very few (if any) of our best quality articles use collages for a lead image.

My reading of P&G and best practice is that the use of collages as lead images/in infoboxes generally and for military conflicts more specifically, should be exceptional.

Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, I understand that you can't cover the breadth and scope of many wars with a single image, let alone massive conflicts like World War II. On the other, I agree that generally you see very little in most montages and that many don't feel effectively chosen for their significance versus the "niceness" of the image itself or the decoration they provide (to use the WWII example, the atomic bombing of Japan makes innate sense to me as a major element of the end of the war, or a shot of Stalingrad for its considered role as the "turning point" of the war. Images of tank or aircraft make some sense in terms of the mechanization of war but the choices seem overall random, and the entire collage doesn't do a great job illustrating the global nature of the conflict, its civilian toll, etc. Some of this feels like it wouldn't be as much of an issue if people didn't want an infobox over all else (I've got a collage image as the lead for Art Deco architecture of New York City to demonstrate the different styles the form took in the city across the boroughs it's prominent in, but it's allowed to be more than 30% larger by virtue of not being in an infobox.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They are awful and should be banned. Otherwise the number of them will inexorably grow, as they are (like over-loaded infoboxes) another thing that editors who can't or won't add text love to do. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]