What's the definition of "low resolution"? We're still working out guidelines on that! Please see the draft at Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" and leave your comments on the talk page. --Fastfission 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a time limit for deletion? Notification of the uploader would be nice if we're serious about deleting them; I'll start notifying people for images that I've tagged. Chick Bowen 16:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it matters much, really. Image rescaling is such a trivial operation (one can just download and reupload a thumbnail) that it hardly makes sense to delete images for that reason alone. Not that I'm actually opposed to allowing it in principle, but I see no reason to do so in practice.

In fact, I'm not even sure if tagging an image with this template is any less work than rescaling it yourself. The only major advantage for the template that I can see is that it could be easily placed automatically on all large fair use images without having to worry about what the most appropriate size for each image is. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm mostly interested in the template to advertise the rule, particularly for repeat offenders. I imagine I'd actually start deleting stuff only if someone were persistently uploading dozens of high-resolution images despite warnings. But yes, it is easy enough to replace them, and I've done that too. Chick Bowen 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Set a suitably low value, like 320x240, for "Limit images on image description pages to" in your preferences ("Files" tab).
2. Open the image description page of the image you want to scale down.
3. Save the image shown to your computer.
4. Click "Upload a new version of this file" and upload the image you just saved.
5. Ask an admin to delete the original by replacing this template with {{Fair use reduced|~~~~~}}.

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this method is ideal as it would allow what is still a much too large a size for landscape and square shaped images. I would limit landscape and square images to 320px width, and limit portrait images to 320px height. Arniep 20:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, changed to 320x240. The exact value of "suitably low", of course, depends of the image and its use in Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some very tall thin images this may not produce a useful image, in which case a graphics progam should be used (Microsoft Paint is included with most versions of Windows). Arniep 13:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If 320px is not the exact value of "suitably low" and if it depends of the image and its use in Wikipedia, are there any guidelines for it?

We are trying to develop them still, see Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". --Fastfission 19:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an easier way:

2. Insert the following text: [[Image:{ImageName}|thumb|240 px]]
3. Hit the Show Preview button
4. Save the resulting image on your computer
5. Upload it
6. Ask an admin to delete the original by replacing this template with {{Fair use reduced|~~~~~}}.

I think that's a bit easier than changing your preferences. --Doradus (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me from the existence of "Fair use reduce" that a number of users do NOT understand what resolution means. It has NOTHING to do with SIZE. It is simply the number of pixels per unit surface area. High resolution is something on the order of 300 dpi or 12 dpmm. Low resolution is something like 100 dpi or 4 dpmm. --Fahrenheit451 11:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of resolution is essentially correct. However, keep in mind what this template requests is compliance with point 3 of the Wikipedia fair use policy, which says that "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." This can be equivalently interpreted as either "as low resolution as possible at a reasonable size" or "as small as possible at a reasonable resolution". Either way, what the policy says we should do is provide only as much image data (i.e. pixels) as necessary for encyclopedic use.

To put it another way, there is no actual difference between a 6" by 4" image at 300 ppi and a 18" by 12" image at 100 ppi, except perhaps for a "size in inches" setting in the image header. Both contain 1800x1200 pixels of actual image data, and both are almost certainly way too large for a fair use image on Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I've already pointed out to this user, DPI is used for printed images, and is not the definition of resolution. But still, very good points brought up by Ilmari. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmari Karonen's point is correct, but size and resolution are by definition different things. Ned Scott keeps stating that pixels per unit surface area is NOT the definition of resolution, but ironically, does not offer a substitute definition!--Fahrenheit451 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I gave a cited definition, then I liked to three other dictionary sources and linked the Wikipedia article on DPI. How much more exact do I need to be?

Here it is again, if you missed it on Wikipedia talk:Fair use:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolution says: "the degree of sharpness of a computer-generated image as measured by the number of dots per linear inch in a hard-copy printout or the number of pixels across and down on a display screen."

Also:

• http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/resolution
• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=67252&dict=CALD
• http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/resolution

The article Dots per inch says: "Dots per inch (DPI) is a measure of printing resolution, in particular the number of individual dots of ink a printer or toner can produce within a linear one-inch space."

-- Ned Scott 01:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have missed nothing because there is also screen resolution which is pixels per unit surface area. If you think this definition is wrong, then just supply a better one.--Fahrenheit451 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong, see my reply on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I opine that the relevant guideline on resolution should contain your comments. If there is none, then it should be created.--Fahrenheit451 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be useful here: Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Request_for_proposals_on_Threshold_of_High_Resolution.--Fahrenheit451 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I've added a note there pointing to this branch of the discussion. I think we should continue any further discussion about this topic over there, insofar as it doesn't specifically relate to this particular template. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are interpreting "smaller" too literally, and it needs to be clarified to something more like "This fair use media file should be replaced with a smaller or less detailed version". Resolution is a convenient approximation for the amount of detail available in a photo, but it leads people to the incorrect conclusion that non-raster images may be unacceptable, or more bizarrely, that scaling a 100x100 image to 1000x1000 (without doing anything that would add extra detail) might make it unacceptable under our fair-use criteria. --Interiot 08:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template for increasing the resolution of such an image? — Omegatron 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template says "This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version". That's vague; is there some maximum size (resolution) that's permissible? —EqualRights (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you ask. The template is flawed in that it says the the "non free reuse" policy states that images should be reduced. In fact, the non-free content policy page doesn't say any such thing. On the other hand, the Logos policy page (maybe others?) says: Logos uploaded to Wikipedia must be low resolution and no larger than necessary. Does this apply to all non-free media? If so, WP:NFCC should say it. Even still, there is really no definition of "low resolution" or "necessary". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, it seems a bit odd that images are being tagged for reduction that meet the fair use definition of "low resolution", and also that there seems no clear guidance as to what a reduced size should be. Image:3-D Docking Mission.png, for instance, is a screenshot that was recently tagged for reduction, but in it's "upsampled" form it's 560x384. To what should this be reduced? The current definition page says that "if the image cannot be displayed at full size on the image description page, it is probably too big", which I agree is a very good guideline; this screenshot, though, is already small enough that it can be easily displayed at full size on the description page, yet it's still tagged.

I suggest that, at least for now, automated mass tagging should be limited to those images that clearly do not meet this guideline (i.e., those that are too large to appear at full size on the image description page). Auto-tagging images that do meet this clear guideline, but perhaps not others that are more stringent but also more vague, IMHO seems unnecessary. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to comply with guidelines but as they don't appear to exist, this template only serves to confuse contributors. "Reduce the image - but we're not telling you what size!" I've commented on Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" too. Cnbrb (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded, please replace this template with {{Non-free reduced|~~~~~}}.

I'm not seeing the reason behind having to do this. What's wrong with just replacing the image with a lower-res alternative and removing the tag? - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have to remove the old revisions too, since they're technically orphaned fair use images (which are not allowed). ViperSnake151  Talk  21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use criteria for Wikipedia have in the past typically said "low" or "web" resolution. Why is this template insisting people reduce it to a "thumbnail"?

Such thumbnail images are often useless. The point of a thumbnail is so you can still view a larger version. I will correct this if no one objects.

In fact, it's worth noting that Wikipedia:Non-free_content has no blanket rule on resolution at all. The criteria are simply:

"Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)."

"A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work."

I.e., images should not be reduced so small as to be unviewable - they can and should still be large enough to fit the purpose; and the consideration should be based on whether the image will undermine the copyright holder's rights. Mdwh (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An example of where this template should be used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FirstClass1.jpg - several megapixels in size, and larger than most monitors can display. But I've seen this template being used on numerous images that are already low web resolution (e.g., ~VGA), way smaller than a typical full screen monitor size of even say a netbook; and the result is they get reduced to an unviewable thumbnail. Mdwh (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this template mention that DASHBot will automatically reduce the image. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content criteria specifies that "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)." In the case of free license photos of 3D artworks, it is impossible for the photo to act as a replacement for the original, no matter how high the resolution of the image is. By definition, a photograph of a 3D work can only represent a portion of it. Thus reducing the resolution of the image has no effect on its ability to be used for copyright infringement. Take this photograph, for example. The copyrighted work is a massive installation artwork. The photograph is a 2D representation of a small piece of the artwork. Is it really necessary for us to down-sample this photo to 300px to meet fair use requirements? Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of copyrighted 3D works of are are non-free images (even if the photographer applies a free license to their photograph). They should be reduced to a size to understand the general shape and structure of the art, but we cannot duplicate the art at high resolution. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...as long as that's understood that it's not the size of the image file as a whole that matters, but rather the size within that file of the depiction of the copyrighted art. I've seen senseless file size reductions where the majority of the file was sky and grass, while the portion of the image that was the art was well within 300px. postdlf (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely true. Some human judgement should be used if this is the case. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo has not yet been reduced. Can someone please work on this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]