Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

Archives
August 2002 – March 2003 April 2003 – April 2003 (1) April 2003 – April 2003 (2) April 2003 – April 2003 (3) May 2003 – December 2003 January 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – August 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – January 2009 February 2009 –
Noncommercial-use Discussion of image sizes Specific image-related copyright issues
Sound help Image markup

Images of Russia, 1910-12

What's the copyright status of these superb images of Russia, taken 1910-12? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is tricky. Since Russia just recently revived their copyright laws in 2008, things have changed. As the photograph had died in 1944, it was life+50y (making these works PD in 1994), but the new law appears to be 70+life, putting these in the PD in 2014. (See {{PD-Russia-2008}} for details. Commons.wiki seems to agree with this. Thus, these images appear to be not in the public domain. (and yes, I've seen those images and it would be awesome to have them freely but I think we have to wait a bit) --MASEM (t) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The encrease of protection time from 50 to 70 doesn't change PD-RusEmpire. Alex Spade (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Masem. Regardless, this is some fantastic work for photographic technology of the day. Very, very impressive. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I was about to suggest using one in an NFC manner on the artist's page (Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky) but see two images there using the same technique both by the photographer and dated in the same period, using the {{PD-RusEmpire}} public domain license (eg, it was part of the Russian Empire but not of the Soviet Russia empire which current copyright applies). It could be argued that that tag works and these would all be PD (the Boston Globe supports that these are all Russian Empire images). --MASEM (t) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • heck, the self-portrait image on Sergey's page is a crop of the 2nd Big Picture image. The only thing I question is if these images have been reviewed post-2008 copyright changes. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm indeed. I'd like to know what the 2008 text has to say on that point. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Given there's nearly 5000 images on commons tagged in that manner, my gut tells me its ok, though I've not found any confirmation post the 2008 copyright change to confirm the template is still valid. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've posed the question to Commons [1]. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, Commons has been wrong before on that scale. Wouldn't be a first. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Template:PD-RusEmpire and Template:PD-Russia-2008 are based on the current Civil Code (active since 2008). Alex Spade (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, though I think most are already at commons, we're all set here. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PD-self not enough? Really?

What is the point of requiring a user to name themselves as the source if they already apply a self license like {{PD-self}}? This seems like instruction creep, and at any rate it is confusing. Please fix. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a little "how to" and I have always felt it should be required for uploads. It not only asks for both the source and the author but also a description and the permission. For a photographer "source" could be the camera and type of film used. For Wikipedia it means one should say self-made or URL, if existent name of institution and such things as catalog numbers or similar. "Author", however, can only mean one thing - who created the image. The "source" and the "author" can be different and they do not always represent the "permission" given vs the "license" used. A lot of photos are uploaded from the web or from "personal collections" with a misconception that the "source" is either the website or the users "personal collection" and the "author" is the uploader. I do understand that the method in which images are uploaded can be confusing to some and uploaders automatically choose some variant of a "self" license, even if they are not the authors, and because there is no policy that requires an uploader to use the "how to" we are often left with images that are self licensed and have information such as "Upload by USER:Meathead" and a "source" that says "me". When I find images such as that I tend to use one of the "di-no" tags on them in hopes of obtaining the actual source and author so we can see if the license is the actual permission given. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point about users being confused about the source of photos. Actually, the images I had in mind were those at 0.999..., which is currently undergoing a featured article review. None of these are photographs – they are all SVG files. Presumably a self-made tag already implies that the files were created completely by the uploader. At this point in the history of things, I note that there is already a boilerplate "source" provided when you attempt to upload a self-made image. Presumably this was not the case in 2006, when these images were uploaded to commons? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I see - well, in looking over things the first "mini-how to" was added August 3, 2005, and explained the upload page. It was simple and said, as far the "summary" goes, In the Summary field you are asked to give as much detailed information about the image you are uploading as possible.. The first version of the current version was added February 21, 2006 and is pretty much the same as it is now except for "author" is says pre name and last name of the author (in case of own files additionally ~~~ ) and/or the name of the institution. But, again, it has never been made an actual requirement. The article with the image files you link to may be outside of this anyway because they are, for the most part, just images of numbers and mostly fall outside of the realm of copyright anyway - in other words who created it is not that important. For example File:999_Perspective.png shows five different editors made six different versions. Likewise these files all seem to reside on Wikimedia Commons anyway so whatever the wording that is used here is may not be the same wording used there. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Images from medical journals

What is Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of non-free images from medical journals that cannot be easily replaced? In other words, I have some edits to post that are well illustrated by a few images from the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, and I have not been able to find suitable replacements. I know that I can use them for educational purposes under "fair use," but I don't know Wikipedia's stance on this. As far as I know, the closest image tag that exists for this purpose is Template:Non-free_newspaper_image, although a medical journal isn't really a newspaper. Any advice? Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use a blanket fair use rationale. Remember that wikipedia's policy "fair use" is something of a misnomer--it is actually much more strict than the fair use law in the us. Images/files which are non-free must not only meet the fair use law (Basically NFCC #'s 2,3,4,5,9 but also must not crowd out potential free images (NFCC 1 and 8). The general rule could be described like this. If the image itself (not the subject of the image) is critical to the article, can't be reproduced freely or easily described by text and doesn't infringe on other uses we can use the image. For the case of medical images or scientific images this may be a tough bar to clear. However in many cases the image itself may be singular or difficult to reproduce without considerable effort, so you may have a smaller hill to climb than if it were a photograph of a building or a person. Try uploading an image and writing a specific and detailed FUR explaining how the image was made, why it is important and why it can't be replaced by text or another image. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the fast reply Protonk. Your point illustrates my problem exactly: I've replaced all of the figures and tables with my own work, its just the actual case photographs that I am having a hard time replacing. I've searched long and far for replacement photographs of similarly affected patients, but all of the photos I find are always tied to a journal of some kind, or a biology book with a similar copyright. It is these photos that I am trying to figure out how to clear. As I said above, I know that "fair use" is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia policy; I'm trying to figure out if these particular photos satisfy Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, given (1) their rarity, and (2) that their use in Wikipedia does not affect the ability of medical journals to monetize their articles (i.e. it does not affect their subscription sales). Given all of this, do you think I am cleared to include them in the article? Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • • (ec) You need to clarify why it would be so hard to create a new image that would have the same encyclopedic value, not just that it is hard to find free alternatives. If there is a particular reason why a wikipedia editor who was a medical specialist in the relevant area would nevertheless still not plausibly be able to create a free alternative, that is the core of the case you need to make. Jheald (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know any of the particulars (Can you link to the journal article, I'm in a university library so I can probably read it), so I can't say firmly yes or no. I can probably say that your point (2) is easily met (competing use is mostly a problem for press wire photographs and works of art), but that rarity isn't sufficient to say that the image itself is vital to the article. If I can see the image maybe I can help you write a fair use rationale. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I have put all of my proposed edits (photos and figures included) into a PDF that can help --- I composed the PDF so that I could send it to a few doctors and researchers that are currently active in this field, and get their feedback. I could send you (and all other interested parties) the PDF so that you can see exactly what I am trying to do. Do you have an email address that I could send it to? (Or if you know of another way for me to send you the PDF without making it public, that is fine too.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.Marcus (talk • contribs) 20:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It's just my username at gmail.com. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • (Mail sent) The article I'm updating is on androgen insensitivity syndrome. The condition is broken down into subtypes: complete, partial and mild AIS. The condition itself is rare, and the topic is very sensitive for obvious reasons. The only pictures suitable for the article that I have found to illustrate the various subtypes are from medical journals. In the past, a photo of someone with a similar condition (male hypogonadism) has been posted, and taken down, and reposted, and re-removed, because people with the condition are (understandably) careful about how they are represented, and did not find the picture to be (1) representative, nor (2) in good taste (i.e., medical quality photography). The pictures I plan to use are both.Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Responded via email. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help for clarifying this.Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

File:AdyghNartxr.jpg

Not too clear on this. It is a photo of a painting taken from Мурат Дышек. Нарты. I don't understand Russian so I am not sure of the date of the painting, it seems to be current and the date on the source page says "29.06.2010", which could be the image upload date or the date which the painting was added to the gallery. The signature on the painting itself seems to be dated 2008. The uploader has "Russian Federation 2010" and "ShapsugSochi1864" in the upload summary. It's being used in the Nart saga article with the caption "Nart Sagas (Nartiada) by Dishak Murat". Any help with what this appreciated. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like mid 30s surrealist Russian work. I can't read Russian, so I can't add anything else. It is also possible this is a new work in an older style. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• that signature looks legit enough. My guess is this is a new work in the old style, likely non-free, but the uploaded *may* be the author. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reusing of Photos

What's the policy on reusing Free Use images of notable personalities on other articles? I've encountered this problem on the page for T-Shirt, both images represent people with their own articles, which the images were originally intended for.----occono (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Free images are free images. There's no restriction (neither in our policies nor in intellectual property law) that they be used only for their original intended purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. ----occono (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Signatures on artwork

This work bears the artist's signature in the lower left-hand corner. However, it is hard to make out unless the image is enlarged. Is this really a violation of the 'no credits' policy?

The section about watermarks and credits needs to be clarified. Since some works of art have signatures on them, there are some editors that feel this violates the 'no watermark' and/or 'no credits' policy. Others, however, feel that signatures are not covered by this policy. The reason this needs to be better clarified is because on Commons, art can be uploaded as is, with signature and all, but some editors on the English Wikipedia feel then that such images are not permitted for use here. They may either crop, which might cause issue on other Wikipedia's who have no policy against an artist signing his work, or photoedit the image, though photo-editing then alters the image and no longer makes it artist's and would be an issue with historic paintings. Could it be specified if signatures are or are not allowed? If they need to be cropped out, or perhaps allowed if the signature is unreadable when used in smaller dimensions and only visible when enlarged, or allowed on historic works only, or just simply allowed no matter what? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment for clarification Wikipedia has the right to set its own policies, separate from Commons, which accommodates not only this project but others and the general public. Historic paintings are already excepted in policy: "Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit forms an integral part of the composition." For clarity here, it's important to note that this question rises from a discussion where the image creator is also the uploader and the contributor adding the image to an article and hence easily in position to comply with policy. See the ANI discussion for background. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I always read WP:WATERMARK as "Free images should not be watermarked" (emphasis added), as opposed to "must not be watermarked". Obviously as MRG pointed out when the image creator is the uploader there should be no reason for them to use a watermark, but I never understood it to be a firm rule—and since user-created images must be a freely licensed they can always be edited to remove the watermark. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding your own watermark/sig/whatever to an image that someone else created (whether PD or not), or a derivative work (such as the coat of arms sketches in question) is inappropriate. If the original art as created has the mark or sig, we leave it in, but when it is being purposely added when it is not your own creative work to start with, is not acceptable. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Middle of discussion on policy and how it relates to signatures, far too long and needed collapsing

Even "when the credit forms an integral part of the composition" is not itself clear on whether historic works can include the signature, since many works have the signature in the margins where it could be easily cropped out because it would not exclude anything "integral". The language is so broad that editors reading the same policy walk away with many different interpretations. We need to clarify what a watermark is, and how it would be preferred that watermarks should not be used, especially when advertising or used in a repeating format. Watermarks may be acceptable when used as a digital signature which takes up only a minimal area of the overall image. We should then clarify that signatures are acceptable on original works, especially on historical and historic works. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC) "Especially on historical and historic works" is not so much clarification as a change. There has long been opposition on Wikipedia to the inclusion of watermarks and credits. For instance, this conversation in which a photographer wished to watermark his photographs and the rationale he was given for not doing so: "watermarks also don't fit in well with the typical sizes wikipedia scales too, what would be a reasonable watermark on the image at full size will become nothing more than an unreadable nasty looking artifact at the size used in articles. Also the way wikipedia normally works is to keep credit seperate from content (on history pages, image decscription pages etc) If we didn't do this then articles would become flooded with credit. watermarking tries to short cuircuit this and put your credit directly into the article. I'm sure you can understand how the major authors of the articles text could feel a bit uncomfortable with that especially since we already give images far easier to find credit than text." This was an argument advanced again in this 2008 discussion, where a user wrote: "watermarked images tend to look unprofessional and distracting. The issue of attribution is more complex, but as long as article authors are only attributed on another (history) page, it's not unreasonable to credit image authors on another (image description) page as well." Are there reasons to modify this long-standing practice? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Another way to put this: if you are creating an image primary for the purposes of use in Wikipedia, adding a signature or watermark is not acceptable. If you created an image, had added a watermark/sig to it, and later found that it could be used in Wikipedia and it is now impossible to remove the watermark/sig, then it is improper. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC) It seems to be an unevenly applied rule; anything deemed historic may bear a signature, but anything old and historical may as well. But new things can if the artist or his work is liked by editors. Of course, those that editors do not like or whatnot should have their signature photoedited or cropped out, because history has not yet looked kindly on them, they are not famous, they are not popular or they have the grave error of not being born centuries ago. There are far too many exceptions to the policy for it to be a policy. The argument that watermarks look unprofessional and often show highly pixelated when condensed is valid, but that is due to the fact watermarks are usually added by digital means. Signatures look very natural, even condensed, because they are written in the hand that made the drawing or painting. So the 'unsightly argument' would not be alid agaisnt signatures. To say it gives 'extra credit' to artists is a moot point because the very same argument said that watermarks (and signatures could be applied here) would be too small to read in articles, and if it can not be read, it can not give credit. To read the signature, one would have to go to the file page to enlarge the image, where the artist's name already appears. Hardly any 'extra credit' when the name appears just a short bit beneath the signature anyways. Either way, the policy should be expanded to better explain what each item is, watermark, signature, digital signature, credit and so on, and explain what the policy clearly is, what is acceptable and what is expressly prohibited. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Clarification could be a good idea, if consensus could be reached for language. This conversation has come up a few times, usually in regards to watermarking or signing images. As I understand it, consensus is that contributors should not submitted their own signed works. Do you have examples of signed materials that are not historic? I'd be happy to tag them for attention with {{Imagewatermark}} if they're hosted locally. If they're hosted on Commons, we can create new copies without the signatures to comply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) The image above is not historic, just an old sketch. Yet, it bears a signature. Or shall we exclude historical images from the policy as well? Who decides what is historic, and what process will be used to judge more modern works? How old must a work be to be considered historical? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC) While the earlier comments have covered the issue, I would like to point to an example I have used before: DNA is one of many extraordinarily good articles (with images) on Wikipedia. In my mind, there is no reason for Wikipedia to accept unnecessary watermarks/signatures in images when there are thousands of articles like DNA with no visible attribution. Re "who decides": generally the community has no trouble deciding something like that; it's only when a person insists on a non-consensus result that there is trouble. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The image is historic, just not historically-significant. That is, because of its age, it is unreasonable to try to remove the watermark/sig/whatever from the work. If it is work under a Wikipedia's editor control, we should always strive to remove identifying marks whenever possible - if this was a sketch from a Wikipedia editor, it would not be unreasonable to assume the watermark can't be easily removed, and thus we'd allow it to stay. But if I just made that up but didn't sign it before, then later came back and added my sig, that would be a problem. It doesn't matter if its a watermark, sig, caption, or whatever -if we have some type of control on the origin of the work, we need to avoid adding identifying marks. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The image is not historic, it is historical. Historic implies it needs to be remembered in histories, while historical merely implies it is of significant age. Anything will be historical at some point, but only a few things historic. To give exemption to historical images merely means anything of significant age, say a hundred years old or older, would be allowed a signature regardless of its significance. To give special privileges to only things historic means that even old images would need to be cropped because they were not very important, even if centuries old, but that even something created yesterday could be allowed a signature if it will be or need be remembered for all ages. My ancestors are unknown and are thus not historic men, yet they are still historical. George Washington is historical because he lived centuries ago, but because of his role in history he is also historic. This is another thing that needs to be clarified. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC) You are missing the point. If you make the work with the intent to include it freely on WP, there better not include watermarks, signatures, or other attribution marking, as it is both inappropriate and can be made without it. But any other free image where the intent was not for inclusion on WP and where there is no likelihood of being able to recreate that image, we don't ask for the attribution remove, regardless of age. The historic/historical issue is a red henning save for the fact that most works that will fall under this are old art pieces that have fallen into the PD. But that's not being discriminating due to age, that's just due to free content requirements. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to update what I said a few years ago - it still holds true now and I actually still feel this sections needs to be updated, more so now, to reflect the current allowed uses at Wikipedia. One of the biggest changes is that the accepted, and preferred, license is now the CC Attribution 3.0 license. Also all current CCL's are now attribution one, meaning they all require attribution to be given if required. Beyond that, and how it all applies to this, is that per the "full legal code" images are to be accepted "as is" and must "keep intact" any sort of copyright notice or other information as required by the copyright holder. That all plays a very important role in this discussion now - in October 2010. If a file is uploaded, in this discussion we are talking various forms of "signatures" including anything that could be considered a "watermark", with some sort of text it would automatically be in violation of this policy unless it was the source of discussion (i.e - an article about watermarks). The problem is this policy has never truly been enforced across the board. And it needs to be stressed that when this policy was created a lot of things were different, including saying "no thank you" to anyone who required attribution and the misunderstanding of some admins that any uploader who stated, via a watermark or otherwise, their image was copyrighted meant it was someone else's work or not "free". As we are having this new, 2010, discussion the "copyright" stance has been replaced with a growing "self" tag use means the opposite - no matter what the source, or what a watermark might say, if an image is using a "self" license than the uploader is the copyright holder and the given license is valid. If anything the use of watermark in 2010, in may cases, aids to establish that the uploader is or, more importantly, *isn't* the copyright holder. But those issues aside for a moment, this section is now almost unenforceable because of the CC 3.0 license terms. An image using that license means Wikipedia, and any other end users, agree to it's terms. So, as some examples, File:AMoF Shoalhaven aviation 2 of 4.jpg is clearly a page of some sort - but it does contain a lot of text. Most would accept this and not question it, but what if it an image with this same exact text was uploaded? Or even much less, such as this image, which has simple text at the bottom of it - barely noticeable. After I used it an an example it was transferred to Wikimedia Commons and cropped. And I also used this image as an example because it had a time/date stamp on it,. That, too, was cropped. Some would invoke this section of the policy if any sort of "credits" are used but nobody seems to mind image such as File:GCS Website.jpg, File:SNUB Website.JPG, File:Abuse - credits.png or File:AxxonPalm186 credits.png. But, again, according to the accpeted CCL the end user must "keep intact" items such as these - which means this image should not have been cropped. And what about images such as File:Allergy to Antibiotic Cefaclor.JPG, File:Abdominal hair patterns cmg.jpg, File:Classic OS X Screenshot.png, File:Banate Fishing Port.jpg, File:Cybernoid computer game cover.jpg, File:Trail.jpg and File:VictoriaPark.jpg? All of which are tagged with {{watermark}}. Than there is my favorite image that has never been speedied, or nominated, for deletion and never tagged with {{watermark}} - File:01-16-06 0006.jpg. Clearly if this section of the policy was enforced that would have been the first image to go. In the modern age "watermarking" is, is many cases, a form of placing a signature on work. And it was common for portraiture photographers to print signatures into their prints as well. Websites do it all the time, numerous photographers do it, digital artists do it. The accepted license *allows* for it. So what I proposed still would work: (New text in green) Also, user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits text in the image itself, or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless , of course, the text is part of the image or is small and unobtrusive and used for descriptive reason or to give a basic source credit, 1 or is intended to demonstrate watermarking or distortion etc. and is used in the a related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page.The {{watermark}} tag can be placed on images that do not follow this. Note that this tag should not apply to fair use images. 1. Free images with text such as "Source NAME" or "photo by NAME", provided they are small and unobtrusive, artistic images, digital paintings, graphs and images with a digital time/date stamp are allowable. However any free images that contain a website URL, email, phone numbers or other direct contact information or solicitations are not allowable and may be nominated for speedy deletion under G11. Use that as a starting point. The "footnote" was added because of the discussion, much like this discussion, that would help to clarify some things. But, again, that was then - but clearly blatant SPAM (ie - To purchase this image contact...") could still be speedied as such despite the license. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Xander, I'd have no objection to altering the word to "historical", if you think it more clear. Soundvisions, your favorite File:01-16-06 0006.jpg is only used in userspace. Neither of the objections to text would apply, and the text seems more a creative part of the image than a credit, unless the photographer has a very odd nickname. :) There has always been great latitude permitted to content in userspace; we don't enforce WP:V in user bios, either. On the CC question, CC permits modification. Unless the copyright holder specifies that a watermark must remain, there is no implicit duty to retain the watermark, unless (arguably) the watermark is a copyright notice (cf. CC-By, sect. 4(b): "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:"). I say arguably because CC indicates that credit "may be implemented in any reasonable manner". There is no requirement to retain a signature, as long as credit is given. Beyond that, it is completely within the discretion of the project to flatly reject any works that contain signatures and watermarks. Accordingly, I oppose your (eta: I am still speaking to Soundvisions, whose points I am addressing here. This has evidently caused some confusion, and clarity is important here.) proposed alteration to policy. There is no reason we should accept embedded credits in user-created images and the same reasons you were given before that we should not apply: we do not promote credit for text contributors; credits on an image face detract visually. Those who want prominent credit for the images they create are free to publish them elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC) You are opposed to clarification? I said either way, the policy needs to be clarified. Words are mixed up, like historical and historic, which changes the meaning of the policy. Watermark is used as a catch all when a watermark is a specific technique and distinctly different from a signature. If you type "watermark" in Google, signatures don't pop up. Otherwise the policy gets stated in arguments, then the editor comes in and says "what I think the policy means is", or "what they really meant was", and that is no way to have a policy. MRG, you see here how other editors differ on opinions on what the policy means. VernoWhitney took it as a guideline, but not as something set in stone. MASEM believes the reason behind the creation can alter the way the policy is applied and stretched to cover certain situations. I see errors in the terms used. If an image is put up for review under this policy and we each walk away with a different interpretation, then clearly the policy is flawed and needs to be clarified. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC) No. You were addressed in my opening sentence, where I used your name. After that, I was talking to Soundvisions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with Xander - and although you were addressing me you did say you opposed the changes, which are meant to clarify. Thus - yes, you seem to be opposed to clarification of the wording here. And your reply proves my point in regards to why it needs to be clarified. This is part of a policy called "Image use policy", not "image use policy in userpace". Accordingly nowhere do this section does it state "There has always been great latitude permitted to content in userspace, thusly watermarks are freely permitted." Unless what you are implying is that an image used on userspace fall is not the specific exemption making all userspace images "historic images." And that is what I meant when I stated if this is to remain it needs to be clarified or it needs to be enforced across the board. As for how it relates to the CCL, even though Moon restated what I said their implication of why it *doesn't* apply is missing the point - for example I, as a photographer, have the right to offer a user one of my images in a form that I wish, or "as is." That may include some sort of text on the image. I also have the right to require attribution be placed somewhere, be it on the image or wherever the image is used. When Wikipedia (or any other end user) accepts that image and uses it, the license agreement becomes valid. The only exceptions would be, as an example, Moon contacts me and asks "Can I crop out all of the text and not give attribution in the article where your image is used?" and I agree to it. Otherwise, no. Yes, the right to "remix" is given, however their are requirements in the license for derivative works as well. Through all of it things such as any copyright notice, attribution, a source URI - all remain intact. Clearly if any of these are part of the image their removal without prior agreement would be cause for concern by the copyright holder. So this section is not really enforceable as currently written, because it implies two things. First is the wording of "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use..." and second is that "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." The wording "watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself" is wide - it is not specific and as written could apply to any number of images. And because it is not enforced it *does* become more of a "guideline" than a policy, and because it is rarely enforced overall it seems to drop down to a line from an essay. For anyone using the CC 3.0 license that has attribution required on the same page as the image the line "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" is not enforceable as policy either, it can only be suggested - no longer demanded. That also applies to the comment moon made pf "we do not promote credit for text contributors." If text is used, that has been licensed via an attribution license, it is required to be given. Unlike the excuse of a "image page" containing credit being good enough, text has no "text page" and is normally attributed on the article page via several methods. Likewise there is all kinds of attribution provided in all sorts of articles - on the pages, in the articles. There is {{Citation}} and {{quote}} to give attribution to the source of text, in the article, on the article page. There is no "historical" requirement for use of these. Wikipedia uses standard info boxes for a film, book, CD and television shows that all provide attribution to various people - musicians, producers, distributors, engineers, directors, writers and so on. If one looks at the wider scope currently it is mostly a photographer or other visual artist (I.e - working in a "still" format, outside of an article *about* that photographer or artist) who it is argued by many has no rights for attribution via a by line/photo credit of some sort whenever their image is used, on the page their work is used on. It comes back to this section of the policy in many ways because it is the basis for many of the deletion criteria and guidelines that came after. Again - by way of example - we accept DVD covers and CD covers via fair use and "self" and there generally not be any issues with any sort of text (Which could include a "watermark" or simply "text" in the image). "Fair use" is currently *not* addressed in this section of the policy being discussed - but it *is* in what I proposed. If File:Ruhefinden cd cover.jpg were simply uploaded as a picture that did not have the "CD" in it's name chances are it would have either been cropped or deleted. This File:Outpost 2 CD Cover.PNG clearly contains credits and watermarks - to both Dynamix and Sierra, but it is allowed because it is "fair use". File:DANGEROUSNEWMACHINE PROMO PHOTO.jpg is obvious that is fails this section of the policy as currently written. File:Juliette Compton, promo photo 1931.JPG so would this, although one could argue because it is from 1931 it is historical. And same with File:Salteenspromo.jpg. I, personally, don't care about those but if someone wanted to invoke this section of the policy they could. Bringing it back to what Xander said - "If an image is put up for review under this policy and we each walk away with a different interpretation, then clearly the policy is flawed and needs to be clarified." Currently this section of the policy is not clear at all, nor is the {{watermark}} tag's use. It has already been practice for many years to do what I proposed, by "spelling out." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC) In response to the little bit of the above I've read: to be specific, I said "Xander, I'd have no objection to altering the word to 'historical', if you think it more clear." I trust now that I've quoted myself, there will be no further confusion as to what I have opposed. But, just in case, I have annotated my comments above. The leeway permitted in User Space is documented at Wikipedia:User pages, where it says (in nutshell) "considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages". Unless a watermark brings the project in disrepute, I suspect there would be no objections to using one. Unless it becomes a problem (and is not merely a hypothetical issue), I suspect that trying to anticipate any image that might arise could lead to significant instruction creep. Your clarification looks very much like alteration to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The arguments being made here by Soundvisions and Xander sound like a lot of Wikilawyering because something didn't go there way. I think most people understand the difference between the addition of text to an image that makes it an attribution (as in a watermark, signature, or direct attribution), and text on an image that is part of the branding for that image - typically on logos or covers of works to identify who made that work (but not necessarily the cover image). Branding is an essential part of any cover or logo image and should not be being talked in the same manner as watermarks or the like. We cannot strip branding from images period. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The issue is the policy is not well written and does not cover everything. When editors have to say "what the policy really means" or "by watermarks, it really means everything" and so forth, it means there are clear holes in the policy. No one should have to correct a policy's wording to implement that policy. There are too many exemptions for it to really even be a policy at this point, too. What happens is when an editor wants to cause an issue about an image, he can cite this policy and then give his interpretation of that policy, then wait to see how many people agree that his interpretation is right or what other interpretations arise and take hold in the relevant discussion, and after the policy is decided on what it really meant, then can it be decided it it should be implemented as was decided that time. A policy should not be so ague that it requires a consensus on what it really means before one can take a consensus on whether it applies. It would be like going to a baseball game and asking the crowd each time to decide what the rules are in baseball, then playing the game that way, then seeing who wins with the rules decided for that game. You will have different rules each game. That is what we have here, editors deciding what the policy 'really means' each time the policy comes up in discussion, which is different form when it was last brought up and applied, different also from the time before and so on. Again, explain what watermarks are and why they are unacceptable. What signatures are, when they are and when they are not acceptable and why. What credits are and why the are unacceptable. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The fact Moonriddengirl had to refer to another location to try and explain something page shows that *this* section is not clear in that regards. And even than it not really clear that the wording of "considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages" translates to "There has always been great latitude permitted to content in userspace, thusly watermarks are freely permitted." I know that most have not gone back and read prior discussions but, "in a nutshell", I had explained the method in which images are uploaded at Wikipedia. I set up what happens when the actual photographer does this vs somebody else. This somewhat ties into what User:Masem said when they imply that "things didn't go" my way. But reality is this is not about me, it is certainly based on real world "reality" however. And I can, and do, speak form personal experience. Based on past experiences in "wikiworld" say a photographer comes in and wants to upload an image - they do so and Masem or Monnriddengirl delete it on the spot and when questioned "why?" they are told "It was speedied because it was watermarked". Based on the upload process the next quesiton is "where does it say that?" And Masem or Monnriddengirl would send the user to another location, perhaps here or perhaps CSD. Now, to be fair, maybe Masem or Monnriddengirl would not have handled it that way, but there is the problem - just because two who participate here may not have, clearly others may - and have. Beyond that just because Monnriddengirl says there is no problem on userspace does not mean that is what every single admin reads - because it is not at all specific. Just because Masem may feel the "most people understand" does not mean they do. Not everybody "gets it" and *that* is the issue, and in order to see that one needs to step outside of "logic." As a fair question to Masem or Monnriddengirl - are you photographers? Have you found your work being used on the internet with your permission or without proper credit? Have you found your work uploaded to a distribution site such as Wikimedia Commons, but not uploaded by yourself? The bottom line is that the addition of text (Call it watermark, call it credits, call is shit on a shingle) to an image means various things. From the source it came from, to the distributor of a product, to a description of a product, to the signature (Digtial or otherwise) or the author. In 2010 this discussion needs to be about what is going on right now in relation to the issue(s) at play. I, personally, think most people would understand that "attribution" means a by-line or photo credit for images or text. I think most people would understand the language of the CCL is generic to include all forms of copyrightable material. But my time in "Wikiworld" has shown, without a doubt, this is not true at all. It is not too uncommon for some editors to remove required attribution because of this section of this policy, without bothering to read the license. The same goes for "watermarks" and I have seen this cited in some deletion discussion where an image is "distorted", and that is usually followed by discussions of what is "artistic" or not. Again I gave numerous examples and the overall response has been "Well, those are ok because..." yet the exact wording for this section does not say that a self made CD cover is not the same as a self made image that shows the exact same thing and contains the exact same information. It does not say that a promotional photo that states the photographer, label and artists name is not the same ans the exact same photo using a "self" license containing the same thing. It does not say that and image that is "watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself" is perfectly fine as long as it used in userspace. And so on, and so on. To be 100% clear in what *I* feel - as currently worded, overall, I invoke IAR with this section because it is not followed, and overall ignored by most people. I rarely see it invoked unless someone has a personal axe to grind with another editor. Others "clean up" images when they have free time, using this an a reason to make a derivative work if there is text in the image they personally don't like. I feel there is zero reason why the date/time in this image, the description in this or the "signature" on File:VictoriaPark.jpg are any more in "violation" than they are on File:HarrietWheeler.jpg, File:McMath painting.jpg, File:Ikarus-Painting.jpg, File:Ganesha digital art.jpg or File:Speed-painting-digital-photoshop-art-f1-crash-missfeldt.jpg. So to be vague, because nobody else has yet suggested new wording, I Support clarification as proposed by Xanderliptak. To be somewhat more specific I support actual wording of this section that will explain what watermarks are and why they are unacceptable. What signatures are, when they are and when they are not acceptable and why. What credits are and why the are unacceptable. In addition to that I support striking the phrase "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" as it is not enforceable via a Wikipedia only policy when a users license trumps Wikipedia policy once accepted by Wikipedia. (*or* I would support the clarification that this *only* applies when there are no attribution requirements specified, and that it *does not apply* to what is contained *in the image* itself - pending of course further clarification as proposed by Xanderliptak) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I have seen my words copied without credit around the internet on many occasions. Like the photographers and artists who submit their material here, I have the option of not submitting my material here if I wish to avoid this. I do not have the option of demanding credit on the face of the article. Currently, photographers and artists do not have the option of demanding credit on the face of their art. I have no problem with clarifying the policy, but I oppose the language you proposed above, as this is not a clarification but an alteration. And I disagree that "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" is unenforceable. People donate text content to Wikipedia all the time that is deleted because it is not appropriate for our project. It is to our community what standards apply...and this extends to saying, "Thanks, but no thanks" if people wish to impose restrictions on their images that we do not care to accept. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Briefly: it first depends on what your definition of "demand" is. If you use, as an exmaple, the CC 3.0 license the copyright holder has the explicit right to *require* the end user to display whatever information they ask in whatever form they ask. This depends on the media so what is required, and where, can greatly vary. A basic photo credit might read that "Photo by: NAME" must appear whereever the photo appears. A more detailed attribution requirement might have requirements for the image user on posters, in films, in a book, on the front cover of a book, on a t-shirt and so on. So if you define "demanding credit" as "required attribution" than you do have the right to do so. As the CCL are generic to cover any and all material this right also applies to text, music, paintings, films, television shows, printed music - in a word the right for attribution extends to "everything." As I tried to explain above if Wikipedia, or any end user, accepts the license by using an image that contains an explicit requirement stating where a photo credit is supposed to go the line "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" is not enforceable, *unless* a prior agreement has been made. And I 100% agree that Wikipedia can say "no thanks" to any image, however that should be done *before* the image is placed into any use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC) As I read it, "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page" is perfectly enforceable as a policy--if the photographer demands credit in any unusable manner (to go to extremes: "Credit should be supplied in 24 pt. font, blinking red letters"), we have the right to say, "Sorry, but your attribution requirement does not meet our usage policy and accordingly your image is unusable. If you wish to consider changing your attribution requirement, we may reconsider." I don't agree that this should be done before the image is placed into any use; at any point that an image (or text, or any other content) is determined to be inappropriate, it's fine to remove it. Wikipedia is all about modification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC) And another point [2] - we allow EXIF embedded in the file to be used as attribution information which is respected across all WMF projects, so keeping in line with attribution. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Expect what these are is defined by common sense. Unless you are trying to find loopholes in policy, I think the average editor can recognize the difference between these in the broad sense and known when it is proper and when it is not. If you seriously do not know what a watermark is (even with the help of watermark), I don't think this policy can help you. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The way things work, as long as you upload something that isn't yours with a signature, that is fine. But when you upload your own artwork with a signature that somehow is seen as crossing the line, or trying to find a loophole. It simply could be that thousands of years of custom across all civilizations dictate an artist sign his work when completed that actually causes an artist to sign his work when completed. A policy should not exist to grant favour to some and cause trouble for others, depending on who the editor is that takes issue and how he personally feels about the author of an illustration. Those that feel this policy is correct in restricting use of watermarked images and so forth should have no issue to clarify the policy, because it would make it much easier to apply this policy if it were not left so vague. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC) What you describe applies to text as well. We routinely cite previously published works in writing articles, but we do not sign our contributions. What clarification do you seek, other than changing the word "historic" to "historical"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC) An odd argument, you just pointed out that original text has the author's name added to the article in the works cited and often a link to the book itself where the author's name again appears. So why can an artist not sign his original work since his name can not appear in captions or the article? If author's can have credit in the article, why not an artist? Especially since most signatures could not even be discerned at the small dimensions images are posted in articles anyways. Anyways, the terms need to be clarified. A signature in the artist's own hand is not a watermark, that would be akin to saying baseball and football are the same sport because they both use balls. The policy needs to cover and define what a watermark, signature, digital signature and credit is, and give clearer reasons why they are or not allowed, and when they are allowed under what circumstances. It is not enough to say anything historic or historical can have a signature. Why do ancient and old artists get preference over modern ones? Why are old artist allowed to sign work but modern artist not allowed to continue that millennia old practice? What would be the standard to be considered historic? Who would decide this, especially when such things are not decided for generations after the artist has died? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC) It's not an odd argument; it is analogous to using credits in historical images. Content contributors do not display their names in Wikipedia; currently, that is true of both images and text. It seems to be images for which you want an exception. A signature in the artist's own hand is "credit". "Credit" is covered in policy. New artists are permitted to sign whatever they please, just as I may go host a blog and say whatever I like under my own name. That doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Editors do not get their name in the article because (1) there are so many, so it is more appropriate they appear in a list on a subpage, and (2) they are considered "editors" and not "authors", but the original authors whose work the editors base their work off do get credited in the references section. So if original authors are allowed credit when their words do not appear, but merely a paraphrasing of their work, then by the same standard an original artist should be allowed to have credit in the article as well, even if it is his signature rather than his typed name. Signatures in images usually can not be seen given the small thumbnail sizes used in Wikipedia anyways, and is almost a pointless discussion. To argue that a signature can not be in an image because the signature should not be seen in the article even though when the image is added to the article it is too small to see the signature. It seems more that you are upset that you as an editor are not granted as much credit as authors or artists, so you wish to restrict them as much as possible. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC) This is another reason they have been opposed in the past, as I explained above--that they are virtually invisible. I am not in the least upset that I am not granted credit, but I do not find the argument that one category of contributors should sign their work while another does not compelling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Then you should move to have the policy clarified. The current language is so vague and excludes the most common mark added to artwork-a signature. However, please note that authors get their name on their book and artists get to sign their paintings. A book can be cited or paraphrased with a small reference to the artist at the end of an article, however paintings can not be cited or paraphrased this way. The argument you give is compelling to me because you are comparing two completely different things, what is thought and what is seen. When you write a book, your name is written on that book. When you paint an image, you paint your name on that image. You can not compare thoughts and how they are attributed to images and how they are attributed, each are given credit in the same fashion that they are presented. Vague policies do not account for this, they seem haphazardly strung together. They need to be clear and detailed enough to allow every editor to come to the same conclusion. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC) In your specific case (based on what I read of ANI that led here), when you are creating a utilitarian image that is specifically designed to be included in Wikipedia with a free license, attribution on the image itself is pointless and unnecessary and thus why we urge self-made images to not have such. As a counter example, say you were an artist 20 years ago and you created a work and signed your name to it (in a manner where it can't just be cropped away) Today, you want to allow WP to use that work for free because it is appropriate for some article. No one is going to expect you to strip away your signed name from the painting to be used on WP because you didn't create it as a utilitarian piece. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Not every drawing or painting I make is for Wikipedia. The Ghana arms were, but heraldry is a hobby and part-time-profession of mine, and many images I created before I contributed to Wikipedia and merely discovered a use for them here. So I should only sign the images I created for use elsewhere? Those specifically designed for here should be left unsigned? What about if an editor brings a blazon to my attention on here, but I will have use for elsewhere? Can I sign that, or does the origin of the idea, not the utility, decide when a signature may appear? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC) On the good faith assumption that you made these images years ago and now just found good use on WP, how the work was signed becomes important. Again, your images, you are still in control any modifications to them, so if you signed it on a corner in a manner that would be trivial to crop or remove, we would probably expect that to be done. On the other hand, if you signed them really close to the object, we would likely not expect you to ruin your work to remove it. But if you decide to sign what was previously unsigned now to get it up to WP (which some may consider gaming the system) they would likely be deleted. Basically, the "exception" is the case where you have uploaded signed art that you had created well prior to WP; otherwise, art or works under your control we expect no attribution on the image itself. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC) While that may be an acceptable compromise specific to me, it could never be implemented as a general policy. So what of other artist and their works on Commons? Should the best work be ignored because it was signed, and lesser works used because they are unsigned? Are we going to be forced to accept children's work when the good art is all signed? Are we going to have to have a discussion and interrogate every artist to determine when he made a painting, when he discovered Wikipedia, when he signed the painting and so on? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Me aside, this does not change that the policy is still too vague. Were it clarified, this discussion would be unnecessary because I simply could read the policy rather than have so many editors try to give me there take on what was really meant and implied by the policy as is. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So, let me see if I've got this clear. You want: (a) the word historic to be changed to historical and some explicit standard supplied for historical; (b) a definition of watermark; (c) a definition of signature; (d) a definition of digital signature, and (e) a definition of credit. Moreover, you want this policy to justify itself by giving "clearer reasons why they are or are not allowed". Is that the long and short of it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to allow historic and historical images to allow a signature. Picasso and Dali are not historical just yet, but are historic. And, yes, clearly define each mark so anyone and everyone can understand what is being discussed and an explanation as why or why not they are allowed and when. For example, it is easy to reject an image with this policy when a watermark that lays over an entire image in a repeating pattern, but does not clearly identify why a painting is rejected when it shows a small signature in the corner. Or why other paintings are allowed to have signatures shown. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids precise rules (see WP:BURO) because such precision is an illusion (consider the wasted resources in tax avoidance schemes, legal battles, and attempts to write definitive legislation). There may be some tricky cases regarding images which will need discussion, but there is currently no such case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand the policies can not be ubber specific, but this one is so vague and inconsistently applied that it really deserves refinement. Editors come along and say what they think it means, they use phrases such as "I think" or "most would understand it to be" and so on. This is a policy that exists when editors want it to exist and one that can be ignored when they want to ignore it, no standards, no rationale to the application. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're interpreting a bias where one doesn't exist or that you haven't shown exists. If there was a bias problem with people constantly misapplying this, I would argue to fix this, but there's no evidence its needed. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about me, please do not mistake my cultural speech patterns as indication of uncertainty. I do not see the ambiguity in this policy that you seem to. In respect to your note below, I believe that you are using a definition of "distort" that is at odds with standard interpretation of the word (which I've defined at the RfC on your image). But unless there is widespread confusion on this point, clarifying it within policy may not be needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You attempted to circumvent the policy, saying that technically only distortions are not allowed, so modifications could be made. You then linked an art website that defines distortions, which is nice, but that website has no entry on modification, so there is not a clear distinction between modification and distortion as you tried to imply. You are playing on technicalities where you want the policy to not be applied, but then stating elsewhere with where you agree with policy that the terms are meant to be generally broad and applied as such. You can not have it both ways in the same policy. You basically say in one place, "oh, c'mon, everyone knows that credit means signature and they're close enough in meaning to apply here", but then later say, "but technically modification does not appear in the policy, so if we call if modification and not distortion we can get away with it." Really, if this is how the policy is applied, it needs to be stricter and more clearly defined. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In regards your accusation of bad faith: "You attempted to circumvent the policy" I have no motivation whatsoever to circumvent policy. I'm not the person with a personal stake here. It's astounding that you would claim that removal of your name from a rock--even if performed by you as the artist--would constitute "distortion." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about me. You have been playing unfair with the policy. You say credits and signatures are close enough, so when the policy states credit and does not mention signatures it should still be applied to signatures. In the same sentence it bans distortions but makes no mention of modification. By your first argument, we would assume that distortion and modification are close enough that it means both should be banned. However, you say that this is not the case, that the policy needs to specifically mention modification before modifications are not allowed. You are not following the policy as harsh when you wish something to be included, and you are applying the policy with a 0-tolerence attitude when you want images excluded. You are not being fair and even with the policy and its wording.

But if you want to make this about me, we can. You say my images should not be on Wikipedia. We are at odds over what the policy states and requires, and other editors have yet more opinions different from our own. You say currently the policy bans my images. I say they do not. You say that it doesn't matter, you say that they are banned therefore they are banned. I say the policy does not clearly state that, change the policy to ban them more clearly. We are trying for the same end goal, so why are you being so obstructionist to updating the policy to make it more clear? Then you would have no need to be so schismatic on how you apply the policy.

Oh, and just because you have no images involved does not automatically dissolve you of an interest here. The fact you have been so involved and seemingly inflamed by this conversation, and that you continued this on another talk page, seems to indicate you have a personal or emotional stake in this, even if you have no images concerned here. If you had no interest here, then you should be more open to clarifying the language, to make your end goal a reality, since the language I am trying to introduce would only help aid you in that aspect. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please point out to me where I've said "credits and signatures are close enough". It seems an odd thing for me to have said, since that's not what I believe. I believe that signatures are credits, not close to credits. In terms of my involvement: you should be well aware that I became involved in this as an administrator reading ANI where there were accusations that you were edit warring. When I looked at the image that was said to be central to the dispute, I realized it was against policy. I removed the image accordingly, notified you (with the suggestion that "As I noted at ANI, you're obviously a very talented artist and are welcome to create images without incorporating your signature for use on Wikipedia") and, when an RfC opened (here) about the image in question, left a comment noting its problems under policy. That I "continued this on another talk page" arose entirely from your responses to that comment. This: "You say that it doesn't matter, you say that they are banned therefore they are banned." is flatly untrue. I said, explicitly at that RfC, "I'm sure that if the community supports your contention that including your name in the coat of arms of Ghana is not 'credit', they will make that consensus known." The only "emotional stake" I have here is ensuring that our policies are maintained. (And I am open to clarifying the language here. I've already agreed multiple times to clarifying historic to historical.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Several images have been posted throughout. Some are allowed because they only appear on user pages, others are allowed because they are old, others seem to just not have been noticed, others allowed because of fair use rationale and so on and so on. Please take a look at some of the links scattered throughout the discussion. I would also like to point out that Moonriddengirl has suggested that the no watermark or signature policy must be applied absolutely without exception, and suggested that I merely distort the image to remove the signature. This is in violation of the no watermark or signature policy, which states distorted images are also not for use on Wikipedia. The idea that one person would so absolutely apply one part of a policy, but suggest the last part of the very same policy does not need to be applied at all shows there is bias in how the policy is applied. If no signatures are allowed, no ifs ands or buts, then no distortions could be allowed, no ifs ands or buts. However, this is seemingly not the case, and bits and pieces of the policy are picked and applied random at will. Seriously, that so many different opinions have arisen, and that editors and admins even apply different portions of the policy, even pieces of the same sentence, differently shows that this policy is vague and weak. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be having trouble remembering the precise details of our conversations. If so, direct quotation rather than improper paraphrase may serve you better. I did not suggest you "merely distort" the image. I suggested you modify it. Again, according to the Art Dictionary, "Distortion presupposes a norm or order from which to depart and in representation it must have a recognisable reference to the norm which is distorted for example a distorted circle." That you define "distortion" to mean "alteration" does not mean that I do or that others do. If the confusion of terminology here is not yours alone, then perhaps that should also be clarified in policy, like "historic". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

While you point to this "Art Dictionary", which is just a website that has definitions of art terms, that dictionary does not distinguish between "modification" and "distortion" as you do. While you point to the website to define "distortion", you do not point to the website to define "modification", instead, you give your own. That is because there is no entry for "Modification" on that site, because modification and distortion is only a semantic difference. Distortion come from a Latin term meaning that something was twisted, where as modification comes from a Latin term meaning something was altered; whether it is altered or twisted is in the eyes of the beholder, but they mean the same thing in the end, that what is made is not the original item.

And while you maintain that "credit" and "signature" are one and the same, the definitions of both words do not include the other. "Signature" is not defined as credit, and "credit" is not defined as a signature. I find it odd that you maintain these two terms to be the same but somehow find "modification" and "distortion" to be clearly separate. That the denial of credits means no signatures are allowed, but the denial of distortion means that modification is allowed because of a technicality. You are not applying the rules and policies, you are distorting... I mean, modifying them to fit your notions on what the policy should state. Why not simply alter the policy to clearly state it then? It would be much easier if you added in language to better clarify that by credit, that signatures are really meant. Or that while distortions are not preferred, so long as it is a modification approved by the author that the image is still acceptable. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"so long as it is a modification approved by the author"? The requirement of Creative Commons were explained to you at length at the Commons thread "edit war over relicensing". The only approval you must give of modification is in selecting a license that permits them. You seem to be the only one at this point who finds the distinction between "modification" and "distortion" unclear. If this is a common problem, I don't doubt others will weigh in agreeing with you, and then--as I said above--"perhaps that should also be clarified in policy". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to do, make a CC argument now? We are talking about policy of what images to use here. Fine, no modifications or distortions allowed, even ones approved by the author. That better? Any cropped image, not appropriate. Any detail, not appropriate. Me editing out my signature for use on Wikipedia. Not appropriate. Happy with that now? You wanted modified work before, now you don't. Pick one, or the other. Don't try to make a policy argument, then a CC argument out of everything, it is not productive at all.

Oh, and saying "oh I think others this or that" isn't a valid argument. I can argue that I think most people know Nazis were really peace loving humanitarians. That doesn't mean we delete everything bad out of the Nazi article because I like to think everyone sides with me. I am not delusional like that. And what is this distinction you mean? You're little art dictionary doesn't make a distinction between your terms. The dictionary lists the terms as synonyms. The policy makes no distinction. So where are you getting this "widely accepted distinction"? From your head, because it is merely your opinion, and since you can't prove it, you are relying on unproven arguments of "I think people agree with me and not you, even though I won't ask anyone or get input". You have provided nothing but your opinion as to what the policy means, and that because you think everyone must agree with you, that the need to clarify the policy is unneeded. Since there have been at least four or five opinions given on what the policy means, it is clear that your reading of it is not the as widely accepted as you had hoped. The policy needs to be clarified, plain and simple. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"What are you trying to do"...clarify that "so long as it is a modification approved by the author" is an erroneous understanding of the situation. "fine, no modifications or distortions allowed, even ones approved by the author. That better?" No, that's a complete misunderstanding, though it would certainly put considerably more control in the hands of image creators, which I gather would not disappoint you. Here's what I have been trying to explain to you: this is a policy. Changes to policy must reflect widespread consensus. If you are the one who wants policy changed, you need consensus. Until you demonstrate that people agree with you that "signature" is not clearly a subheading of "credit" or that "modification" counts as "distortion", the policy is presumed to be fine. This talk page is specifically for the development of policy. Any one of the 428 people who watch it or who just happen by it is welcome to weigh in and give input. At this point, though, I begin to feel there is a larger issue that can be resolved in this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is a mischaracterization of that conversation. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Others who read that conversation, in which I was not a partipant, may not see it the same as you do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps if you were not part of the conversation, you should not try to summarize it? The issue was about moral rights, preventing, say, something like a political party that commits genocide form using my artwork in ads promoting that genocide. There was a user who followed me from Wikipedia to that conversation that tried to distract editors and make it about him, however the discussion ignored him and it was upheld I had my moral rights and could assert that my art could not be used in any aspect that I would morally object to. I am sorry if you feel I am controlling because I do not wish my artwork ever to be used in a negative or offensive fashion, but to characterize the conversation so simply as that is disingenuous. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in continuing this digression. The conversation here has long since devolved beyond the point of usefulness. I have agreed with you that "historical" is better than "historic." Others have not yet weighed in. Feel free to propose the language you would prefer, and consensus will promote it...or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What about redefining the difference between what may be watermarked and what not? If "historical" isn't clear enough, then we can be more specific: images made available under a free licence by the creator (namely, us or another web site) should not be watermarked; images whose copyright has expired should be left with it. Photographs and diagrams should not be watermarked, other works may be. With those definitions combined, I think we convey the current usage in the desired clear terms. MBelgrano (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry just an aside the German Bundesarchiv images used on Wikipedia all are credited which doesnt appear to meet the rules. Example. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a question from someone not normally associated with this topic might help (well, it'll help me, anyway...). Why do we want to prevent people from adding watermarks or signatures? Aren't creative works regularly marked by their creator? I mean, I would say that we would still restrict watermarks that serve as advertisement (i.e., that have a url in them), but why don't we want the watermarks or signatures? Is this a licensing issue? An aesthetic issue? Something else? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been extensively involved in the removal of watermarks from hundreds to thousands of images on Commons. The removal of labels, timestamps, and other artifacts is usually not contentious, but some contributors in the past have been distressed about the removal of the author's name or signature. The issue is essentially an editorial decision that reduces distraction and clutter; it also avoids unfairly giving special, highly-visible credit to image authors while text contributors remain "in the background" (particularly in articles with large numbers of images). Obtrusive, highly-visible watermarks can also obscure portions of the depicted subject and lower image quality by distracting from the content and producing a garish contrast (watermarked images are never featured for example). On Commons we advise authors to include their name and license information in the image metadata, so that it will remain available if the image is copied without giving proper attribution.

There are some clear exceptions: where the signature itself has encyclopedic value (as is often the case for public domain works), or where the artist is notable (such as a famous painter), the signature is not generally removed. This is not a simple "public domain" versus "copyrighted" test; some modern notable artists are beginning to release a limited selection of works under free licenses. Even in these cases a version without the signature (such as a crop) might still be uploaded separately as a derivative work, if some article finds it useful to do so. Finally, an exception is obviously made for images where the watermark is entirely the point (such as illustrations for articles on watermarks).

There are some interesting borderline cases - for example some public domain documents contain text like handwritten or printed captions, or the name of the publisher and/or a copyright notice. Similarly an "artistic" freely-licensed image may contain elements that distract from the depiction of the subject. Usually it's good to have more than one version of such images, since it all depends whether articles want to focus on the subject depicted by the work or on work itself in its original form. As a rule, I always remove watermarks that were added digitally after the fact, regardless of who added them, since these cannot be said to be part of the original document. Dcoetzee 07:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the "Content" section

Credits

Credit is the additional of written information that is added to an image after completion, and is therefore not considered integral or part of the work itself. Credits usually include the author name, location, subject matter, date and copyright information. Since all credit and information is listed on the file page, there is no need to add credits to an image, and images that include credits should not be used in articles, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate credits. Credits may be removed by cropping if it would not misconstrue the original subject or intent of the author, after which the image would be acceptable for use in articles.

Distortions

Images which have been distorted or modified should generally not be used in articles because they can misconstrue the original intent of an image (much akin to taking a quote out of context). A common exception, however, would be cropping an image to better show the object in question in more detail, which would otherwise be lost in expanse of the full image; or cropping an image to exclude credits or watermarks that can not be removed otherwise. Another common exception would be aesthetic changes, which may include adjustments to brightness, contrast, reduction of noise and leveling. Distortions or modifications that were made by the author, or that the author gave consent to, could be used in articles because the original author gave his approval of the alterations and the resulting derivative work can not be said to twist, defame or misconstrue the original intent of the image or author.

Signatures

Signatures are a tricky and delicate issue since it is custom for an author to sign his work to show its provenance (like an author of a book having his name printed on the cover, spine and title page within), and is usually the only way an author can prove the work is his creation less it mistakenly be attributed to someone else. A signature is not an addition to the work after production, as credits or a watermark typically are, but is an integral part of the artwork itself, and unsigned works typically are rejected by the art community and hidden away in archives of art galleries, museums and collections because the provenance can never be fully and accurately determined. So, as a general rule, any historical or historic work of art with a signature may be displayed in an article.

Newer works, especially works created specifically for Wikipedia, needs to be decided by the community case by case, which may be done on the article's talk page. Things to consider are:

• Is the signed work the only example available? If yes, then the work may be used until a free unsigned image becomes available.
• Is the signed work superior to the unsigned works? If the signed work is overwhelmingly superior, the signed work may be used. If not, or the difference is marginal, an unsigned work should be preferred.
• Is the signature visible when the image is introduced into the article? Since images are placed into articles commonly at a much reduced size, signatures are often not discernible and lost in the size reduction. When this occurs, signatures should not be a point of contention or a reason to refuse the use of an image.
• Does the signature appear abnormally large given the size of the work, is the work created in a way that draws attention to the signature or does the signature appear to advertise the author? An author may have purposely signed his work large enough to be seen in articles even when the image is reduced in size, or signed the work in a bright and contrasting colour to draw attention to the signature. These cause distractions from the work and article itself, and appear to be a form of self-promotion or advertisement, and should not be used in articles.

Digital signatures are often added to digital media for the same reason an author would sign his work, and may be opaque or transparent (in this latter sense it would then be a watermark as well). These should not immediately be excluded. Digital signatures, even those that appear as watermarks, should be treated the same as hand written signatures, and only excluded when they fail to meet the standards set forth above. It should be noted that such attribution could be entered in the metadata of digital media as an alternative to adding a visible digital signature.

Watermarks

A watermark is a transparent image, symbol, pattern, word or other mark that appears by varying the degrees of lightness and darkness, which is then lain over an image. This is typically done by digital editing, and is a distortion that is added to an image after completion and not considered integral or part of the work itself. Watermarks generally are added to give credit, express ownership, state copyright or be a form of digital signature (at which point the policy of signatures should apply). Since all credit and information is listed on the file page, there is no need to watermark an image, and images that are watermarked should not be used in articles, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking. Watermarks may be removed by photoediting, which would not be considered a distortion as it would return the work to its original form, after which the image would be acceptable for use in articles.

---

How does the above sound? Anything that I missed, or are there any suggestions? [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is way too much explanation that most clearly understand already, and in fact with some false statements (such as signatures, and the differences between "distortion" and "modification"). There is no need to include anything of this degree. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you take a poll that stated "most" already understood what is presented above? Or is this just your assertion? VernoWhitney and I already stated we came to different conclusions about what the policy stated, and I wrote this because of what I thought the policy failed to say. What harm is there by adding this to the policy page since you feel the policy implies it already? It would be the same policy you believe it to be already, just clearly defined so there is no argument. As for things being false, I do not know what you base this off since the current policy mentions nothing on signature and fails to differentiate between modification and distortion. I tried to summarize current practice. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because we link to articles that explain what credits and watermarks are, and its not necessary to go into detail of what they are. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are links. People say signatures are not allowed and link to watermark. Should that not link to signature? Especially since when you read Watermark, it is clearly different from a signature? Shouldn't the policy, if it is used to limit images with signature perhaps mention "signature" somewhere in the policy? And to say there isn't enough room to add one sentence to explain what a watermark s is laughable, this is the Internet, there is almost unlimited room for data. All I hear form you and Moonriddengirl is "I know what I think the policy says, so why do I need to change it?" The problem is, while you too come to a close agreement (note your opinions do not match exact;y, either), that there are already two other distinct opinions that "think they know what the policy says" as well. One policy, and four understandings so far. That is a problem. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is part of the confusion. People say that signatures are not allowed and link to WP:WATERMARK. This is not the same as linking to watermark. This is a "shortcut" to the part of the policy picking one of the words of the subheader. It incorporates the whole section by reference. Your proposal doesn't simply clarify policy; it alters policy. For one instance, there is nothing in this policy whatsoever that requires approval from artists to alterations in their images, and good thing, too, since many of those artists are dead. Even with living artists, you are throwing up unnecessary roadblocks. They already consented to modification. We do not need to write them to ensure that they don't object to our making a derivative work when they've already said we may. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree with Masem. For specific points, "Credit is the additional of written information that is added to an image after completion" is far too open to gaming, and credits may consist of as little as a last name, as opposed to "Credits usually include the author name, location, subject matter, date and copyright information." I flatly disagree with your "signature" section. Signatures are not distinct from credit, but an elementof it. "Images which have been distorted or modified" is inappropriate, as images are modified in many situations, including color adjustments and cleaning up artifacts. Too, "Distortions or modifications that were made by the author, or that the author gave consent to, could be used in articles because the original author gave his approval of the alterations and the resulting derivative work can not be said to twist, defame or misconstrue the original intent of the image or author" is unnecessary; by licensing the content appropriately, the creator has already consented to modification. We do not have to seek his consentfor every modification, and this is very much in line with what I referred to above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, your opposing on the grounds that someone could just insert their last name as credit, and I wrote credits may include a name? Was I to write name, first name, last name, initials, pet name, pseudonym...?

As for credits and signatures being the same, that is your opinion, which is not based on the definitions of those two words, and two editors have already disagreed on your understanding of the policy. So perhaps an argument of "the policy doesn't need changing because I know what it says" isn't a good reason to dismiss changes, because others do not 'know' the same things you do.

Oh, and because I missed brightness and contrast adjustment is a poor reason to oppose something, and a better notion would be to add that language in (which I will do). As for the whole licensing already allows for modification and distortion, that is true, but we are discussing policy on what should be used in articles, not what is allowed under a CC license. I could randomly edit in a pickle to every image, allowed by the CC, but not appropriate for use in articles because of the modification (so please keep this clearly about policy, and not CC licensing). The policy states nothing distorted should be used, and does not mention anything about modifying work and does not state what is the difference between the distortion and modification (a distinction you insist to 'know' is in the policy, even though it is not). We use work that is distorted, as you point out, such as cropping, adjustments to light brightness and so forth, so language needs to be added that states such a thing is acceptable in certain situations. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm opposing because I agree with Masem. And I have some specific objections, which I spelled out. Others will weigh in, and if they think you're right that signatures are wholly distinct from "credit", they'll surely let you know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In these objections, you and he hint that the policy already implied what I have mostly said. Why leave it to implication when it could be written out? Why not try to help rewrite where you think there are holes? Why do you have to insist that credits and signatures are one and the same when it can just as easily mention both and leave no question? I don't see the reason to drag your heels in the sand; all anyone needs to do right now to get their signature in is to repeatedly ask "where does it say signature?" and "where does it say credits are the same as signature?" And when a few editors agree that signatures are out, say "the policy was a consensus of the broader community, which a few editors can not override. If the broader community wanted signatures out, they would have said it. Whatever you think it should have said does not matter." [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In part that policy is not rules , WP is not a democracy. Policy and guidelines are meant to help guide consensus, and do not need to be fully complete as one would normal expect from legal code or the like. Spelling it out opens loopholes that are ripe for abuse as well, whereas consensus can determine when images are being misapplied. -MASEM (t) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So you were lying when you said "Please note that the second image is not currently usable under Wikipedia:Image use policy, as the uploader artist has placed his name within the image." Or maybe you meant to say the image without a signature would be preferred, since the image policy is merely a guideline? [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're accusing Masem of lying to you for something I said? [3]. Interesting. Note that I fully thereafter explained the difference between policies and guidelines and standards of consensus with quotes from policy: [4]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you okay? How do you conclude that using your words mean I am accusing someone else of lying? Yeah, you know explain the difference, but at the time of the quote you proposed it as an unwavering rule that must be absolute. You didn't say the guidelines recommend, you said that the image was out. End of discussion. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I assume you know how to thread; perhaps I assume too much. I don't explain it now, I explained it then; the link is timestamped "22:37, 21 October 2010". I answered you 8 minutes after your question. Until that question about whether or not the participants at the RfC could ignore the policy, I assumed you would know how policies, guidelines & consensus work, since you've been here a while. Again, perhaps I assume too much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And I assumed you could recall your words and read your user name. You spoke as though the image policy is set in stone, unmovable and absolute. Now two editors (three with me included) state differently, that we thought it more vague and ambiguous than you presented it. So, were you lying when you mad such a declaration? Did you misspeak? Or is it perhaps that the policy is open to other interpretations other than your own? [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Nolelover#Badlees Article

I have been discussing this article with Riverofrock, and he just asked me why the album picture for one of the band's albums' article was deleted off Commons. I really know very little about this, and I'd appreciate any comments at my talk page. Thanks -- Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 00:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)