Wikipedia:Image use policy/Proposal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.
Merge arrow
 It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Choosing appropriate illustrations. (Discuss)

[edit] Proposal

  1. Jimbo Wales is on the record saying that {{fairuse}} should be eliminated extremely limited. I propose that fairuse be eliminated in the following manner: images claiming fairuse uploaded after a given date should be deleted on sight. Images claiming fairuse uploaded after a given date should be sent through a verification process first and a rationale decided upon. Images claiming fairuse uploaded before this date should be investigated as well. Fairuse should only be used in circumstances where an image is necessary to a particular article and cannot be replicated by a Wikipedian. The all-purpose {{fairuse}} tag should be eliminated and replaced with more spacific tags.
    1. In order to prevent abuse of fairuse (For example, a image might be listed on CP or PUI, but then uploader to preserve his image can simply slap on a fairuse tag and say it's not a copyvio), there should be a statement to the effect that such actions like the above example are not permissible.
  2. I propose that images without tags existing five days after their initial uploaded be elegible for speedy deletion. Images without tags existing before a given date should be given tags. Newly uploaded images without tags should be subject to speedy deletion if their status cannot be verified. The uploader should be informed and asked to defend their images. If they do not respond or cannot defend their image within a lag time to be decided upon, the image should be verified or speedily deleted.
  3. There should be a spacific statement that images from Google Maps and Google Earth (as well as other commercial satellite image sites) are not acceptable for Wikipedia; I fear that these sites have the potential to become a problem in the future. There should be a list provided of free sources for satellite and aerial photos.
  4. WP:PUI and WP:CP could be merged to form one process, given that proposal 2 would dramatically reduce the number of unsourced images.
  5. Images using tags {{copyrighted}}, {{permission}}, {{noncommercial}}, etc. uploaded after a certain date should be elegible for speedy deletion should be dealt with in some manner. These tags should be systematically eliminated and replaced with better ones. Uploading images with this status should be discouraged.
    1. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags should have these marked specifically--or even removed from the page--to indicate they are not to be used (for new uploads) under any circumstances.
  6. New copyright tag categories should be subject to scrutiny.
  7. Images not .JPG, .GIF, or .PNG should be converted or deleted. Other image formats such as SVG or XCF are allowed, but only as a source image to allow for easier editing: a version in one of the standard formats must be available.
  8. Unencyclopedic (nonsense) images should be elegible for speedy deletion.
  9. There should be restrictions on text (see Image:Cnr.jpg) that is part of non-map or non-aerial photo images.
    1. Ideally, as in this example, it would be cropped off.
    2. Failing cropping, the text involved needs to be written out in full to serve as an alternate description. This is already stipulated on some policy pages.
  10. Covers need a decided scale level (in pixels) at which they cannot be effectively used for bootlegging purposes but are still large and clear enough to see the details (the whole point of their fair usage here). Anything above this agreed size would be overwritten with a reduced version, and the larger version would be removed from the file history.
    This applies primarily to CD covers, I presume, book covers don't generally have the smae kind of bootlegging issues. DES 19:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Whatever else you can think up.

Please note that this is a draft and as such is subject to change.

[edit] Discussion

I oppose the basic idea of trying to remove all fair-use images. Fair-use is an important right under copyright law, and it should be widely taken advantage of, lest it be effectively deprecated. Furthermore, there are many very important images we can't easily get on any other basis, and which are clearly fair use.

That said, a better image policy is IMO a good idea, and several of your siuggestions I woud agree with. Specifically eliminating untagged images, although I would favor a mandatory notification of the uploader, and a sufficient delay to make it likely that an uploader with imgaes that are in fact free but who is ignorant of ourt process can tag them. This need not be very different from the current WP:PUI in my opnion, but with some standards and policies changed and clarified. Perhaps more importantly, a project could be developed to verify the permission tags on images, ans some sort of special "verified" tag be created that could onl;y be used after a member of such a project had confirmed the status. thsi would be sued only for PD and GFDL images, as a Fair use is always a mattter of context and to some extent of opnion. DES 22:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


  • If fairuse is to be kept, I would like to see some sort of mechanism to ensure it is not abused.
  • Mandatory notfication of the uploader of untagged images is a matter of course; it is an integral part of the existing policy already.
  • I agree that there should be some sort of verification process to ensure that the tagging system remains accurate.
  • My suggestions are only a starting point for discussion of a better policy.

Gwk 22:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair use is not a right. It is a legal defense that can be used in certain cases that would otherwise be copyright violations. --Carnildo 22:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
You are correct, it is a legal defense, and a use is only conclusively determined to be fair use if a suit is filed and fair use is invoked as a defese. But the copyright law also explicitly grants the public the right to use copyrighted content in the ways generally covered by the term "fair use", so it is also a right. Similarly "self defense" is a defese to a charge of assult or homicide. But it is also a right, within limits. May rights are pricipally asserted as defenses. indeed "free speech" is primarily legally asserted as a defense to legal attempts at censorship of various kinds. DES 22:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
My main concern with fairuse on Wikpedia is that it can be used as an excuse to upload images that are otherwise copyvios. For example, a image might be listed on CP or PUI, but then uploader to preserve his image can simply slap on a fairuse tag and say it's not a copyvio. Gwk 23:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
In theory a fairuse tag is not compelete without a rationale for why this use is a fair use. Enforce that policy. Perhaps change the template to include a rationale as a parameter. A few of the spacialized tags, like {{bookcover}} come with built-in rationales. DES 23:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that we should try to limit our use of fairuse, and then make sure that every image on which fairuse is claimed is actually fair use. Gwk 23:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't like this proposal, it means that all of the game/TV/movie/album/book/llama-related articles we have will be mercilessly stripped of their images--for which we can't use a free equivalent. What are you going to propose about that? Certainly I think covers should be checked over and shrunk, as I've seen several that are at suitable-for-bootlegging dimensions, but beyond that I can't see how this proposal is going to ever be agreed on, at this state of drafting or any other. GarrettTalk 23:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The game/TV/movie/album/book/llama-related articles aren't the issue here. Book covers, posters, CD covers, and that sort of thing aren't the problem. They will stay. The problem is the potential for abuse. Really, any fairuse image that can be recreated by a Wikipedian with a camera should go. The others should be checked over and given more spacific tags. Gwk 23:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
ahhhhh, so only things where there IS a free-license equivalent will be deleted, ahhhhh... I see now. That makes much more sense. :)
In that case yes I support this proposal... BUT how do we go about finding these "non-free but could be" images, other than trawling through the "what links here" of various templates by hand? GarrettTalk 23:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is any other way to do it, as far as I know. The Wikipedia:Untagged images might be of some use. Gwk 23:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Create a bunch of "fair use with rationale" tags, similar to the existing {{albumcover}} and {{movieposter}}, and move all the images that are currently tagged with {{fairuse}} to one of those tags, or to IfD. A project similar to the original tagging project should be able to handle this. --Carnildo 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I was going to propose this myself, but you got there first. We should carefully define "fair uses" that are acceptable to Wikipedia (perhaps with the help of Jimbo and the legal mailing list), and create tags only for those uses, and disallow {{fairuse}} itself. The creation of PD sub-tags helped with those images. I agree that another image tagging project would make relatively short work of this -- not easy, but relatively short, compared to how long we could spend arguing over individual copyvios. — Catherine\talk 01:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering what we should do with Wikipedia:Fair use. It's not policy, but, could it be, abeit with changes? Gwk 00:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, we all know how tentative "fair" use is, and how much it's being abused here with hi-res covers etc., so I think it needs a heap of rewording before it can even be a proposed policy. Right now, you'd never have the consensus to make it through. Maybe some examples to agree upon would be good, even if it comes down to us saying "covers 160px wide or smaller are OK but nothing higher" or something. GarrettTalk 01:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
This proposal needs help -that's for sure. I expected to meet a lot of opposition with this, and I don't expect these ideas will even be brought to some kind of poll. It would be rather nice to at least try and solve the problems with the existing policy, though. BTW: this page isn't limited to the ideas I've come up with -we need as much input as possible. Gwk 01:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
A standard CD cover is 4.75 inches on a side. Standard screen resolution is 96dpi, which looks good on a screen, but absolutely awful when printed. This gives a size of 450 pixels. For most fair-use images, this would make a good maximum size. --Carnildo 06:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Basically a good idea. Fair use is a bit hazy at times, and thus requires some investigation on our part. I've seen people upload an image, then after seeing it deleted as copyvio simply upload it again with a fairuse tag; clearly that behavior is undesirable. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

  1. Nothing thats smacks of deletion of large numbers of fair use images will ever get consensus, at least not until the Borad of Trustees decides that were really taking too much of a risk by continuing to allow them (remember that fair use is a defense under US law, it does not exist in other jurisdictions).
  2. The requirement for informing the uploader and allowing a lag time make this sound much more like a listing on WP:IFD than speedy deletion. So lets just leave it at that, list on IFD and inform uploader.
  3. Wikipedia:Satellite images is ready and waiting for your edits!
  4. Oppose. WP:PUI and WP:CP have distinct roles (and distinct sets of users who participate). I think they still serve a purpose seperately, and their trafic can only increase as a stricter line is taken on image tagging.
  5. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial_images for the current policy on these: the tag descriptions at WP:ICT have been changed to reflect this.
  6. They already are, at WP:ICT.
  7. Not sure there is much point in this, nor that it would get consensus.
  8. Oppose. "Unencyclopedic" is too subjective a term. Send them to WP:IFD if you wish.
  9. Support on the grounds that text in images usually looks lousy, but this ay be construed as instruction creep.
  10. Support idea of 500 pixel maximum width for all fair use images.

Phew! Good luck! As I have said elsewhere, I think the way forward is to create a WikiProject or a family of WikiProjects (one for each major type of image copyright) to do this: much of what needs to be done is simply applying current policy and best practice. Physchim62 17:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] updating the list

Hope you don't mind, but I've added some (marked) comments to the list. I think you should remove your own identity from it completely so we can all pitch in and alter or stipulate or extend or whatnot without it looking like our edits are what you said. GarrettTalk 01:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Gwk 01:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think your point three is both too specifc and too drastic. many of the images at Google Earth are in fact USGS images, and so are PD. These images should require a source and a proper tag as any others, but when a commercial site uses PD images (as it is perfectly free to do) we should not in effect grant them ownership of what actually belongs to everyone. DES 16:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Most of the images on Google Earth, including those of US territory, are from EarthSat or DigitalGlobe, although they have other copyrighted sources such as MassGIS and the State of New Jersey. They may even use some USGS data, but there is no way of telling, short of finding the equivalent image at the USGS. And once we have found the equivalent image, we can then use it with a source which everyone is confident in, and an image description which is far more detailed than Google provides. The images are pretty bad, the copyright status is more than uncertain, and they donh't want us to copy them, there is no good reason to use Google satellite images at all. Physchim62 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)