Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] First draft

As you can see, this is a very rough draft. What I hope is having this proposal polished as soon as possible, so that we can focus on what is really important: replacing fair use images with free ones. -- ReyBrujo 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! Although I would hope most of the actual images end up on commons, the usage work is en:-specific. I'd suggest a different title, like "Image Coverage", or maybe just "Images", a little less strident. :-) Somewhere in the steps should be a commons check, because the other WPs are of necessity adding quite a few free celebrity photos there, probably more than people here realize. Stan 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, since I thought about this for the first time until creating the draft, I considered doing this at Commons directly. However, I believe that the English Wikipedia is better because a) it has a largest userbase; b) appears to consider "fair use" a rule and not the exception; c) I believe users at Commons don't need to be educated, but users here do need; and d) I am a pretty new user at Commons, and still need time to learn about its structure :-) About the name, there is no problem. I was thinking about stressing the "free" part (WikiProject Freedom was a nice name, but one that would likely be just "too" strident. And as for Commons check, of course, images obtained here should be uploaded at Wikipedia Commons, unless the copyright owners put some kind of restriction. Thanks for the feedback! -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in helping, just having a little trouble keeping up with everything right now. Anyway, now on my watch list and I'll try to join in. -- Donald Albury 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better idea for name

This dovetails nicely with the replaceability guidelines I've been drafting. I will link to it from there.

But we could use a better name ... I was thinking of starting such a project and calling it "Image replacement" since the primary goal would be securing replacements for our replaceable fair-use images. Daniel Case 07:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections at all. And WP:IR is free as shortcut even! -- ReyBrujo 15:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:IR is now Irish Republicanism --Lexein 01:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I will continue creating the subpages using WikiProject Free Images as root for convenience (I have posted the user link in several places). Once the proposal is mature, we can move everything to the Wikipedia namespace. This way, we can also have some more time for new names to appear. -- ReyBrujo 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steps

I have added a list of steps to create a formal flow of data through the WikiProject. Basically, an announcement board is used to, well, announce a request. This is to prevent clashes with other members, and to have a certain "timeline" to process older requests and articles without free images first. Once a request is "approved" (it has been agreed the image is necessary and someone becomes the "contact" for that image), a subpage for the company is created following a certain template if it still does not exist, and a subpage for the request. In the request subpage all the conversation between the parts is logged with date and time (ideally the mailing should be posted there too, but it is possible to keep that information between both parties and only post what had been agreed, much like the abuse reports). Finally, once the petition is finished (successfully or not) the petition itself is "closed" with a set of templates similar to {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} to remark it is innactive. If the contact was successful, the image/s obtained should be displayed in a gallery at the bottom of the petition page and in a gallery inside the company's page. This way, it should be possible to offer them a page where they can check the images they had freed, the contact information (in case they need to update that), and the name of the users who had worked with them in the past.

Well, that is at least my thought. Anyone can add some more ideas, polish the flow, or optimize it? -- ReyBrujo 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An idea

It might be interesting to, at some place within this project, have someone explain in detail not only the difference between fair use and free images (it really is sometimes clear as mud on some of the pages), but also to put flat out why this is such a deal. Specifically, if Wikipedia has ever been sued for copyright infringement over the use of images. And if Wikipedia hasn't, then examples of other sites being sued would be helpful. Never mind my personal view on the topic (I feel things are unnecessarily strict as it is), if people encounter a new - or even experienced - wiki-editor asking "why should be go through all this extra effort?", then to pass on a link to a Wikiproject Free Images page explaining how in November 2004 Wikipedia had to pay the Joe Blow Publicity Company $10,000 in a court settlement over infringement (just an example I made up) it might make it a stronger case. I hope I'm making sense. 23skidoo 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. Please come by and state your views. Thanks, Johntex\talk 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going live

Are there plans to move this out of userspace anytime soon? I think it would be a great project.--Pharos 06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I always wondered whether people did not like the idea, or if it was not getting enough advertisement. I guess it is time to give it a try. -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. I love uploading FU images, yet believe we should replace all the FU images we can with free images. As long as this isn't an attack on FU itself, I hope it succeeds. I guess, post a notice here when you do attempt to make a project. - Peregrine Fisher 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea is to coordinate efforts when requesting free images to replace fair use ones. As I stated many times, I am against the "delete every fair use image because there must be a free equivalent somewhere", but agree with the end, that Wikipedia should use as few fair use images as possible (ideally, only logos and other impossible-to-get images). -- ReyBrujo 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has been formally proposed

I've just discovered this project has already been formally proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject Free images. Everyone interested please sign up now. And, by the way, I think "WikiProject Free images" is a fine name.--Pharos 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I did that some time ago, and so far, there were no objections :-) I think we can just "activate" it, and if it does not work, mark it as historical (which is why I haven't yet moved it to the main space). -- ReyBrujo 00:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I think I'm going to activate this. Do you mind if I use WikiProject Free images, because "image replacement" is kind of narrow and suggests the project will only be replacing fair use images, when in fact it should be adding quality free images everywhere, not just in articles that already have fair use pics.--Pharos 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. As you notice, it was renamed after I got some suggestions to do so. Feel free to publish it as Free Images, if we need to rename it later we can just do it. -- ReyBrujo 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the start of what I hope will be a very successful and popular project! Jkelly 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we lose nothing trying :-) I think we need to create some templates to allow creating contact pages faster (like the RfA one), and a petition template. The one I sent to Arch Enemy did not work as expected (aka, no reply at all). -- ReyBrujo 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you send it personally, or through the foundation? Perhaps we could make an actual experiment with different form letters and see which approach works best. In my own experience also, individuals or small organizations may be more generous than establishment-type groups — perhaps we could try writing to fan clubs as well as publicists?--Pharos 04:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You can see it here. I sent it signing with my own name, as I was hoping to get at least a free image before making the project live (as in, "Look, it is possible and easy!" :-)). Jimbo agreed (hopefully he hasn't changed his opinion) to send a formal letter to any organization to request free images as long as we created the mail. However, as you can see, I am not that good at convincing people with a mail... -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently tried to get a photograph of a rare mammal. I wrote to two conservation organizations, and the smaller one was much more willing to help, although they didn't have a photo on hand. Anyway, this is the substance...
I am a volunteer editor at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  
[Discuss importance of conservation topics]  Specifically, we'd
like to be able to show a photograph of X for
our readers.  We have very strict copyright standards though, and, as
a "free content" resource, cannot use images by permission only or
that anyone else wouldn't be free to use.  So far, the only image we
have is [some lame picture].

[Wikipedia article URL]

I would be very helpful, if you own a photograph of X,
to make it available under a "free content" license like the Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license, so that anyone could use
it, so long as it was attributed to you and any changes to it also
could not be restrictively copyrighted.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
I got a positive response from this letter, but no photo yet (they said they might be able to acquire one in a month or so). I would recommend keeping the copyright discussion as simple as possible, and sticking to one suggested license, the CC-BY-SA-2.5 which gives them more "protection" than some other free licenses, and is very compatible with photos (which the GFDL isn't). Reading your letter, it also strikes me that we're going to be making different sorts of appeals to, say, metal bands and conservation groups --Pharos 05:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Pharos, in no important way is the GFDL less strict than CC-By-SA-2.5, so copyright holders should be willing to release under both. It would be nice to ask them to dual license as our opening request. The importance of this is that it is technically not legal to combine third party GFDL and CC-By-SA works. The rule is widely ignored, but it would be nice to preserve the flexibility while we can. --Gmaxwell 06:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, my only concern would be that too much technical language (having to agree to two licenses, rather than just one), might scare some folks away. Of course logically if they agree to one, why not both, but that's not always how things work out. At the least we should have a single foundation page we could link to, explaining our recommended copyright licensing regimen — without the complication of multiple choices.--Pharos 06:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. My hope is that we'd ask for both, and then back off if we must get into a complex discussion. ... If we're only going to ask for one, frankly from Wikipedia's perspective we should probably be asking for GFDL, but we'll never get consensus around asking for just one I think. --Gmaxwell 07:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a comment. I used a letter similar to this before (for the image at Morningwood). As you can see, he agreed to release it freely but also called it "the wordiest photo request i've ever received". I would recommend toning it down some (the tone is very formal) and removing the part about Alexa. I think most people know more about Wikipedia than they do Alexa. ShadowHalo 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly comment

This is an extremely silly comment, which is not really about the aim of the WikiProject: any objection about modifying the list of participants to have an alphabetically sorted list? I always find the list of participants (sorted by date of joining) pretty silly, because it is not important when you did join, but instead that you did join, and makes everyone "equal". As a trivia item, that is why I am member of WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Dragonlance, but not WikiProject Spam (although I fully support it with my own dump analysis). -- ReyBrujo 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure, fine with me. Oh, and I did actually feel kind of uncomfortable signing this first, when you actually started the whole project. If you wanna switch places that'd be cool with me too :)--Pharos 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If no one joins the project whose name starts with A till F, I am fine with it.... :) Garion96 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free images from works of fiction

Hi. I know this project is mainly dealing with images of living persons right now, but how I'd like to see a generic letter that we could send to request GFDL release of book covers, DVD covers, screenshots, etc. This kind of thing would be most likely to be successful if sent to the rights owners of works with few contractual strings. An author and illustrator of a novel would be simpler to convince than a whole list of people who get gross points from the screening of TV episodes. Is this too far-fetched, or does it sound reasonable? --GunnarRene 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Too far-fetched I'm afraid. No publishing house or record company would release covers and screenshots under a free license. Plus an illustrator of a novel looses (some or all) of her rights to the publishing house, so can't decide anymore to release under a free license. Now, publicity images yes, they might release those under a free license.Garion96 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not so, I'll have to check the archives, but I know at least one major video game developer that allows screen shots of their game to be under the GFDL. Most don't have to even go that far. Slowly, but surely, major companies are starting to understand that they need not fear such concepts as the GFDL, especially since it would be only images they choose and wouldn't impact the over-all product. Remember when the music industry feared online music, and now we have many actually successful online music stores. Times are changing, and younger producers and creators are entering the field that don't fear the GFDL. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ubisoft allows screenshots to be used in any way, yes, as long as the screenshot has been taken by the user himself (as far as I remember). I agree with Garion96 that publicists are more likely to release a promotional image than an ingame screenshot or a book cover under a free license. Personally, I think they are more likely to do so with older products, so I guess it would be easier to convince NBC to release an image of Alf under a free license than to convince Bloomsbury Publishing to publish a free image of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. -- ReyBrujo 06:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classifying creativity

Reflecting above, I thought it would be a good idea to brainstorm on the different ways to use free images in articles on copyrighted works. If we had some guidelines, creativity in this manner could be a little more, uh, organized. So far, I've got (1) image of something that inspired the work, (2) image of something that was inspired by the work, (3) portrait of author or artist, (4) diagram explaining logic of the work, (5) image that depicts production of the work and (6) image that depicts use of the work. And for the separate issue of images for the mainpage FA box, there is also the possibility of generic icons representing the field of endeavor. Any other ideas?--Pharos 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Wikipedia:Free image resources?

This could possibly be merged, or at least expanded to include, Wikipedia:Free image resources. (See also my related suggestion at Template talk:Article resources)

Further up the page was a thread about boilerplate letters, so in case you missed it I'll point towards Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Hope that helps. :) --Quiddity 05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that is a cool WikiProject! This one in fact could be a task force of that one, because the idea of this one is to coordinate contacts to copyright owners. For now, let's keep these separated, until the scope of this one is polished. Thanks for letting us know! -- ReyBrujo 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Illustration

Hello. There's a related project on Wikpedia called WikiProject Illustration that seeks to improve the presence of Wikipedia's images. We would appreciate it if you put a link to us on your page -- it seems like these two projects have a lot in common. Thanks! MithrandirMageT 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :-) Nah, I will do it, but next time just do it, this is a wiki :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A problem with free images for film articles

One the one hand I like a lot your effort and would like to assist in every way I can. On the other, I would like to report a problem we have with free images in WP Films. Most images we can find are movie posters, DVD and VHS covers and they are all under Fair Use. We find them in film databases and commercial sites. Any posters needing special permits are not accepted (if discovered to be such they get tagged). Another member helping with providing fair use film related images has said recently he realizes his mistake in several cases and is reducing all his uploaded bigger poster images to below 300px. I have also seen some rare cases of huge posters presented under fair use. Well, a cleanup, hopefully bot assisted, is absolutely necessary. All fait use images should be scanned for size and edited/resized where necessary. But still, there are almost no free images available for our needs. Even a self made screenshot is not really free, as the copyright of all the film content belongs to the producing company. So we don't have any other choice. We have been lately offered the idea of finding free actors images, but for film articles this would be a problem (we already have some illustrated cast sections...) For biography articles this is a good idea, if the images are really free. But by far more often than in film images, person images get tagged for inappropriate licencing. If you know of any solution to this, please let me/us know. Hoverfish Talk 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know of one great shortcut for films. Trailers for American films from before 1964 were never separately copyrighted and are considered in the public domain. So, taking a screenshot from the trailer can be a very profitable option. See here.--Pharos 08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] camera

It seems like all users of wikipedia seem to forget this but instead of serching the web for an hour for a picture of somthing why don't they just take a picture of it themselves. Its a lot of work getting some company to agree to release a promotional advertisment for say a car but verry easy for a wikipedia user to walk into their garage and take one. I know that not everyone will have access to everthing we need a pict of but we have lots of members. Tell me if its stupid but it just seems like a better idea than begging and filling out forms to get an old picture that isn't that much better anyway. tell me if I am missing somthing but I don't think that there is a problem with this idea. Effilcdar 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures like those can be fulfilled at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. However, many pictures aren't going to get a response that way. For example, it'll be awhile before anyone can get a decent picture of Ashlee Simpson, but it might be possible to get someone to release one that's already been taken. ShadowHalo 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, someone has taken hundreds of free Simpson photos here. Effilcdar is right that there are still a considerable number of topics that could be illustrated fairly easily by user-created photos, but that we just haven't snapped yet, though the focus of this particular project is on topics that cannot be so simply illustrated. Wikipedia:Requested pictures systems do seem sort of dormant though, so maybe we could work out a better request system, based on local Wikiprojects or something.--Pharos 01:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talent agencies

Shouldn't we email all the big talent agencies like Creative Artists Agency and International Creative Management for images? I think if the right person read it, an explanation of the google rank and popularity of our web site might convince them to give us lots of images at one time. Has this been done before? - Peregrine Fisher 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. We should create a list of such agencies, create a draft of a letter, and ask Jimbo or the Foundation to send it in the Foundation name, which may be much more convincing than if sent by an anonymous editor. This is basically the idea of the WikiProject :-) -- ReyBrujo 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe something like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free images/Talent agencies. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You could create a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images/Contacts/Talent agencies, and then transclude it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images/Contacts, as I had been doing before. I doubt the lists will grow too big in the near future. -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need press accreditation

I think a top priority for us must be the establishment of a formal press accreditation system for photographers, like at n:Wikinews:Accreditation policy. Unfortunately, Wikinews, the only project that currently has such a system, seems to favor a "no outsiders" policy on this, and will not accredit anyone who is not active at Wikinews. A great candidate for such an accreditation would be User:DavidShankBone, who has recently been making fantastic contributions from the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival through a "Wikipedia" press pass he managed to negotiate on his own. How much more would we benefit if people like DavidShankBone could get regular access to press events?--Pharos 20:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, I have been thinking about this for quite a lot of time! I bought a good camera a month ago just for a recital I assisted yesterday, and while I managed to take some good pics (which I will be uploading to Commons once I fix red eyes), I would have taken better ones if I were on stage instead of 3 meters away. If I, who only assist to very specific concerts, maybe once per month, would have really enjoyed such pass (especially for taking pictures during conferences or promotional events, which are the only way to obtain a good quality picture of the whole group enough to match the fair use ones), what about the thousands who are able to assists to international festivals where plenty of useful images could be taken?
I would think there are several "special" situations, though: some events may not accept international accreditations, or may only accept them if handled by professional photographers. However, it would be a HUGE advantage for us, would really increase interest in free images, and would allow most editors to concentrate on content, knowing that a free image could be available whenever the subject is assisting to a public event covered by one of "our" photographers. I am all for it! -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support per nominator.  ;-) ShadowHalo 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

I recently created an article on the Canadian Advanced Nanospace eXperiment Program, and I have found several relavent images that I would like to include in the article; however, I'm not sure how to determine whether said images are "free" or not, and the help desk isn't helping. So, if anybody could tell me how to find out if a given image is free, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Vsst 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Usually, if there is not an explicit statement stating the images are in the public domain, they are copyrighted. However, it is possible the images you have found are in the public domain, as most times government images are not "copyrightable". You should contact the host of the images to ask whether he owns the copyright of the images. -- ReyBrujo 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. Thanks!Vsst 01:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent new essay on obtaining free content

Please folks, have a look at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content.--Pharos 05:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importing public-domain photos

I've recently stumbled across a few excellent sites for public domain photos, most of which are works of the U.S. Government. Is there a certain rhyme or reason to the way you want them uploaded? Or is it one of those things where I should just slip 'em into articles as they're needed? Consequentially 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend just uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons. That way, Wikipedias in other languages and other Wikimedia projects can use the images. The Commons acts as an image repository, so as long as the images have some merit (re: you're not using at as a place to store your vacation pictures), they don't have to be used in an article here. Just make sure to categorize the pictures so that people can find them when they're looking. 17Drew 09:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldmine

World Economic Forum 2007 photos at Flickr under CC-BY-SA 2.0. I suggest uploading to the Commons, but this is a nice find. Over 200 photos for our picking and using. They might even rival some of the PD items we have already, as I noticed for Rania of Jordan. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, pretty nice! I suggest we contact the uploader as a deference, and in case they are willing to provide higher resolutions. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
2007 doesn't have any high resolutions, but 2006 and earlier do have high resolutions. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'No Free Image' placeholder graphic

The current campaign to put a 'No Free Image' graphic (left) on all biographical pages (for living people?) has been controversial, and a long discussion on the issue has resulted here: here.

Is this matter within the scope of this project? I am asking this because we are considering where we should hold a full, centralized debate. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

Following on from the note (above) a centralized discussion has been started here: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This project

I think this project is a great idea but it seems to be fairly inactive at the moment and I'd like to start a discussion as to how it might be altered to increase activity. I suspect that one of the problems was that the complexity of the process dissuaded participation. I appreciate the need for documentation but I think a simpler process might yield better results. Another issue appears to have been attracting participants. I think attempting to work more closely with topic-based Wikiprojects (with this project coordinating) might cover more ground. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Apologies if something like this has already been suggested or if anyone is offended by the criticism of an outsider. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea was to use the WikiProject as a quick index to know which companies have licensed which images. The main problem is that few companies do that at all. Most of the free images I have gotten were from Flickr users. I agree that we can change the aim to find professional-looking images that from any person, not just companies. As for recruiting, we can announce the WikiProject in a few places, and offer services to find images for topics, but that would only create a huge backlog in no time. And would make the WikiProject a copy of Wikipedia:Requested pictures. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)