Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Untagged images

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quadell (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 20 February 2005 (→Victoria Cross Images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia talk:Untagged images/archive

oggs?

What are all these ogg files doing in the Image namespace? They belong in the Media namespace, don't they? Should we bother trying to get tags for these as well? -℘yrop (talk) 23:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think those are two different names for the same namespace, but I could be wrong about that. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

My incredibly stupid question

I've been on wikipedia for two years but I'm a words guy, not a pictures guy, so I've never done a thing with images ... so here's my stupid question: How do you tag an image? Where do you put the notice - do you edit the image page and just plonk it down at the bottom? - DavidWBrooks 15:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Baicaly, yes, all you have to do is to go to that images image page (click on link on list, or on image itself if in artical), and then hit edit. it brings up the normal edit pain, just like any other artical, where you add the tag(s). hope that helps tooto 19:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Screenshots?

If its a screenshot, does the copyright belong to the software desiner, web page creator, ect. OR the person who took the screenshot? eg. Image:BitTorrent download.jpg Is there any advise for this kind of thing, anyere. or any other kind of sanirio based advise, eg images created from other images, like maps?

Screenshots should be tagged with the {{screenshot}} tag. I don't know who owns the copyright, but that tag covers it. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified

Could people please check what they're tagging? I got a remark that I should really put the licensing information with my image, because it now was tagged 'unverified' when I had already put "Material from this source may be used with acknowledgement of the source." Seems like licensing information to me? - Andre Engels 00:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a way "may be used with acknowledgement of the source" could be expressed using one of the existing templates, such as maybe {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-2.0}}? --MarkSweep 01:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's a {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|...}} tag. Just say {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|the source is acknowledged}} or something.

"Personal" GFDL tags?

What about {{User:Halibutt/GFDL}} – will that satisfy the automatic sorting? Or should {{GFDL-small}} be added to the description page, too? See Image:Przemysl Voivodship 1975.png and many others by the same contributor. (BTW, is his demand that his name accompany any use of the image compatible with the GFDL?) --Kbh3rd 03:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The {{User:Halibutt/GFDL}} tag will work fine, now that I added Category:GFDL images to it. His demand is, in fact, not compatible with the GFDL. Since the images are clearly licensed under the GFDL, it would be up to a re-user to decide whether to follow that demand (really a request) or not. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 15:40, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons?

How to handle images that don't have a Wikipedia description page, but are on http://commons.wikimedia.org/, such as Image:Potala Palace.jpg? It's properly licensed there, but I assume it's showing up in the lists here because the scan didn't find a tag on a Wikipedia description page. Just delete it from the list? Create a description page? - Kbh3rd 19:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Just delete it from the list. It's showing up here because at the time the scan was run, the image was here without a tag. Now it has a tag on the Commons. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:27, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Non-image files

Hello all,

Recently a user added a {{gfdl}} tag to Image:Wikipedia.vim. This file is not an image (it's a syntax file for the vim text editor), and it wasn't specified anywhere that the file was GFDL—if anything, the comment "published on Wikipedia and declared authorless" would seem to make it more of a public domain file. Is there any set standard for files which aren't images? I added a {{pd}} tag, but I just thought people should be a little more careful about tagging files without any specific license attached. --bdesham 15:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I've been tagging non-image media files the same way I tag image files (with PD, GFDL, unverified, etc.) I guess that's the best solution for now. It's kind of odd, because it gives the file a category like "public domain images" or somesuch, but it's the best solution for now, I guess. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:35, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Images that aren't there anymore

I've noticed that some people have been setting aside images that aren't there anymore like Image:Wood_sorrel_thumbnail.jpg. Personally I've just been deleting these from the list. Have I been doing it wrong. Evil Monkey → Talk 20:58, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • These images can be speedily-deleted. Sysops can just delete them, or non-sysops can mark them with the "delete" tag. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:20, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Un-used images

The Image_copyright_tags page says that un-used images my get a {{Dead-image}} tag, but the Dead-image template says something else (...missing or corrupt image...)

I see, I misread the tag description on Image_copyright_tags as no page association, when it actually says no file association. Duk 02:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How should un-used images be tagged? How sould an un-used image, with no information and a long-gone user be tagged?

Duk 23:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about {{ifd}} as per WP:IFD? Especially if another version of the same image already exists and is in active use. --MarkSweep 00:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For images that are the same as another I've been adding {{deletebecause|this is a thumb of [[the other image]]}} as per the Candidates for speedy deletion page which states:
An image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else, either on
Wikipedia or on the Commons, and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being 
retained.
Evil Monkey → Talk 00:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Screen shots, GNU

Are screen shots made from GNU GPL programs still {{screenshot}} fairuse, or are they something else? EyeBall 18:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure, but up intill now ive taged them with whatether copyright that programs under, unless it says anything on there website (eg, firefox's logos are copyrighted). the trobble is that there are too many stiuatins like these, i wish life was simmpler.. ;-> tooto
The copyright status of screenshots of GNU programs has never been satisfactorily ironed out. See, it's not just GNU: the data is displayed on the screen using a driver, and the menus are often copyrighted by the OS, and any data displayed could be copyrighted by the data's owner. Wikipedia's policy for now is to tag all computer screenshots as fair use. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:20, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

What about those bleepin' stamps?

From the other copyright pages I gather that USPS postage stamps are copyrighted, and that the USPS protects those copyrights. So what should we be doing with images such as Image:Katzkids.jpg where it's being used for the subject of the stamp's picture, not the stamp itself – doesn't sound like a fair-use arguement to me. Mark them for deletion? Kbh3rd 05:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

USPS stamps designed in 1978 or later are copyrighted. The situation before 1978 is a bit murky; here's one opinion: [1]. You could tag stamps as {{Nonfreedelete}}, in which case they should automatically get listed for deletion after a while. --MarkSweep 07:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Stamps, coins, and coats of arms are my nemeses. They all should be public domain, in a just world, but they're not. (Or not all.) And the research it takes to determine if that Zambian coin or Czechoslavakian stamp is copyrighted or not. . . yuck!
For US stamps, the copyright (when it exists) is not enforced. I think you could make a fair-use claim based on that fact. But IANAL. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 12:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
There is a relatively recent template for USPS stamps after 1978: you can use {{USPSstamp}}. --MarkSweep 23:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If all else fails, why not use {{stamp}}? RedWolf 19:36, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Library Of Congress images

Hi, can someone explain what I should be doing with images from the US Library Of Congress where the date is known? For example: Image:1883miltoncounty.jpg where the uploader has written "Milton County, Georgia; 1883; Library of Congress". Obviously whoever drew the map is now dead, but I'm not certain of the correct tag to use. {{PD}}? Oliver Lineham 02:50, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Short answer: {{PD}}, and perhaps leave comment on image talk page. The issue can be revisisted later and the tag refined appropriately. Longer answer below. --MarkSweep 05:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You could search the catalog of the Prints & Photographs division of the LoC [2]; if you do, please cite the LoC reproduction number on the image description page like the LoC asks us to do and also because it makes life easier for future editors. The LoC should tell you if there are known restrictions on publication, either on the catalog page for the image or on the "rights and reproductions" page for the collection the image belongs to. If the LoC says "no known restrictions", I usually tag them as follows:

  • The artist is known and died more than 100 years ago: tag it as {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}} (I'm not sure if these tags are interchangeable); see Image:Gcrook.jpg for an example.
  • The artist is known and died more than 70 years ago: tag it as {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-art-life-70}}.
  • The artist is known and died more than 50 years ago: tag it as {{PD-old-50}} or {{PD-art-life-50}}.
  • The artist is alive or died less than 50 years ago, but the image was published before 1923: tag it as {{PD-art-US}}.
  • The artist is known and died less than 50 years ago: tag it as {{PD}} in those situation where certain reproduction rights were explicitly transferred to the LoC (e.g. Image:KayBoyle.jpg) or where the exact legal situation is unclear but the LoC asserts it believes the image to be in the public domain (e.g. Image:Laurenceolivier.jpeg). Using {{PD-USGov}} might be more appropriate, but I'm not sure if it applies to works whose copyright was transferred to the LoC.
  • The artist is known and (alive or died less than 50 years ago) and the LoC says that reproduction and publication is restricted: list it on WP:IFD.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that at least one collection of the Prints & Photographs division has its own tag, namely {{HABS}}. (Hmm, it appears that some images with that tag, like Image:Malcolm-x.jpg, are not actually part of the HABS collection.) I suppose one could add similar templates for images from other frequently used collections, like the Civil War photographs or the Brady-Handy collection. I have a few quick links to frequently used collections on my user page. --MarkSweep 04:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, that clears things up for me. Did you just write the above, or did I miss it when I searched before asking the question? --Oliver Lineham 05:59, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

This was me rehashing some of the things on WP:ICT as they apply to LoC images. However, I'm still confused about what the difference is between {{PD-art}} and {{PD-old}} etc. --MarkSweep 06:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, they mean the same thing, essentially. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mathematical images

At what point does a mathematical formula become a picture?

Formulae are not copyrightable (but IANAL) even if they are original. but how about Image:PartitionLattice.jpg or commutative diagrams?

Zeimusu 02:58, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Dunno. There are some easy cases, like old images of formulas from before the days of TeX markup support, which can be listed for deletion. One rule of thumb is, are the ideas expressed in the image/diagram part of common knowledge? How much artistic freedom did the creator of the image have? If the diagram is derived from common knowledge and can only be expressed meaningfully in a handful of ways, it's probably ineligilbe for copyright, i.e. {{PD-ineligible}}. For Image:PartitionLattice.jpg one could argue that there aren't many ways the same information could be depicted; however, if you consider all permutations of the intermediary nodes, there are more than 3 million ways to arrange them. Perhaps it's best to wait what the person who originally uploaded it has to say. --MarkSweep 03:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

official governor's portraits

The image Image:Spessard Holland 2.jpg is according to the appropriate article the official governor's portrait of Spessard Holland, and appear to be the same image as here, [3], which seems to agree with that. I wondered if there is a particular copyright status to such paintings, and photos of them. I've tried contacting the uploader Neutrality, to upload the appropriate tags, but so far, he's just put up a {{PD-art}} tag, which would imply the painter died more than 100 years ago, in 1904, when Spessard Holland was only 12. Also, this might apply to other paintings of Governor's, and other public figures. Silverfish 13:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inmate Photograph

Does anyone know the copyright status of images like Image:EdwardHartman.jpg, which is a mugshot of an inmate. Evil Monkey → Talk 23:50, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. However, on the source website [4], there is a copyright notice, so I suspect it is copyrighted by the North Carolina Department of Corrections. If it is copyrighted, though, I think it could be fair use. Josh 09:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Pictograms.png

Any ideas as to whether this is copyrighted. Evil Monkey → Talk 08:07, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I mean ... Isn't it copyrighted as soon as someone creates it? You could always leave a message on the uploader's talk page to find out where he got it from.--MaxPower 18:13, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

James Clark statue picture

What should I do with this picture?

As I said on the image description page, it looks like it is from here. I would think that it would be copyright-free, being on a government site, but in fact their FAQ says:

"Photographs from the records of the Architect of the Capitol may be used for scholarly or educational purposes; they are not made available for promotional or advertising purposes. For information about ordering images and permission to publish, please send a letter identifying the image that you would like to use and the purpose for which you wish to use it to:
The Honorable Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Architect of the Capitol
U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515"

I added the non-commercial license tag. Should I list it for deletion too? Josh 19:50, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've been adding noncommercial tags and leaving them at that. They are tagged and categorised so can be found easily anyway to deal with at a later date.Evil Monkey → Talk 07:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Automated conversion

Dunno what to do with Image:Cgisf-tgg.png as there's no original uploader given, just "automated conversion". What's with that? - Kbh3rd 06:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Public domain but restricted ?!?

What's with this: "While they are considered public domain, we need to be sure that the images are not used for proprietary purposes," as used in reference to this image. Unless I don't understand what "public domain" means, they may ask that PD images are used in a certain way, but they have no right, no copyright, to make any demand. Is it they or I that do not understand what "public domain" means? - Kbh3rd 05:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, your reasoning is correct. If an image is in the public domain, it can have no copyright restrictions. Although with government images, there may be other laws unrelated to copyright that regulate the use of an image. Those may be the things to which the letter referred. I would recommend using the {{PD-USGov-DOE}} tag, while listing the particular requirements that they specified on the image description page. Of course, it is possible that I am completely wrong about this, but hopefully that is not the case. Josh 10:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I do know that although NASA images are PD there can be restrictions if they show a recognisable person as then you have other (privacy?) issues I think.Evil Monkey → Talk 10:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
And there are all kinds of people that upload images and tag them without understanding copyright very well. One image said "This is a public domain image, fair use." Huh? There are also sites like this that give contradictory information. I quote: "The Artchive includes both public domain and copyrighted works of art. The copyrighted works are presented under the Fair Use Provision of the Copyright Act. . . You are free to use up to five or six images from the site for any personal non-profit, educational purpose." But of course, whether the images are Public Domain or used under the fair use provision, he isn't the copyright holder and has no legal right to limit the use of the images. (He also admits "I am not an intellectual property attorney".) I guess, in these cases, you should just use your head. – Quadell (talk) (help) 13:36, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

"fair use" images

I have re-read some of fair use and it seems to indicate that simply stating "fair use" on the image description page does not automatically make it so. When declaring fair use, the uploader MUST also provide details on source and why they consider it fair use. Otherwise, I don't believe the fair use tag can be applied to the image even though the uploader claimed "fair use". If there is agreement, is there a tag specific for this situation that can be used instead or simply tag it as "unverified"? RedWolf 18:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. You're right about "fair use", of course, and I don't upload "fair use" images without providing detailed source and usage info. For me, if the uploader said it's fair use, I generally tag it fair use unless I'm sure fair use doesn't apply. (Similarly, if an uploader said a pic is Public Domain, I tag it PD unless I'm sure it's not.) I know at some point we'll need to comb through all the images tagged as fair use to figure out which ones pass. Until then, I'm not sure. You could tag them unverified, and leave a note that the uploader claims fair use. Or you could tag it fair use and assume we'll go back later. Or you could make a {{fairusedebatable}} for the purpose. I don't know which is best. – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:58, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Error 404

Is it OK to just delete, or should I {{delete}} image files such as Image:Greenlandarms333.PNG that lead to the dreaded "404"? Also, should we work from the bottom or top of the list? hydnjo talk 19:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to speedily-delete missing or corrupted images. It's also fine to delete thumbnails of larger images, if they are also orphans. I've been listing questionables on ifd as I go, killing 2 birds with one stone, as it were.
As for working from the top or the bottom, either way works just fine. I often go through and click on the ones that sound like interesting titles and tag those. (I just have to remember to remove those specific ones from the list.) Whatever works for you. – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Does speedily-delete mean to use the {{delete}} template? hydnjo talk 03:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. You can also use {{db|empty/broken image}} for empty and/or broken images (or to provide some other reason for speedy deletion). For thumbnails and duplicate images you can use {{isd|other_image.jpg}}. --MarkSweep 11:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Music notation

How is musical notation copyrighted? Say a song is still under copyright but a user creates a picture of a section of the musical notation? Duk 20:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say if you show a few bars for purposes of illustration it falls under Fair Use. If it's something generic like just a key signature or the shape of a note or rest, I've tagged those as {{PD-ineligible}}. --MarkSweep 21:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes. . . If it is copyrighted, then a few bars should be fair use. And single notes are ineligible. But the specific question, I think, is: if person A owns the copyright to a song, and person B creates sheet music for it, is person B violating person A's copyright? I have no idea, but I'm also curious. – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:42, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Not a lawyer, but an arrangement of a tune as sheet music is a derived work, so if the original is under copyright, so is the sheet music. BTW, Does anyone know of any GFDL or cc-sa musicZeimusu 00:30, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
There's a particulary trendy album at http://creativecommons.org/wired/ – Quadell (talk) (help) 20:09, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

french help

Image:Castaneda-Vedrine.jpg states; ... According to the website, "The photographs in this exhibition are free of copyright abroad and may be reproduced with the obligatory credit "Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Photographic Service": http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/photos/diplo/usa/mexique18.html#photo

  • does this imply that the image is free only when used abroad?
  • Also, if credit is obligatory is it really copyright free?

Duk 19:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that's freeuseprovided. It's not copyright free, but the copyright holder seems to only be demanding the moral right of accrediation. Zeimusu 00:35, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Fair use

There will be a lot under the variants of {{fairuse}}. IMHO it would be a good thing if somehow each and every one of those could be vetted. There seem to be many people who use "fair use" to mean, "I like this picture and want to use it, regardless." To be done right, though, the review would have to be done by fair use "experts" of some variety. -- Kbh3rd 04:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree that fair use has been applied far to liberally. As well as this there alot of images that have been tagged fair use that nned specific tags like DVDcover and money. And then there are the images tagged PD that should have specific PD tags like PD-USGov-NASA. Evil Monkey → Talk 09:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I concur as well that the fair use claim has been abused. Unless an image is one of the established fair use image (e.g. album cover, screenshot) and the uploader has not provided the rationale for their fair use claim (as required when making this claim), they should be marked with a new tag. For example {{fairuse-nr}} which would state that the uploader claimed fair use but did not provide the rationale required for make this claim. The tag would put them into a separate category so they can be reviewed and probably a lot of them deleted. RedWolf 00:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I think what's happened is that fair use has become an easy cop out. People see it as a reason and then go...well hey...anything I put out there can be labeled as fair use. So I don't have to put a reason out there...just slap fair use on there and wallah...all solved. It's what happens alot on Wikipedia...laziness...so yep...if you run into a fair use tag, double check it. --Woohookitty 08:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The new batch

This new batch has a lot more junk in it, if I may say so. For images that aren't used, if they either have no source/copyright info or are only usable as fairuse, I'll like to recommend that we list them on IFD. ("Fair use" doesn't apply when there's no use, and I've been listing unverified orphans on IFD anyway, so it would save me some work.) There are also lots of cases where a page will have 20+ fair use images, which really strains the fair use justification. (One screenshot in an article is fair, 20 are probably not.) Consider putting excess pics like these on IFD as well. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

New templates

I've made up two new templates, and I thought I'd share, in case they're useful to you. My ordinary template works fine for newbies, but for long-time Wikipedians (who may have tagged some other of their images), I like to use this:

Hello. I was [[Wikipedia:Untagged images|image tagging]], when I came across [[:]]. I was unable to determine the copyright status, so I tagged it as "unverified". Could you add a proper [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|image copyright tag]] to it? Pictures without tags will eventually be deleted. Thanks, ~~~~

Also, for people who have ignore several requests before to tag their images, I use this:

== Warning: your images could get deleted ==

You don't seem to be responding to image copyright questions. If we can't determine the copyright statuses of your images, they will soon be deleted. They're good images, and we'd like to keep them around. Please let me know the source and copyright information for the images people have asked you about above. ~~~~

I hope these are helpful. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:18, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dumb Question

I have only been working on Wikipedia for 2 months, so bear with me. I saw the "Mysterious Redirects" section where for some reason, there are images that are being redirected to various wiki main pages. I have a question. How the hell do you fix that? :) I know there has to be a way and I'd like to learn. --Woohookitty 06:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Those images have been made that way specifically for use on the Main Page or such I think, so before 'fixing' it you'd probably want to check talk. But, get the URL by right-clicking on the thumbnail image, and then paste it in your address bar and append &redirect=no to it. 119 06:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No I wasn't going to touch it. I just wanted to know how because I've seen before where a page is linked to another page and there is no visible redirect. So I was just wondering how that's fixed. Thanks. :) --Woohookitty 08:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Victoria Cross Images

There are at least 500 Victoria Cross images in the lists. How should they be handled? Every one of them are from the Victoria Cross Reference Site. We should probably use one common tag...which one? --Woohookitty 00:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The owner of the site is voluntarily migrating the entire site over to Wikipedia. So the images are GFDL if the webmaster owns the copyright to the images. If he doesn't then I'm not sure. You could e-mail him at temp@victoriacross.net and ask. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Untagged_images&oldid=10447836"