The center for all Wikitravel images!

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Image policy"

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search
(personal portrait for user page)
(personal portrait for user page)
Line 282: Line 282:
::Also see [[Image_policy#People_in_photos]], a specific template was created for this purpose: <nowiki>{{copyrighted}}</nowiki> &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 15:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also see [[Image_policy#People_in_photos]], a specific template was created for this purpose: <nowiki>{{copyrighted}}</nowiki> &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 15:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for help. I was not attentive enough to find a special notice in this article. For future readers, I created a subsection which is entirely about user-page personal photos. --[[User:DenisYurkin|DenisYurkin]] 07:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 11:39, 26 October 2008

Image sizes

I upped the limits on files sizes to reflect reality a little more. Let me know if there's anything wrong here. --Evan 12:29, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Looks works well. Riggwelter 19:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

People in photos

I think that the image policy item when it concerns people in photo's must be reviewed and preferably scrapped. As a tourist, it is virtually impossible to visit any attraction and take a picture without catching other people in the image...and the idea of asking them for permission to publish the image on Wikitravel is not reasonable. I do not think we need to be quite so paranoid about people in images. We can see it as something worth working for, but to see it as a major obstacle for publishing a photograph - no. Riggwelter 19:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if the people from travel magazines or books always ask the people they take photographs of. I doubt it. --Flip666 writeme! • 09:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but people working for a magazine know that it's going to be in only one magazine. Wikitravel guides are Open Source; they can and will be distributed far and wide, and our ability to control that distribution is pretty limited. We owe it to our downstream distributors to be diligent in clearing the rights to the works we publish, and we owe it to people who get their photos taken to protect their privacy. Because our guides are open source, the consequences are amplified significantly if we are sloppy.
You don't have to worry about unrecognizable people in a photo, or people in a crowd. But if the person is the main subject of the photo, in most countries they have a right to control how their image is published. I don't want my image published without permission, and I assume most people here don't either. We need to treat everyone with that same respect that we'd treat each other. --Evan 21:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
But of course! The person is not supposed to be the main content of the image anyway - which, I admit, is stated rather clearly in the policy. The reason I wanted to discuss this was that I felt that we were about start some crusade on all images with people in it, judging by the contribs to the travellers' pub. However, I was way too radical when I said that we should scrap the policy bit regarding people. Of course we should not, but the case needed clarification. A photographer could of course be working for an agency, thereby able to sell the image to plenty of various sources, which would mean a huge distribution and less control. That needs to be taken into consideration too. However, respect is of course the key issue. Riggwelter 05:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT) ...consider the "face in the crowd" picture shown and discussed earlier. In both cases, the subjects are identifiable, but there's another common element: they are either on public land, or are freely visible from public land. When such a condition exists, a new twist comes into play: Fair Use. This is actually a fairly complicated legal term that refers to many things. In the context of this discussion, one of the definitions of fair use includes a condition in which a person cannot assume a degree of privacy because he's in public space, which means that he can be photographed (and cannot stop the process).

Another of the Fair Use definitions is the use of copyrighted materials on public display. For example, a statue in a public square, or a painting on a wall in a public building are both copyrighted by the artists that made them. However, because they are in public space, you are free to photograph them, and to license those photos for editorial use without being subject to copyright infringement. Take note: the use is editorial, which means you can license the photo to a newspaper, but not to a company for use in an ad.Seth1066 14:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

This is precisely why we do not allow images uploaded here under terms of "fair use." According to our copyleft, all images must be reusable by anyone in any context, provided they give attribution to the authors. This includes the right for a company to use our images in an ad. --Peter Talk 13:06, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
Umm, no. "Fair use" is a copyright term, which means the limited re-use of others' copyrighted material for certain purposes even without permission. This concerns a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (or lack thereof), which is entirely unrelated. I've reverted your deletion and fixed the wording. Jpatokal 22:34, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure I understand your point. Fair use relates to limited reuse for certain purposes, whereas our copyleft requires that all content here be reusable without any limitations aside from proper attribution, for any purpose. The text I deleted was arguing that we can use content incompatible with our copyleft. But regardless, I don't have any problem with the text you have added to the image policy; I agree that the privacy issue has nothing to do with fair use. --Peter Talk 22:51, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
The CC license controls the copyright of the picture, it doesn't have any say on privacy rights. I can take a picture of you and, as the copyright holder of the picture, license it under CC by-sa 2.0. Somebody can take that picture, caption it "This guy eats babies" and publish it on the front page of the New York Times. As far as copyleft is concerned, that's perfectly OK; as far as privacy rights are concerned, it's not.
Let's continue this on Talk:Privacy rights. Jpatokal 00:19, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Why two different English language image policies?

Any reason not to merge en:Wikitravel:Image policy into Shared:Image policy then redirect the former to the latter? ~ 08:32, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Flickr, Privacy policy, etc.

We have been having this longstanding discussion about people in photos and recently we had a debate about Flickr users changing their licensing. These two elements have come together in an interesting case [1]. A photographer took a photogaph of a teenaged girl and published it on flickr using a cc license. The photographer was a friend of the girl and the photo was innocent. Virgin Mobile in Australia used the photo in an ad campaign.

The girl's parents have sued Virgin for violating her privacy and causing her emotional distress by having her image plastered in hoardings all over Australia. (also, as you can imagine, an ad campaign by Virgin will have some kind of pun on the word "virgin") They also accuse Virgin of infringing copyright even though the hoardings come with a URL going to the flickr user's homepage. I am not sure what the grounds are, exactly - perhaps the claim is that the licensing terms were not mentioned in the hoardings... Now when I go back to the photographer's page on Flickr, he seems to have changed all his licenses to "all rights reserved" and has made the specific photo private.

I think that this is more of a privacy policy issue than a copyright issue... And from what I understand, model release issues are hugely dependent on the specific context in which the images are used. It is entirely possible that an innocent image on Wikitravel causes no issues, but if the same image is published on the cover page of a Wikitravel Press book, it turns into a lawsuit. Also, we accept assertions from the contributers that a "verbal model release has been obtained". It might well be true, but it will not be clear what the model release is for. I think we need to think long and hard about protecting Wikitravel and also its downstream users, and we should also make sure to add proper disclaimers where it is clear that we cannot protect them. — 03:22, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I think the main point here is that it was the downstream user (Virgin) that is at fault and at the receiving end of the lawsuit. It does seem that Virgin was in full compliance with copyright laws, but not privacy laws. I do think that mistake is an easy one to make though, which is one reason why I favor keeping our content as universally free as possible—rather than allowing content that we can use for editorial purposes, but which downstream users could get in trouble for using. The bulk of the discussion here about this was at Talk:Privacy rights for anyone interested. As far as the photographer has "changed the licensing" on flickr, that won't have any bearing on the case or the "real licensing" of the photo, as the Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. So we could still use it here ;) --Peter Talk 03:48, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Wikimedia images

I'm really surprised that Wikimedia images can't be used on this project. It's such a major failing that it's just about a show-stopper for a travel wiki.

The whole point of Wikimedia is that it provides free, reusable images. Rights-controlled images are discouraged on Wikimedia. While I appreciate there are some risks, a blanket ban on Wikimedia content is a blunt instrument for managing rights issues. It's illogical and counter-productive. There are bots and things that can help in policing stuff like rights.

Worse still, it takes away a vital component for writing a travel wiki. I'm a major Wikipedia contributor and also to Wikimedia. To think that I have to go and upload images to yet another website is a deterrent to using this site.

Not a good policy, I recommend serious review! -- 07:18, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Sorry mate, but we're not a part of Wikimedia. We're an independent community with Internet Brands as the owner of the site, domain, and trademark. We use the CC-by-SA 1.0 license and our images must also be CC-by-SA 1.0 licensed or public domain. The reason you can't use Wikimedia files on Wikitravel is because Wikitravel is not a part of the WM Foundation. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 07:42, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
I seriously doubt you understood each other. IP obviously meant images on Wikimedia Commons by "Wikimedia images". With the exception of copyrighted WMF logos, those images don't belong to Jimbo or the WM Foundation at all, but to the respective rights owner or to the general public (in case of PD). Commons simply is a deposit for those images. It is an indispensable requirement for images put on Commons to be free for commercial use. Any image that can't also be used commercially has no place on Commons. Due to personality rights (not copyright) there may be restrictions in case of images of identifiable living persons, but that has little relevancy on WikiTravel. Anybody can use those images, provided the required copyright remarks are respected. Therefore, at least any image on Commons licensed by CC-by-SA 1.0 IMHO could be used on WikiTravel. Someone experienced in CC licenses might check whether that is also true for images carrying newer CC-by-SA license. Of course, if you took the image by yourself, it would make more sense to upload it to Commons and to WikiTravelShared. -- Túrelio 04:25, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Flickr license changing

Here we are again... another image is up for vfd, that I uploaded myself and know was ccbysa 2.0 when I uploaded it from Flickr. The user has now changed it to all rights reserved, which doesn't take away our right to use the image, but leaves us with no proof that it was ever ccbysa. What to do? I proposed it slightly before, but I'll do it louder this time: I think we need screen grabs of the flickr page to also be uploaded and linked to from the images. Unless someone has a better idea – cacahuate talk 19:14, 22 November 2007 (EST)

I don't think this is something we need to do, as in the case of a suit, it would be the uploader's liability and they could just subpoena flickr's records to prove their case. And needing to take screenshots (and to upload them as well) would seriously increase the amount of time it takes to raid flickr for photos—enough extra time where I would stop. Lastly, shared now actually does get some attention, and we've been pretty good about reviewing recently added photos—vfds are only likely to arise regarding older photos, which were uploaded long before the flickr user changed their displayed licensing. In these cases, so long as someone can vouch that the image was properly licensed, we should not delete it. --Peter Talk 21:23, 22 November 2007 (EST)
FWIW, instead of reinventing the wheel, check out the Commons:Flickr_images and its Talk page over on Wikimedia Commons. Basically, they've concluded that all Flickr images have to verified either by an admin, or by a bot, so copying that bot over to us might be a nice option. Jpatokal 22:21, 22 November 2007 (EST)
That's a great idea... a bot would obviously be ideal, but until one is written, how about creating a verification box template to be placed on the photo's page by an admin? – cacahuate talk 04:52, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Copyrighted images for special cases

So, I would like to propose that Wikitravel allow uploading copyrighted images for two special cases:

  1. Permission letters and model releases. For example, I now have a PDF file where the Tourism Authority of Thailand licenses their content under CC by-sa 1.0. This should obviously be posted on Wikitravel — but it doesn't mean the letter (incl. their logo, stamps and more) are CC-licensed.
  2. Pictures on home pages. For example, if you want to stick your mug on your home page, but don't want Virgin Mobile plastering it on billboards.

All in favor? Jpatokal 07:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Ay – cacahuate talk 22:25, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Yes. Riggwelter 07:54, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Aye. Gorilla Jones 23:53, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Though that looks somewhat like an insider discussion with a lot of information missing, I have to add a grain of salt.
Pictures on home pages are generally copyrighted (if not stated otherwise) and if you use them without permission of the rights owner you perform a copyright infringment.
Another real-world problem is, that images on personal homepages often are "stolen" from elsewhere; so would have to check whether the image was really made by the homepage owner himself. Though the rights owner may not sue the owner of an insignificant homepage, he surely will sue WikiTravel because it is owned by a large company. -- Túrelio 04:43, 19 February 2008 (EST)
Nono -- I mean uploading a picture you own for use on your Wikitravel homepage. Grabbing random images from random homepages is, of course, not acceptable. Jpatokal 08:43, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I plunged forward and created Template:Copyrighted. Comments re: the wording? Jpatokal 09:01, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Looks good, and I agree that it's a good idea to have this option. But should we perhaps change the disclaimer at the bottom of all pages, which reads "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0," to something more nuanced? Clearly, not all of our content is Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0. --Peter Talk 12:06, 19 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, definitely, what about just removing the 1.0? Where should we move this convo too before we fly off on a tangent? – cacahuate talk 00:56, 21 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, lets continue this tangent at MediaWiki talk:Copyright#Nuance. --Peter Talk 01:10, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Images automatically licensed as cc-by-sa-1.0?

copied from en:Wikitravel talk:Votes for deletion

...continued from Image:Asia 2006 156.jpg

Guidelines? What guidelines? But as far as I know, no periods of time are mentioned anywhere, and going through the {{dont know}} tag stage seems to be optional. I've been adding {{vfd}} tags to images that already have {{dont know}} tags, and adding {{dont know}} tags to images with no licence. ~ 18:21, 31 January 2008 (EST)
No reason - but then my conclusion that the incorrectly licensed images should be deleted doesn't seem to be universally acceptable. Not sure if there is some plan afoot to somehow legitimize the 'no license' images as well. --Wandering 18:29, 31 January 2008 (EST)
It doesn't matter that it's not universally accepted. All that matters is that after 5 weeks of debate they have not, by any stretch of the imagination, been "proven innocent". ~ 18:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Since you seem to be flitting around more than everyone else, do you get a sense that there are huge numbers of images that are licensed by cc-by-sa other than 1.0? There seem to be three or four listed in this page which is not a huge amount (I assume, no one wants the unlicensed ones) and I'm wondering why we have this panic (we are headed for disaster) thing going on. I get the feeling that there's a subtext here that I'm missing and wonder if you have an insight into this. (Insights from other admins seem to be in short supply.) --Wandering 22:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Could be that most of us are feeling the same way, what are we missing?. I for one don't see any huge issue here, we have always removed invalidly licensed material as we come across them and as far as I can see we have been doing a good job. If this vfd page contains all (or most) of the invalid licensed material in wikitravel then we have been keeping it quite clean. I can't see any reason for doom and gloom and a sudden rush to clean all up at once, but since Tweak (If I may use the name Sapphire assigned to feels the need to list all now, I'm happy to work through them as usual. Even if all these are deleted, the impack on WT as a whole is minimal. --Nick 02:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Relatively speaking, no, there aren't that many with incompatible licences. I'm going to VFD them all now: #CC-by-SA-2.0 (13 images), #CC-by-SA-2.5 (67 images), #CC-by-SA-3.0 (2 images). ~ 04:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)
To put that in perspective, 8,349 files have been uploaded (Feb.1st 2008). Also bear in mind that of those 82 images, some are not linked to from anywhere, some are only linked to from Talk pages or "joke" articles, some are only linked to from User pages (presumably it's not unreasonable to expect that they be re-licenced), and some are copyvios; and some are just really bad photos. Of the rest, many have been uploaded by their creators and it would be simple enough for the uploader/creator to re-licence them. ~ 07:11, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Well, let's try to put some closure to this. It seems to me that there is some sort of consensus that we should delete the improperly licensed pictures. To summarize the discussion above: Jpatokal wanted to keep the pictures but only because there was no consensus. So, let's set Jpatokal aside for now and see if we have a consensus.,, Wandering, Nick, (assuming .4 and .6 are different) feel that these images should be deleted if we've done our bit in trying to correct the license. User feels we should keep them if the licensing requirements are met and delete them otherwise. I think it is quite clear that higher licenses don't satisfy our requirements because only Peter has argued to keep them and even his options require a change in our licensing system which implies that these pictures do not match our current licensing requirements. I'd say there is a consensus to delete improperly licensed pictures (pictures with licenses other than cc-by-sa-1.0). Agreed? --Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)
You misrepresent my arguments above, presumably because you did not understand them. I argued that we clarify the text of our copyleft to match our day-by-day practices, not to change our site's licensing, which is a different issue altogether. You are conflating discussions and have not understood the issues at hand here. --Peter Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I also assume no one will argue that we should keep unlicensed ones. I notice that some of the pictures posted without a license are copyrighted elsewhere and due diligence says we should remove unlicensed ones post haste. Agreed? --Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)
No, not agreed on any of that. First, it's not an issue of "improperly licensed" images, it's an issue of whether some correctly licensed images can be used on Wikitravel. Second, there is no such thing as an "unlicensed" image, there are only CC by-sa 1.0 images without explicit tags. (Everything I uploaded before we even invented license tags, for example.) Third, the proper place or venue for this policy discussion is not VFDs, but the Talk page, where eg. Cacahuate has also expressed his support for keeping CC >1.0 images. Jpatokal 03:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Could someone put a link from the Viking discussion above to this section so that everyone knows we're reaching a consensus? Thanks! Trust a picture about Vikings in a Storm to cause a storm! --Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Regarding Wanderings suggestion that we delete all unlicensed images:Old farts like me may pop up again, knowing NOTHING about wikiways, but willing to contribute comments on a lifetime of travel as well as a few photos'. Those of us in the old farts club as well as others may not have a clue about licenses. So, if you do mark one "Dont know", give it 30 days for the contributor to figure it out before a deletion. As far as other ill licensed photos, I think it best to get rid of them and clean up the project. Jani contibutes some of the best images on the site, and is one of the more wikiways informed. For some reason, a number of his photos have no license nor have had a license. I would not want to loose any of them. Maybe he could comment on why he does that. (the new one on the front page is about as good as we get, but has no license????????) 2old 11:11, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Makes sense to me (the 30 days part). Perhaps, at least for recently added pictures, we could drop a note in the users mailbox (a template would serve for this) letting them know that the image will be deleted in 30 days if cc-by-sa-1.0 is not selected. --Wandering 12:01, 2 February 2008 (EST)

OK, I'm starting to get pissed off here. Here's what it says and has said on Special:Upload for as long as I remember:

All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0.

Comprende? All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-sa 1.0. There is no such thing as a "Don't know" image, there are only untagged CC by-sa 1.0 images, and all these VFDs are null and void. Jpatokal 02:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Jpatokal, I'm sorry to hear that you're starting to get pissed off (though, I must admit, it is not at all clear to me why a fair discussion should make you angry). Anyway, the point is that wikitravel has an obligation to its contributers (as well as to downstream users of content) to take at least minimal steps in ensuring that images are not copyrighted elsewhere and that their use under a common cause commercial license is fair. If a user does not select a license, wikitravel should not blithely assume that it can be made available under a common cause license. If we accept your argument, then nothing in wikitravel should ever be deleted (all those copyvio deletions of text, etc.) because, again by your definition, everything contributed to wikitravel is automatically cc-by-sa-1.0. I could add the text of an entire book, upload songs perhaps, copy pictures freely from the internet, and you would assume that all this is kosher because we say that everything is cc-by-sa-1.0 by definition. That, I should think, is not a very responsible way of treating this enterprise. BTW, thanks for the tip on User:Cacahuate's contribution in the talk page. I'll take a look at it and add his views into this summary. I've also reduced the size of the quote above, it detracts from the discussion (makes this part look like a separate section). --Wandering 11:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)
That's not at all what I'm saying. If any image is a copyright violation, then it's a copyright violation regardless of what tag is placed on it, and can and should be dealt with as such.
So one more time. When any user uploads an image, they certify that it is available under the Creative Commons license. If there is reason to believe that this declaration is not true, whether out of malice, ignorance or stupidity, then the image should be deleted. However, for images like Image:IMG_0156.JPGs and Image:DSCF0039.JPG that have been VFD'd above, there's absolutely no reason to believe that these personal snapshots are not the work of the uploader.
You'll note that this is exactly the same thing as we do for text. Contributions are assumed to be legit by default, but we keep a close eye on dubious additions are promptly nuked. Jpatokal 11:40, 4 February 2008 (EST)
If in fact (and I have no reason to question) Jani is correct that uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-sa 1.0, then when contribtors upload images, the images should be automatically tagged CC-by-sa 1.0. In my non-wiki life I have to deal with lawyers on a reular basis. They have advised me numerous times, not to create arguable situations. Jpatokal as a community leader needs to have a bit more patience with this sort of situation and act as a counsel in these matters and others. If he is actually getting pissed off, anger management classes may be in the future. Remember, creative people are always the first to go crazy. If we can not automatically tag untagged photos, then I support the idea to tag them Dont know, advise the contributor, wait 30 days and then delete. I think the tagging should be a voluntary action of the contributor, that would eliminate the arguable element from the situation/transaction.
You are welcome to suggest we change policy so that, in the future, images uploaded without an explicit license specified are deleted. I would even support you, as long as there's an easy way for that license to be specified while uploading, and all existing untagged images are tagged first. However, retroactively deleting thousands of images when they already have perfectly valid licenses is beyond senseless. Jpatokal 11:40, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Did you have an idea how to tag all existing untagged images are tagged first ? And, at this point I am still thinking Delete. Reason: I do not think an arbitrary license is valid. ( Guess it depends on where also.) 2old 12:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Easy-peasy: give me a list of untagged articles, and I'll run a script to tag them all.
And can you please explain to me what is unclear or arbitrary about All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0? Why is this any more unclear or arbitrary than All contributions to Wikitravel must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, which is what we require for text contributions? Jpatokal 12:46, 4 February 2008 (EST)
The text is clear, but when one finds an image unmarked for license as in Image:PLO FlagShop.JPG , one of my favorites, I would think it better if it was licensed rather than guessing. For me it would be a perfect POM, but may have been avoided due to license fears/questions. On wikitravel shared, it is common practice to mark unlicensed images VFD and for them to be deleted, (I have even been notified as such) so I thought the same applied here. Above you said "list of untagged articles" did you mean photos?. The dont know tag states Wikitravel cannot keep images without a statement that licenses them under terms permitting us to use them. That is in conflict with your side of the debate here, that All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0. My personal preference would be that I could contribute images to wikitravel, that could not be used by others, but that seems impossible. When it comes to photos, I really do not consider owning anything. It is simply something I have seen and I am sharing the view with others. That simple. Others may want to control the use, but in reality it is so difficult that even the thought is not worth while. So I guess one of my questions is, why even tag the Dont knows and why have they been deleted in the past under the same circumstances? 2old 14:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Wikitravel Shared has different wording in the upload box plus a license selector that forces the user to explicitly choose a license, and there was a fairly lengthy argument there as well about what to do with untagged images.

However, here on en:, the upload wording is unambiguous and there's no requirement for users to place a license tag nor are there any instructions for doing so. The "don't know" tag is a fairly recent invention and, based on a quick Google of the archives, it has never been used as a reason for VFD until Tweak came along.

So. I'm going to propose that we do the following:

  • All old untagged images are tagged CC by-sa 1.0 and removed from VFD (unless there are other reasons to suspect they're copyvio etc).
  • Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared.
  • After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD.

All in favor? Jpatokal 23:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Jpatokal, I'm sorry, but the discussion above is completely at odds with your proposal. There is a lot of discussion above and it may be hard for you to read through everything so let me make it simple. The following users feel, and they have all made substantive arguments in favor, that images that are unlicensed or incorrectly licensed (cc-by-sa>1.0) should be deleted:,, Wandering, Nick,, and 2old. The users who want to keep the images are Jpatokal (though initially you did not express that view) and Peter. (User:Cacahuate's reasons for keeping are related to the need for a consensus and I assume he hasn't seen this discussion so I won't include him in the keep column.) Of the two in favor of keeping, Peter's view seems to be that the images are not properly licensed but should be kept for expedient reasons. You, Jpatokal, are the only user who feels that we have no responsibility towards our users in the matter of licensing.
Again, you completely misrepresent my above arguments, again presumably because you don't understand them (much less the issues being discussed). I do not think that >1.0 attribution-sharealike images are not properly licensed, that doesn't make sense to begin with, because all one needs to do to properly license a file as CC-by-SA is to indicate their intent to do so. Besides, that discussion has nothing to do with this one (again, because you don't understand the issues we are discussing, you have conflated several distinct discussions underway). This is a discussion merely of whether saving a file on a page where it says that you agree to certain terms by saving the file, actually does mean that the person agrees to those terms. It seems evident beyond reasonable objection that this is the case. --Peter Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I find that comment genuinely offensive, and I expect an immediate apology. Jpatokal 12:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry Jpatokal, but no apology is forthcoming. --Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Now I understand that you are a community leader but I hope you will see that the community is better served by discussing things (without shouting - I noticed that you, without comment, restored the big lettering in the quote above - and without aggression) and by being accepting of a viewpoint that may be at odds with your own. The success of wikitravel should be of more importance to you than the presence or non-presence of a few (or many) images that have been loaded onto wikitravel without a license and that wikitravel is then redistributing under a free common cause license. In case after case the courts have ruled that websites cannot hide behind 'we don't know' when it comes to copyright infringement and I ask you to consider how it will look when a downstream user, Wikitravel:Wikitravel Press is a good example, is sued for publishing copyright pictures and then Wikitravel:Wikitravel Press sues wikitravel for claiming that the picture was available under a free license and then wikitravel says "hey, we don't ask our users to choose a license we just assign them, sometimes years after the fact!" Wikitravel:Wikitravel Press will be fine but where will wikitravel be? I, for one, believe that I have a responsibility to wikitravel because my intellectual contributions are embodied in it. And, if you stopped shouting, getting angry, and being generally dismissive of other viewpoints, I hope you'll see it that way too. --Wandering 11:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)
The reason you think I'm "dismissive" of your arguments is that I find them completely and totally irrational, your renderings of other peoples' comments are tendentious at best, and you're conflating two completely separate issues (untagged and CC >1.0) to boot. But let me try asking you two questions.
Jpatokal, you can hold whatever opinion you like about the rationality of my arguments just like I can hold whatever opinions I like about the rationality of your arguments. However, neither of us own wikitravel, we are both contributers to this site, and it is NOT conducive to a meaningful discussion to shout, to show aggression, and be dismissive. I'm sorry you can't see that.--Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)
A) Are you satisfied with text contributions licensed by users hitting the "Save page" button below the text "All contributions to Wikitravel must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0"? (yes/no)
B) Are you satisfied with image contributions licensed by users hitting the "Upload file" button below the text "All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0"? (yes/no)
Do what you want down the road. I feel that the user should ALWAYS explicitly select a license or, at the least, agree that the work is free of copyright and that he/she agrees to release it under a clearly specified common cause license (with one of those agree/disagree check boxes). However, that does not address the issue at hand, which is, what to do with images that have been previously uploaded without a license, or uploaded with an improper license. --Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)
<plants hand on face, drags it down slowly, takes deep breath>
The user does "agree that the work is free of copyright and that he/she agrees to release it under a clearly specified common cause license" — that's precisely what the text on Special:Upload quoted above in big bold letters means.
Can you please explain to me why you feel that the wording of A) is sufficient for this permission, and the wording of B) is not? Or should we delete all text ever written on Wikitravel as well? Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Also, let me spell out once more that any images that are copyright violations or are reasonably suspected of being copyright violations must be deleted. But whenever a user uploads a file, that user has certified that it's available under a compatible Free license, and we have to AssumeGoodFaith — in precisely the same way that we presume text contributions to be innocent until proven guilty. Jpatokal 12:41, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Have you actually read the article you point to above (AssumeGoodFaith)? It makes for interesting reading even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the context in which you have quoted it. Lots of good stuff there. Some extracts:
Sometimes you really are being ribbed the wrong way (pun intended). Even so, it is still better to assume good faith — the question is not one of accurate perception, but of appropriate action. It may be more helpful to see the other person as a challenge to overcome rather than a personal enemy to be vanquished.
However, some times a person's goals may directly interfere with your life. They could be in direct competition with you, and there could be a limited number of resources. You may disagree at some fundamental level of morality. You could have something they want. They could even be completely unreasonable, knowing they have some sort of power over you, like a spammer that subverts technology against you. Conversely, you might engage in strategic conflicts to get what you want. PoliticalAction is almost by definition this kind of adversarial approach in the West. Remember to not make these conflicts personal, and never engage in conflicts that will accomplish nothing. Don't win a PyrrhicVictory by burning bridges you may have to cross in the future.
Well, worth a read. Clearly, I don't want a conflict with you. I was being tendentious and irrational well before you entered the conversation with your "I'm starting to get pissed off" remark. But, in the spirit of the article, I'll withdraw the remark you got so upset about. I don't really care what you think of my arguments (I am pretty close to being as long in the tooth as 2old so young whippersnappers don't easily bother me). Now, if you are willing to tone down your shrillness (what's with all that comprende? and "let me spell it out" and entering a discussion with "I'm starting to get pissed off") we may actually get somewhere toward a consensus on what to do with all those images out there. If, that is, you care about a consensus. --Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)
You accuse me of not caring about consensus and having no responsibility towards licensing. Now, I disagree with you very strongly about this topic, but have I personally attacked you? Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Currently I am in favor of Jani's last two proposals 2)* Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared. * 3)After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD. And I would like it completed ASAP. However keeping unlicensed images does not set well with me at this point and I would like to se further discussion. Many may not agree, but take it from an older (in age) contibutor, this site is very new and if it is accepted by the travel community as I think it will be (Route 66 looks dead), it will be around a long time. Lets work towards making it as unquestionable as we can with the content. People are always looking for an opportunity, someone could actually set us up under the current situation and calmly wait for an opening to sue. Lets close any loopholes. This is not the voice of paranoia, but experience with opportunists. On another point, Jani, you may want to inform Evan that some of us appreciate him and the wife founding this site and participating in discussions in the early days and until he and the current owner split. They retained ownership of the rights to publish and contributors keep adding to the value of this site with very limited input from Evan. I for one would welcome his comments more in these debates, for the benefit of all. As with Thomas A. Edison, who also was an Ohio native, Wikitravel is not his last invention (we hope) as with Edison who went on to found General Electric did not stop with the long lasting light bulb, nor the repeating telegraph key which was one of his earlier works. 2old 12:09, 5 February 2008 (EST)
It looks to me as though license tags are causing a great deal of confusion. We should probably get rid of them.
All images without image tags are CC-by-sa 1.0. This is stated very very clearly in the upload form, and has been for 5 years.
If for some reason we decide to keep the license tags then we should immediately add cc-by-sa tags to images for which the tags are missing as so to avoid future confusion. -- Mark 13:02, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Greetings all, I just want to voice my support of the view that uploaders of images without tags have declared (by using the site) that all contributions are licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0 and as they have declared that, they also agree per the terms of the CC-by-SA 1.0 license that the materials they have submitted are available under CC-by-SA 1.0 or do not infringe on the proprietary rights of another person. Thus, there's no need to delete any images without a CC-by-SA 1.0 tag, unless you truly expect it to by a copyvio. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 13:32, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I was accused by jpatokal of conflating the two issues (cc-by-sa>1.0 and unlicensed) so I went back and looked at this rather long and Hamlet-ian thread (to delete or not to delete, that is the question) and, would you believe it, the scream was right! If only he would talk like a normal person perhaps I would have heard him earlier. So, going back to first principles, here is my position:

cc-by-sa->1.0 images. "Keep" We should delete them because we've been giving the impression that they are not legit, but, I don't see how wikitravel can be legally called to task for a choice that the user has made when uploading (our responsibility to the downstream user) or why the uploading user would care (our responsibility to the contributing user). On rereading, I see that we got tangled in definitions of derivative and collective work because Peterfitzgerald has been using these images in the Wikitravel:Wikitravel Press Chicago guide (are there many of these in the Singapore guide as well, that might explain the anger) and the definitions of derivative and collective work. But, that is the business of a downstream user and, as long as wikitravel ensures that the licenses are appropriate, no business of ours. Any images added to a wikitravel article would, it seems, qualify as a "collective work" and we should be able to combine images with different licenses on the same page after appropriately modifying the 'content is available under' rider at the bottom of the page. That should be sufficient even though wikitravel has been combining them as a collective work and displaying an incorrect licensing statement at the bottom of the page. An important caveat is how we do this because it is setting a precedent for misuse down the road.
Again, I find myself thoroughly misunderstood, misrepresented, and wrongfully and ignorantly maligned. To repeat, the >1.0 images used in the Wikitravel guide are totally irrelevant to any decision made on this site. I believe we at Wikitravel Press have the right to do so, provided we properly note licensing and attribution, and I have WTP's support in this. A dumb decision here simply doesn't bear one iota on the images in the book. But again, that is a separate issue from this one, which is even more clear cut.
My motivation in making the arguments I have about what images we may keep stems from my desire to make Wikitravel the most effective open-content travel guide possible, and simply to see that logic and clear-headed understanding prevails against stubborn ignorance. If frustration came across in my arguments, it was simply because I felt that the points I made were not sufficiently addressed in the cascading responses, as my points (and the issues being discussed) were not understood by discussants. That would be a good time for clarification, which I was trying to provide. I got angry because you, Wandering, were repeatedly implying in bad faith that my arguments should be discounted according to a very incorrect and insulting perception on your part that I had a conflict of interest in the matter. I do not, and the fact that you continue in this line of personal attack further demonstrates that you do not understand the licensing issues being discussed, do not understand what I have argued, and are generally bringing down the level of discourse. --Peter Talk
unlicensed images. "Delete" I am uneasy about keeping images that have not been explicitly released with a free license by the uploading user. Wikitravel has followed the practice of deleting them for quite a while (See: Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion/May_2006, Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion/June_2006 and presumably many others) and I don't see why we should suddenly decide we need to keep them. --Wandering 14:52, 5 February 2008 (EST)
I hope you don't take this badly, but I simply must disagree. We have been very clear from the begining that anyhthing uploaded here is under the CC-by-sa 1.0 unless otherwise indicated. I simply don't understand why this isn't clear. -- Mark 15:41, 5 February 2008 (EST)
(I don't take anything badly, I just find it hard talking to angry people.) If it was so clear then why were we deleting unlicensed images all along? A quick look at the deletion archives seems to show that deleting unlicensed images was a no-brainer. Anyway, I do think that there is a difference when a user explicitly makes a selection (of the license as well as indicating that there are no copyright issues) versus when the selection is implicit. That is one reason why many websites have the Agree/Disagree check box that users check off. --Wandering 16:08, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Can you point out what images have been deleted in the past for the sole reason of not having a license tag? I just looked through both Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion/May_2006, Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion/June_2006 and as far as I can see all deleted images are suspected copyvios, duplicates, advertisements or violate privacy rights. Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Keep all images with no license marked. -- Colin 19:12, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Keep. This seems cut-and-dry to me. It's made clear - right out front and out loud, not buried in fine print - that anything uploaded here is under CC-by-SA 1.0. We don't require people to tag the text they enter in these here boxes, and we all seem content with the implicit understanding there. Some admins here do an impressive job of catching mis-licensed copyvio photos, but this ain't that. Gorilla Jones 23:01, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Jeez Louise. I'll start by saying that I whole-heartedly agree with everything Jpatokal has said. While I give kudos for actually getting more of a conversation to take place about this than we've been able to in a while, as Jani says, the VFD page isn't the place to do it... clogging it with all these images isn't really helping solve our problems.

I'll pitch in my support of the Special:Upload text, I agree it will cover us in the event of an unlikely lawsuit, and I vote to keep anything uploaded without a license for reasons specified by Jani and others, with the obvious exceptions of copyvios, etc.

Re: >1.0 images, what a couple users here seem to be taking as a given is that 2.0 and 3.0 images are improperly licensed.... this has been discussed many times, and we clearly don't have a consensus that that's the case... we're still figuring out if they are compatible with us and beyond that whether we can and should upgrade our whole site to 3.0 and beyond, so the real debate should be getting to the bottom of that, rather than jumping the gun and vfd'ing those before a consensus is reached.

As for automatically tagging images, we've discussed it in a few places, I've been pushing for a while to figure out how to either default to 1.0 on the pull down menu in Special:Upload so that if anyone desire other than 1.0 they have to take action, OR to leave it as "select a license" and give them a non-ignorable error message to select a license before it will let them upload. Either way, I'd like it if it wasn't even possible to not select a license or to select an incompatible license, just as a double reassurance.

Lastly, if I can defend Jani for a moment, I do slightly understand his agitation... we've been slowly discussing all of this calmly in several spots around the site, and the mass vfd'ing of images like this was more than a little sassy, especially given the vfd'ers awareness of those other conversations, Jani wasn't jumping into a conversation agitated, this conversation has been ongoing for a long time in some form or another. But, to come full circle, I'm glad sparked the conversation that he was trying to spark, and I'm glad we're nearing a consensus – cacahuate talk 00:17, 6 February 2008 (EST)

A quote from Jani above: Wikitravel Shared has different wording in the upload box plus a license selector that forces the user to explicitly choose a license, and there was a fairly lengthy argument there as well about what to do with untagged images. But, they continue to vfd untagged photos. Why is that and should both site not ne the same? And, for those getting angry, when I was much younger someone informed me that anger was a form of temporary insanity, after I pondered and reflected on that for many moons, I had to agree. 2old 09:32, 6 February 2008 (EST)
The logic — which I don't personally entirely agree with, mind you — is that on Shared the user can easily select a license from the pulldown, and if he doesn't, then he doesn't know/understand licensing in the first place and the picture is suspect. But on en:, there's no obvious way to tag images at all. Jpatokal 09:52, 6 February 2008 (EST)
And I agree that en: should be upgraded to use Shared's system. However, this discussion is about what to do with the old images. Jpatokal 09:52, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Jani's proposal to reform the :en system is sensible. Mass deleting images which clearly were uploaded in accordance with our copyleft, at a time when awareness of licensing documentation was lower among our contributors than it is today is not. --Peter Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, this discussion turned into a real barn-burner. With passions running pretty high it might be good for everyone to step back and look at the star articles, featured articles, maps, and other great things here and remember how much fun it can be to work together on travel articles instead of arguing about contentious issues like licensing.

That said, with regards to the current debate, my take on it is that existing images on en: with no license are fine - it's only been in the past year or two that we asked people to specify licenses, and before that all images were considered implied CC-SA due to the text on the Special:Upload page (see my first talk page comment for this same discussion in 2005...). It probably makes sense now that we have shared: to redirect upload links on en: to shared:, which would prevent this sort of confusion in the future. With regard CC-SA > 1.0, I think it's clear that the spirit of the license is that any version of CC-SA is fine, although the letter of the license doesn't state that; it's probably worthwhile trying to start a separate discussion about mass-updating the site to CC-SA 1.0+ - I'm sure we're not the first site to be faced with this issue, so it would probably be easy to dig up precedents from other sites on how it could be done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:34, 6 February 2008 (EST)

On 02/04/2008 Jani said:So. I'm going to propose that we do the following:
  • All old untagged images are tagged CC by-sa 1.0 and removed from VFD (unless there are other reasons to suspect they're copyvio etc).
  • Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared.
  • After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD.

All in favor? Jpatokal 23:12, 4 February 2008

And the problem goes on. And, Wandering seems to have wandered off (darn it). I am in favor of Jani's suggestion and would like to see it implemented ASAP with one change. The suggestion to add a check box, saying they understand and accept the terms, should be included. You should always try to create a situation that is not arguable. In addition, the text regarding images being sent to shared, should be in red, bold, larger print, so even an old, blind, dummy, like me can not miss it. Then, they can not ARGUE that they did not see it, without being required to take an eye test before driving or contributing images to Wikitravel. 2old 10:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
I've altered the box on Special:Upload, can you read it now old man?  :) – cacahuate talk 22:37, 15 February 2008 (EST)
For some reason, I intuitively knew that you would be involved in the resolution of this problem. What you have done is a good start. Now, how about the check box to confirm the contributors action on how the image is licensed. I will see that you get a 10% raise in your Wikisalary. 2old 10:35, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Whether a checkbox or forcing the selection of a license in the pulldown menu, I agree it would be nice to force one of the two, I'd vote for the latter as with a checkbox it's still possible then to not select a license. However that's not something (I don't think) that we can implement, I think it's something Kevin at IB would have to figure out... and we should probably move all of the pieces of this vfd discussion somewhere else soon... and maybe start a tech request for a non-ignorable error message if a license isn't selected. And furthermore, as I've suggested in the past, I think special:upload on all language versions should redirect straight to shared – cacahuate talk 13:02, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I've been staying out of this debate, but will chime in now to say I'd support Jani's suggestions. Pashley 08:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I've also stayed out of this for a number of reasons, but I fully support Jani's suggestion. I'll clean up the untagged images vfd later todaysometime this week, by tagging them cc-by-sa-1.0 and archiving the vfd. It seems totally legal since the it was explicitly stated on the upload page that all content will become cc-by-sa-1.0. --Nick 09:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Specific Question, Permissions (flickr

Ok, I mailed a user on flickr about permission to two of his images on my en:Korsakov and en:Russia to Japan via Sakhalin articles, I informed him about the need to change the license to creative commons with attribution - and not only got his permission, but he seemed very honored to be asked. But there are two issues with this - one is that requests attribution below the image, and second - i doubt he's going to change the license of his picture on the flickr page. Now normally i would just explain the issues and work things out - but the user only speaks very basic English, and my Japanese is not good enough to explain something this complicated.

So my two questions is: - Is it OK to make and attribution below the picture, after the image text - something like "picture of bla bla bla, by John Doe" even though i breaks the usual format? - How do i deal with a permission to upload under CC atribution sharealike 2.0, when the flickr page will most likely remain showing that the image is copyrighted - can i upload the mail somewhere? Sertmann 18:43, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

1) I don't know; but I suppose that would be fine. We can't guarantee him that reusers/derivative works will do the same, though.
2) To a large extent we operate on trust here—we'll take your word. If someone challenges you on it, you can just forward the email to that person. I did the same with Image:Nenets reindeer sledge.jpg. Also, there's no conflict between displaying the copyright and giving license to others to use the image under CC-by-SA; regardless of licensing, the author still retains a copyright unless they release it to the public domain. --Peter 18:02, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

3:) ok, uploaded it here Sertmann 18:43, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

personal portrait for user page

I wonder how can I upload a photo portait of myself to be used for my user page, just to make it look more personal and friendly. Help? --DenisYurkin 04:21, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

In the same way you upload any image. In the comment section you can tell that it is for your user page. --Rein N. 04:42, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Also see Image_policy#People_in_photos, a specific template was created for this purpose: {{copyrighted}} – cacahuate talk 15:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for help. I was not attentive enough to find a special notice in this article. For future readers, I created a subsection which is entirely about user-page personal photos. --DenisYurkin 07:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)