Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Image use policy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A general reminder: Please stop uploading images where permission is granted for non-commercial use only, effective immediately. Under official Wikipedia policy, these images are no longer accepted. . It is anticipated that existing images with the {{noncommercial}} tag will be deleted at some point in the future (possibly after a new upload form is in place), except for images whose use can be justified on other grounds. --Michael Snow 16:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• At the risk of making a lot of extra work for myself, I would be willing to accept requests for creating GFDL replacements for noncommercial-use illustrations. See my user page for a list of the sort of things I have illustrated. -- Wapcaplet 16:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I can help out as well with diagrams. (Some of my diagrams can be found here) theresa knott 18:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I guess this means we shouldn't be featuring these images on the front page? anthony (see warning) 16:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. Middle-earth is actually what called my attention to the problem, but by the time I noticed it was already on the front page, and I didn't think the issue warranted taking it down once it had gotten there. We are not yet to the point of removing all of these images from articles and deleting them, but I agree that they should not be used on the front page. I regret that your objection wasn't acted on while featuring this article was still in the planning stages. --Michael Snow 18:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a great blow to the ongoing process of illustrating Wikipedia. There are a lot of people out there taking a lot of good photos which understandably they don't want other people making money out of. However they are quite happy, even honoured, to allow use of their images for noble projects like Wikipedia. I have been uploading a few of these non-commercial images recently to illustrate articles on towns. There is absolutely no reason why they should not be used. Downstream reproducers of Wikipedia content should simply not incorporate the images into their content if they intend to put it to commercial use. This can be achieved very easily with the tagging of images with their licensing status. What this policy is doing is allowing downstream commercial users to dictate to us here at the main project what we can and can't include. Can somebody please offer a decent explanation as to why non-commercial images shouldn't be included so that we can all come to an informed consensus on the matter instead of having policy decided by a small clique on the mailing list and announced to the rest of us from on high. If this policy is adopted then we are pointlessly preventing ourselves from using images which their creators are quite happy for us to use. A far greater problem Wikipedians should be devoting their time to is the lack of any licensing information whatsoever on the vast majority of uploaded images. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:55, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IANAL, but it appears that restrictions on re-distribution directly conflict with the GFDL, our license of choice. - jredmond 21:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not the GFDL — the GFDL is chosen because one wants to allow commercial use, not vice versa. —Steven G. Johnson 22:22, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Our text is GFDL - images are not (which is why we have the image pages). →Raul654 22:07, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

The trick comes in when we place images on articles, though. Is the image a part of the article? If so, what license applies to the compilation of GFDL text plus non-GFDL images? - jredmond 22:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But then there is an inconsistency. Mr Wales writes, "For the time being, I think we should rely on fair use, because it's a good thing, but cautiously so." We certainly cannot grant licences for images, but we use them nevertheless. Another problem is that the restriction on non-commercial images can be easily evaded with the fair use doctrine. -- Emsworth 22:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the present (US) legal environment, "fair use" is a pretty flimsy crutch to lean on. Besides which, Wikipedians seem to think "fair use" means "we can use any image we like as long as we really really want to." —Steven G. Johnson 22:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo'll have to speak for himself, but I read that sentence to mean "Until we can get new, more libre images, fair use will have to do". This is consistent with the bits on fair-use content in Wikipedia:Copyrights. - jredmond 22:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear what Jimbo means here. He says that non-free content "should be removed from Wikipedia with reasonable haste." Then he says "This decree is only about non-free licenses _as a justification_ for images being on Wikipedia, and does not comment on, nor affect, evolving doctrine on 'fair use'." "For the time being, I think we should rely on fair use, because it's a good thing, but cautiously so." He is saying that we should get rid of content that is used under a non-free license, but that this doesn't apply to free use images. It's an interesting statement, because you could technically say since these images are copyrighted, they can be used under fair use. But IANAL. — マイケル ₪ 00:10, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

In addition, the statement at the bottom of each page reads, "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" (emphasis added).

Non-commercial-use images are problematic for the same reason that non-commercial-use text is — there is no reason to allow one and not the other. We allow commercial use because we want to allow things like Wikipedia being distributed on CD by CheapBytes for a few dollars, being included with future Linux DVDs as a built-in OS resource, being bundled with every PalmPilot sold... as long as the encyclopedia material itself is never made proprietary. This is the same as the free-software/open-source philosophy (both of which movements require that commercial use be allowed). —Steven G. Johnson 22:22, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

From a contributor's standpoint, why not just contribute the image under the GFDL? Although the GFDL does not prohibit "commercial" use per se, it prohibits most uses that people ordinarily think of as "commercial" — for example, usage in a typical magazine or newspaper — because it prohibits proprietary use (all derived works need to be under the GFDL as well). (Indeed, just as companies do with GPL software, you could imagine a professional photographer contributing GFDL images as a promotion, and then selling the right to use a non-GFDL, proprietary license to magazines etc. that want to use the image.) —Steven G. Johnson 22:28, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think what Trilobite is talking about is images that have been copied from elsewhere under non-commercial use permissions. In that case, you don't have the ability to contribute the image under the GFDL yourself. --Michael Snow 22:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think he was talking about photos taken by individuals...unlike companies, individuals can sometimes be persuaded, and you just need to convince them that the GFDL prohibits most of the uses that they want to prohibit with a noncommercial restriction. —Steven G. Johnson 22:35, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Sure they can be persuaded, and if so, great. But it does take a little more work, and as you note about fair use, some people are just dying to contribute this lovely image they found "right now", without caring about the implications of copyleft. --Michael Snow 22:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I meant photos taken by anyone who has nothing to do with Wikipedia, so they can't just say, "I'll make things easier and license my images under the GFDL," as I would (and have done) with my own images I want to put on Wikipedia. There are a lot of people making their very useful photos available for non-commercial use which Wikipedia should be able to take advantage of. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is committed to being as free (libre) a project as possible, as part of the open content community that relies on copyleft licenses. This is a core part of our mission. We define ourselves as an open-content encyclopedia on the Main Page. This principle has been policy since the beginning of the project.

There are a lot of people out there writing a lot of good text which understandably they don't want other people making money out of. This text is not allowed on Wikipedia, because it is not open content. There are plenty of people who might let us use their text, or their images, as long as it can only be used on Wikipedia. Because we're a noble project, because they're honoured to have it published, because they want publicity, motives may vary. We can't accept it on those terms, because it's not open content. The policy against non-commercial-use-only images reflects that commitment. --Michael Snow 22:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree with you where text is concerned. However, text which someone wanted to contribute on a non-commercial basis would of course make things very difficult and complex, as text is added to and taken away from, edited mercilessly etc. It would be absurd to have different portions and fragments of text under different licenses, but images are a very different matter. They are discrete entities instead of something that can be mixed up with new contributions until it's impossible to extricate the original. They are also, as Raul654 pointed out, on seperate image pages which are simply referenced to in the Wiki markup. By tagging those images which are not available for commercial use, downstream reproducers, or future commercial applications of Wikipedia such as those which have been mentioned, can remove them automatically. This makes things a little bit more complicated, but is greatly preferable to purging Wikipedia of vast swathes of perfectly good graphical content. Am I the only one who still isn't persuaded that this policy makes sense? — Trilobite (Talk) 23:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A license to use something only for noncommercial use is not free, and it's inconsistent with our underlying philosophy. The fact that you can separate the images out from text doesn't matter. What we would be doing is flatly saying no, you can't use this content if it's for commercial purposes. In other words, the content is definitely not open, even though we claim that we are.

If you can claim fair use for an image, that has a slightly better shot at working in an open-content world, because commerciality is only one issue considered in fair use analysis. And with fair use, we're not telling people "you can't use this stuff", but we're tagging it so they can separate it if necessary. What we're really telling them is to figure out for yourself if what you're doing is still fair use. --Michael Snow 23:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The mainstay of our content, which is text, would be very much open and free. Images not available for commercial use would serve as an embellishment on the Wikipedia website itself, as this is not a commercial use. In some other applications of our content, those images would not be available. It's as simple as that. Fair use, as I understand it (and I am by no means an expert), is a phenomenon of US copyright law of dubious international applicability. I have always thought it best avoided as it is often far from clear where the line between fair use and unauthorised copying lies. Non-commercial permission however is clear and unequivocal — we can use it on this website and any other non-commercial application, and we simply blank it out from anything commercial. This is easily achieved by putting all such images into a category. This is the Wiki equivalent of the sort of machine-readable metadata Creative Commons encourages the use of along with their licenses, so that computers can be used to selectively do things with content according to how it's licensed. Technologically this is very simple for Wikipedia and need not contradict the philosophy of the project at all, as long as we remain a text-based encyclopedia with images as non-essential extras. After all, we should already be aiming at this if only for accessibility reasons. I would appreciate some input into this debate from others as I think it's one worth having. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Noncommercial use is technically legal on Wikipedia itself right now, but would not be if we decided to add advertisements to the site (I'm not suggesting this is planned, but it has been contemplated). But anyway, such images are clearly not open and free, and I don't see why we should stray from our commitment to open content in order to embellish the website.

Fair use is specifically US, but other countries have fair dealing, and for a more international basis, the Berne Convention has fair practice. Determining what's "fair" tends to be case-by-case analysis, and the US may well be the most liberal jurisdiction in that regard, but the principle is internationally available.

Incidentally, if images are "non-essential extras", why exactly is it so important to allow images under noncommercial-use permissions? That philosophy seems to negate all of the arguments raised for including them. --Michael Snow 00:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm glad to have non-commercial images go. The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free resource which anybody can easily take material from. Moving to the GFDL will not remove any credit from you – and you aren't losing any money anyway, unless you're rich enough to distribute the picture, etc. What's so wrong about letting a company use your image? As long as they credit you, there's nothing you're losing. As for fair use, I consider images commonly seen (i.e. a particularly famous image of a celebrity), or images distributed publicly (i.e. broadcast on television, published in major publications) to be valid fair use material. Anything else is dubious. So, for example, an image of the cover of the Yesterday single would be fair use, but not a copyrighted image of the Beatles (or anyone else) performing it, unless licensed under the GFDL and/or published in several major publications. Johnleemk | Talk 10:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you considered this from the contributors point of view? If you have an individual who donates his or her time to write an article for which there are none of the traditional benefits of commercial reward or peer recognition and that individual also prepares images to support and embellish the article then it should be entirely up to them if they do not want to see their work profited from commercially unless they do so too. prometheus1 20:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not contesting that right. What I am contesting is that we allow that to happen on Wikipedia, and that as a contributor, IMO, there's little reason for it. Unless you have a way to make loads of money from it, there's no reason for not licensing the image under the GFDL or some other free license, unless you're one of those anti-corporate...um, "girlie men". (Don't take the comment seriously.) The decision is up to the image's owner, but we really shouldn't be using these images on Wikipedia. Jimbo's posts on the mailing list say it much better than I ever could. Johnleemk | Talk 05:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I'm a big fan of Arnold and I don't think you would call me a "girlie man" if you saw me ;). But I am not a fan of having others sell and make money out of a contribution that I made in the interests of sharing knowledge. From both an ideological and economic perspective if others wish to make money out of it then I should be entitled to my fair share in the great corporate tradition! If you go to pubmed books online you will find that some images cannot be shown in the online version. If it's good enough for them to compromise it should be good enough for wikipedia. I think placing such a restriction in the event that wikpedia want to change the business model so that they can sell CD's or use banner advertising to generate income is illogical. It is easy to tag the images such that if an ad appears or if the content is going to CD that it be not included. Otherwise pay a percentage back to the contributor - or better still stay non-profit like everyone believes wikipedia is, then there's no problem of using non-commercial use. prometheus1 06:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A non-profit organization can make commercial use of images (or other things), right? Dan Gardner 19:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But if you really had a strong interest in sharing knowledge, you wouldn't mind allowing commercial uses of your contributions. After all, don't you know that every piece of text on Wikipedia can be taken and resold as long as we are credited, and nobody can say a thing? Jimbo makes the point for why we shouldn't be allowing non-commercial use only uploads on Wikipedia brilliantly – it's supposed to be free. If we have to rely on restrictive licensing, it goes against our original goal of an encyclopedia anybody can take and reuse. I can't wait to see how you're going to ask for a cut when some company decides to lift text from DNA repair, by the way. ;-) Johnleemk | Talk 07:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this decision has the priorities wrong. At least non-commercial-use images have licences and at least we can use them. Our first priority should be to remove images with no source; our second should be to remove copyrighted images unless the "fair use" defence is really solid (e.g., corporate logos). Non-commecical-use images should come a distant third. Gdr 15:35, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

The first priority is quite correct. People shouldn't be uploading images without source information any more than they should be uploading non-commercial-use images. In both cases, actual removal is waiting until we have a new upload form that will improve compliance. Weeding out improper claims of fair use would be good, too, but you have to debate those individually. Keep in mind that some of the images used under non-free licenses will also need to be considered for possible fair use claims. --Michael Snow 17:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First off, I agree with Trilobite: "non-commercial use only" images can – if tagged – be easily removed by commercial re-users of Wikipedia content. Wikipedia itself is a non-commercial endeavour, and I can't see anything wrong with the use of such images here. Removing them from here would only needlessly deprive Wikipedia of many great pictures.

It seems to me that downstream republishers of Wikipedia content will find it far more difficult to properly deal with "fair use" claims: they will in effect have to re-evaluate each and every of these images to check whether the fair use claim made by Wikipedia also applies in the jurisdiction they're under.

I think Gdr has the priorities exactly right. First deal with copyvios (we already do), then images without source and licensing info, then verify those "fair use" claims. Deal with problems that could affect Wikipedia itself first. "Non-commercial use only" images pose no legal problems for Wikipedia, and as I wrote above, commercial dowstream re-users can remove them. We have more important things to do.

How many "non-commercial use only" images do we have, anyway? Category:Non-commercial use only images currently lists 81 images, but I know that this number is far too low, maybe due to some corrupt link table in the database. A search of the "Image" namespace for "non-commercial" lists more than 500 results. (I tried to find out how many exactly by playing around with "&limit=" & "&offset=" in the URL, but queries invariably timed out for me.)

Lupo 19:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. Any image which is fair use for Wikipedia is probably fair use for just about any noncommercial encyclopedia, so non-commercial only images are probably more restrictive. That said, both issues need to be addressed. We shouldn't have many images here which we can't put in the print version, as having them here will just make us lazy about replacing them with free ones. anthony (see warning) 20:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people are confused to as to what Jimbo meant. I think the text of from his latest e-mail states much more clearly what he means:

> We have a lot of images with "no commercial use" caveats.  Does that
>mean these images have to be removed?

My position is that yes, eventually, these do need to be removed.
There can be exceptions, though...

If an image meets our fair use/fair dealing guidelines, which
basically means that it is easily fair use for us, and likely fair use
for most contemplated reusers, then we can keep it (because it is free
in the relevant sense) *even if* we are *also* able to obtain a
license of some sort.  It can be wise for us to have licenses for
content that we could use without a license, just to make things more
clear.

An example of a "fair use" that would likely be fine for just about
any contemplated reusers would be a quotation from a book that an
article is discussing.  Another example would be a screen shot from a
movie in an article about that movie.

If the _only_ way we can use a particular image is through a non-free
license, and we believe that a fair use defense would be unavailable
to us, or to most contemplated reusers, then it should be avoided.

--Jimbo

I hope that clears up any confusion anyone had. — マイケル ₪ 20:37, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

                Có ai hiểu họ noí gì không? dịch em nghe vơí! thank!

(apologies for duplicating this on several talk pages that don't see a lot of traffic, because I don't know which one is most likely to get a response)

This picture has a watermark on it that advertises the photographer and his website. I didn't delete it because it IS a really great picture, but I'm asking if that watermark is an acceptable element when it's on the Venice article. Alternately, would it be permissible to crop that top 3% of the photo and use that one instead? Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the verbiage from:

• Photos and scanned images should be in JPEG format, though a PNG may be useful as well, especially for software screenshots when only a raster image is available (JPEGs are a lossy image format, and PNGs allow further editing without degrading the image).

– to –

• Photos and scanned images should be in JPEG format, though a PNG may be useful as well for simple subjects (where PNG would result in a smaller file without degrading quality).

This was originally added, apparently without any discussion, back in 2015. I think it's important to qualify the reasons one might choose PNG for a photograph or scanned image. Note also that the bullet directly above the one I edited already says this:

• Software screenshots should be in PNG format.

So the PNG for screenshots situation is already explicitly allowed (making the old version somewhat redundant). One of the other things mentioned in the previous version was the concern about image degradation for images that are repeatedly edited. While the concern is definitely valid (see Digital generation loss), whether or not it is an issue depends largely on the type of image under discussion. For free content that may undergo future revisions (text that is updated, etc), it is a valid concern. For non-free content, we should not be making edits that would introduce that kind of problem. If anyone has any suggestions or questions, please let me know, but I wanted to put my reasoning on the talk page in the event I'm reverted. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any policies involving obstructions in images of people.

I think certain obstructions in images of people should be prohibited (e.g., Mizkif's baseball cap covering part of his face + Sodapoppin wearing sunglasses), while others shouldn't be a problem (e.g., Jacksepticeye holding a microphone not too close to his face + TommyInnit's headset microphone). L33tm4n (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to get consensus here - perhaps with a wider discussion as this is a major change to policy and seems unnecessary to add to the policy itself as it's not that big of a deal and shouldn't be spelled out as policy. Do not restore until you can get a clear consensus. PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think aesthetic judgements on photos, like how clearly they depict the subject, belong as hard and fast rules in image policy. And the heavily pop-culture-based examples, written as if with the incorrect assumption that all editors would recognize those names and those images, are right out. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a better phrasing of the point I was trying to make, thanks @David Eppstein PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I couldn't find anywhere else to put the content, so I put it in this policy until we could reach a consensus. L33tm4n (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works or how policy changes work. This makes no sense in the context of any policy as this is a preference. If you think it should be changed, you need to start an WP:RFC. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: WP:PGBOLD encourages you to take risks in discussions like these. Also, I created this discussion a month ago, but only got a response yesterday. Also, WP:EDITCON allows you to edit these pages directly, and, in some cases, let the content remain until a consensus is reached. L33tm4n (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read that which you link. Bold changes to policy are not the same as the rest, not to mention your previous edit summary about 1RR isn't close to being applicable here. You boldly changed it and were reverted, that means you discuss and get consensus, not reinstate your edit.

Regardless, this was a really bad change to policy and if you actually want to change it you need to create a proper RFC. Discussing it alone in this single section on this single talk page isn't going to fly. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor on Talk:Mahsa Amini protests has asked to blur all faces of user-uploaded images of protesting crowds, given that Iranian authorities have reportedly used social media photos on other sites to identify and arrest protesters. My interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that (presuming we agree that blurring the photos and facial expressions could reduce their documentary value) we have no discretion to blur the photos even if we page editors decided we want to. Is this interpretation correct? If an editor disagrees with this policy, has "personal safety" or similar been raised as an issue before, and if not, what would be the best forum for such an editor to raise it in? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If the photos are taken in a public location, we really cannot take steps from showing the faces that were involved. We do consider this for photos in a clearly private setting, where those photograph would have a reasonably degree of privacy. Masem (t) 01:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether to use the photos in the Wikipedia at all could be something decided through discussion on the article's talk page; however, blurring out faces would probably need to be discussed over on Commons with respect to any issue realted to c:COM:BLP. It does seem though that the photos were taken by some who was present at the time, who then decided to upload them willingly to Commons under a license that makes them not only easier to use on Wikipedia, but also easier to use by others in other ways that have nothing do with Wikipedia and nothing to do with Commons. Of course, "others" also includes the Iranian Government and "other ways" also includes identifying individual protestors, I guess the uploader could request that the files be deleted (e.g. a courtesy deletion), but they should do that asap. Even if the files are deleted from Commons, though, it won't really stop anyone who's already downloaded them from continuing to do so. I guess it's possible that the uploader didn't fully realize what it means to upload a photo to Commons, but they would need to be one that has to correct that by requesting its deletion. FWIW, this kind of thing happens fairly often, including some recent well-publicized examples like the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and individuals find the photos they taken and posted online are subsequently used by authorities to identify and prosecute themselves or other individuals. So, it really would be kind of hard these days for the uploader to claim ignorance and to have not fully realized the possibility of the Iranian government using their photos to somehow identify these protestors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This very same subject has also been raised here: Talk:2022 COVID-19 protests in China#Images with identifiable faces. It seems that a broader conversation about ethics and safety related to image use is perhaps warranted, especially given the prevalence of facial recognition technologies and better understanding Wikipedia's role in all of this. While it is easy enough to say that a photograph has been taken in the public sphere, and that the photographer has granted permission to use the image, this does not imply consent from any or all of those who were photographed. I understand it is each individual's responsibility to protect themselves and their identity while in public, but Wikipedia could also balance risks to personal safety, especially when images have originated from exceptionally repressive regions of the world, where repercussions of protest sometimes involve not just arrest, but indefinite detention, torture, or worse. Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The need for subject consent seems to depend upon the copyright laws of where a photograph is taken per c:COM:NCR. The consent of someone protesting in a public place isn't needed under US copyright law per c:COM:BLP and I don't believe it's typically considered a violation of their privacy to photograph them unless they've got a legitimate expectation for privacy. As for the "balancing of risks", I don't think there's any way for Wikipedia to do such a thing except on a case-by-case basis through article talk page discussion. You would have to somehow establish that it's a WP:BLPIMAGE issue and then figure out how to resolve it. Trying to create a project-wide policy change that suits your particular perspective on this seems like a very hard (if not impossible thing to do) and would almost certainly need a well-thought out and well-participate WP:RFC to achieve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for your reply. I didn't know anything about the Country specific consent requirements, that's useful for consideration (but both Iran and China, in these examples, do not require individual consent for image use). And yeah, I realize it would be a major uphill battle to push for a project-wide change of policy. That isn't in my interest, unless there were others who are super passionate about trying to draft an RfC that could take into consideration some of the nuances of privacy, facial recognition, and specific threats of repressive regimes etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Related story from Vice News (5min video): When 'Spreading the Word' About Chinese Protests Is Dangerous (No Faces, Please), also with brief mention of Iranian protests and danger to people in the streets there due to surveillance.
Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Proactive request for input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Somewhere there used to be explicit good useful discussion that images may be used in Wikipedia as an exception to wp:NOR. We are allowed to go to a historic site, to a current event, anywhere, and take photos, and bring them into wikipedia and give sensible straightforward interpretation. "there were at least 10 people at the February 9, 2023 rally". "since listing on the historic register in 2010, the building has collapsed". Say it out loud: this is effectively an end-run around "no original research" rule. It is, and that is fine.

I do find Mike Wood's comments of October 9, 2013 at Wikipedia, No Original Research, and Images (legalmorning.com), but where is this now explicitly stated within Wikipedia guidelines and policies? If it has been hidden away, it needs to be restored IMHO, and is this "Image use policy" page where that should be done? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Doncram, you're looking for WP:OI, which is part of NOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the "GNU Free Documentation License" section reads, in part:

The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is not permitted as the only acceptable license where all of the following are true:

I'm confused as to what exactly this sentence is saying. Does this mean that works licensed under the GFDL alone are not considered free use if those conditions are all true, or does it mean that works licensed under the GFDL at all are not considered free use if those conditions are all true (regardless of whether other licenses hold)? Or does it mean that works licensed under the GFDL are not considered free use at all (because the GFDL is the only acceptable license where those conditions are all true)? And why call it an "acceptable" license if it's not permitted? I think the wording of this section could really use some clarification/rewriting. Edderiofer (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Edderiofer, since we're talking about images, the rules at Commons will usually be more relevant. See c:Commons:Licensing#GNU_Free_Documentation_License. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily

Ah, I see, I was completely missing this context. I think this would be a very helpful sentence to add to the policy for clarification. Should I WP:BEBOLD here and just add it, hoping that someone else will fix it if it's unclear, then; or should I seek consensus first? (I'm hesitant because this is a Wikipedia policy, not a standard article.) Edderiofer (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#What's the guidance for colorized images?. Ed   18:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

}} 223.25.56.154 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - there is no request. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Galleries. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Many images on the Commons use the PD-US-no notice template, which states that works published in the United States between 1928 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice are in public domain. For example, this image of the Beatles photographed by Henry Grossman appeared in a July 1967 issue of Billboard magazine without the appropriate copyright notice, and so it is in the public domain. But what about later higher resolution instances of the same image?

A cleaner scan and higher resolution instance of Grossman's photograph appeared in The New York Times in January 2023. Miklogfeather uploaded the image to the Commons here, but I am concerned because I see that in the Times article, it includes a notice below the image which states: "Henry Grossman/Grossman Enterprises. All rights reserved." Thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 00:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the relevant rule here is Reuse of PD-Art photographs and the Wikimedia Foundation state that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain", so higher resolution images of PD images are acceptable. Endoftalk 10:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

However a higher resolution version is not a reproduction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It might be a dumb question and I apologize beforehand.

But what exactly is the ruling on photos in "historical books" that have been luckily archived online; can they be used and posted to Wiki? And also, books that are potentially hidden in the public and not archived? Thanks Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The ruling is that they follow Wikipedia's image use policy. If they are public domain or under an acceptably free license, then they may be used, and if not their usage must meet all of the non-free content criteria. If you have questions about a specific image, then you can ask at Media Copyright Questions. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yeahimaboss413, if the book was published in or before 1927, then it's probably Wikipedia:Public domain, and scans can be uploaded. You might get more detailed information if you ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. They'll want to know the author's name, the year of publication, and maybe the place of publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

How do I prove that a Twitter post is fair use? The BBC reprinted the post here. I would like to use it to illustrate Artificial intelligence § Algorithmic bias and fairness. The article discusses this event, exactly why it happened, and what is being done to prevent it from happening in the future. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I would think we'd have a hard time of justifying that image under WP:NFCC#1, in that, within prose, stating "an image of two dark-skinned people labeled as 'Gorillas'", would be equivalent to the non-free Twitter post, as well as avoid issues with photos of people that could be clearly identified and whom are not within the public eye. Masem (t) 03:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Masem. If that image garnered enough attention to warrant a stand alone article about the image, it would be appropriate as fair use there. To illustrate a case of AI failing at something, no. There's a decent chance that a free license example could be found or created. As Masem notes, that generates a failure of WP:NFCC#1. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I searched this page for disgusting, offensive, gross etc.. and can't find any guidance. Wikipedia has a tendency to settle on extreme images particularly with medical topics ie. dealing with the human body. IMO the image guidance should be for a typical case, not an extreme one, with a sensitivity to distraction from reading or even wanting to read the text, when your eye is literally forced towards a repellent image. I brought this up at Talk:Hematochezia#Photo_extreme, but perhaps unsurprisingly, this is not an article where anyone is hanging out much. Maybe we could get more readers and editors if the image wasn't so repellent. The image doesn't need to be so extreme to get the idea across. -- GreenC 15:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph under WP:IMGCONTENT is what you are looking for. We so want to operate under the principle if least surprise, but at the same time we are not censored. That type if image on that page seems a reasonable selection given it a medicinal condition. Masem (t) 16:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

From your link, I found MOS:OMIMG which says "Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers". So the terminology is "extraneously offensive" "offensively extraneous" images.

Say I replaced that image with one of soiled toilet paper (red colored). That would also be reasonable, to get the idea across. Someone else would say hey, let's make this "better", they add an image of a single turd with some blood in the water. Then someone says we can improve this by adding more turds and more blood, the image in the article now. This is how Wikipedia works. There is a race to the bottom, so to speak, ending at an image that is offensive in the extraneous amount of detail. -- GreenC 17:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In the article about Hematochezia, it is hard to say that a bloody stool is extraneous or irrelevant, it's exactly what the medical condition is about. Masem (t) 11:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well you are right, and good thing I didn't say that, in fact said something different. -- GreenC 14:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that the image on that page is not extraneous nor offensive given the topic matter. Now, you may have a point if the image was taken to the extreme as you suggest (a full bowl, for example), because we don't need that degree to show it. There is a tastefulness factor, but in an article about a medical condition related to bloody stools, its hard to avoid actually showing a simple representative image of that, knowing that anywhere else on WP it would be tasteless to include. Masem (t) 15:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, the same could be depicted in a less voluminous manner. That's the test, can a less disgusting image get the same idea across, even when the less disgusting image is also disgusting. Wikipedia tends to go in the direction of maximum disgusting, because it's a factual depiction afterall. Disgusting maximalist vs. minimalist. Another way of saying offensively extraneous. -- GreenC 18:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be the least disgusting and most instructive image in Category:Hematochezia. —Kusma (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That is an important factor, that what we show is limited by what free work is out there. If there was a better free image (possibly a diagram of the human body that shows why this happens), by all means we should use that and move the photo down.

We gave taken action when people tried to upload highly pormographic images for articles on sexuality, reproductive organs, and so forth, so the hypothetical example of a full bowl given above would be handled the same way - that easily seen as purely offensive or lacking educational content. But as pointed out below, there is a point where what may be disgusting is subjective, and as long as a consensus of editors see no problem, we can't really censor that. Masem (t) 23:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If you were looking for "rules" (i.e., not trying to make a common-sense decision), then the archives of Talk:Smallpox probably list every rule that anyone could possibly use to force an image out. (The photo of the last known victim of smallpox apparently horrifies people.) Attempts at systematically addressing such photos pretty much died in 2011 with the m:Image filter referendum/en.

If you were looking for a compromise, then the solution used for the naked pregnant woman at Pregnancy might be a useful model. Move the WP:ASTONISHING image to an obviously relevant section, with a very specific caption, and then put something else at the top. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for these historical precedents. In terms of rules, we have the MOS which says "Avoid images that contain .. extraneous elements that might seem offensive .. ", because it's true we need to have some disgusting images, they don't need be extraneously disgusting. Such a position can mitigate the tendency towards maximalist disgusting, done in good faith to get the point across, but arguably unnecessarily disgusting. This image for example lacks the extraneous details such as a toilet bowl, it's not very offensive (the image is copyright, as an example). -- GreenC 14:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that "disgust" is entirely subjective, and for some people barely exists (doctors could not do what they do if they found diseased tissue "disgusting") while for others it encompasses far more than probably anyone here is willing to define that way (most of my redneck relatives are homophobes, and an image of two men holding hands would "disgust" them). See also a bunch of articles on research showing that a propensity for feeling easily disgusted correlates strongly with conservatism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the policy of uploading medical images which are own work? There is an essay WP:MEDPIC but it refers journals and commons. Is uploading of own work medical images allowed to use them in wikipedia medical imaging? In particular, I'm asking about uploading an image of electrocardiogram record to the section Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, similar to ]? --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin, I think the editor with the most experience in this area is Doc James. You have to consider the patient privacy rights as well as the copyright issues. My impression is that the US copyright law considers images that are produced by machine in a routine manner (e.g., X-rays of a broken bone) to be ineligible for copyright protection, but that won't be true for every country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Will contact. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

In the USA technically X-rays and ECGs are not copyrightable. Unless of course you draw an arrow on it and than as creative input was applied it becomes copyrightable. Many medical images however have been copyright anyway and my practice is to respect the copyright which is present.

With respect to consent in a healthcare environment, this is required for images by peoples licensing bodies and I keep a file of signed consents for all images that are identifiable as per instructions from my licensing body. For non identifiable images verbal consent was deemed sufficient.

We here however should not get into managing patient consents directly. It is reasonable to have people mention that consent was obtained. But there are very well funded bodies that manage this in various jurisdictions.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I uploaded the file ].

However, my question on Image use policy was more on general terms rather than my particular case. Please consider updating the article on Image use policy with the general information that may help other users like me in the future on how to handle own works with medical images better, as it now only covers medical journals, not own work. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The following was boldy added to the guideline a while back, then recently reverted as needing discussion, so let's discuss:

AI-generated images

With new processes like Stable Diffusion that can generate high-quality art from a large database of art, the question of copyright remains open, and at the present time, such images should not be used on Wikipedia unless there is assurance that all images used in the AI system are from free or public domain sources. The U.S. Copyright Office has ruled that AI-generated images cannot be copyrighted, but there remain questions if these are potentially derivative works of the images used in the AI's database.

• For my part (and I saw that original edit above and just let it sit, and thought about it for a long time), I don't agree with this "copyright paranoia". Knowing what I do about prior legislative and case law (in the US, anyway) involving copyright, trademark, "look and feel", databases and processing thereof, and related concepts, plus how these intersect with the public interest and individual rights, including fair use and freedom of expression. I do not think there is a snowball's chance in hell of AI-generated works (at least of the nature currently being generated by LLMs and similar systems) being treated as works subject to copyright, much less to someone else's copyright for having rough similarities to prior works, visual or textual, unless a specific case of direct plagiarism is undeniable (e.g. when the original author's watermark is still discernably present on a face that an AI pretty much pasted into to something it otherwise generated more randomly). And that kind of glitch probably won't be around for long. Even the sources cited above lean in this skeptical direction, and there are many more. Wikipedia is not in a position to try to imagine everything that some day may become impermissible in this or any other jurisdiction and try to avoid doing any of it now just in case. We'd simply close up shop. That which is not forbidden is permitted, and where we have a good reason to use an AI-generated image, e.g. to illustrate articles about AI "art", we must not fear to do so. This is not SelfCensorshipPedia. And there are other uses of AI we already engage in, like for translation, metadata processing, etc. (see summary at WP:AI).
  That said, we probably do need to address much more burning questions of AI-generated content and its use, arguably misuse, for questionably encyclopedic purposes. This takes (so far) primarily three forms: AI-processed image "enhancement" which is literally guesswork by an AI, and often produces utter crap results, especially when working with human faces. 2) AI-created new works that purport to illustrate something, e.g. what a particular type of nebula might look like, or a dinosaur of a particular type on the hunt, or a supposedly representative example of an artistic style such as Impressionism. Much of this will also apply to other AI-generated content, such as audio ("music" if you want to call something AI-made by that name). 3) AI-generated text that purports to summarize and/or research a topic or aspect of one for us, often populated with "hallucinations" and even outright falsification of sourcing (both making up sources that don't exist and falsely citing ones that do as supporting claims they do not). In my own off-site experients getting ChatGPT to do something as simple as generate a timeline of key points in a country's history, almost every single line item was faulty in one way or another, from misleading oversimplification to outright falsehood.
  These are not all image-related concerns, of course, and all three of these issues (probably others I have not thought of) need to be hashed out at Wikipedia talk:Artificial intelligence (or even a broader venue like WP:VPPOL), and some base-principles guidance/policy created from it. I think it's not going to be very constructive to try to gin up image-specific new policy here without addressing the issues more broadly at WP:AI or elsewhere first, or very least drafting image-specific stuff with a particular eye to also integrating conforming material at that page in more generalized vein, while also trying to draw in more eyes and minds to the question, including from WT:MOSIMAGES, WP:WPAI, etc. In particular, any drafting of rules that relies on making legal arguments needs to be "advertised" at places like WT:WPLAW, WT:COPYRIGHT, and other on-site venues where actual-lawyer editors are likely concentrated, because this is an area that is going to require expert imput. WP:AI is presently marked an information page, but it seems obvious to me than an actual guideline or policy is going to have to develop, and pretty quickly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  We absolutely need to be ahead of the copyright curve, to speak, in dealing with AI-generated images. Right now, it may appear that you should tag these ineligible for copyright due to the US Copyright office's ruling , but if it turns out that they are taken as derivative works (where current lawsuits are sitting), we would have inappropriately labeled them as freely licensed and thus create a problem. thus we need to take the conservative stance that there may be copyright on these. Masem (t) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then we'd just un-label them that way and in most cases delete them (if there wasn't some compelling fair-use or other WP:NFC rationale to keep and use one in particular for something). Commons all day every day, and Wikipedia probably at least a few times every day, has to deal with essentially the same theoretical issue but in a very non-theoretical, right-now-for-a-fact way, when people upload images that they claim are their own but which turn out to have been ripped from someone else's website.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  But, the genie would already be out of the bottle. At the time they were declared derivative works, there could be thousands of them, and they could have already spread to the 4 winds because of WP. Those images, posted with an open license, could continue to spread under that license, causing harm to the copyright holders of the works that the images were derived from.    — The Transhumanist   22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  My entire point is that this is already the case with all sorts of images that eventually get deleted. Commons is actually very slow to act on such matters (sometimes it takes months), meanwhile the bad images still continue to appear with open licenses that aren't actually applicable and to get used by off-site people, yet the sky has not fallen down. But there's also a legal faith distinction here; uploading someone else's copyrighted work on purpose to Commons or WP and falsely claiming an open license on it is very different (a bad-faith action) from uploading an AI image to which no derivative-work copyright applies (something that a court or legislation would have to impose), and to which your own copyright could conceivably apply in some jurisdictions as the prompt-using "creator" of the image, and putting an open license on it (a good-faith action).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, people upload (intentionally or not) images with less-strict license requirements, and some of these take years to find. But that's less a problem with copyright law and more just that our processes, being volunteer driven, are slow.

  With AI made images, we do not know well enough about how to evaluate their copyright, as whether they are derivative works of the images in the training database is currently in debate in several lawsuits. Should these courts say that there is no derivative work aspects to AI generated images, then as we know that the US Copyright Office has already said images made by automated processes cannot be copyrights, and AI images will be great fair game for free license images. But until we have a strong answer from these court cases, if we assumed they would be free and be proven wrong, we would have definitely encouraged that copyright violations if we don't warn against AI images at this time (outside where the article is about AI generated images like at Stable Diffussion). Masem (t) 21:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also as the one that added that section, I remember my reasoning for it was prompted by a discussion elsewhere on WP about AI images and content, and I cannot find where that was, but in general, I have found that the general consensus is that WP should stay far away from AI-based content or at least with heavy user oversight to fact-check and the like. Masem (t) 21:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  The law doesn't work that way. You aren't guilty of something criminal or unlawful if it is not yet criminal/unlawful. There is no "retroactive guilt" principle. Presently, these images are not criminal or unlawful (in any jurisdiction that matters to WP/WMF, anyway). To put this another way, unless WP:OFFICE imposes changes at WP:COPYRIGHT and/or WP:IMAGES policy based on the advice of WMF's own in-house or external counsel, it is not our job to try to play some kind of "Nostradumus, Attorney at Law" game. Our copyright-related policies are based on WMF's legal concerns, not our own WP:OR qausi- or pseudo-legal hypothesizing about potential future what-ifs. As for "WP should stay far away from AI-based content", I strongly agree, as outlined in three points above, but that's not because of imagining hypothetical legal scenarios very few of us are anywhere near competent to be making decisions about, but because the AI output is poor quality, factually wrong, misleading in various ways, or otherwise unencyclopedic. And it's probably not something that's going to get addressed properly at this particular page anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years § RfC: Removal of image collages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that a relevant edit to the section "Free licenses" that should be taken into account would be:

If an article has a CC-BY license, this doesn't necessarily mean that all figures in this article have the same free license. As mentioned here, CC-BY licenses allow the use of copyrighted material, provided that this is explicitly identified as being excluded from the free license. Always scrutinize figure captions for statements like "Reprinted with permission from", "©" or "Image:Source", which signal that these figures are not covered by the free license.

What do you think? Should this be added to the page?

User579987 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@User579987, it sounds like you are concerned about someone mistakenly uploading an image that is non-free, because they saw it in a larger publication (e.g., a book or article) that is free, so they assumed that everything inside the publication was free. Do I understand your concern correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Exactly; that's what I meant. I believe it's an important exception that should be looked out for. I admit that some of the words I used are a bit complicated and difficult to understand. Perhaps we can rephrase it using simpler language. User579987 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing : Maybe a version like this :

Important note: If an article has a compatible free license, this doesn't necessarily mean that all images in this article have the same free license. Despite the general freedom granted by the free license, there might be specific components that are copyrighted and these copyrighted components should be clearly identified as being excluded from the free license. Even in free articles, always check image captions for statements like "Reprinted with permission from", "©" or "Image:Source", which signal that these images are not covered by the overall free license.

What do you think? User579987 (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is pretty good, and I wonder if we can make it even shorter. Perhaps as short as "Watch out for sources using multiple licenses. Sometimes an article will have a compatible free license for the text but use a non-free license for specific components (e.g., a photo or diagram)." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing That's great as well, but I think clarification is slightly better as the paragraph I sent isn't very long and to avoid templates like Clarify since this article is normally read by beginners and in my opinion needs to be as clear as possible. I also think it's worth clarifying by mentioning examples like "Reprinted with permission from", because some articles clearly mention this exception by saying, "The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material", while others use more vague statements like "Image: Oxford University Press" for example to state that images are copyrighted. Perhaps some clarification won't do much harm. User579987 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a credit line alone is evidence of the material being non-free. A CC-BY license is free and requires a credit line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I had the same doubt regarding statements like "Image:Oxford University Press". Does this mean this figure is excluded from the free license or not? However, after asking a question here about a figure in which I found this statement, I was told that this was a method of informing that this figure is excluded from the free license. Not quite sure though. Do you prefer omitting this example "Image:Oxford University Press", and keeping the other two: "Reprinted with permission from" and "©"? The latter two are stated in the reference I provided, which says, "For instance, some licensors individually mark pieces of content to which the license does not apply with explanatory text such as “(c) copyright holder--used with permission” or “The CC license does not apply to this picture." So these two are without doubt, but "Image:Source" may be a bit doubtful indeed. Should we remove it and keep the other two?

User579987 (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I would reasonably argue that if work by group A that is published CC, but includes an image or other element that they credit, without mention of copyright, to group B, it is best to assume that group B's work is copyrighted, unless specifically stated by the credit that it is used under some type of free license. So the "Image:Oxford University Press" is where we should assume that it is copyrighted unless proven otherwise, and included in the CC work via fair use. Masem (t) 03:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Masem @WhatamIdoing After some consideration, I think we can add the first two examples: "Reprinted with permission from" and "©-Copyright holder" because these two have a reference to support them. On the other hand, "Image: Source" till now is lacking a reference. I kinda believe it means exclusion from overall free licensing, but without references, it can be easily challenged (WP:CITE). Maybe we can start an RFC or another similar method to verify if "Image: Source" really means exclusion from overall free licensing and should be added to a Wikipedia policy page to make sure it reflects consensus.

What do you think?

User579987 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it'll be better than what we have, so you should do that.

(The problem with credit lines is that "Image: Oxford University Press" is probably copyrighted but "Image: Wikimedia Commons" is not, and the difference may not be immediately obvious.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Are we really uploading screenshots from Youtube now? That almost feels like cheating. It was funner when we had to take the pictures ourselves or scour flickr for scraps. That was more like the wiki-way. Anyways, thoughts on this image? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What issue is there with the image? -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just reading this and wanted to confirm that the image was free to use. Looks like it is? Thanks for the quick reply. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9, it looks like it's licensed correctly. c:COM:VPCOPY is usually a more reliable place to ask about the copyright of images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have any restrictions on images generated using AI, such as DALL-E? ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really, beyond the restrictions on all images. But see Commons:Commons:AI-generated media for some useful guidance. There are probably some circumstances in which AI-generated images are useful, but I think it would be a bad idea to try to use a photorealistic AI image without making clear its artificial nature, and my experience is that AI image generators can be ok for clip art like images but are bad at technical illustration. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:AICLEAN may also be of interest. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's for File:Pinxton Castle Lidar.png found at where it says Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 which wasn't one of the choices given when I uploaded it but is one we can use. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Add {{OGL-3.0}} to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Use Template:OGL-3.0 and provide the attribuiton details in the template. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm curating a film and TV portal and wanted to confirm if Film/TV posters which have been uploaded under fair use can be used alongside the excerpts on their entries. Thank you. Princess of Ara 14:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No, portal space is not main space, and non-free images are not allowed outside of main space. Masem (t) 14:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Princess of Ara 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I have observed a recent spate of editors adding collages to infoboxes for military conflict articles. These might consist of four, six and sometimes more images. In my view, these are too noisy. If they do not significantly increase the footprint of the infobox, they are too small to be viewable. Furthermore, detailed captions add to and bloat the infobox. Infobox size is a particular issue for mobile devices. It is my view that collages as a lead image are generally inappropriate and contrary to P&G on several points.

1. Per WP:COLLAGE, collages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way . Such collages do not satisfy image use policy. The rationale for use appears to be largely decorative.
2. Per MOS:PERTINENCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. This is consistent with WP:IMGCONTENT (policy): The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central .
3. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would tell us (in essence) not to try to write the article in the infobox and that, he less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose ... Collages would appear to be inconsistent with this.
4. Cognative theory and good presentation practice would tell us that too much visual information in one place is counterproductive (ie a sensory overload) and hence, my view that such images are too noisy.
5. Editors adding such collages would apply a justification of other stuff. However, this is only a reasonable justification if it represents best practice represented by our best quality articles. Very few (if any) of our best quality articles use collages for a lead image.

My reading of P&G and best practice is that the use of collages as lead images/in infoboxes generally and for military conflicts more specifically, should be exceptional.

Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, I understand that you can't cover the breadth and scope of many wars with a single image, let alone massive conflicts like World War II. On the other, I agree that generally you see very little in most montages and that many don't feel effectively chosen for their significance versus the "niceness" of the image itself or the decoration they provide (to use the WWII example, the atomic bombing of Japan makes innate sense to me as a major element of the end of the war, or a shot of Stalingrad for its considered role as the "turning point" of the war. Images of tank or aircraft make some sense in terms of the mechanization of war but the choices seem overall random, and the entire collage doesn't do a great job illustrating the global nature of the conflict, its civilian toll, etc. Some of this feels like it wouldn't be as much of an issue if people didn't want an infobox over all else (I've got a collage image as the lead for Art Deco architecture of New York City to demonstrate the different styles the form took in the city across the boroughs it's prominent in, but it's allowed to be more than 30% larger by virtue of not being in an infobox.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

In most cases I've seen in these infobox collage discussions where the topic couldn't be covered with a single image, it couldn't really be covered by 3-6 images either. The exact same problem is faced. There are probably some topics out there which are very well summarised with 3-6 images, but perhaps by that very nature they don't lend themselves to extended disputes about image inclusions. CMD (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Cinderella157, it might be worth making this a broader proposal rather than specific to military conflicts. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. They are awful and should be banned. Otherwise the number of them will inexorably grow, as they are (like over-loaded infoboxes) another thing that editors who can't or won't add text love to do. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There are good clean examples of info ox collages like in most city articles. But this is generally based on using images that have strong contrast and clear features like city skylines and key buildings or infrastructure, so that as a thumbnail it's still easy to read. Pictures from WWII aren't going to have the same contrast or clarity at small sizes so, a collage doesn't make sense here. Masem (t) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Collages have long been controversial. There are some editors who wish that our policies and guidelines did more to restrict their use, but to say that the present language of PAG restricts them is a major stretch/overstatement. Please don't conflate an argument with what you'd like them to say with interpretation of what they presently say. Sdkb ^talk 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There's some policy based arguments to be made against certain collages, but I don't think current policy prohibits them. Certainly poor contrast collages and those that poorly illustrate the subject are bad, and probably a poor choice according to policy. Infoboxes are poor at handling complexity (this isn't just related to images), but that is because they are meant to show simplified information. Dispersing images through out article is a better way to illustrate the subject, but that doesn't mean all collages should go. It certainly seems as if some collages are being added because they are collages, and that doesn't look like careful consideration of the subject or the articles needs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Collages and galleries are an accessibility nightmare on many levels... Be it fragmented images, mini images or scrolling nightmare before reaching pros text (most readers only scroll a few times then go somewhere else)... should really only be used for comparisons in my view. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images Moxy🍁 02:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cinderella and infobox collages should be strongly discouraged, and certainly not expanded. One good image is better than 6 postage stamps; Actual Studies done by real UI / usability types show that users like Big Images. A collage can be acceptable (if not encouraged) for truly gigantic conflicts where only showing a single image might provoke a nationalist reaction (World War II the canonical example here), which is unfortunate because WW2 is probably the most viewed war article, but it should be the exception, not the rule. That being said, I think that the old hesitance regarding galleries in some policies was misplaced, so I'm fine with the laudable goal of moving more images into articles - just create a gallery section to throw them into, and since the current gallery defaults are still unfortunately postage-stamp size, throw in a custom widths & heights parameters so that they're legibile. Galleries also display nicely on the mobile app, which is how a lot of readers see Wikipedia. On mobile, they can easily be scrolled through, or scrolled past if a reader isn't interested, unlike an infobox collage. SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The question is specifically about "military conflicts", and I think this (i.e., "only showing a single image might provoke a nationalist reaction") is the key difficulty: you can't put up an image from "one side" and claim that inherently biased choice will "illustrate point in an encyclopedic way". Multiple images could, however, be an "important illustrative aid to understanding" – by illustrating that there isn't just one, single important thing to know here. It is perhaps a literal case of the medium is the message: Giving multiple images shows that there are multiple viewpoints.

That said, it's possible that these collages would be better placed outside of infoboxes, so that they can be larger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Cinderella157, on every point. Infoboxes are for ultra-concisely convenying the key-facts gist, and absoltely do not serve an image-gallery function. WP even discourage (per MOS:GALLERIES) image galleries at all (in the body) unless there are one or more prescribed good reasons for adding one. It's completely inappropriate to make what amounts to one in an infobox, where doing it is also a serious accessiblity problem for anyone without amazing eyesight.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)`

• I usually enjoy these collages in articles about cities. With military conflicts, it is different: to give an example, the infoboxes of the Coalition Wars all look essentially the same to me: First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh: some paintings of battles, sometimes involving ships. The twelve infobox images in the Sixth Coalition article might be better placed in the sections discussing these battles. —Kusma (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:CSD § F8 and keep local. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi I have question. Is there any policy that protect a person's photo privacy (found in the article/page)? I.e. Elizabeth is a former actress that worked within adult industry. On her article, the infobox has an image showing cleavage. Elizabeth is however no longer works within the adult industry and regret doing so, and find the image inappropriate, considering many users everyday is reading her wiki page and she believe it's a breach of her privacy. She wants to replace with another picture or without any picture. Is there any Wikipedia policy/guidelines that allows to replace the image and protects her rights? 2A00:23EE:10B0:7735:A55E:46DC:804A:949F (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Not censored; WP:Outing would be relevant. Wikipedia is timeless, so if something is of encyclopedic interest then it remains so. But if a better image is available then that could be the lead image. Images can only be used if appropriate permission was supplied, and that means that the right to "privacy" is forgone. Some rights may be retained by the law, eg right not to be used in an advertisement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Donald J. Harris is the father of Kamala Harris. Pictures of him seem hard to find. There is one proposed in this discussion] on his article's talk page. It is from the Stanford Economics Department. I'm guessing Stanford has the copyright. How does one verify this? If it is copyrighted, what are our options? How long can fair use be employed? Any help with these questions or with finding a public domain image of Donald Harris will be greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The page on which that image appears has a Stanford University copyright notice, so lacking any other information we assume that to apply to the image - you could certainly ask them directly to verify, or check whether the image has been published elsewhere with other details. Generally speaking, fair use wouldn't be possible for an image of a living person since (in theory) a free image could be created at any time. (Given that his daughter is a US federal officeholder, possibly he appeared at an event where he might have been photographed by a federal employee?) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this great reply Nikkimaria. Sadly, I don't think father and daughter are close. They might even be estranged. He seems to have a low public profile, even though he was a Stanford University professor. But maybe if she triumphs in November, they'll make up and the possibilities thereafter will skyrocket. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

PS I take back some of what I said above. Donald J. Harris has written a warm family memoir here, which has more recent family pictures, but sadly all copyrighted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, @Nikkimaria: The Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is a Federal lab. Is the picture in this newsletter public domain? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not KH's father, but a better picture of her mother. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The lab is federally funded but is not a federal agency. The photo is copyrighted and the credit specifically indicates a copyright held by the university regents. Whpq (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, if you contact the person or employer, they will provide a suitably licensed photo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Image use has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Image use until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I came across this 2023 archived discussion about AI-generated images, but it doesn't appear to have reached a clear-cut conclusion, and it also appears to have been mainly focusing on the copyright status of such works. There are encyclopedic concerns as well, particularly when it comes to AI images of people. I occasionally come across what seem to be AI generated images of people while looking at Special:NewFiles: some recent examples are File:Bafaki Tangal.jpg, File:P. M. S. A. Pukkoya Tangal.jpg, File:Km sahib.jpeg, File:Sayyid ummar bafaqi.jpeg and File:K. Uppi Saheb 1.jpg. To be honest, I don't know for sure whether these are AI images, but they don't seem like paintings, drawings or photographs. From a copyright standpoint, these could be problems per c:COM:BASEDONPHOTO if they were created based on a old photo or something; however, even if they're 100% original, they might be too original per WP:IMAGEOR. The question I have is whether encyclopedically such images are OK to use even if their copyright is not a problem. FWIW, there is a little on AI images in WP:AI#Images and Commons and much more in c:COM:AI, but these too seem more focused on copyright related issues than encyclopedic use; of course, copyright is what Commons is more concerned with, which is why it might be a good idea for encyclopedic concerns covered a bit more locally here on Wikipedia. The two images I recently came across are of deceased persons and its possible non-free images could be used per WP:NFCCP; if, however, that could be affected if freely licensed AI-generated images are considered to be a reasonable free alternative to non-free images. Furthermore, freely licensed AI-generated images could possibly be argued to even be OK to use in BLPs, but that might cause issues with WP:BLPIMAGE. Pinging Masem and SMcCandlish since they participated in the archived discussion mentioned above, but feedback from others would be appreciated too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's trivially obvious that no AI-generated image has any encyclopedic value whatsoever. This should be enshrined in policy. Encyclopedic value is a function of human discernment in collation, preparation, and representation. AI is fundamentally incapable of such discernment; as AI is functionally a black box, humans purporting to mediate its output are also incapable of such discernment. Remsense ‥ 论 01:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I know the scope of this post is intentionally narrower, pertaining to images of people. However, I do not see a distinction worth making here. Remsense ‥ 论 01:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I could see some value in using AI generated images in articles about AI generated images or maybe in articles about art, but I'm not so sure there's much value in using them in biographies, except perhaps as an example of someone's art or perhaps in cases where the image is controversial and the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. Given that so many biographies (not only BLPs) seem to be without at least an image for primary identification purposes, the temptation to create one using AI could be too much for some to resist. Moreover, some non-free images might be of poor quality (File:K. Uppi Saheb 1.jpg was actually overwriting File:K. Uppi Saheb.jpg and needed to be split, and File:Bafaki Tangal.jpg is another overwritten file in need of a split.) that it's tempting to replace them with "better" looking AI images. The questions is whether such a thing is good from an encyclopedic standpoint. If the consensus is that it's not, then I agree such a thing should be clearly stated in relevant policy pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If we have free non-generated images we should use those. If we do not, then works derived from non-free images, whether created by AI or by a human artist, are likely problematic with respect to the copyright of the images they were derived from. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure how to articulate this while coming off with adequate clarity as to my position, but it's clearly reasonable to use AI-generated images as primary illustrations of the generation itself. Remsense ‥ 论 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Zero allowance for AI generated images that are meant to depict people, living or dead. Within the context where AI images would be allowed and where it is needed to show a human or more with the image, it should be clearly generic human figures that AI is known to generate, and if the image edges on recognizability, an alternative image should be saught. — Masem (t) 02:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: Does it already say that somewhere in IUP or some other policy page? Is there fairly accurate way of determining whether an image is AI-generated? I'm a total newbie when it comes to them and only notice when the image seems unnatural for some reason. I'd imagine that some are quite skilled at creating such images so that they can be really hard to detect, unlike the ones I mentioned above (which really seemed odd to me). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said this is my opinion , if we don't have advice anywhere on this. — Masem (t) 02:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is an argument for expecting the sourcing and processing to be clearly stated on the file page for media used in articles. I've seen people point to the frequent absence of this necessary documentation on Commons as a pragmatic argument that we can't truly expect WP:V to always apply. I personally won't apologize if I'm doing GAN or peer review for an article where I have to insist on removing media with incomplete or unclear documentation. Remsense ‥ 论 02:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if we are allowing AI images (and in such cases, starting with how Commons does it), it should be where the uploader has otherwise been in control of the image generation route so we know what the prompts were, what AI engine was used, etc.

But again, that's for sufficiently generic images. When it comes to any AI image that tries to produce images of known persons, that should be an area we avoid with a ten-foot pole due to the potential issues with accuracy, representation, etc. Masem (t) 03:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I find myself in concurrence with all of the concerns raised above about use of AI-generated (or significantly AI-altered) images of people, outside the context of encyclopedic coverage of what AI imagery is and what controversies surround it. If we're using AI fakery to represent biographcial subjects, then we are making a mistake. As for identifying them, there are sites now that analyze images and can identify AI-generated ones with a 95%+ accuracy rate, so I'm told, though this is not something I have looked at closely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone uploading an image like that needs one warning and then an indefinite block. At the moment, the couple of samples I've seen are hideous (example from above). However, even if that problem were overcome, the idea that faked photos could be used because someone thinks they are ok shows a clear WP:CIR problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what makes me confident that expecting clear documentation for images used in articles is adequate to address this problem on the article front at least: or, at least addressing it as well as we address copyvio in prose. Editors who do this are almost always inexperienced or incompetent, and scandals where a regular contributor in good standing is found to be fabricating this documentation are likely to be exceedingly rare.. Remsense ‥ 论 06:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't start this discussion in the hope that someone would drop the hammer on one particular uploader, but rather to see whether this kind of thing had been previously discussed before. I'm assuming the uploader of the files I used as reference is just unfamiliar with such things and was acting in good faith. They were overwriting existing files with some of their uploads which is also a problem, but again I think this was just a new user not familiar with such stuff. I used their uploads for reference because they're ones I recently came across in Special:NewFiles, but I've seen such images before and always wondered about them. Such images looked odd to me but I wasn't sure how to tell whether they were AI generated. I imagine these types of images are going to become more and more common on Wikipedia since they seem to have become more and more common out in the real world. So, if there's no existing policy like IUP or BLP that specifically deals with them, then perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss one. If a consensus is established and there's a way to technically detect them, then existing images could be taken care of and perhaps steps could be implemented to prevent/discourage future uploads. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think BLP at least in spirit covers it. Fundamentally, an AI-generated image misrepresents a real, living person, showing them in a way they never actually looked like. If it's not acceptable to make misrepresentations about living people in text, it certainly should not be acceptable to do it in images either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Since this discussion has yet to be archived, I figure I'll ask about File:Stephen A. Love.jpg and File:SAL LINKEDIN pp.jpg. Do these appear to be AI-generated or AI-enhanced? They could've been uploaded by Stephen A. Love himself. Would that make a difference if true? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The yellow one claims to have first been published in 2014, i.e., before AI photo tools were generally available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The second one has metadata and is genuinely on LinkedIn. CMD (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Could AI be used to enhance an older image? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Could be, but there are also other ways to enhance an image. Either way, it seems this is an image used by that person to represent themselves, which is not the same as someone else creating an image of them. (Whether the image permissions are appropriate is a different matter.) CMD (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What has AI got to do with it? The first appears to be from an album cover. In the second perhaps the guy has whitened his teeth with an image editor. Why does it matter if this was done with an AI tool or a "dumb" image editor. This appears to be AI paranoia. -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Marchjuly, it looks like you have not seen Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guideline against use of AI images in BLPs and medical articles? yet. Warning: it's already over 350 comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Images were deleted here w the edit summary "decorative and unnecessary." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=74th_Street_(Manhattan)&diff=prev&oldid=1265766246

Is it permissible to restore some or all of them? I can't find support for the deletion in our policy or practice.

If the answer is no, is it then permissible to delete the similar images at List of people from Chicago, List of people from Houston, List of people from Kansas City, Missouri, List of people from Ottawa, List of people from Berlin, List of Catholic priests, List of African-American activists, and the like?

Interested in thoughts here. Thank you. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Photos of people were removed from the "notable people" section at 74th Street (Manhattan). Wikipedia is not an image gallery. If readers want to see this photo of Jane Fonda--which is decorative and has no relevance to that particular article--they can read her article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't imagine that that particular image is the issue, but if it is one can no doubt find a different one. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is MOS:IMAGEREL. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

In view of m:Tech/News/2025/16 (currently posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tech News: 2025-16 and some user talk pages), I think that we should update WP:THUMBSIZE to explicitly name these preferred standard sizes, whilst keeping the recommendation to use |upright=, in order to discourage unnecessary sizing. In the last couple of years I have noticed increased use of strange image sizes that bear no relation to the original upload size; often, they are odd numbers. See e.g. this edit where I amended the dimensions of five images, one of which specified |413x413px. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Those HxW dimensions are a result of people resizing the image in the visual editor. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The scaling factor for upright should be updated to use 250 instead of 220 and a mention of 250 being the default size, not 220. Thumbsize already discourages using specific sizes. Snævar (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think that the only change that is needed is updating of the math to show that 250 is the new default and upright will display a percentage of that new value. We should continue to recommend against fixed pixel sizes and should not mention the saved thumbnail sizes (which, strangely to me, do not match the thumbnail size choices in Preferences - Appearance). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Obviously this is a done deal, but I hate it. I just noticed the images in infoboxes now look way too large and dominate the article far too much. I thought I was seeing things and found my way here. All the upright=.9 would need to be changed to .8 for it to look the same. With the size increase some of these pages look more like an art book than an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  You're 100% right. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm wondering how this HUGE decision was made? Was there a wiki-wide RfC or did someone unilaterally change it without discussion? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are free to change your personal thumbnail size setting in your preferences. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sjoerddebruin: Could you please point to the documentation on how to do that? I'm sure others besides me would want to know how. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  IPs won't know how to do it anyway so the images will still be too big for the vast majority of readers. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Fyunck(click): It's at Preferences → Appearance → Files, Thumbnail size. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  The new image size is terrible for shorter articles with an infobox. At 220, you could squeeze two photos into the text, but at 250 the second photo pokes into the reference section. And many of us get annoyed when editors fiddle with image sizes, so that's not an easy solution. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, the images are now too large by default and they look awful on 13 inch screens with the new Vector skin. Cards84664 23:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Fyunck(click): It certainly wasn't unilateral, the tech news that I linked at the top of this section links to phab:T355914 (twice), which has a lot of participants. That phabricator ticket itself links to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 210#Increase default thumbnail size from 220px to 250px, which is probably where major discussion started, but itself may have been pre-discussed elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I figured it was talked about. Thanks. It's one thing about a standard thumbnail, but infoboxes are not supposed to be wide. Per wikipedia they are supposed to be standard 200px which equaled upright=.9 when thumbs were 220px. This now requires all the .9's to be changed to .8s. Most were putting in the parameter "image_size" equals 200px. That was correct and is still correct but since it's a static size I have made sure it was corrected to upright=.9, based on standard thumbnail size of 220px. When someone implemented the new 250px thumbnails they failed to realized that Wikipedia infobox standard is 200px. Suddenly all our infoboxes are crowding out the lead paragraph text because our infoboxes are too large. That should be corrected promptly. Quite unhappy about this but changing upright from .9 to .8 is at least doable. Maybe a bot? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Where is that 200px number coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  You can find it scattered about Wikipedia help pages. One is at Help:Infobox/picture where an original administrator pointed me to. You can find it at Template:Infobox person but there you are told that the 200px is deprecated because we don't want a static size anymore. That's why we have been systematically changing it to upright=.9, but now it will have to be upright=.8. Even for Template:Infobox all the examples are 200px. But as i said, 200px is scattered all over wikipedia and templates. It's what we use at Project Tennis because that's what we were told and that's what looks best. Now it's all screwed up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• That guidance should be updated, since static sizing is deprecated. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  200px also appears to be from a much earlier era of screen size - it's a good width on a 1024p screen, but too small on anything bigger. (Well over half of desktop screens worldwide are 1366p or bigger). Wikipedia UI should reflect what users will actually see - pretending that no one has replaced their 1024p screens since 2008 doesn't make sense. If the UI had kept pace with screen size, we would have thumb sizes larger than we currently do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  That is a completely wrong way of thinking. I don't doubt that desktop screens have more pixels now... mine certainly does, but it also did in 2008. I think I had a 1024 screen in 1998. But no one replaces their screens anymore because few people use desktops anymore. Everyone uses laptops and tablets and phones and 200px infobox images are plenty large without dominating the screen. Images are big even at 200px on my 1920px screen. This keeps the infobox far on the right side with the most vital info below a smaller photo. We don't need a Sistine Chapel-sized fresco in the infobox so that it's half the width of the screen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted a change saying that we should reduce the upright= parameter on lead images from max 1.35 to max 1.2, so that with the default image size (now 250px rather than 220px) the max pixel dimension of the lead image stays at most 300px. This is going to affect many articles that in good faith used the previous value of upright=, and also affect many readers who (like me) bump my default image size from the system-wide default. I think it needs a discussion. Does the lead image size setting need to be 300px for some technical reason (in which case we should encourage setting it in lead images to 300px rather than by upright=), should it remain proportional (in which case I think the previous advice of max upright=1.35 serves to keep it from being too oversized), or is there some good reason for continuing to encourage proportionality using upright for lead images but reducing the proportion to 1.2? There was some vague wave at infoboxes in the edit summaries but as far as I can see that is irrelevant because when there is an infobox the lead image usually goes in the infobox and infobox lead images are usually not proportioned upward with upright=1.35, so the articles with upright=1.35 leads and the articles with infoboxes are almost entirely separate from each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe that this is a continuation of the discussion above. This page currently states that the default thumbnail size is 220px, which is incorrect. At a minimum, we should not have incorrect statements on policy pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

However standard Wikipedia "infobox" image size is supposed to be 200px, lest they crowd out the lead text. That's a mess now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

We should change the statement of the default image size to be correct. But the discussion of the max image size for non-infobox lead images (status quo ante: upright=1.35), and the image size for infobox images (status quo ante 200px?), are two different things from the default image size and if we want to change them from the status quo we should discuss them. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I don't want to change them from the status quo. That was fine. All I'm saying is that with the change to 250px for thumbs it also broke all infoboxes... or at least the sports infoboxes. It overrode the standard infobox 200px. Countless 10s of thousands of infoboxes that were just fine are now broken as gigantic. I wonder if we could hard-code the infobox parameters to max out at 200px? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but the infobox discussion is one section above. Here I want to discuss the upright=1.35 size limit on non-infobox images. Should it be changed, and if so why? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The default infobox image size is 250. Has been for a decade. It's right there in the policy. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

No. If you put no size parameter at all it has been 200 or 220 for years. Now it has suddenly ballooned to gargantuan size 250. And wiki has plenty of places that says the ideal size is 200px. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Which policy? Certainly not Wikipedia:Image use policy, because until a few hours ago, the figure 250 wasn't even mentioned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

My error, it's 220 per Module:InfoboxImage. (the module uses 250 a lot). Magnolia677 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The 300px / |upright=1.35 thing was added in this edit, way back in July 2011 by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), but seems to have been undiscussed at the time. So: do we pick one of these to retain (which one), and adjust the other to suit? Using the text as it stood on 18 April 2025, this would give either of these:

1. Therefore, it should be no wider than upright=1.2 (equivalent to 300px at the default preference selection of "250px"). ... Stand-alone lead images (not in an infobox) should also be no wider than upright=1.2.
2. Therefore, it should be no wider than upright=1.35 (equivalent to 340px at the default preference selection of "250px"). ... Stand-alone lead images (not in an infobox) should also be no wider than upright=1.35.

My feeling is that retaining |upright=1.35 makes lead section images too much in-your-face, and that therefore we should go for my option 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps because I run with default image size 300px and am used to it, I think retaining upright=1.35x to maintain proportionality with existing images in existing articles is a better choice. If an individual image is too in-your-face we can handle that on a case by case basis rather than insisting that all lead images be small even in cases where that might not be the right choice. Basically, I prefer more flexibility rather than more rigidity. Let's make a thought experiment: suppose the default image size were increased to 360px. Should we then demand that all lead images be reduced to upright=0.8? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Noting that David Eppstein has already changed the page text to read "337px", which is neither of the options above. Re the thought experiment, we would not reduce the guidance number, because the change to larger thumbnails was caused by the increase in screen resolutions of almost all screens that are used to view Wikipedia. In a world where we would change the default to 360px, the number of pixels on a screen would have increased again. Our current situation, and the thought experiment, show why chasing or even mentioning px sizes is a fool's errand. All images displayed by templates (I'm looking at you, Module:Location map and Template:Infobox mapframe) should default to a fraction of the thumbnail preference. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If 337px is inaccurate, I would be happy for it to be changed. It is merely what you get when you multiply 1.35 (the status quo ante multiplier) with 250 (the new default pixel size). The important relevant part of this policy is the guidance on which multiplier to use for lead images; the corresponding pixel size is merely advisory. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

As I commented above, average screen size has increased substantially more over time than default thumbnail size. We should keep the previous values of upright - effectively increasing the pixel size by ~14% - to keep lede images being a useful size as screens continue to grow. Too-narrow images are particularly a problem in infoboxes - a very narrow infobox will end up unnecessarily long due to text wrapping. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how that's possible. Sure, desktop screens are much bigger... I use one because of all the photo editing. But most people I know don't have desktops. They have tablets and 15-17 inch laptops. Some have nothing except their cellphones. Average screen size for most readers has gotten much smaller imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

On my Android cellphone, at least, the Wikipedia app completely ignores the specified image size and shows the lead image full-width above all text of the article. So I think cellphone usage may be largely irrelevant for what we specify here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

On an iphone it's not full width... it's massively zoomed in (often cutting off part of a persons scalp). But my point is, while screens started to get bigger and bigger, they have now gotten smaller and smaller for most folks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software rounds odd sizes up to the next multiple of 4; |upright=1.35 actually emits 340px for those with thumbnail set to 250px and all logged-out users. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that in the tech news that I linked in the previous section, it says File thumbnails are now stored in discrete sizes. If a page specifies a thumbnail size that's not among the standard sizes (20, 40, 60, 120, 250, 330, 500, 960), then MediaWiki will pick the closest larger thumbnail size but will tell the browser to downscale it to the requested size.. This means that if |upright=1.35 is specified, users will be served an image that is actually 500px wide, for downscaling to 340px client-side. But if |upright=1.2 is specified, users will be served an image that is actually 330px wide, for downscaling to 300px client-side. The scale factor here between 500 and 330 is 1.515, but the file size is more likely to be proportional to the number of pixels than to one dimension. Since the area factor is the square of the scale factor, this works out at 2.295. In other words, to retrieve an image for display at 340px the client is downloading about 230% more data than if it retrieves an image for display at 300px. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That seems like something that could be adjusted very easily on the software end - if 340px ends up as a common thumbnail size, the developers could make it a standard size instead of 330px. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that would happen. Until last week, for each original image that exists, the media servers held a thumb image for every size that had ever been used. That is, if somebody had used e.g. ] just once in a test at WP:Sandbox, that would have scaled the original to 256px for display, and even after it was no longer displayed the 256px copy would be kept permanently. It has been realised that this practice takes up a lot of server space, and so a decision was made to only scale images to certain standard sizes, store only these, and delete all of the image copies that were of any other size. This was an across-the-board policy decision, and I doubt that they will allow a local exception for English Wikipedia.

Now: why do we say 340px? Because it's 337.5px rounded up to an exact multiple of 4. Why do we say 337.5px? Because it's 250px * 1.35. Why do we say 250px? Because that's what's been imposed on us now that 220px is no longer a standard size. OK, so why 1.35? Because that's approximately the scale factor that takes 220px up to 300px. But why should we insist on this exact same scale factor when we're no longer scaling from 220px but from 250px? We could use |upright=1.2 to yield 300px, or we could use |upright=1.32 which would scale to exactly 330px, which is a standard size. I doubt that the people complaining about the increase to 340px would be any more upset about 330px. I also don't think that the people comfortable with 340px would be really notice that 330px is slightly smaller. But 330px would eliminate the client-side rescaling that is necessary to display a 500px image at 340px wide. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally realized that the prior wording of this part of policy applied the same 1.35 multiplier maximum to both infoboxes and standalone lead images. While we sort this out I have temporarily reworded the policy to separate out these two different contexts. I support 1.35 for standalone lead images but I think it is far too wide for infoboxes. Was the old 0.9 multiplier for infoboxes intended as a default or as a max? If only the default, we should also have a max. Both 1 and 1.2 seem like reasonable possibilities to me. We might also suggest that images needing extra wideness (like panoramas) be taken out of the infobox. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

And that's reasonable. However, .9 was based on the 200px norm when the infobox default was 220px. Since static pixels were deprecated, and many infoboxes used 200px, we went to upright=.9. A couple days ago the infobox default ballooned to 250px so the norm is now equal to .8 (200/250). I think the most reasonable would be .9 and 1 as maximums. I can't see ever using 1.2 (300pixels) in an infobox. That would be like having the George Washington article like this. For me at least that's crazy big. I can't really see using "1" but there might be a few instances where it could be used, so as a max it's fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you believe that any infobox width over 200px is excessively wide. 15 or so years ago, a typical infobox occupied 1/5 of screen width (200px infobox on a 1024px screen, the most common size in 2010). Since then, screens have approximately doubled in pixel size but stayed similar in physical size, so a 200px infobox occupies only half the screen width that it once did. No one is suggesting infoboxes that infoboxes take up half the screen, just that they are scaled to keep a roughly constant width (on a given physical screen size) over time. Infoboxes are for the most important information and the most representative image - and are typically where readers look first - so why should they get narrower and narrower as screen resolution increases?

Infoboxes have different purposes in different articles. Rail article infoboxes with adjacent stations navboxes and route diagram templates need sufficient width for those to display properly and have readable text size - it's why {[tl|infobox station}} has used upright=1.35 for years now. Anything smaller than that, and you end up with excessive whitespace from line breaks and RDTs that are wider than the image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say any infobox size over 200px is excessively wide. I said most of the time we have used the 200px norm that Wikipedia has told us in help pages. 220px is not excessive but 200px is usually better imho. 250px is excessive most of the time, and 300px is ridiculous. I think most of those large images should not be in an infobox. They should be placed below or elsewhere. Really, nothing should be in an infobox that is not already in prose. And I think you are making a mistake about infobox picture sizes through the years. I've been here since 2006 and I have never seen infobox pictures as large as when happened a couple days ago. They have never been that big in comparison to the rest of the screen in 19 years! Plus, in 2010, I'd wager most articles didn't even have infoboxes. I know project tennis didn't have the number they do now. They have been added by the boatload in the last 10 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Re "A couple days ago the infobox default ballooned to 250px so the norm is now equal to .8 (200/250)": there's a leap of reasoning here: was the norm previously .9 (which combined with the old default size gives 200px), or was the norm previously 200px (which combined with the old default size gives 0.9)? They are two different things. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The norm was 200px. But with phones and the move towards smaller screens, having a static size was shown to be inadequate. The wikipolice started changing all the infobox image_size attributes from 200px to upright=.9 to keep them the same size. It worked just fine but updating is slow. So it was 200px not .9. Some wikiproject templates have 200px built in to the coding... Wikiproject tennis does not. Some have added to image_upright parameter to infoboxes since the standard static image_size parameter is pretty much deprecated. Wikiproject Tennis had not yet but it was on my to-do list to get the template fixed. Every wikiproject is different. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

These new images are too big, in my opinion. Here is a before and after. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place which may be of interest to participants on this page. The relevant discussion may be found at Talk:Fall of the Assad regime#Collage version. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

"A list of websites that offer free images can be found at Commons:Free media resources." Commons:Free media resources directs to an empty page: https://commons.wikimedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Free_media_resources Should it be: https://commons.wikimedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Commons:Free_media_resources ? --Ventolinmono (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Or, c:Commons:Free media resources - we should avoid external links when normal wikilinks (with interwiki prefix) work perfectly well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Does the Wikimedia Commons guideline COM:OVERWRITE also apply to images uploaded to the Wikipedia site?

WP:OVERWRITE is a soft offsite redirect to it, but I don't know if that's meant to be taken as an endorsement that it's also an official guideline here, or if it's only intended for quick reference to a Commons-only stance. Belbury (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury: Each WMF wiki (such as Commons, English Wikipedia and hundreds of others) sets its own policies and guidelines. I guess that if the newer image is not an improvement on the original, normal editing policies such as WP:VAND might apply. But see Wikipedia:Be bold#File namespace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That WP:BOLD advice doesn't seem strong enough for me to revert the uploads to previous versions. (I'm looking at subtler cases where the uploader has gone back and replaced some of their earlier uploads with AI upscaled versions; it's against MOS:AIUPSCALE to use these in articles, but not clearly against WP guidelines to host the files on Wikipedia.)

Should Wikipedia adopt a more explicit guideline on overwriting old files? Belbury (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Are we allowing digital images in bios?

• Jerry Hardin
  Jerry Hardin
• Steven Williams
  Steven Williams
• Kasi Lemmons
  Kasi Lemmons
• Tony Cox (actor)
  Tony Cox (actor)
• Bruce Helford
  Bruce Helford
• Lane Smith
  Lane Smith

Moxy🍁 11:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

yes, they are allowed JoeBugMan (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

As the creator we understand you like them but I'm looking for a policy base argument either way. Are these recreations of actual images ?Moxy🍁 12:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

"We"? What are you, the queen? JoeBugMan (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

They are based off of several images, as I did not have the person sitting in front of me for a portrait, but they are my own creation, not a direct recreation of an image. JoeBugMan (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

They are being removed by multiple editors because of concerns that their AI generated and or user created resulting in a Caricature type image. I think they are great just a very odd addition to Wikipedia to have cartoon type images in place of real images. Must understand this has nothing to do with your artistic ability but related to the representation of real individuals. Moxy🍁 13:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

At least one of these images is a direct derivative of a copyrighted image (see discussion on Commons). I haven't had time to examine more, and the derivative status is a Commons consideration, not an en-wiki consideration, but I wanted to place on the record here that the statement based off of several images is not true for all these creations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am willing to voluntarily remove any that people feel is too close to copyrighted material JoeBugMan (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The challenge is that you told us above that they weren't copies of individual images. I found one that was. Now editors on Commons will not be able to trust your assertion that this material isn't copyright-infringing. Can you see how that makes things more time-consuming for the volunteers here and why that might make people skeptical of using these images? I seem to be one of the only people who was open to the use of these kinds of images and now I am no longer supportive considering the problems of potential copyright infringement here in addition to the BLPIMAGE issues discussed below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm willing to remove any images if people make a case that they are too close to existing photos, but I stand by my assertion that they are not derivative work and that up until placing them in the public domain, I held the copyright. JoeBugMan (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Following on from this I've just reported the Tony Cox image as it's clearly copied from an interview the actor took part in from 2017 (see report Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:TonyCox.png).

Outside the wider discussion issue of using digital drawings, it's clear this individual is effectively drawing people from previously published photos and videos and presenting themselves as the copyright holder which likely isn't acceptable under copyright grounds. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Of those displayed above I have also now reported a second as it's a drawing based on a photograph hosted at Getty Images (see Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BruceHelford.png). Think all the photos displayed above should probably be removed from this discussion as I suspect all of them will be copyright violations. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This is from a conversation I had with Moxy:

Moxy: They are being removed by multiple editors because of concerns that their AI generated and or user created resulting in a Caricature type image. I think they are great just a very odd addition to Wikipedia to have cartoon type images in place of real images. Must understand this is has nothing to do with your artistic ability but related to the representation of real individuals. Moxy🍁 13:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Me (joebugman): First of all, they are not ai generated, as I have stated multiple times and I am willing to prove it. Second, they are not caricature type images by any definition, they are illustrations of the people. Third, they are not "in place" of a real image- no image (copyright free, that is) exists of these people, so I specifically created them and placed them in the public domain so that there would be an image that could be used without conflict.

I'm glad you like them, I want people to like them and I want people to know what these individuals look like without having to leave wikipedia and google them to find out if it's the person they were thinking of (as I have often been forced to do when browsing wikipedia, a favorite past time of mine)

Maybe this undertaking of mine was a bad idea, I just wanted to contribute in my own way, but it seems like people don't think it's appropriate. I never wanted to upset anyone, I just thought it would be good add an image where none existed and to correct anyone who thought I had generated them with AI- something I Definitely did not do and do not want people to think of me. JoeBugMan (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC) JoeBugMan (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I've left a notice about this discussion at WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and I saw you targeted my additions for removal, even removing images from non-BLP- do you haver a justification for that or do you just like going on a power trip? JoeBugMan (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:AIIMAGES clearly says not. Nthep (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

They're not ai generated- they are made by me, a real artist, and I can prove I drew them if anyone is interested. Do you have any other reason for objection? JoeBugMan (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes we do I stated above.... that is concerned about the representation of real individuals with a caricature. Moxy🍁 13:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Accepting in good faith the image creator's statement that they are not AI-generated, I don't have a general objection to user-generated digital illustrations in any of these BLPs. However, several of these creations (, , , , ) are quite unflattering and in the case of living people might be considered to WP:BLPIMAGE's prohibition on the use of images out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. I also think the background colors are quite jarring and that the images would fit in better to the pages if the background colors were more neutral. That said, @JoeBugMan, you are not doing yourself any favors by re-inserting these images after multiple warnings about the WP:BRD cycle and accusing others of going on a power trip. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the images being unflattering (which is a subjective opinion) is valid reason for removal of a picture- multiple pages of BLPs use photos that are unflattering (e.g. candid shot from a press junket), but they are not targeted for removal. Additionally, there are multiple biography pages that use an illustration, even though they lived in a time when cameras were prevalent,- should these also be taken down? Concerning the subjects not finding them flattering- If any of the people I have depicted do not like my drawings, I have no issue with them taking them down, I only request that they give me a chance to edit/redraw the image to their liking.

As for not doing myself favors, I stand by my accusation of ScottishFinnishRadish- he undid ALL the image additions I made on the grounds that they weren't fit for BLPs and he did this even on biographies of deceased people- Which seems underhanded to me, if not a direct violation.

With that said, I only wanted to contribute in a way that fit my abilities- I did not think this would cause so many problems. If the general consensus here is that I am not welcome then I will leave, no hard feelings. JoeBugMan (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, but an unflattering photo is still a photo that we can be confident is a real image of the person. We can't have confidence that an unflattering drawing is sufficiently accurate for encyclopedic use (and we are not generally supposed to use unflattering images for BLPs, period). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the section in BLP discussions rregarding unflattering images? JoeBugMan (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I did above, WP:BLPIMAGE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

If anyone else has a better memory than me, I have a memory of a previous RfC which found consensus against original artistic portraits but can't remember the name and can't find it off-hand. I do recall it covered both living and historical figures. CMD (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I searched BLPN, but drawing (conclusions) and painting (with a broad brush) aren't helpful search terms in archives that large. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for having a second look. I vaguely recall there may have been some initiative to draw pictures of historical figures that don't have one, and a West African monarch was either part of those drawings or an example used in the discussion. CMD (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There was this thread a while back: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Cartoon_portraits. I feel like we need a community-wide discussion at the Village Pump regarding user-created portraits, but don't feel like starting one myself. Some1 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The two key things to consider is 1) are any of the images too close to an existing, copyrighted photo of the person? If so, even with small artistic flairs, that would make them derivative works and no longer free images. and 2) if they are considered reasonably fair images of the people in question. In this case, while most seem reasonable, the first and fifth to me seem unflattering, but that's my personal opinion; editors on the respective pages should make that decision if the derivative work question is answered. Masem (t) 13:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

If there is anyone who objects to the look of my drawings (quality level, closeness to the subject, etc.) please let me know- I am willing to rework drawings to get them to a better level JoeBugMan (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing partially based on the unflattering expressions that the key source for most of these portraits is still frames from video. Like Masem says without seeing the original copyrighted works these were based on it's hard to determine if they're too derivative. But beyond that, the question is "are any of these images good?" and I'd generally say no. I certainly wouldn't want them representing me versus no photo at all if it were my biography. There's always a question of when it's better to have a bad free image than no image at all (witness the debates about terrible blurry screenshots of people from a distance or at events and whether or not that's worth adding) but to me these just don't meet the threshold here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, that these images look bad and it would be better to have no image at all, then fine, I will stop making images JoeBugMan (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

derivative work from copyrighted images aside, it’s also opening a Pandora’s box of whether the artist is using Wikipedia to do promotional of their art and art style.

it also is concerning that artist in question appears to be bludgeoning the discussion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'bludgeoning the discussion', I'm just trying to defend myself. JoeBugMan (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

By their own admissions, they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and are here for art. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I recall a previous discussion but don't remember it forming any consensus. We have lots of awful photos, for example, many taken by Wikipedians or Commoners. Bluethricecreamman, do we complain when photographers donate their photos to Commons and do no editing/writing beyond adding their photos to articles? Are they also WP:NOTHERE?

I don't think

Samuel Johnson's lead image (top) is at all flattering, is quite blurry and makes him look jaundiced. The second here, shows Johnson's poor eyesight and apparently he hated it. But they are what we have, and nobody is saying they'd rather have no image than an unflattering blurry one.

We do seem to invent rules for Wikipedian-created-images that we don't apply to professionally created or other third party works, or to photos. Which to me seems odd for a project that exists for complete amateurs to write entire articles of their own dreadful prose. Most medical articles make one want to stick pins in ones eyes than read beyond the lead but we don't react to that by saying that we'd rather have no article on Tirzepatide than one so badly assembled?

Issues of copyright and whether the image is representative are important for all works, and issues with derivative works are unique to images created from others. But otherwise, could people please first think, would I be making this complaint about a historical work like Johnson's, or accusing a photographer of being here for their own ego rather than helping build the encyclopaedia with images too.

WP:BITE anyone? Accusing an editor of "bludgeoning the discussion" when the discussion is entirely about their own creations that hostile editors want to wipe from the project and 100% remove all their contributions is unfair and I think deserves an apology. Do you think if someone said that e.g. Bluethricecreamman's prose (I'm making this up) is so awful that we must remove all their edits from the project, then Bluethricecreamman might participate at an elevated level in that discussion?

How can we guide this volunteer to creating better images, rather than, at present, make them want to leave. -- Colin°^Talk 15:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Written prose can be iterated on communally. A piece of art cannot.

we are an encyclopedia not an amateur art gallery. And I never proposed a rule that art can never be used.

also read that diff, the newbie is here only for their own art. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There are lots of photographers on Commons who turn up at Wikipedia only for their own art, not for writing prose. They want their photos in the leads and showing up on google searches and even go as far as inserting their names into the filename. And yet I would guess this is the first time you have suggested that someone contributing images they made themselves to the encyclopaedia, and admitting to not wishing to be involved in the prose part of that, is WP:NOTHERE. I can think of several photographers for whom ego (in the form of little gold stars) is the entire driving force behind their contributions, and yet AFAIK, we do not have a "Delete per WP:EGO" policy when it comes to photography. Or SVG diagrams. But go freehand, or draw or paint a picture of a person, and suddenly "rules are invented": "Written prose can be iterated on communally. A piece of art cannot."

Photographs, diagrams and videos can also not be iterated on communally. We have no image format that permits this. I wrote about the problem of long-form-article-replacement videos at WP:NOTYOUTUBE. So I'm aware they are not collaboratively edited. But Wikipedia regards images as part of the encyclopaedia and our project would be worse without them. We accept that images are not collaboratively edited. We accept that photographers are often here only to insert their own art. Why invent rules when someone paints a picture of a person and that someone isn't Joshua Reynolds? Aren't we supposed to comment on the content, not the contributor? If this contributor is willing to revise their work, or change the style, etc, how could you "nurture" them (per WP:BITE) to produce material that is good?

Instead, this conversation is a textbook case of WP:BITE: "Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility." I do despair when people complain about "bludgeoning the discussion" when the accused literally is the topic of discussion. That's not the point of that essay. And the phrase "bludgeoning the discussion" is Wikipedia jargon, and battlefield imagery, so you've accused a newbie of a violent crime they don't even understand. -- Colin°^Talk 17:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

My initial intent was not to promote my own work, but, if I am being honest, I may have started to treat it that way, which I can understand people objecting to.

I want everyone to know that this was not my initial intent, I just wanted to add cool images, but in the course of doing this I have probably let my emotions get the better of me, and in trying to defend myself (particularly in regards to assertions that my work is ai) I may have treated the pages of the people as, for lack of a better term, my "property"- which I admit is wrong.

Going forward, I have decided to refrain from making image edits to wikipedia and instead my participation will be limited to adding content to wikimedia commons, and other users are free to use my images as they wish.

I hope this resolves the issue for all involved- I never meant to cause harm and I hold no ill will towards anyone here that doesn't approve of me.

Best of luck to all,

Joe JoeBugMan (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage you to, when you upload a new image on commons for someone who doesn't have an image on their page, at least drop a note on the talk page saying that the image is available, so that the folks who edit the article can have a reasonable chance of considering whether to add it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Nat, I will consider doing that. JoeBugMan (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@JoeBugMan: And even if they do, ask before adding. Save a lot of editor's time. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I would also suggest including an explicit link to any source material you used for the images, so that we can make a clearer determination of whether they are close enough to the sources to be a copyvio, as Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LeonPayne.png appears to be, rather than making other editors do the work of tracking down the same sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Afaik, Wikipedians have only written some guidance on AI-BLP pics, so "hand-made" BLP-pics isn't covered by that atm. IMO, they generally go against the spirit of WP:BLP (Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources) and WP:OR (this is the artistic vision of the netizen who made them, and btw, why is that vision WP:DUE?), so my knee-jerk reaction is "no".

That said, there is some precedence on WMF projects regarding pics like JoeBugMan's of dead people (maybe living too, I haven't checked), one example is Q26239535, Mercedes Richards on en-WP. On en-WP, we can generally "get" a picture of a dead person like her or Lane Smith, but JoeBugMan's Lane Smith might be accepted on Wikidata and whatever language WP that follows Wikidata. Well how about that: Lane Smith. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That image you mention as an example is ironically not a good example. It was created as part of a project to highlight a lack of images for People of Colour, and is only present on the article of the artist (who importantly is notable) and not the actual subject's page.

They aren't random submissions by random people online. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler The origin is special, and most (not all, see for example Leonora Pujadas-McShine) of those pictures were kicked from en-WP, mostly on a "dead person, so we'll use a photo" rationale. But my point with this example is that while it's not used in her (Richards) en-WP article, you can see from Wikidata that it is used in her article on several other WP:s, I think because they don't allow some non-free stuff the way we do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I don't mean this in a nasty way, but frankly I very much don't trust the other WP sites because their standards are usually of a much lower quality across the board. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I still think in this case it's mostly about that they can't use non-free pics the way en-WP does. That, and some Wikidata automation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Isn't it terrible that we have to put up with these dreadful photos of the Royal Albert Hall? Will someone save us from "random submissions by random people online" defacing our encyclopaedia. Maybe we should delete them and pray that some professional photographer will (a) photograph these buildings at this level of quality and (b) give them away for nothing. Why are people on a website that has 100% amateur created text so prejudiced and condescending against amateur created images that are drawn or painted? Is it just a matter of quality combined with the freedom the Internet provides to be rude to strangers and newbies? Why must a painting of a person need to be created by a professional non-wikipedian, but a photograph not? Seriously? Policy based reasons please. Not prejudice. -- Colin°^Talk 19:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm speaking for myself now, but IMO there is a difference between photos and drawings. While I'm quite pleased these RAH pics are on Commons, I still don't want JoeBugMan's drawing in the Lane Smith article. Maybe that's hypocritical and/or inconsistent of me, but that's how I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Colin maybe in your attempt to be snarky you could not pretend to suddenly not know the pretty obvious difference between:

A) A user-submitted photograph of an actual location/object/person etc which inherently captures the actual nature of the thing in question (presuming there's no reason to suspect tampering).

B) A user-created drawing of their attempt to depict that location/object/person which does not do that and instead reflects the drawers perception of the thing in question.

One is as close to an objective representation of reality as you can fundamentally get, the other is WP:OR art project where you don't actually know if it's accurate or not and for all we know may breach Copyright of whatever it was based off of. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think there should be a firm No to any hand-drawn images supplied by editors themselves. We are an encyclopaedia, not DeviantArt.

The only "artworks" we should be allowing are notable images in RS for purposes where there are no other images, otherwise we have zero evidence of what exactly an editor has based their images on and are therefore essentially WP:OR in a visual form. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler, I think you have probably overstated your opinion. Do you have any inherent concerns about whether it only "reflects the drawers perception"? I mean, maybe I "don't actually know if it's accurate or not", so maybe it's showing how to fold something into 27ths instead of into thirds.

Or maybe you'd like to revise your comments to apply to, e.g., complex subjects? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing please show where an instructional image of folding a piece of paper is relevant to hand drawn images of people in bios which is the actual subject under discussion and what I'm therefore referring to. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Rambling, please show where your words, a firm No to any hand-drawn images supplied by editors themselves, say anything about "images of people in bios". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know, maybe look at the opening sentence of the discussion.

”Are we allowing digital images in bios?”

All you’re doing is trying to do a political “gotcha” when the discussion is clearly about images of people in bios and not outside that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm concerned that someone might look back at this discussion later and quote your comment out of context (because that happens all the time).

You said that you were opposed to "any hand-drawn images supplied by editors themselves". Since I asked, you've clarified that this is only about images of people.

Now we can ask: What if the image is hand-drawn, supplied by the artist, and of a person, but it's not supposed to be any particular person? Is there something wrong with a hand-drawn image, supplied by the artist, that is a diagram for an anatomy page? Or showing the correct placement of feet on a bicycle? Or illustrating an article about cooking?

What if the image is hand-drawn, supplied by the artist, and of a particular person, but it's a professional portrait? Some of the c:Category:Official portraits of presidents of the United States are paintings. Should we really fuss about it if the artist created an account and uploaded a scan themselves, rather than following our usual process of a random person on the internet downloading it from the White House's website? I don't think so, even though it's exactly the kind of thing you say should "be a firm No". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

They are allowed to be uploaded, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to use any of them, per WP:Consensus, WP:VNOT, and WP:COMMONSENSE. Images should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Note also MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. If I uploaded a high resolution extreme closeup photograph of some celebrity's face showing only their nose and one eye, no one would be beholden to use it in any article, no matter how accurately or reliably I portrayed their left nostril. If the consensus for any given article is against including a user-created image, regardless of medium, we can simply omit it. We as Wikipedians should not be desperately grasping to shoehorn any scrap of free media merely because it exists, nor delude ourselves into thinking that if no images are on Wikipedia then no readers will ever know what a subject looks like: readers are entirely competent to use Google, Bing, AskJeeves, etc. (maybe even books!!!!) to find other images of subjects that currently do not have high quality, freely licensed online images. We don't create or structure Wikipedia articles purely to cater people who just woke up from a 20-year coma and have no other means of receiving information. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Some years back, an editor was making a big stink about professionally painted, realistic official portraits of US presidents. The artist might try to flatter the subject! (See also posing and lighting tricks that are popular with photographers.) The colors might be slightly off! (Oh, look: Here's two copies of the same photograph, but they were scanned in with different settings, so they're noticeably different colors.) It might not be objectively accurate! (Have you heard of image filters, or have you been living under a rock for so long that you don't know what "to photoshop" means?)

I think we expect photos as the default, ordinary, normal approach to images for living people. However, there are exceptions (e.g., YouTubers who never show their faces), and I think the rule should be that this choice is available to editors if there is a consensus at the article for a particular image to be used. Which, BTW, is exactly the actual rule for photos, because nothing stays in articles without at least a minimal amount of consensus behind it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I have seen several specific discussions on situations similar to this one, but I can't remember one that ended in "Yep, let's use that USERG drawing/painting in a BLP". Have you any good examples of current en-WP mainspace use that you describe?

A few of previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Cartoon_portraits
• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_68#Painting_instead_of_image_as_the_lead_image_on_a_BLP?
• Talk:Northernlion#RfC:_Should_the_article_use_a_sketch_of_Northernlion_or_no_image_until_a_copyright-free_alternative_is_found?

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any useful distinction to be made between images by people who happen to be Wikipedians and images by people who happen not to be Wikipedians. I think the more useful distinctions involve whether the portrait is the most accurate we have available (generally no for people in the era of photography, often yes for people before then, but see Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures for some suggestions for when a portrait is far enough removed from the historical record to make it preferable not to use it.

For an interesting example of someone whose appearance we only know through sketchy caricatures rather than formal portraits, see Adrien-Marie Legendre and especially Adrien-Marie Legendre § Mistaken portrait. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Outside BLP, the field gets much wider. I have no problem with "pictures" like the leadimages of Arminius or Abbas ibn Firnas. And yet I don't think is any good for Abbas ibn Firnas en-WP article. Does that make sense? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Above Rambling Rambler claims photographs are is as close to an objective representation of reality as you can fundamentally get, the other is WP:OR art project where you don't actually know if it's accurate or not. There are several problems with this. Firstly, Joshua Reynolds painting of Samuel Johnson is also not a photograph, yet we accept it. There's a fair degree of scepticism that any portrait painting is "accurate" vs either flattering to the person who paid lots of money to have it done or potentially unflattering against the person whom it seeks to ridicule. Secondly, unless no images of a person are available in any publication anywhere, the idea that we don't know if it is accurate is, well, silly. We can use our judement. Same way as we can judge if my photo of Kilchoman Cross is actually of that cross and not some other one. You've frankly only got my word for it unless you investigate and compare. But thirdly, there is a reason I chose those two photos of the Albert Hall, and the file description page has a clue. They are not plain photographs. Both are stitched HDR panoramas. One has twelve images taken at three different exposures and the other 21 images at three different exposures (so 63 photos combined). The latter took several minutes, during which people on the stage moved about. When merged by software, the result creates a blurry mess, ghosts and twins where people have moved. Photoshop is necessary to select a frame and literally paint that one as representative, and paint-out others as not. Then the HDR image file needs to be tone mapped to the SDR JPG you can see on your monitor. That requires artistic judgement to move around a dozen sliders about to produce something I personally think represents what I saw, but, well, who knows? You weren't there. And finally there's the problem that the hall ceiling is lit by modern LED lamps, which produce monochromatic output that is virtually impossible to capture faithfully on a camera sensor. That shade of glowing lilac on the ceiling? My best attempt at reproducing what I remember seeing. There are colours my camera saw, that my high-end professional-grade monitor can display, but which likely your low end consumer monitor cannot. Photoshop and Lightroom all guide me and my artistic eye towards finding some compromise. It is in short, about as far away from an "objective representation of reality as you can fundamentally get" for an image taken by a DSLR camera.

Editors citing WP:OR are missing a fundamental. The policy says Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research. We have a mental model that a camera is like a photocopier or scanner and hand drawn or painted works are less accurate. But it isn't binary and the cameras in mobile phones today often take multiple shots and combine them with computational algorithms and AI in ways we have little control of. We are required, for text, to hand-write. We aren't allowed to scan or photocopy the source material and plonk it on Wikipedia. We need to summarise it in our own words. And this is, according to our very policy on the matter, not original research. And neither is doing that for an image. We have created a project with billions of original sentences and paragraphs created by random amatuers. The freedom we have to attempt to capture the essense of a source or explain a truth in our own words, extends to images as much as letters.

Could it actually be that for many editors here, the images presented at the top of this section are simply not to their taste? I personally wouldn't want that style of artwork if I was asking someone to paint my 80-year-old mum to help me remember her when she dies. But it is a modern style I see in magazines and newspapers and books. I'm no art critic expert. Someone earlier suggested an RFC. That would, at this point, be a phenominally bad idea. The editors on this project are mostly familiar with crafting text on articles (or arguing on talk pages). You would be asking opinions of people who have literally never considered the idea before, have no experience of doing it or selecting such works, and yet asked to give their !vote. And based on this and earlier discussions, the RFC would present images the proposer dislikes, considers amateurish or cartoonish or in some other way inferior.

Imagine going back 25 years and asking people in the street whether they think it a good idea to crowdsource an encyclopaedia. Where the articles on ketogenic diet or tourette syndrome are written by non-health professionals, just random people who turned up. Hell no! But it turned out to be not such a daft idea. At this point, I think this project lacks some direction and a community of artists who could create images for us, by hand. We have a community of photographers and I suspect a small community of SVG diagram creators, but not so much for those who draw or paint. Images are a vital component of this project. The idea that those who are here only to contribute images are WP:NOTHERE is frankly ignorant and insulting. I know of over a hundred photographers on Commons who delight in seeing their images on multiple Wikipedias and only a few of them are capable of stringing enough sentences together in a meaningful way to contribute to text in an article. They are here to build the enyclopaedia. How can we advise those who want to contribute with their artistic abilities? In a way that is welcoming, not hostile. Well, for a start, we need to stop inventing rules that don't exist.

Our article on Svetlana Mojsov has no image. Mojsov discoverd GLP-1, which led to a weight loss medication that actually worked and is transforming lives and economies. At Science.org there is a painting of Mojsov by Katty Huertas. At VinFuture Prize there is a painting of Mojsov. At the bottom of that page, there are paintings of other prize laureates. In my opinion, these would be great additions to the enyclopaedia. Wouldn't it be wonderful if those artists, or similar, could be persuaded to offer their work here? If the VinFuture Prize foundation decided to donate their commissioned works with a CC BY SA licence, we'd take them. There is no policy rule that says the creator of that image cannot be a Wikipedian, just as we have no policy that says our text at ketogenic diet must have been created by a non-Wikipedian medical professional, published in a medical publication, and released with a CC BY SA licence so we can photocopy it on to our pages. -- Colin°^Talk 10:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to keep it very brief given I've been mentioned:

1. I have no issue with examples such as Samuel Johnson because they are Reliably Sourced. They are works of note that have been discussed, critiqued etc and despite any potential concerns over flattery or lack thereof we have the ability to discern via Reliable Sources that they are a reasonably accurate representation of said person. They are not "random editor who has drawn what they claim to be a reasonably accurate representation of the individual" which likely violates what's set out in WP:OR under WP:IMAGEOR.
2. Copyright is another major issue I and several others have raised. Rather than write a long paragraph about my personal tastes of these attempted portraits we are discussing I actually looked into them and was able to positively identify nine examples of them being clearly derived from copyrighted works (including films and adverts), and have therefore nominated all of them for deletion as a result (Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Drawn_Portraits_Uploaded_by_JoeBugMan#Drawn_Portraits_Uploaded_by_JoeBugMan). What the inciting editor's work has actually done is provide a textbook example of why we shouldn't accept editor drawn images of people, because we have no way of actually proving they didn't breach someone else's copyright by drawing based off of a reference image.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

We can Wikilawyer this (pointing to various policies and guidelines) but ultimately it comes down to simple consensus… do the editors who work on a particular article want to use a particular image?… do they like it?… is a better image available?… would no image be preferable? These are, by their nature, subjective determinations. But that’s ok. Nothing says consensus can’t be subjective. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Mostly I happen to dislike sketches (e.g., the one that was in Gisèle Pelicot for a while), and mostly other editors prefer photographs, so it happens that I usually get what I want on this score. But I wouldn't want to set down a firm rule against it; after all, Wikipedia:No firm rules is a core policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

agreed, i think consensus of folks matter too.

But Moxy seemed to have started this because one user was mass including their art on a lot of pages at once. I think WP:ONUS applies here if someone goes and does this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

"We have no proof that they didn't breach someone's copyright" is a bad rationale for criteria about which types of image to include in articles. If we think an image might be a copyvio, then we have separate mechanisms for dealing with that, that do not involve throwing away big swathes of content because some of them are dubious. I would suggest that the vast majority of copyvio images on Wikipedia are photographs, many copied from the web somewhere and many taken by the uploader but of copyrighted content. Does that mean we should outlaw all photos because some of them are copyvios? No. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I think Blueboar and David Eppstein are right. There is no policy reason to reject "editor drawn images of people". That a particular user has encountered problems with copyright when failing to avoid creating a derivative work is not in any way relevant to the general issue. Our project is absolutely filled with copy/paste copyright violating text lifted from our sources, and we deal with that without going "Oh, we must ban all these amateur editors, who it seems, just copy their sources". I mean, I believe quite a lot of edits don't even cite their sources. And those that do might have sneakily copied another source to hide their plagiarism. Really we should give up on this amateur-content-creation lark.

Seriously, time to put this discussion to bed. Newbie editors (or image creators) should be treated kindly and helped to avoid issues such as copyright. It is up to editors working on particular articles to reject/select images, not for people to invent imaginary policy reasons to remove them all. -- 09:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 09:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Except that WP:ONUS is a thing. If a newbie is mass-including their art, and others think it violates the WP:BLPIMAGE or WP:NOR, we are under no obligation to accept their art.

And it is not WP:BITE if the inclusion fails to meet WP:ONUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You cite a lot of WP:UPPERCASE. For example WP:ONUS is a link to Wikipedia:Verifiability, about WP:V not guaranteeing inclusion. But nobody was citing a source to insist an image gets included. I think you picked that shortcut because you thought the image maker had some kind of "ONUS" to convince you and other editors that they were entitled to contribute to the project. Elsewhere we saw someone say that this contributor should suggest their image on the talk page, rather than edit directly. Now, that's not an uncommon conflict avoidance strategy but it also isn't standard editing practice. All editors go about WP:BOLDly making edits and adding their own words that they think improve the project. There's no special rule that image makers have to behave differently when adding their own images that they think improve the project. There are six images at the top of this page, all added to articles that had no image (and now have no image). Yet you claim that constitutes "mass-including" and is somehow behaviour to be discouraged. This is simply "making shit up" about images not to one's taste. These so-called rules are not enforced or even given a moment's thought when editors (new or otherwise) add their photographs to articles. When one of our best photographers comes back from their travels and uploads a bunch of images to articles, we don't get this kind of nonsense, and it is frankly time-wasting nonsense. Nobody wikilawyers them about ONUS and nobody, when they find out they are just here to add photos, tell them to fuck off per WP:NOTHERE. Please drop the stick. -- Colin°^Talk 07:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Your reams of text doesn’t change the fact that Wikipedia isn’t an amateur art gallery. you’re the only one going supernova here in defense of some strange principle that we humor every newbie artist, at the expense of the project.

If someone else decides to mass add amateur art to a bunch of articles, it seems wrong to let that happen without carefully allowing community consensus. And if that is somehow offensive to you, I suppose I’ll see yet another essay reply Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Scaring away contributors to this amateur project, using few words, would indeed be a skill you have refined. Well done. -- Colin°^Talk 14:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The commons deletion discussion has resulted in the deletion of JoeBugMan's images. Meanwhile I found another relevant example, linked from C:Commons:Village pump/Copyright: We don't have an article on Joanna Penson (died 2023) but the Polish article is illustrated by a crop from a mural featuring her: File:Kobiety Wolności 10 (cropped - Joanna Penson).jpg. Does the existence of this free image, which arguably does not meet our standards for portraits on biographies, prevent the use of a fair-use photo of her here (if we were to have an article)? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

That pic seems ok per COM:FOP Poland, too,

Anyway, my understanding of discussions like

• Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article
• Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_March_8#File:Marian_Ewurama_Addy.jpg

is that that free-use pic would not prevent en-WP using a non-free photo in that hypothetical article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The answer probably depends on what "our standards for portraits" are. One might not choose to put that in an infobox, but one might be perfectly willing to use that in a ==Legacy== section with a caption like "Penson was one of several women represented in a mural in ". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Another hypothetical: If Judith W. Rogers was no longer with us, this portrait of her could be seen as preventing the use of a fair-use photo of her, but that's something for editors to discuss if and when it becomes an issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have seen enough complaints from editors over the years about serious portraits like this one that I would indeed not be surprised if someone claimed that it interferes with their right to put a copyrighted-but-maybe-fair-use photo in the article. These arguments usually come from well-meaning but ignorant editors who think that professional portrait artists produce the visual equivalent of a fictional novel, and that photographic manipulation shouldn't be considered a realistic concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)