Meta talk:Image and media use policy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives of this page

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

Proposed policy[edit]

Please discuss here. Cirt 19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not really sure exactly what is being proposed. Adambro 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To have an Image use policy relating to all aspects of precisely what images can be hosted locally on - in what capacity, what type of detailed-fair-use-rationale is required for those that are fair use, what types of verification are needed for those that assert a free use status, etc. Cirt 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cirt, it is my opinion that this a highly necessary page, and I thank you for creating it. It should help clarify a few things. More community input would be good, though, so that the policy itself can be more fleshed out and further expanded. I think this should become policy, myself, because it is the remedy to the grayness of what was (or is) quite a haphazard area. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Cirt 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


An image scope will need to be determined so that it is clear what is appropriate on Meta and what is not in regards to image files. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. Cirt 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Project scope might be instructive as to kinds of things, and the whys of what is in and out. Myself I think as much as possible should be on Commons rather than here, but there are exceptions that clearly belong here. I'd almost suggest that this scope reference Commons, but then speak to the exceptions and why they are exceptions. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree comletely. Commons would be a very good model to use, and of course there will be a few areas of exceptions. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What about logo proposals? They can't be free as the rights must be given to WMF is chosen. OTOH, requiring to give them before it is chosen, seems a bit too much. And because of meta's role, there are already a lot of images uploaded by their authors (made for wikimedia) but no license. :) Platonides 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, as far as the last part, we might have to live with grandfathering-in images uploaded by their authors made for wikimedia prior to solidifying this image policy. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dunno about grandfathering, I'd say try to work to remove those, replace, seek licenses, etc. But logos where the copyright is held by WMF or a chapter are a clear exception, just as they are at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, that makes sense. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Image" use? Not "media"?[edit]

Surely this is underly-broad, in this regard?

James F. (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. Perhaps a move to something like Media use policy or Image and media use policy ? Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Thinking "image" is a natural starting point since that's the namespace, but yes. Commons recently held a scope discussion (now put into effect) and it is clear that sounds, movies, still images, even PDF files (in some cases), are within the charter of what we put into the image: namespace. We should not forget that here so I agree with Cirt and James F. that this is narrowly named, but a quick move would sort it... ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, I will go ahead and make the change. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Points one and two of the current proposal (all media should be free content, all free content should be on Commons) effectively contradict each other and make this somewhat meaningless. That's my reading of it. —Giggy 00:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed point 1. Cirt (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More specific deletion policy or guideline[edit]

I would like to suggest adding more specific deletion policy or guideline:

  1. If uploaded through 29 December 2006 with missing source, license, or both, {{GFDL-presumed}} may be used only in good faith. If no good reason to presume GFDL licensing, tag {{no source}} or {{no license}}, or post at Meta:Requests for deletion, unless qualified for speedy deletion.
  2. If uploaded after 29 December 2006 with missing source, license, or both, {{GFDL-presumed}} may not be used. If the problem image may have historical importance at Meta to warrant a discussion, post at Meta:Requests for deletion.
  3. In either way, a notice should be sent to the uploader.--Jusjih 03:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of fair use files and templates[edit]

Please see Meta:Requests_for_deletion#All_fair_use_files_and_templates. --MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wouldn't Wikimedia Commons be better?[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to migrate all non-Fair use images to Wikimedia Commons? Wikimedia Commons basically is "the Meta of images", I can understand it to be uploaded locally if it's a non-free image that is only usable on Meta but if would make more sense to migrate images to Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 13:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]