Wikipedia talk:Image sleuthing

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Protocol development[edit]

I hacked the article to say what would happen after ten days ... it seemed to me it had been left hanging [1] - feel free to change--Tagishsimon (talk)
- Your text is good. I changed the text to say 7 days instead of 10, since IfD is itself a 7 day process. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:54, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think we need a protocol that the discussions about licences in Wikipedia:Image sleuthing are moved into the Image's discussion page, possibly at the point that the image has been tagged? Something like that. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- I put a statement to that effect in. Please feel free to reword -- I'm not sure my wording is clear. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:54, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tools[edit]

I'm just interested to know what people are using to search for the sources of these images. Personally I've been using Google searches of firstly the filename and then the image subject if nothing comes up for that. Evil Monkey → Talk 23:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, ditto; nothing more elaborate. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yeah, although I did stumble upon firstgov.gov, which helped in finding a bunch of those mildly satisfactory Allawi images. --MaxPower 15:05, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Of course, if you're looking for replacement images, there are many, many options. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I was also using Google but I would use any search term I could think of for the image in addition to the picture's name. I also tried Ditto.com a few times to no avail. Nrbelex 20:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

File:2 TEU containers.jpg

Image:2 TEU containers.jpg

I am curious about what tools people are using to find images. I know all of you will probably answer Google, but it, Yahoo, Altavista and whatever all lack the same thing. I spent almost an hour looking for the source for the image to the right. I knew that the image size is 59 630 bytes and I would love to know if there's a search engine who will only search for images with that exact size. I don't think it would be difficult to adjust a search engine to do that, so I could do other things on Sunday afternoons in the future... Thuresson 02:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, Google does allow you to search by general image size. The dimensions of that image are 475 x 500, which falls under Size:Medium in Google's advanced search. Not exacly as precise as you were looking for, but I imagine that it's rare that people are using Google to find the original source of an exact image. — Asbestos | Talk 14:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update: A Google Image search of any image size (eg. ""800X611") will now yield images of the searched for size (e.g. 800 x 611). I hope this can help in the future! Nrbelex ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 04:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a great tip, thanks a lot! Foobaz·o< 05:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this doesn't find all images of that size. Compare this keyword search with this dimensional search. The former shows that Google knows about this image, but the latter doesn't show it in a search for its size. Foobaz·o< 09:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RAF/RN Sleeve Insignia/Rank Images[edit]

I spent some time yesterday and went through and recreated some images. I did all of the RAF sleeve insignia images, and some of the RN sleeve insignia images. The RN ones are recreations of crappy graphics and are much better quality. The images have not been tagged or descripted or put in the proper pages. Just uploaded. They are released under whatever, either PD or GFDL. I guess GFDL as that is what Image:AVM_insignia.png is released under. If someone wants to tag/insert these into articles for me that would be great. Thanks! --MaxPower 13:53, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

RAF

RN

Good man/woman. I'll maybe attend to all of these late on tonight, or, at latest, within a week or so. Clearly, if someone wants to pip me to the post... --Tagishsimon (talk)

Man. Thanks for doing that for me! Also, that whole section is in need of clean up. If someone has a special place in their heart for militray ranks...--MaxPower 16:16, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Done the RAF. RN to follow --Tagishsimon (talk)

Done the RN. Check out Image:Admfleetbrit.gif versus Image:AF insignia.png ... should we be concerned about the loss of detail? I think the thicker & thinner colour of braid in the wide braid is probably significant? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Is it? I assumed it was bad compression artifacts? --MaxPower 21:02, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Don't think so. Looks like fabric to me. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Oh also, someone took issue with the way these images have been tagged, here is the conversation from their talk page:

I saw you removed the GFDL tag from Image:AF_insignia.png. I was wondering what your reasoning was? I re-created a ton of those insignia images (the original ones were small and had unverified copyright status) and it was decided that while the image may be copyrighted (probably is) that particular instance isn't (licensed by me as GFDL). Now that I type this out, I think you might mean simply having the GFDL tag on there might get people to think that the image is GFDL. Is that right? A good point, however if that is how the images need to be tagged than *all* of them need to be tagged consistantly I think. I dunno, thoughts? Leave me a message on my talk page! --MaxPower 16:44, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

yeah it seems you already understood my reasoning. having the gfdl tag on there way confusing (particularly regarding categories). My understanding of copyright tags is they mean the image (as a whole) is availible under those terms and this one clearly was not. Personally i don't have a huge interest in the whole issue of image tagging if you want to discuss this then i suggest moving this conversation to an appropriate talk page (and leaving me a note saying where you have moved it to ofc) Plugwash 16:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PD-China[edit]

When we were researching Image:China, Mao (2).jpg, we were unable to determine copyright status in China. Since then, I've figured it out. Photos go in the public domain 50 years after were taken. The details are in {{PD-China}}, which is used in the image. Yay! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

On 1 September 2006, User:Physchim62 added a cautionary message that the copyright of these images might remain or be restored in the USA. This is painful while the USA has not adopted the "rule of the shorter term" of the Bern Convention.--Jusjih 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When removing "unverified" on fair use images please consider "fairuseunknownsource"[edit]

I have just created Template:unknownsource, intended for images where the actual source or creator is unknown and uncredited, but the image is believed to be under a license we can use and has been tagged as such (Fairuse, Promotional, etc). This differs from Template:unverified in that there is an opinion formed about its usability within wikipedia. Please consider using this tag in conjunction with tags placed on images as a result of sleuthing. Comments welcomed. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 01:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This template has been replaced with {{fairuseunknownsource}}, shortened to {{fuus}}. --ChrisRuvolo 22:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FYI, there is a vote for deletion of {{fairuseunknownsource}}. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Fairuseunknownsource. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios not for Ifd[edit]

I assume that copyvios found here should be tagged {{imagevio}} and listed accordingly, and not {{ifd}}, right? I just moved Image:1901.jpg, which we had found as CV, to Wikipedia:Copyright problems from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. — Asbestos | Talk 15:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Copyvios are listed on IfD routinely, so long as there is some other reason to ask for their deletion (e.g. the image is unused, the original uploader cannot be reached, the picture is out of focus, etc.) In this case, the additional reason is that after a week, Image Sleuthing determined that it should be removed.

The PUI process is long, slow, and laborious. After being listed for over 2 weeks, the image is supposed to be removed from all pages that use it and replaced with a template. Then, more than 2 weeks later, the image can be deleted. I think we should just list them on ifd and be done with it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:51, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you in principle and I could understand if the image in question had another reason for being deleted, but this one was actually a very nice picture did a fine job of illustrating a disc brake. Indeed, it was listed on IFD with the only reason being "CV from x". Though it's almost 100% certain that it's copyvio, we shouldn't circumvent the process by not listing it at WP:CP — I think the system is set up for a reason. "The reason is that after a week, Image Sleuthing determined that it should be removed — Our reasoning was based on the copyvio, not on any other reason. — Asbestos | Talk 18:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are a number of options. There's Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If I see a pic that I think is a copyvio, I could place it here (to get a second opinion), WP:PUI, WP:CP, or IFD. Any of those would be more-or-less appropriate. I had (somewhat rudely, I suppose) moved 1911 back to IFD, but on reflection, I think I'll revert myself and put it in PUI. But I wouldn't say it's against policy to list CVs on IFD - I just think it's better in this case to list it on PUI. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:46, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

That's all I was saying — not that CV's can't go on IFD, but that they shouldn't go up there if the only reason is the CV. — Asbestos | Talk 23:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's finally gone back to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I think that makes the most sense, as WP:PUI didn't seem appropriate for an obvious copyvio. — Asbestos | Talk 14:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Orphan Works[edit]

Attention all image sleuths!

Please visit Orphan works and make your voice heard. An excerpt:

When you can't find copyright holders, copyright becomes a quagmire. Let's fix it. . . The Copyright Office has specifically asked for comments from people who have run up against the problem of trying to clear a potentially copyrighted work -- either for use in a new creative effort or simply to make the work available to the public once again. If you have a story like this, it's essential you make your voice heard.

Your comments are needed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sleuthicon.jpg[edit]

Feel free to use this icon! Nrbelex ^(talk) 05:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments about image deletion.[edit]

Over at IFD there's a request for comments going on about what to do with unverified orphans (images that aren't used, and have no copyright or source information). If you have an opinion on the matter, perhaps you can help us build consensus on the matter. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 01:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Creative Commons[edit]

This probably isn't the best place to ask this, but I figure I will get a response quicker ; ). What (if any) Creative Commons license is compatible with wikipedia? The reason I ask is flickr allows you to license your photos as a variety of creative commons licenses. I currently license all my images as Attribution-ShareAlike. But flickr has a feature (which is currently disabled) to search for images by license. This could be a great resource for finding new images. For example, this slightly blurry image is licensed as Noncommercial Share Alike 2.0, would that work for us? [2] thats a better one ; ) --MaxPower 14:00, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

None of the noncommercial variants are compatible with us, since they interfere with downstream use and probably print versions (which will probably have to be commercial in nature). —Korath (Talk) 15:51, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

So really just Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike? --MaxPower 17:04, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

The No Derivatives variants should be ok, too. (Though nonpreferable.) —Korath (Talk) 19:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the ND licenses aren't acceptable either, I'm afraid. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Non-free Creative Commons licenses. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

10 point plan for judging fair use.[edit]

If an image possibly isn't free and we have to consider a fair use claim, here is a ten point process for deciding. This is a draft, please edit and improve.

Below "Tag" means add the appropriate tag, as well as other required content such as the source or the detailed fair use claim

1. Is the image a photograph?

Yes - Go to 4. No - Go to 2.

2. Is the image one of the categories such as "book cover" "screenshot"

Yes - Go to 10. No - Go to 3.

3. Can you (or someone else) recreate the image from free sources?

Yes - Recreate. No - ifd.

4. Is the source of the copyright known?

Yes - Go to 5. No - Go to 6.

5. Try to contact the copyright holder and ask for a release under the gfdl

Permission granted - Tag. Not granted (refused or no response) - Go to 8.

6. Sleuth for the source.

Source found - Go to 4. Not found after thorough search - Go to 7.

7. Is the photograph so old that it is likely to be in the public domain.

Yes - Tag ((fairold)), No - Go to 8.

8. Is the photograph notably creative or artistic or is it the subject of a current news story (not a historical record)?

Yes - Go to 9. No - Go to 10

9. Does the nature of the image and source (if known) suggest it is intended for wide distribution (such as promotional images, devotional images)

Yes - Go to 10, no - Go to 3.

10. Is the image placed in a relevant article and no larger than required for the web based article?

Yes - Tag. No - Resize the image or write the article, and then tag.

Zeimusu | Talk 15:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Debate at WP:PUI[edit]

Over at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Phase I - March 24, there's a debate on whether Image:The Renaissance Portal.jpg and Image:Map of the French Tunnel.jpg can be used under a fair use claim or not. You may want to weigh in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:08, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

A toolbox for image tagging[edit]

Cf. {{deletiontools}}, should there be a {{imagetools}}? I'm willing to make one if anyone thinks there should - just let me know. Thanks, Alphax ^τεχ 14:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote Yay (I added the I vote for clarification - haha) Nrbelex ^(talk)

17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support :) Superm401 | Talk 02:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use Frustration[edit]

I have to tell you guys, I haven't been image sleuthing for too long (some times I stop by here and sometimes I just happen upon them) but the "fair use" cry is really driving me nuts.

I really like the checklist on here, I think it's great. The issue is, and EvilMonkey said it tonight on IRC, "fair use" on Wikipedia has come to mean "it's copyrighted and I want to use it".

For instance, I came along one yesterday and this uploader is just running me through the ringer for IFD'ing his image: Image:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png -- now, to me, you couldn't get an any more blatant copyvio. Now, the only case I see that can be made is that the image itself (not the caption) is of a news story that is no longer active but even that is a stretch I think. Clearly the caption is an outright copyvio. I can see having scans of a newspaper such as the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman", that's historically significant, but something like this, no way.

Straighten me out if you think I'm missing something.

--Wgfinley 07:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you're definitely right. I'm beginning to think {{fairuse}} should be banned outright, like on Commons. It's rarely genuinely necessary. Superm401 | Talk 02:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Adding the Image Tools Template[edit]

Alphax has been making the Image Tools Template and I thought the Image Sluthing page would be a good place to put it. I'm not really sure how to get it in with the markup on top so I was hoping someone who knows what they're doing could get that up... Thanks Nrbelex ^(talk) 02:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Returning images back to the unverified pool[edit]

If you remove an image from here without tagging it or sending it to IFD or Copyvio, please consider noting on the image (body not talk) that it has been thru WP:IS, lest it get reposted. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Public Domain help[edit]

Hello. If you want to know whether a given image is in the public domain or not, I wrote a guide that may help you: User:Quadell/copyright. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 11:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mistake[edit]

I said I listed ROFLCopter on WP:CP but I think I actually put it on WP:IFD. Superm401 | Talk 22:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

We have to remove the image from the article, then list it at IFD. You will use CV for copyvio. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Historical photographs on book covers?[edit]

Hi, I figured I'd post a question here rather than the village pump, because you folks have more experience with image copyright. What would be the copyright status on historical photographs on book covers? I know book covers would qualify as fair use, but I'd rather use a public domain image where possible. Specifically, this image located here (the one on the upper right which is a military portrait of a soldier) comes from a book cover, but the photograph itself is historical, and might be public domain (?). I've searched online for the same photograph on its own, but have been unable to find the photograph without being attached to the book cover.

If the photograph by itself is public domain (or fair use, for that matter), I'd probably crop the rest of the book cover out, leaving the portrait by itself. When I find the book itself, I'd probably scan the portrait to replace the online version. Thanks, Death phoenix 14:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IANAL, but I would argue that adding two red squares does not constitute creativity. Therefore, the book cover is public domain if the images are. Superm401 | Talk 01:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the non-legal advice. I have the book now, and it seems the photo (and a few of him) belong to personal collections. Unlikely to be public domain. I'm going to look through the book for some public domain images, but if I don't find any, I guess I'll have to reluctantly apply {{Bookcover}} to it. --Death phoenix 02:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "personal collections" in this context. Essentially, the only thing that affects whether or not it is PD is the age. Do you know when the photograph was taken? Superm401 | Talk 02:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

If it was during WWI, it's almost definitely PD. However, he lived for quite a while after, so it may not have been. Superm401 | Talk 02:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that the picture belonged in (or was provided by) an individual (in this case, the subject's son). If the copyrights to the picture belong to the subject (and not the photographer, who is unknown), then it would be PD if the picture belongs to the "50 year ago" category, since Pegahmagabow died 53 years ago (I don't know if it's covered under dying 50, 70, or 100 years ago). --Death phoenix 30 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)

Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese[edit]

Can someone with an Ebay account contact dltdesigns2002(Diane Duyser) to ask permission to use Image:Grilled cheese virgin mary.jpg under the GFDL? You'll be able to use ebay's contact form. Superm401 | Talk June 30, 2005 17:14 (UTC)

Police appeal poster[edit]

Please can someone who understand copyrights better than me (not difficult) plase check that my tagging of Image:Appeal posterlg.jpg as fair use is apropriate. Thanks Thryduulf 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images from PUI[edit]

Hi!

WP:PUI's process lasts for thirty days, and many images are either found to be free before then or they're deleted. However, there are a few which need a little bit more examination than most. They're listed in this section after their thirty days on PUI. Any help/input from image sleuths on these images would certainly be appreciated.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of copyright status[edit]

Hi,

I wonder if you guys can clarify the possible status of the following images which were listed on WP:CP:

Image:Ickenham.PNG, Image:Fpark.PNG, Image:Greenwich.PNG, Image:Cgarden.PNG, Image:Cwater.PNG, Image:Arnos Grove.jpg, Image:Angel.PNG, Image:Moorgate.PNG, Image:Canarywharf.PNG, Image:Hammersmith.PNG, Image:Bankmonument.PNG, Image:Kcps.PNG, Image:Queensway.PNG, Image:Westminster.PNG, Image:Waterloo.PNG, Image:Hillingdon.PNG, Image:Ruislip.PNG, Image:Ruislip.PNG, Image:Raynerslane.PNG, Image:Westruislip.PNG, Image:Eastcote.PNG, Image:Eastindia.PNG, Image:Aldgate.PNG, Image:Ealingbroadway.PNG, Image:Bakerstreet.PNG, Image:Baker street.PNG, Image:Cockfosters.PNG, Image:Wembleypark.PNG, Image:Uxbridge.PNG.

They are all the names of London Underground stations cropped from the tube map and uploaded as GFDL. It's reasonably certain they aren't GFDL, since the tube map is copyright, but are these licensable in any way, or should I delete them as copyvios? --Ngb^?!? 07:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comment: the image description pages do not have the {{imagevio}} tag. More to the point: yes, I think they're copyvios, should be listed on WP:CP and deleted in due course. They don't even add anything significant to the articles they appear in, far better if User:Greaterlondoner took his camera and donated an image of each station! (I see that this user has some difficulty understanding copyright issues...) Lupo 08:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I suspect they probably weren't tagged because the reporting editor didn't have the time or inclination to go through and edit each one. I plan to tag and relist them, but I thought I'd check with you guys first. --Ngb^?!? 08:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to tag them as imagevios, right? Superm401 | Talk 19:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little help for an image greenhorn[edit]

I wanted to upload an image from the U.S. National Archives (NARA), but wasn't sure of how to tag it appropriately so it's not removed. Thanks for your help. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tag precisely for this purpose; {{PD-USGov-NARA}} . In the future, you can save yourself time by checking Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Superm401 | Talk 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I typically don't upload a lot of images, simply because there are so many different rules concerning copyrights and public domain, so it actually seems quicker to me to ask an expert then to try and wade through all the different variations. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]