Wikia

Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha talk:Image use policy

edit this page

Back to page

m (Policy clarification regarding "fanmade" images)
(Policy clarification regarding "fanmade" images: re)
Line 229: Line 229:
   
 
So, what does everyone think about this? Which direction should we go with this policy? -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 12:12, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 
So, what does everyone think about this? Which direction should we go with this policy? -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 12:12, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
  +
  +
:You're flat out wrong, and thanks for inviting me to the party.
  +
:You're wikilawyering, specifically "abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". You're "playing policies against each other" and "relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy", specifically stating that the canon policy doesn't apply to images even though the spirit of the canon policy is that "material used and presented on MA be directly from "canon" ''Star Trek'' productions or accepted licensed works as outlined here". The use of the term "fan-made", "cherry pick[ed]" from the image policy, is blown way out of proportion. You've, right now, "attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy" and trying to "impose [your] own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community" by suggesting these slight wording issues somehow invalidates years of community consensus that "fan made images that aren't faithful reproductions of material seen in canon are non-canon and should be deleted". You examples aren't even internally consistent, and you're token "last option" just proves you're intent, as stating that "fan made images that aren't faithful reproductions of material seen in canon are unacceptable" would "specifically" "be a ruling [...] against" your quadrant images, which by the way I'm sure a "retarded monkey" could reproduce. I find what you're attempting here, and you personally Cid, to be repugnant in the extreme. Maybe in your over half a decade of "not giving a shit" here you forgot what were suppose to be doing. As someone who seems to think that using direct quotes by production personal to name people or places "unnamed" in canon should be done on a case by case basis, I find your insistence that a blanket statement be made here, now that you finally have some "skin in the game", to be questionable at best. At worst, you're nothing but a charlatan and snake oil salesman trying once again to influence policy you then won't be bothered to enact yourself, for fear of being made to "jump though some hoops". - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 13:27, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:27, January 13, 2012

Image size

Regarding image size, I suggest the following rule: images appearing in side-bars (on articles about persons, planets etc.) should have a width of exactly 200px. It shouldn't be more than that, because the readability of the article suffers. Also, bigger images can be viewed by clicking on the 200px 'thumbnail'. It should be exactly that, to avoid having a unique size for each image. -- Cid Highwind 19:20, 31 May 2004 (CEST)

That is already an un-official rule, but I do think we ought to make it official. -- Redge | Talk 14:14, 16 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Since the software now resizes the images on demand, is there any reason for this restriction? Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 19:54, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Since this is another old discussion brought back to life... and since the changes have already (long since) been made... oh, and since there's no mention in the policy page... here is the policy in current use:
Images on articles should not have a px size at all, except on list articles when it should be 150px. For sidebars, use the {{sidebar image}} template. That's built-in to 90% of the sidebar templates out there already.
That's the policy on sizes. -- sulfur 20:31, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Placement of copyright message

I notice a lot of people writing the copyright message right at the end of the description. I would uggest using a new line and an indent, such as used here, since it makes things more readable, and it is IMO better layout. -- Redge | Talk 14:14, 16 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Image titles

I think this section needs to be made more precise, and the resulting rules need to be enforced (by allowing to easily delete and re-upload images that don't follow the rules). The main reason for this is that many images have an obscure or misleading title. Combined with the existing difficulties to search for specific images, this leads to a situation where images get "buried" somewhere in the database. I just deleted several images that were simply unused for months. Some examples for what I think are "bad" titles:

  • File:HealthyViidian.jpg - Vidiian is misspelled; also, it would be nice to find all images showing vidiians grouped by using a common prefix. A better title in this case would be: Vidiian_healthy.jpg, or alternatively Danara_Pel_healthy.jpg
  • File:A_map_of_the_Romulus_system.jpg - this is a good image description, but not a good title. A better might be: Romulan_system_map.jpg
  • File:2286shuttlepod.jpg - 2286 is good, shuttlepod is good - the order is bad. The important fact is that the image shows a shuttlepod, not that it shows something from 2286. Make that Shuttlepod_(2286).jpg, or even better use a less generic name than shuttlepod, if possible.
  • File:Captured003.jpg - This title doesn't make any sense at all...

I think a good rule would be to use the exact article title (using the same capitalization) of the object/person shown. If an image shows more than one object, use the name of the most important or the most distinct object first. If the specific situation shown is important, add it after that title. If, and only if, there still would be more than one image with the same filename, add a qualifier (for example year or movie title abbreviation). Only use lowercase file-extensions.

What do you think? -- Cid Highwind 22:12, 2005 Jan 15 (CET)

I agree on the extensions they should all be lowercase. Personally I don't like filenames with capitals in them, to confusing and more difficult to search for. You never know which letter is a capital or not. With respect to the nameing I think that most images are now named in such a manner that you can 'see' by the name what the image is but there will always will be people who name their images 'blabla23.jpg'. It might be handy if there is a way to rename the images instead of delete and upload the image again. Maby it is possible to put the images in a category to improve search capabilities ? Another thing would be that the description of an image is correctly filled so one can see where the image came from. -- Q 21:16, 16 Jan 2005 (CET)
We definitely need a better system to organize images; it's pretty difficult to locate images through the current search, especially if they're misspelt. I support the idea of using the article title as the name, but I also agree that the filenames should always be left lowercase... it's just easier to reference them that way. And we definitely need to get better about image summaries and detail pages.
As far as nomenclature goes, I like Cid's suggestions. Is it possible to rename images through moving them? That'll leave lots of redirects, but deleting those would be easier than reuploading everything. -- SmokeDetector47 21:47, 2005 Jan 16 (CET)
Good point - in that case, the rule should be to use lowercase filenames only. I think it is not possible to move images at the moment; Save-Delete-Reupload would be our only way. -- Cid Highwind 21:51, 2005 Jan 16 (CET)

Increasing number of images

I'm not exactly sure how to approach this issue (everyone has been guilty of this at one time or another, including myself on several occasions), or even if it is an issue any longer following the move to Wikicities, but is the following still applicable?

The old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" is quite literally true, considering average file sizes for images. Please upload images solely for the purpose of illustration. Generally, no more than one or two images should be used in an article; three images might be acceptable for some long articles.

The only reason I ask is that it seems lately that many articles, some relatively small, have received multiple images, sometimes with only minor differences between them, or images which seem to be for ornamental purposes only. This is especially evident when it comes to starships and characters. I can truly see the value of having the images as a reference (particularly for characters), but there are other sites out there which have those sorts of images; Memory Alpha isn't an image gallery. We can link to those sites if necessary. Furthermore, I've noticed some discussion on the featured article nominations page which seems to indicate even a small article requires two to three images to be considered featured material. So does anyone else have an opinion on this, or am I just concerned about nothing? :) -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 05:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Zoe McLellan

Adding offsite photos to articles -- is this a violation of a policy? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No rule says that images must be on Memory-Alpha. I see no reason not to link to external images. — — Ŭalabio 08:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a violation of common courtesy and netiquette, certainly. Hotlinking images steals bandwidth. In addition, we need the images to be uploaded to our server so we can include the proper copyright references and citations. Memory Alpha:Image use policy doesn't say anything about hotlinking purely because it is expected that you upload the images here. -- Michael Warren | Talk 11:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearly not all are thinking that way, said note should be added. Tyrant 03:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

Out-dated Image use policy?

Currently, our image policy states: "Generally, no more than one or two images should be used in an article; three images might be acceptable for some long articles." While this may be acceptable for average pages, there are numerous examples of articles for which three images as a maximum is simply not enough. Examples are long episode summaries and pages of main characters. Checking out our Featured Article's list, one would notice practically all of these pages contain far more than three images.

I would suggest to revise this rule, stating no article may have more than three images that are article-specific. While a page would than be allowed to have more images (though one should not go overboard on image use, of course), it would limit the number of images uploaded specifically for that page.

For example, an image showing two main characters can be used on the pages of both characters under "Personal relationships", as well as on the page the image was screencaptured from. This way, an image is/can be used on at least three pages. Ottens 17:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tried to address a similar issue here last month... based on recent discussions on the Talk:Guinan and Memory Alpha:Images for deletion pages, I think we should seriously reevaluate our use of images, particularly when it comes to the areas I mentioned. Just for example, do we really need more than one image on pages like USS Fredrickson or Runabout (Enterprise-D)? Are images other than generic Excelsior or runabout pictures even needed on those pages? For the Fredrickson, there is also another image depicting it on Federation tug... why not combine the two images into one? Similarly, there are now three separate images about the Enteprise-D runabout, including a superflous one showing it explode on ""Timescape"." Many episode and character pages are similar... on William T. Riker, there are two images of him from Nemesis, one while he was still a commander and another with the simple addition of a captain's rank insignia. One could definitely go. I think we should also redefine the image policy to state that most small articles should be restricted to one image unless there is something else that needs to be illustrated and cannot be adequately described with text, in order to avoid choking the page. Images like those on the Guinan page may be getting to that point; maybe keep the images of Picard and Guinan and Q and Guinan because those relationships were important, but we know what the other main characters look like, so there's no real need to show them together with Guinan. Also, if minor subjects such as one-off starship appearances or the like can be combined into the same image without getting too confusing, that should be done as well. For episodes, only pivotal moments which cannot be otherwise described should need images... simple images showing two characters discussing a situation in an otherwise unremarkable environment should be avoided. Of course, there are also grey areas... if an otherwise uninteresting image is necessary for a character page but could also fit on an episode page or vice-versa, then the image should be reused as much as possible. The community should ultimately use its judgement about whether or not certain images are required. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 18:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would it be possible to start some image categories (Possibly under the supercategory Category:Memory Alpha images) to help track these? If we start categorizing our images, it might be easier to see which ones we have the most of, especially if we sort them by series or seasons.
Another suggestion would be to use the "what links here" of individual episodes to try and identify all the images cited as being from that episode -- to add them to the summary, so as to make the existing images more useful, and lessen the likelihood of someone uploading a similar and superfluous image. If it wouldn't be possible to put all the images from one episode on the episode page itself, perhaps a list of them instead, so they will be immediately accessible to a user that wants to use the image for the summary, or a related aritcle. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Creating image categories is a great idea and one which I'd wholeheartedly support... while we have the search function, it isn't of the greatest use when it comes to finding images. In addition to series and seasons, individual character, ship, planet, etc. categories would also be helpful. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 18:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Regarding the initial topic, I also feel that limiting some pages to just 2 or 3 images is a bit strict, especially in the cases of primary or strong secondary characters. However, using the Guinan reference and despite my concerns in her talk page, quantity isn't so much the issue here as is the relevancy. There really should only be maybe 6 good images on her page: 1-headshot, 1-w/ Picard, 1-w/ Q, 1-w/ Ro and one of her in the 19th century. The necessity of the remaining "interaction images", to me, remain doubtful. The same can be said about the multiple images of interaction with the same character -- Guinan w/ Picard (x3)??. Now, granted, her relationships with the other crewmembers were important...they were never exactly 'life-affirming', at least compared to the more 'emotional' interactions that she had with say, Picard (love) and Q (hate).
In much the same way, I don't think we need images of every primary character interacting with every other primary character, unless there is a strong or, at least, a "meaningful to the characters' development"-type relationship between the two. But also, having "individual images" of a character without anyone else in it can also, just as easily, be placed on another characters page without requiring images of the two characters interacting. Looking at the Leonard McCoy page, for example, there are images of notable individuals mentioned on his page without him actually being in a picture with them. By cutting back on "interaction images" and sticking to "singles" -- we can cut back on clogging up the image archive.
On a somewhat related topic, what are the feelings on occurances of two characters interacting from two different series, in terms of priority? These seem somewhat important to those who are interested in crossover appearances. I'm thinking mostly TOS with TNG/DS9/VOY, like McCoy/Data, Scotty/La Forge, Picard/Kirk, Spock, Sarek, Janeway/Sulu, etc. -- or, in the case of what I had in mind: Guinan/Chekov. Although, and quite understandably, their interact was just a brief one-shot deal, it still does make for a good Guinan character-time_period/age-reference, as well as another somewhat rare crossover meet-n-greet. I think age reference images are important for articles, especially when we can see a character in a time or at a age that is not commonly viewed - the young characters from "Rascals", or the severely aged characters from "The Deadly Years" would be prime examples of significant character variations. Granted, in the case of Guinan, her age doesnt show, but the fact that we see her with someone from another time period conveys the same idea.
Moving along, I agree with SmokeDetector's analysis of the situation, and to some extent, I have made rudimentary attempts to consolidate and post for deletion similar image redundancies. However, we tend to be pack rats around here, and everyone is afraid to throw away images. The fact of the matter is, they can always be replaced -- so why keep them around when they serve no purpose in the here-and-now?
Finally, regarding the need to combine multiple used images (re: Fredrickson/tug), admitted, I am probably the one who uploaded the Fredrickson/tug images (and likely other superflous ones) -- mind you, at a time before I realized how fragged our image archive was -- I am also one of the few consciously making an effort to correct such oversights. I've made a few forays into that realm, and have removed several TNG images that identified specific ships that were, in fact, all the same shots of stock footage. For example, there were only two notable shots of the Excelsior class along side the Enterprise, but these two shots were used something like 11 different time to represent something like 8 different ships. I believe at one point, each of those 8 ships had its own individual image, each nearly identical to the next. To remedy this, I established File:Excelsior starboard of Galaxy.jpg and File:Excelsior port of Galaxy.jpg -- restoring a respectable amount of MA image archive space. --Gvsualan 13:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've attempted to do something like this also -- to identify commonly reused shots and utilize them for ALL the occasions they were used (ex.: File:Enterprise-hit-by-weapon.jpg) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Images credit for actors

Wouldn't it make sense to link to the name of the actor pictured in the image. I did this for some images, such as File:Davies.jpg, but some archivists have a habit of removing useful links from the image descriptions.

Is there some way we could convince archivists to stop doing this, or is it wrong to credit actors for the reproduction of their image? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:02, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Perhaps a format like on the character articles (indented, italicized, "X was played by Y.") might be a good compromise? -- Cid Highwind 15:35, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Images from other language versions of MA

Is it ok within Memory-Alpha policy to put images in an article that are present in another language version of the same article also in MA? Is there a way to do it without having to re-upload the file? Shanok 21:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A little 'bump' here. I have the same doubt. Is it possible to use the same image link in another language version? Or should I upload the file again in such language version? Is there a kind of shared image database like Wikipedia's Commons? - Elentilion 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now, you have to re-upload the image to whichever language version you want. There is no Memory Alpha Commons (although we occasionally think of proposing one), and there is no way to link to images from other language versions for easy use in the articles. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image description texts (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward)

When uploading a new image under an old filename, especially if the new image has different content, please check the description texts on the pages that already use this image. For example, an image on Weytahn was described as showing "two ships in orbit", although the image actually showing this was replaced with an image of just the planet some time ago. Thanks. Should this be added to our Memory Alpha:Image use policy? -- Cid Highwind 13:00, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that this would make a good addition to policy. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SVG Support (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward)

hi, why MA does not support SVG-files and will this change soon? --Shisma 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why, and what would we need them for? I've never heard of the format, but 90% of what we use for images comes from screencaps, which are best viewed in JPEG format. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
i have produce a lot of shematics for MA/de(here). i must save it into png, with limited resolution and transparency. in svg the file would be smaler and thoroughly scaleble. i think this database should provied more than only screencaps. :) --Shisma 10:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition to policy pages: reproducing book art (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward)

Just clarifying a point regarding our image use policy, i recommend adding these explanations to some policy pages, just making sure that what i said conversationally matches with other admin's view of the copyright license's application on this matter, and we can entertain suggestions from the community as a whole here. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:36, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

From File talk:Ds9ops.jpg:
  • How is that (a reference works illustration) more of a copyright violation than a screencap, cover of a book, etc? Roar 21:42, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • A screencap is a scene from an episode -- you can see the episode for free on syndication. As long as you don't reproduce long video or audio clips, a still frame' isn't infringing the episode creator's right to sell or broadcast their product.
      • (however, despite a fair use of their image, using the still frame for a commercial (for profit) purpose is illegal, because they retain the copyright -- we have a non-commercial license -- we do not sell information or images for money)
    • A cover of a book is used to sell the book -- you can review it any time through a bookseller -- by reproducing it you aren't infringing the book creators' right to sell their product
    • A book's interior text and artwork should only be available to someone who has paid for the book -- copying or republishing artwork for free without permission infringes the rights of the artist and publisher to continue to sell the product. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:36, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm speaking from my own point of view here, but it feels wrong to reproduce any or all of the illustrations made for various Star Trek texts that are copyrighted and in publication across the globe -- things like this are why our copyright license has to be so specific -- also, since this is a wiki, people should be finding ways to create their own accurate diagrams and illustrations, not resubmitting those of others. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

I support these clarifications, a few months ago large parts from the fact files were uploaded to MA/de. Regarding user created schematics, de:Benutzer:Shisma was quite productive -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:26, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding to this earlier, but I agree (and already suggested some images for deletion). "Fair use" images used on MA should be restricted to screenshots and cover art. -- Cid Highwind 16:30, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
How about screen-caps that are available from Magazines? I know, if its either an artwork or something that hasn't come from on-screen sources, then its wrong, but what about if the picture is a screen-cap? I've got about 100 issues of Star Trek Monthly which have probably got some pretty useful images from on-screen shots. Are these useable? Zsingaya Talk 13:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like Trek articles, it is best to go right to the source material. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the U.S. Code states, in part: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction . . . , for purposes such as criticism, comment, . . . scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

My suggestion from the above, merely as a Memory Alpha contributor and not as legal advice, is that we do not use material scanned from the inside of books and magazines, regardless of where the book got it. After all, Memory Alpha sells ad space to Google and as someone pointed out above, the interior contents of a book are what cause people to want to buy it; revealling that on this site could interfere with that process. Both points would cut against fair use under the U.S. Code. So, as Cid said: screen-caps, book covers, and other material only with permission is the safest way to go. But that's just my opinion. Aholland 21:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Image use in signatures

I'd like to add a section to the policy, disallowing future use of any image in a signature. I just tried to use the link list of File:United Federation of Planets logo.png, and failed miserably. That list is absolutely useless, because the image is used on every page where a specific user added a comment. So, in short, I'd like to add something along the lines of:

Images should not be used in signatures, and any image link used in such way may be removed by an admin.

and then make use of that new restriction by removing these signature images using my bot. -- Cid Highwind 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought we already had this policy somewhere, that was why I asked Alan to have his bot remove File:Klingon Empire logo.png from my signature. Obviously I am not opposed to this, particularly when we had someone trying to add a 50 px image to their sig (that is what eventually brought me to come around to not using the images this way). --OuroborosCobra talk 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I just found another discussion about this. Moved here, from Memory Alpha talk:Policies and guidelines:

Images in Sigs?

The use of images in signatures is becoming troublesome. There is no policy on how large it can (or should) be, which can lead to awkwardness, at best. There is no policy on which images can (or should) be used. This leads to the "what links here" thing at the bottom of the images to get messy with lots of talk page links. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is, but I wanted to bring it up to gather the opinions of other people on this matter. -- Sulfur 23:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I opposed making a rule on this when it was just certain people not liking how the code looked when editing talk pages, but the "links here" thing is a serious issue, as is the fact that these images become vandal targets and end up having to be protected. If we let this happen with any and every image, we run into the problem of having to protect all of these images that people happen to choice, and that runs counter to what a wiki is supposed to be like. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed a couple things

I removed the following:

  • We have a finite amount of disk space and bandwidth available, and that space would be best used for adding more articles. The old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" is quite literally true, considering average file sizes for images.
  • In terms of image file size, please also bear in mind that not everyone has a broadband internet connection. A considerable number of people have 56kbps modems or slower connections than that. Images stored in an article should generally be kept below 70 kilobytes in size, and 35 kilobytes or smaller is even better. Larger images are okay to use as a link, but please warn people that the image is larger.

...as they are fairly obsolete. Before our move to Wikia, much of this was very much true, but no longer. I also updated the verbiage slightly for clarity. --Alan 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Modify policy to deprecate GIF and promote SVG

GIF is an obsolescent format that should be avoided. I propose the removal of GIF from the list of acceptable image formats, in favor of SVG and PNG, with SVG being preferred. SVG is scalable and easier to modify than a raster format. Also, a new pna template should be created for GIF image pages requesting the image be replaced by SVG, or at least PNG. The remaining exception for GIF should be animated images, which are already discouraged by the policy. APNG is available, but it is a violation of the PNG spec and only supported by Firefox and Opera. Example images that should be replaced with SVG: File:Chronowerx logo.gif, File:Starfleet command logo, 22nd c.gif, File:Logo Kris phoenix.gif, File:Logo Obsidian Order.gif, File:Logo Obsidian Order.gif (Most everything uploaded by Kris Trigwell) --bp 05:52, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for this, and would go so far as to say we remove GIF altogether. And this is coming from someone who has no idea how to make or use SVG. - Archduk3 06:11, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

There is a good, free (as in freedom), tool called Inkscape that can be used to compose or edit SVG images. --bp 06:57, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I will look into that, thanks. :) - Archduk3 07:11, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but someone who "doesn't know how to make or use SVG" shouldn't even try to attempt a GIF->SVG conversion. In fact, I don't think that a simple conversion is a good idea at all. Automated conversion most often leads to less than stellar results. If someone (who knows what he's doing) creates a vector graphic from scratch, and perhaps even manages to upload/link to a screenshot of the original (unlike Kris) and on top of that perhaps doesn't use the most restricting image license possible, then why not. I don't think SVG should be made mandatory, though. GIF->PNG8 is something I'd endorse - although that, too, doesn't need to be made a mandatory part of the policy. It would suffice to state that we consider PNG to be the preferred format and that, in case of having both, we're going to delete the GIF one. -- Cid Highwind 10:12, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing any automated conversion from GIF to SVG. I am proposing that we strongly discourage uploading of new GIFs, and use a pna template on existing GIF image pages that requests an SVG version of the image be uploaded to replace it. The replacement image should have been created as an SVG, not converted from a raster format. --bp 15:10, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cid - None taken, but I'm not purposing I do any of those things. I'm just for changing the policy to say we don't want GIF files anymore. - Archduk3 18:31, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion - GIF is already called a "last resort" format in the nutshell version at the top of the page. Later, it reads:
  • Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images (basically those with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color) should be in SVG, PNG or GIF format.
This could be changed, and another paragraph added, to read as follows:
  • Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images (basically those with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color) should be in SVG or PNG format.
    • GIF format images can be uploaded if the contributor is unable to convert the image to PNG or SVG himself. However, a "PNA" notice should be added to these uploads, and the image be converted as soon as possible.
    • SVG format images should not be created by automatic conversion from a low resolution source image, as this leads to images of inferior quality.
-- Cid Highwind 19:39, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thats pretty close to what I proposed. I want the language to be as strong as possible to discourage GIFs, and a PNA notice for GIF images requesting that a SVG or PNG replacement be uploaded. Also, an edit of MediaWiki:Uploadtext to discourage GIFs. This isn't a massive overhaul by any means, just a move to actively discourage images in this poor format. --bp 19:46, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Archduk3 22:17, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. --bp 00:34, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Screencap resolution

Also, I would like to propose an addition for screencap resolution and aspect ratio. The screencap resolution should be 1:1 to the source material, and the aspect ratio of the source should be preserved. Basically, it means that when taking screencaps from DVD, for example, the video should be "zoomed" at 100%, and not fullscreen. I'm still working on details and better explanation of why... I've already had this discussion somewhere and I need to find it. --bp 19:59, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that only makes sense. Grab only at native resolution. Images will probably be rescaled by MediaWiki later, anyway - so it's better to rescale just once instead of multiple times. -- Cid Highwind 20:12, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I overall agree with Bp. It is certainly annoying when a fullscreen cap of an image is taken, and then someone uploads it at 1200 pixels wide when the original source material was standard definition. You don't get anymore detail, and you don't need the image to be any larger. It just makes for bloated files. There are SOME exceptions to this, though. File:Guidance and navigation relay.jpg would be an example. This has been magnified above the original size, and the result IS a fuzzy image, but it is a fuzzy image that actually lets you see the subject at all. In the original resolution, you can't even really see anything. So there might need to be reasonable exceptions for things that were very small on the screen, such as small objects, background people, background starships, etc.
Not sure what you mean with aspect ration. I'll take up the G&N Relay image as an example again. The source material, being Deep Space Nine, had an aspect ratio of 4:3, IIRC. This image has an aspect ratio of 1:1, because it is a cap of only a small part of the image. Are you meaning that all images should be 4:3, or simply not ending up "stretched" or "deformed" compared to their original source? I'm guessing you mean the latter, in which case I am in complete agreement. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:14, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant pixel aspect ratio, not image aspect ratio. An image may be cropped to a different ratio of width to height, but the pixels in it should have the same ratio in geometry as the source material. --bp 20:21, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


I found a couple of them: Forum:Standard Image Size or Max, and File talk:Vulcan desert night wide.jpg, but I think the best one was on an image talk page the was deleted. Anyway... the proposed Screencap section text should go something like this:


Full screen captures should be uploaded as JPG images, in the same pixel aspect ratio and resolution as the original DVD or Blu-ray source material, and without additional compression. Screen captures that are cropped should still have the same pixel size as the original source material. The exception being the moderate enlargement of cropped images of very small objects, although this is not necessary as the image can be resized as needed by the wiki software. Any cropped or resized image should still have the same pixel aspect ratio as the source material. There are specific exceptions to this rule, for example when the image has also been rotated and/or perspective-corrected, but generally this does not happen.

As an example: for standard definition DVD (TNG, DS9,VOY), the Region 1 resolution is 720x480. Uploading an enlarged screencap, say 1024x768, does not add any extra information, and may actually reduce the quality and blurr otherwise sharp parts of the image. Also, if the image is being scaled to fullscreen the pixel aspect ratio may be changed.

The general rule is that the a full screen capture should be taken while viewing the DVD in "windowed mode" with the "100% Zoom" setting of the DVD playback software. Then it can be cropped as needed, preferrably with a tool like JPEGcrop that does not recompress the image.


That last paragraph is the important part I guess, as it is actually a guideline. The rest could probably be worded better. --bp 21:17, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I added this to the policy, albeit reworded. - Archduk3 19:06, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Right on. --bp 19:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

w00t --OuroborosCobra talk 20:50, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

General question about copyright

So if i wanted to upload an image of an actor that is available online, could i do that? And if so, how do i cite it? I have noticed that many actors' pages do not have a picture of the actor themselves but one of them in their role in a Star Trek production. I find that not only annoying and redundant (often the actor pic and the article pic of the character are the same) but i think it would definitely be nice for everyone to see a picture of the stars "out of character". So from what i understand, images that can be found all over the internet are considered "public domain" and as such posting them would be within our rights according to the "U.S. Copyright Fair Use Act (title 17, U.S. Code.)". I wanted to clear this before I upload a picture. I have read about the public domain rule a lot but I dont know if MA is operating under some other strange policy no one has ever heard of and which we must adhere to. – Distantlycharmed 03:25, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you still need permission from the person who posted the image unless they specifically give permission in a capacity such as wikipedia. Images are not public domain, by default, if they're on the internet. You still need to reference the original author in some manner. It's best if you take a photo yourself and upload it. I wish it was easier to do that though! If you find a photo you'd like to use, contact the website and see if they will let you first. — Morder (talk) 03:54, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

So what do you mean with technically? Isnt Title 17, U.S. Code specific enough? Many celebrity oriented websites, for example (there are all kinds), post pictures under that "public domain" and "Fair Use Act" - and they use "U.S. Copyright Fair Use Act (title 17, U.S. Code.)" under their copyright disclaimer cleared by their legal team/lawyer etc. So why cant we? And actually they are considered public domain by virtue of being on the internet - unless the website specifically states that images are not to be used without explicit prior permission by owner. If everyone operated under this dubious MA policy there wouldnt be any pictures on the internet. Go celebrity hunting is not a viable option and sometimes it is next to impossible to track down the original photographer, yet all sorts of pictures exist. I think it is important we found a clear answer to this question. I doubt I would be in violation of any copyright laws if i used the Fair Use Act, Title 17 U.S. Code under the copyright/licence page - unless someone can cite me another legal statute explicitly prohibiting such use.

And by the way, sometimes contacting the admin of a website to ask for permission is pointless as they themsleves are most likely not the owner and in fact are using the image under the Fair Use Act - legally - just like we should be doing. – Distantlycharmed 04:10, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well first, a picture simply being found all over the internet doesn't make it public domain. Being public domain makes it public domain. I realize that sounds a little circular, so let me explain. If I take a Metallica song and post it on a webpage, and then someone else downloads it off my page and posts it on their's, and eventually it ends up on 500,000 webpages ("all over the internet") it has not become public domain or legal under fair use. Each of those 500,000 pages is in breach of Metallica's copyright of that song. Then again, if I post a recording of a Klezmer song from 1913 on my webpage, it may be public domain even if I am the only webpage posting it (it isn't "all over the internet"). It is public domain because copyright laws have given a limit to how long the copyright can exist.
If a website is correctly claiming an image as public domain, then we can use it here. We don't need prior permission of the owner. If it's public domain, it is in the domain of the public do use for basically whatever they want, include MA. We'd want to slap a public domain tag, but that's just a formality.
A website claiming something is "fair use" becomes a bit harder. First, many people claim something is "fair use" when it isn't, with the converse also being true (many people claim something to not be "fair use" when it actually is). Fair use is one of the least understood aspects of copyright law. I have a parent who worked heavily in public access cable television with regards to fair use, and I still don't have a great understanding of it. One very important point to make is that just because one website has properly and legally declared their use of an image to be "fair use," it doesn't mean that we can do the same. The rules regarding "fair use" have a lot to do with how you are going to use something. For example, a free documentary on public access may be able to use a portion of a song under "fair use," while someone releasing a DVD of that documentary for money will not be able to do so. One is free public education, the other is a for profit commercial venture. One is "fair use," the other is "copyright infringement."
I'm not really sure where MA falls under that. Certainly as editors we aren't making a profit on our ventures here, but Wikia is.
If we can claim use of something under "fair use," we don't need prior permission from the owner. We certainly aren't getting it from CBS/Paramount for screencaps. If we cannot claim something under "fair use" or "public domain," meaning that we have a copyrighted work that we have no legal claim or right to use, then we need permission to post it. The owner of the copyright has the ability to grant us permission to post their copyrighted work. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:08, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
What OC said... :) I'd just like to add: "Fair use" is actually not the best-possible premise to base image uploads on, but one of the weaker ones we have. Wherever possible, "fair use" images should be replaced with one where the licensing explicitly allows us to use the image. I mentioned Flickr as a possible resource years ago here, and while the exact URL might have changed by now, there surely still is a way to search for CC-licensed images on Flickr. Those can be reused here when using proper attribution (depending on exact licensing there!). What should not be done is that random users from here go out and ask random website owners elsewhere for permission to use random images from their pages. As has been shown here, image copyrights is something not well-understood by many, so the answers to these requests most probably won't be worth anything. -- Cid Highwind 12:17, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Policy clarification regarding "fanmade" images

On Memory Alpha:Images for deletion, images (File:Map alpha quadrant.jpg‎‎ and others) have been put up for deletion with the reasoning that they are "fanmade" - basically, all information contained in the image is either "canon" (most important stuff) or from real-life (window-dressing), combined with some markup like lines, text and colored areas, but the combination has not been created by someone who worked on the show.

If that deletion goes through, I intend to clarify this policy by adding the sentence "Fan-created images are not to be used in in-universe articles.", both in the section "Copyright" where there's a paragraph talking about such images, as well as in the numbered list at the top of the page. -- Cid Highwind 11:41, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

It might help if you waited until you got a response elsewhere before coming here and laying out you little tantrum ultimatum. Try and keep it to one page in the future. - Archduk3 11:47, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Turns out a discussion like this is considered useful by others as well, so I'd like to continue it. First, restating some things: we do have images that would not be a "valid resource" according to MA:CANON. Those images are typically created by ourselves, for use (also) in in-universe articles to show something that has already been shown in "canon" (basically, there's a screenshot of it), just in a somehow "better" form. These images currently are allowed by this policy - and they are neither against the letter nor against the spirit of MA:CANON, because that policy simply doesn't apply: the images are not supposed to be used "as a resource", which is what MA:CANON talks about, but rather to "present information that already has a resource".

With the other discussion in mind, the questions that need to be answered are: Do we want to uphold this policy, or do we want to change it? If we want to uphold it, how can we clarify it so that such deletion discussions are not repeated. If we don't want to uphold it (or if you think that this policy does not state what I believe it states), how should we rephrase/clarify it to make clear some other position? If we change the policy, what types of self-created images do we want to allow, and what types do we want to exclude?

There's a whole variety of ways this could go:

  • On the one end, we could be very strict and state that no self-created images are allowed (at all, or at least in in-universe parts of articles). This is what I suggested above, and would affect the galaxy map File:Map alpha quadrant.jpg‎‎, but also a whole range of other images, from "alien script" collections, over "rank insignia", to "organization logos", and probably beyond. All these would then need to be deleted (if we go for "not at all"), or moved to background sections (if we go for "not in in-universe parts").
  • On the other end, we could be very lax about it and state that a self-created image is allowed as long as a description of that image would be allowed in the same section of an article. This would allow, for example, the "rank insignia" images for ranks that have been seen in in-universe sections, and the "interpolated rank insignia" in background sections. It would also allow the galaxy map, but perhaps not all "alien script" images.
  • Somewhere in the middle would be a statement like "self-created images are allowed only if they faithfully (in every detail) reproduce something that is canon, and if they are necessary". Depending on a more thorough definition of what "every detail" and "necessary" means, this could either allow or disallow the galaxy map. It would allow "seen rank insignia", disallow "interpolated rank insignia" and most "alien scripts", allow some but not all "organization logos" depending on how exact they really are, and so on. Going this way would make most sense if it was accompanied by a statement that says "every self-created work needs to link to one or more screenshots showing the same object, so that the faithfulness of the reproduction can be checked."
  • Other statements are possible, too. They just should be generic enough to not be a ruling for or against some specific image we currently have.

So, what does everyone think about this? Which direction should we go with this policy? -- Cid Highwind 12:12, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

You're flat out wrong, and thanks for inviting me to the party.
You're wikilawyering, specifically "abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". You're "playing policies against each other" and "relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy", specifically stating that the canon policy doesn't apply to images even though the spirit of the canon policy is that "material used and presented on MA be directly from "canon" Star Trek productions or accepted licensed works as outlined here". The use of the term "fan-made", "cherry pick[ed]" from the image policy, is blown way out of proportion. You've, right now, "attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy" and trying to "impose [your] own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community" by suggesting these slight wording issues somehow invalidates years of community consensus that "fan made images that aren't faithful reproductions of material seen in canon are non-canon and should be deleted". You examples aren't even internally consistent, and you're token "last option" just proves you're intent, as stating that "fan made images that aren't faithful reproductions of material seen in canon are unacceptable" would "specifically" "be a ruling [...] against" your quadrant images, which by the way I'm sure a "retarded monkey" could reproduce. I find what you're attempting here, and you personally Cid, to be repugnant in the extreme. Maybe in your over half a decade of "not giving a shit" here you forgot what were suppose to be doing. As someone who seems to think that using direct quotes by production personal to name people or places "unnamed" in canon should be done on a case by case basis, I find your insistence that a blanket statement be made here, now that you finally have some "skin in the game", to be questionable at best. At worst, you're nothing but a charlatan and snake oil salesman trying once again to influence policy you then won't be bothered to enact yourself, for fear of being made to "jump though some hoops". - Archduk3 13:27, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki