Template talk:Watermark

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg Template:Watermark has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.

Top[edit]

This is an unfortunate template, because the removal of watermark information could itself be a copyright violation under U.S. law (17 U.S.C. 1202).

It's not the template, it's our policy. And modifying free images is not against the law. It is for some, but they're not allowed here anyway. - Rocket000 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this apply to steganography[edit]

Does this apply to steganography? Say, I put in a cc-by-sa and name note in the image? Nichalp (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, as long as no one can tell. Metadata really belongs elsewhere, though. Rocket000 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

category...[edit]

This template places images in the hidden category: Category:Images with watermarks. J.smith (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Metadata from image[edit]

Perhaps a link to {{Metadata from image}} in the docs somewhere?

Adding parameter[edit]

{{Edit protected}} Please, replace:

[[Category:Images with watermarks|{{PAGENAME}}]]

with

[[Category:Images with {{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|timestamp|timestamp watermarks|watermarks}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Then images will be automatically added to subcategory of Category:Images with watermarks, Category:Images with timestamp watermarks, by adding firt parameter "timestamp".

And also please remove

----
Images bearing this template are automatically added to [[:Category:Images with watermarks]], a subcategory of [[:Category:Images for cleanup]].

I'll add this information to documentation. Thanks--Sevela.p 12:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Common Good (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Images using { {watermark} } incorrectly marked as public domain[edit]

Applying this template to any image appears to incorrectly mark the image as public domain!

Here for example is a randomly chosen watermarked image from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_watermarks: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acharia_stimulea_1225185.jpg

Note that the only license is creative commons, which requires attribution. However, clicking the "Use this file on the web" link on the brings up a box saying "Attribution not legally required". Wrong! Looking in the HTML source code, we see, preceding the contents of the watermark template:

<table class="licensetpl" style="display:none"> <tr> <td><span class="licensetpl_short" style="display:none;">Public domain</span><span class="licensetpl_long" style="display:none;">Public domain</span><span class="licensetpl_link_req" style="display:none;">false</span><span class="licensetpl_attr_req" style="display:none;">false</span></td> </tr> </table>

These tags are, to my limited knowledge, used to generate the box that appears when users click "Use this file on the web" link.

So where did they come from? Here is the clincher: Create a new empty test page, containing only an instance of this template. Preview, then view source. The tags are there. I have no idea why.

✓ Done, Template:Watermark/layout changed. --Martin H. (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: instructions to replace this template[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Could someone with sufficient editing rights add the instruction "After removing a watermark, please replace this template with {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} or {{Metadata from image}}, whichever is appropriate to the image." in one form or another to the template? Thanks. —Quibik (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Added to the English text. Other native speakers will need to update the text in the other languages. Logan Talk Contributions 04:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Merge Template:Remove caption[edit]

Could someone correctly merge this template (description and instruction), as User:Cwbm (commons) has only made an redirect. -- πϵρήλιο 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Legality of removing watermarks[edit]

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Commons:watermarks. Rd232 (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: incorrect terminology[edit]

As per the linked Wikipedia article, "digital watermarks are only perceptible under certain conditions, i.e. after using some algorithm, and imperceptible anytime else". COM:Watermarks says that those types of watermarks are acceptable, so I think this template is referring to only to visible watermarks. The term "digital watermarking" should thus be removed. InverseHypercube 09:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotional watermarks[edit]

There inclusion of Category:Images with promotional watermarks. 1=promotional should be also be put into this category as well. Technophant (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: DR[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image Jee 03:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Watermarks = Adaptation?[edit]

It seems quite clear that removing a watermark is not an adaption as indicated in this template. CC offers in their FAQ that: generally, a modification rises to the level of an adaptation under copyright law when the modified work is based on the prior work but manifests sufficient new creativity to be copyrightable. Then we have WMF Legal offering an opinion that: removing a watermark likely does not create an adaptation under US copyright law, because the removal is not a creative act. Given this it is recommend we stop referring to watermark removal as an adaptation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the word "adapt" is used here as a synonym of "modify". Many modifications like cropping, rotating, etc. will not qualify as adaptation; but allowed by a non-ND license as mere modifications ("reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part"). Here the question is whether a modification with only intention to remove CMI allowed? Tough question as we don't know how the court see it. (We already saw the German court expressed their discomfort in considering a mere link to a page in a different site as a valid attribution.) Jee 03:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Adaptation has a very particular meaning when it comes to copyright. It should not be used so loosely if that is what is going on here; however, I think the word was used intentionally with the expectation that watermarks removals would be an adaptation (see the template discussions regarding "do not remove watermark"). As to the quoted words they must be placed in the context of an adaptation, which is not occurring with a watermark removal. I think this is clear in the full text of the CC 4.0 where it implies the adapter has copyright in the adapted work. ("Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.") Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Link to WMF analysis of legal risks?[edit]

Given the WMF's recent legal analysis of removing watermarks outlining potential legal risks that volunteers might face when removing watermarks from copyrighted but freely licensed images, would it be wise to add a cautionary note, or at least a link to that analysis, to the template? The text of Commons:Watermarks was recently updated to include such a note ("Opinion from the Wikimedia Foundation legal staff indicates the removal of watermarks may place the remover at legal risk"). 28bytes (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Fully concur as per your analysis and the discussion immediately above. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps adding something like "Caution: before removing a watermark from a copyrighted image, please read the WMF's analysis of the legal ramifications, as well as Commons' proposed policy regarding watermarks" to the bottom might be appropriate for the English version. What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image too. :) Jee 02:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)