Commons talk:Quality images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Procedure for adding images to this page and subpages
The current procedures for adding images that have been promoted through QIC (either as listed by QICBot or manually from Consensual_review after a decision has been posted) are:

  1. ) Add images to the top of the appropriate gallery(s) on the main page. NB some sections have subgalleries. It may be appropriate to add an image to more than one section.
  2. ) Trim the gallery down to 4 images or only those newly added that day if more than 4. (images are normally left for at least one day on the main page, so I normally leave any overflow until I add the next days images).
  3. ) Add the image to the top of appropriate galleries on sub-pages. Some pages have many subsections and subgalleries. Also note that some galleries contain natural groupings. --Tony Wills 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Also note that within the natural groupings there maybe further subgroups, though not necessarily subdivided by headers. When in doubt you can always ask me. Lycaon 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to QI rules concerning licening[edit]

@Gnangarra, Thermos, W.carter, Poco a poco, Christian Ferrer: @Basotxerri, Ikan Kekek, Basile Morin, XRay, DeFacto: @Rhododendrites, Granada, DerHexer, Marcus Cyron, Sandro Halank: @Moroder, Ailura, King of Hearts, Martin Falbisoner, Tournasol7: @Vitavia, SDKmac, Alexander-93, Johann Jaritz, Martin Kraft:

Dear fellow Commoners,

QI aims at identifying and promoting images that are well-suited for re-use because of their technical quality. Sadly some of the images are uploaded with certain licenses, which contradicts this goal by making it virtually impossible to actually use the images elsewhere than Wikimedia projects because of overly complicated conditions. My proposal is, to a) identify licenses that actually allow re-use of images in other web or print publications under reasonable circumstances and b) amend the QI rules to limit promotion of new QIs to images, which have at least one of those licenses available. This change IMO has great potential to strengthen the value and rejuvenate the spirit of QI.

Please let me know, what you think. Which licenses should be included, which shouldn't?

Feel free to ping any user, I could have missed, who in your opinion, could contribute to this discussion.

Cheers, --MB-one (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@MB-one: can you give some examples of images with the types of licences you think are "making it virtually impossible to actually use the images elsewhere..." please, to help me/us understand your concerns. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
MB-one is talking about GFDL only here. In my honest opinion CC-BY-SA is impossible to use elsewhere than in Wikimedia projects (maybe online, but not in print). So this is impossible. --Ailura (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ailura, hello DeFacto,
Thank you for engaging in the discussion. As I am not a copyright lawyer (or any lawyer for that matter), so I can not give a definitive list of "unsuitable" licenses (which are mostly only allowed on Commons for legacy reasons). GFDL for me is a candidate for QI exclusion, because of the "full license text" stipulation. CC licenses are not an easy matter, because there seem to be quite some differences between the different versions. CC-0 seems to be an easy choice for a "white list" though. Also I'm quite interested to get an experts analysis of the Free Art Licenses.
Cheers, --MB-one (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
CC-0 is not the preferred license of Wikimedia projects because it is not viral. It makes it easy for the reuser to put the work under a non-free license. There is no good license. --Ailura (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
CC-0 is no way for me. CC BY (like Christian's choice) is acceptable especially for third parties. I've to think about it. --XRay talk 11:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
To clear things up a little bit: I'm in no way proposing only allowing CC-0 for QI. I'm rather suggesting that CC-0 could be one of the licenses, that is cleared for QI. Currently I am using CC-BY-SA 4.0 for my images, but I'm certainly open to change that and possibly relicense to another more suitably license. --MB-one (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Since a few month, I use only CC BY license because I am not a fan of the SA clause and I see that as a bit as a kind of restriction. In what I understand that is worse with GFDL, that there is no chance that I will ever use for my images. I like this approach which aims to categorize as quality content actually reusable content under any circumstances (what is a purpose if not the purpose of our project). I tend to support everything that goes in that direction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

CC0 ist eigentlich ein Grund, QI abzulehnen, da sie nicht viral ist. --Ralf Roleček 12:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

QI ist ein Grund QI anzulehnen. Ein undurchsichtiges Projekt. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose to any restriction of licensing that is otherwise acceptable on Commons. If you have a problem with how reusable a specific license is, the appropriate place to consider this is a modification to Commons:Licensing since the matter goes to the heart of the whole point of this very project, and more generally Wikimedia. -- KTC (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello KTC,
thank you for your thoughts on this matter. I am totally not opposed to the idea of grandfathering GFDL on Commons and not allowing any new uploads with it (if that is your goal, count me in as a supporter). That said, QI doesn't necessarily need to have the exact same requirements as Commons as a whole when it comes to licensing. This is just the same way, as it doesn't have the same requirements for who the author of the work is. In this way QI could actually be a trailblazer for change
--MB-one (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GFDL is not a suitable license for free images, let alone for QI. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per KTC. If there's a problem with licensing, it needs to be addressed site-wide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if a license is free, it's good for QIC. --Ralf Roleček 19:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Ralf Roleček, there are varying degrees of freedom. Some licenses are free on paper but not really free in practice. QI aims to reach beyond, what is the standard on Commons and provide good but also actually usable images. --MB-one (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Es gibt auf Commons zugelassene freie Lizenzen und es gibt keinen Grund, diese in gut oder böse einzuteilen. Eine Nachnutzung ist auch außerhalb CC sehr gut möglich, siehe User:Ralf_Roletschek/Bücher und das ist nur eine Auswahl. Oder die nebenstehenden Bucheinbände. Ich kann zahllose Beispiele bringen. GFDL war jahrelang die einzig seligmachende Lizenz, heute wird sie verteufelt. Die Urheber wurden hier betrogen, als man gegen ihren Willen umlizenziert hat. Der nächste Schritt war CC4, um die Rechte der Urheber weiter einzuschränken und was kommt als Nächstes? Wird alles auf CC0 umlizenziert? Ganz so abwegig ist das angesichts des bisherigen Verlaufs nicht. Wenn es eine "CC-BY-SA-only" gäbe, würde ich die benutzen. Aber die Katze im Sack kaufe ich nicht. Diese nachträgliche Herumdoktorei an einmal erteilten Lizenzen ist nicht nur unfair. Wenn Qualitätsbilder nicht mehr nach Qualität sondern Lizenz bewertet werden, bin ich spätestens raus. Aus FPC bin ich raus, da ist es ja schon so. Qualität ist unwichtig, Hauptsache Freibier. Die angeblich schlechte Nachnutzbarkeit ist ein Märchen. Sorry for writing german, my en-0 is too bad. --Ralf Roleček 23:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Deutsch: Niemand soll zu einer Umlizensierung seiner Bilder gezwungen werden. Ja, GFDL war mal das Maß aller Dinge, aber das ist lange her. Trotzdem darf vorläufig weiterhin jeder sogar Bilder unter GFDL hochladen. Aber das heißt eben nicht, dass diese Bilder zu den "besten" auf Commons gehören können. Danke übrigens für den Hinweis bzgl. FP. Das wusste ich noch gar nicht, aber es spricht ja eher für meinen Vorschlag.
English: Nobody should be forced to re-license his pictures. Yes, GFDL used to be the measure of all things, but that was a long time ago. Nevertheless, everyone is still allowed to upload images under GFDL for the time being. But this does not mean that these images can be among the "best" on Commons. By the way, thanks for the remark regarding FP. I didn't know that yet, but it speaks even more for my suggestion.
--MB-one (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Natürlich können sie zu den besten auf Commons gehören. Wir sollten vielmehr darüber nachdenken, CC0 als nicht virale Lizenz auszuschließen. Jedenfalls werde ich das in Zukunft so votieren. --Ralf Roleček 16:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Ralf Roleček, ich möchte dich dringend bitten, solche Störaktionen zu unterlassen. Dafür ist genau diese Diskussion gedacht. Damit wir hier zu einem gemeinsamen Konsens finden und nicht einzelne Benutzer unilateral die QI-Kriterien verändern.
Grüße --MB-one (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support German: Einige Benutzer gedenken, mit ihrer Abmahnpraxis Geld zu verdienen. Das sehe ich sehr kritisch. Freie Inhalte sind dazu da, dass man sie umkompliziert weiternutzen kann und es kein Geld kostet. Ich befürworte den Vorschlag. Es ist mir auch egal, ob dann einige Benutzer da raus sind.
English: Some users think, that they could easily get money by admonishing someone who is not using the license 100 percent correctly. I don't like this and the target of free license is, that it is free content. At long last I support this suggestion. SDKmac (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Und was hat das miteinander zu tun? --Ralf Roleček 10:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support disallowing GFDL and similarly cumbersome licenses. -- King of ♠ 01:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Phase 1: choose approach[edit]

@Ailura, DeFacto, XRay, Christian Ferrer, Ralf Roletschek: @Yann, SDKmac, King of Hearts: Thank you for everyone, who shared their views on this matter so far. Many images do not just fall under a single license, but do have multiple licenses available. Hence, there could regardless of the actual licenses three possible scenarios how this could work:

  1. a "whitelist" whereas the availability of at least one whitelisted license qualifies the image for QI.
  2. a "blacklist" whereas the availability of at least one blacklisted license disqualifies the image for QI.
  3. a combination of both, whereas a the availability of at least one whitelisted license qualifies the image for QI, unless also at least one blacklisted license is available, which voids the qualification.

Please share your thoughts about what approach is favourable and also which licenses you want to put on what list.

Thank you.--MB-one (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Alle auf Commons zugelassenen Lizenzen sind für QI erlaubt mit Ausnahme von CC-0/PD-self, weil die dem Grundgedanken der Freien Lizenzen, der Viralität widersprechen. Es gibt keine Lizenzen erster oder zweiter Klasse. Wenn, dann ist die GFDL als Ursprungslizenz die Wahl für alles. Es stand mal auf der ersten Seite der Wikipedias und Commons: ".... steht unter GFDL und wird dies immer sein..." Wir sehen ja, wohin das abzudriften droht. --Ralf Roleček 18:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • IMO we do not need a whitelist or a blacklist, any free license should be possible. A recommendation may be possible, not more. --XRay talk 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So lange es keine wirklich sinnvoll nachnutzbare freie Lizenz gibt, müssen alle zulässigen Lizenzen auch für QI zulässig sein. Es geht hier um Bildqualität. --Ailura (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I think it should be obvious, which is none of the above: There is a blacklist, where the availability of at least one license not on the blacklist qualifies the image for QI. -- King of ♠ 02:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • In my opinion there is no good license, so this makes no sense. --Ailura (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Phase 2: select licenses for blacklist[edit]

King of Hearts suggestion seems most sensible so far. Which licenses would you like to see or not to see on the black (considering several voices mentioning GFDL and one for CC-0 so far) --MB-one (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no good license. Put CC-BY and CC-BY-SA on the blacklist. --Ailura (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Ailura: Could you state a reason why those licenses shouldn't qualify? --MB-one (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You asked for licenses that allow re-use of images in print publications under reasonable circumstances. Take any picture under cc-by-sa und generate the necessary attribution via Lizenzhinweisgenerator. Compare this to usual attribution of pictures in newspapers. --Ailura (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Commons is for educational re-use not to supply newspapers with stock that have zero rights attached to it. Blacklisting CC-BY SA is quite the maximalist approach. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice wish, but far from reality and not subject of this thread. --Ailura (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Commons is for every purpose, that includes newspapers. A lot of my images where printed in books, brochures, magazines or newspapers. Very often we made a special agreement for free use, but only with attribution - without or with a short specification of the license, like CC BY-SA. There is no space for detailed license informations. --XRay 17:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
So the only suitable license is a special agreement. --Ailura (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
My point was lost so I have stuck everything except the heart of my opinion to prevent anything else off topic. I stand by how I feel. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Attribution requirement of a CC license is not that much complicated. It can be as simple as "© 2015 Jee & Rani Nature Photography (, CC BY-SA 4.0)" in a print media. Author, source and license can be hyperlinked in an online use. Jee 02:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm only talking about print, i think online reuse is possible. You forgot the link and the title. And i'm not sure whether tinyurl is legally compliant (plus it's still a pain to typewrite that). The reuser can bend the license pretty much before he gets sued, but that doesn't make the license more usable. --Ailura (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Title is optional. Usually photographs have no titles like artworks. License url is not a must (See "a notice that refers to this Public License;"). Further, "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." So all conditions are satisfied if a url to the work is provided. Nowadays QR code can be provided for urls in print media. Lot of our photographs are displayed in Kochi Metro with QR codes. Jee 06:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry, i'm not really familiar with 4.0, in older versions title and full cc-url are not optional. Maybe only all prior versions need to get blacklisted. But i still don't think any newspaper i know would copy any hyperlink under a picture. --Ailura (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
          • 1. Newspapers need not have to follow the license terms as their use usually fall under Fair use. 2. Yes; CC 4.0 licenses are much more reuser friendly. Jee 06:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
            • fair use is not an international concept, it doesn't work in Europe. (really? newspapers don't need to pay for pictures in the USA?)--Ailura (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Recently promoted[edit]

Hello, @Sixflashphoto, George Chernilevsky, Smial, Podzemnik, Basotxerri: because you and me are the main contributor of the page "recently promoted", I would like your advice about the different choice, we have. Now there are some 600 photos whicjh I don't find the good subject for them. Should we create some new subject or subdivision of subject ? Olivier LPB (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that we can use generic categories that are already available. "Objects\Ohter", "Places\Mixed" or "Technique\..." -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I still think an Objects\Religious category would make categorization easier but the generics should be alright. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The page is overflowing. Too few people take care of it. Should we give it up? Obviously there is low interest. Is it possible to have the possible QI-Category already determined at the nomination by the nominator? --Milseburg (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

QI August 26 2018[edit]

Hi, It looks that the QI candidates posted on August 26 have not been processed correctly. They have not received the QI label. Is there someone could check it? --Bgag (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I got the same problem with my QI C:File:Willys M38A1 JM 2.jpg, which was promoted back in June: Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_June_15_2018. I do not want to add a QI bade to my own photos, that would be sort of weird. @Spurzem:. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could figure out why this happens. Once in a blue moon it does this and I see no obvious pattern. As to a short term fix you can add the appropriate QI indicating badge, {{QualityImage}} if it has already been promoted. Obviously adding this to a file not yet promoted would be a breach of trust and patently improper but if a file has already been promoted (you will see it categorized as such) and the badge is missing simply adding the correct info to the file is not improper. As a side note, I have found this even more rare but it does the same thing with promoted VIC very occationally but that almost certainly a question for a different time. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
My file also lacks the hidden QI category. But, as shown, it was promoted by Spurzem. Lothar, could you do me the favour and add the QI category as well as the QI badge to that image? I really don't want to do that on my own. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)