Talk: Image use policy

Draft

After having this link sit red for far too long, I've butchered Wikipedia's Image use policy into something that I think fits our site better. The rough draft is sitting in User:Rainith/Test, take a look. This is not GuildWiki policy. I'm not trying to pass it off as such. Post comments here, fix any spelling/grammer mistakes that I have almost certainly made. If you feel that I've left something out or that I'm plain wrong on this or that point, I'd prefer that you post here for the moment as opposed to editing my test page. Hopefully we can get something hammered out that most (if not all of us) can agree on. --Rainith 22:59, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

I wholeheartedly endorse moving your test page to GuildWiki:Image use policy immediately. Any small bugs can be hammered out; all in all, that is the image use policy we've been suggesting/enforcing. —Tanaric 12:09, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Done. I appreciate everyone who commented/fixed my errors.  :) --Rainith 16:12, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

I like #9, annoying when there are vanity shots Skuld 16:25, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

From User talk:Rainith/Test

Ok I'm not sure how much I have to contribute to this, the legalities stuff I don't know much about but I wonder if it would be useful to include a longer section on image types because the image type is quite important. You know when to use each format. --Xasxas256 17:17, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

looks good, except...

the 16 megabyte thing. [[:Image:SoraTHK.JPG]] is only 291K, but MediaWiki is already choking on it if I try accessing its description page (though directly inlining it works). I have to access it directly via [1]. -PanSola, Table of The Lyssa Advocacy Front (sing) 00:09, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

That just says that you can upload files that big and the software will accept them, I state that files should be under 150K. --Rainith 00:12, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

BTW, if you want to delete that image (as it doesn't work), here is the link. --Rainith 00:15, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Well it does "work":

[[Image:SoraTHK.JPG]]

I just can't access the image article (or try to scale it down) d-: . -PanSola, Table of The Lyssa Advocacy Front (sing) 00:44, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

I'm able to access the description page for that file - did you already resize it, or do you want me to try resizing it?

Actually, looking closer, the only current use of this large image appears to be on this page to illustrate the discussion about large image files. Is it really needed, or can it just be deleted? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:06, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

I believe it should be safe to delete, I'm going to de-link it from this page and put a delete notice on it. --Rainith 20:42, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

So, you're saying that there is NO reason for images to be over 150K. How about a map of large region, like Echovald Forest? I assembled and uploaded such one. It took over 900K, but I think it's reasonable, as map should be readable. Also, I was following the example of Jade Sea, where is similar map. If you consider such map as a bad thing, delete it. /Redruid 16:39, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Image upload abuse

While this probably isn't the best place to start this discussion, I can't think of a better one, so I'll just put it here... :) When I look at Special:Ipblocklist right now, I notice one thing: The lack of spam recently is a very nice thing, but we have a lot of bans for image upload abuse recently. I count five cases within six days. I'm not sure what to think of that. Should we do something to prevent larger scale abuse here? Is it possible to somehow restrict image upload further? Do we even care? :) --84-175 (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

I care, but I don't think there's anything we can do except mroe rigorously patrolling it. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 08:42, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

Shortcut?

Other entries in Category:Policy have shortcuts, and I feel this one will be called enough to justify one as well. So, what works best? GW:IUP, GW:PIC, GW:IMAGE, something else? I like GW:IMAGE myself, but it breaks from the pattern of a three character code. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

There is precedent for longer names. GW:CONTENT. –70.20^☎ 16:08, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

I like GW:IMAGE myself. GW:IUP sounds like a birth control device to me. :P --Rainith 16:09, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

"Do not use images taken from the Official site"

That policy is unnecessary. If you check the terms of use, we are free to use any image as long as we are "non-commercial" and we add the appropriate legal/copyright notes and disclaimers. The key section is this one: "We allow the non-commercial mirroring of our downloadable Content, such as images, videos, demos, etc., as long as the content is not altered in any way. [...] -- 14:38, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

From Talk:Mantis Dreamweaver:

I searched deeper on their site.. I found this:

Can I use the art from your official site on my fansite?

We have a Fansite Kit for your use, but the use of anything outside of items offered in the kit requires approval by ArenaNet. For instance, our navigation bar, borders, customized game images, or section headings are intended for use exclusively on the official Guild Wars site. If you have questions, please contact us.

You are correct, I will revert and delete. --Karlos 05:39, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

--Rainith 01:59, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

Heh, the entire line dealing with non-commercial use is "[t]he content must be used in a noncommercial context for private, personal use only." One would have to meet all of the requirements listed, too, though we don't even meet the first one. --68.142.14.77 02:12, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

I found [this]:

"In addition, we ask that any unique art assets not in the Fansite Kit, such as section headlines, nav bar, borders or other customized art elements, be approved by us before they are used anywhere off our site."

You might think, that a single e-mail to Anet will settle this. Can someone finally send this question? -_- — Poki#3 05:33, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

It's easier to just say "no images from GW.com" than keep asking them for every image someone decides should be uploaded. We have asked in at least one case. I don't think they'll say we can use everything. --Fyren 06:26, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

I have finally sent this mail to ANet, asking for a general clarification and guideline. I'll let you know as soon as I receive a reply. -- 06:33, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

Nice letter, although you suck up a bit much for my liking :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:50, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

Hey, is that poo on my nose? ;) -- 09:47, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

I hadn't seen a reply posted on this, so I asked Gaile last night at the launch party. Anything posted in the gallery of their site is available for us to use, not just the fansite kit section (she mentioned wanting to mirror the full gallery from within the fansite kit). Images elsewhere on the site are a bit of a gray area (no pun intended). She told me that we can use images that are not part of the look and feel of the site design (borders, nav bars, etc - they once had trouble with look-alike sites, and that's specifically the type of confusion they are wanting to prevent), but she also said that if there are images we want to use that are not yet in the gallery that we should email a request to Arenanet and that the requests should be consolidated into as few emails as possible. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:41, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Ripping game models

So I've been wondering...would it be legal to rip game models using DirectX intercepts, to make it easier to snag screenshots of particular items/characters/monsters. It says on the Guild Wars site...

• You agree that you will not alter, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer or in any other way modify the content.

However, by ripping models, we're not altering, but making it easier to bring emphasis to certain things. Not to mention, we're not decompiling, nor reverse engineering. Disassembling, maybe. What are your guys' thoughts? MrThefter 23:03, 8 January 2007 (CST)

We already have various graphic resources ripped from the game. --Fyren 02:41, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Copyvio, eh

"This page, section or image is suspected to contain copyrighted content from Wikipedia, which needs to be confirmed by an administrator." Yeah, I've confirmed that it's a pretty blatant ripoff of Wikipedia's image use policy, except for the part where they're worried about image copyvios and we (apparently) aren't. What's the next course of action? Delete and re-write? Ask Wikipedia how they'd like to be credited? -Auron 08:24, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Either re-write it or prominently display that the page's content is actually GDFL'd, from Wikipedia, and that further edits are released under the GDFL only. All editors except Koyashi, Gizmolegris, Seventy.twenty.x.x, and JediRogue are already licensing their edits under the GDFL. The aforementioned bunch did not make copyrightable edits. --Fyren 08:41, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

If you use any of my contributions anywhere off the wiki I shall sue you for everything you have!—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 16:07, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Wait a minute, are you saying that This still makes my edits licensed under the GDFL? What's up with that? (T/C) 23:37, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Socially wrong?

What exactly does "socially wrong" mean? I'm guessing that it means politically incorrect, so I've replaced it with "patently offensive", which I believe has the same meaning in all major English dialects. -- Gordon Ecker 16:09, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

My definition that i was hoping to create with those words, were to cover things like racists images, supporting holocaust images, etc. These are not illegal but the general consensus by the community. I knew my words were not refined and was hoping someone would fix that up. -- Xeon 16:18, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Needs to be more visible/prominent

Even though there is some text directing users to "read" this policy before uploading images, I don't see it being followed as much as I would like recently. People uploading vaguely titled images or images not cropped to the relevant subject are my two biggest annoyances here. Also because the only fix is to re-upload the image and delete the old one...but, of course, that relies on the original uploader to do that. And then often the old one doesn't get deleted for some time because it is still linked to somewhere, or whatever...

I don't have any particular solutions in mind, but it just seems to me that we need this policy in a big banner all across the Special:Upload or something. In red text. And 72 pt font. (T/C) 23:37, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Better now? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:59, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Haha, you broke it PanSola, now I can't even read the Upload screen without a screen resolution of like 5000 pixels wide, and it makes everything else on the page go nuts also :D But it certainly is visible! While I'm sure you are exaggerating for emphasis, yes, that is exactly the sort of change I am thinking. Too much bold can be a bad thing, and colors catch attention. (T/C) 00:10, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Err, scratch that, I hit the "Diff" button on your first attempt. Yeah, it looks fine now, though again we both might be exaggerating a bit for font size. :) (T/C) 00:12, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Addition

Perhaps we should add a little section about weapon/offhand images: Remove all equipment that is not related to the weapon in question (armor, 1-handed weaps for offhand pics, offhands for 1-handed weap pics) so we stop this annoying ePeen stroking everywhere --Gimmethegepgun 17:45, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

I find that sometimes my elementalist's undergarments are distracting in the shot so I leave my armor on. but i'm cool like that—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 02:36, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Couldn't you Xunlai it to a diff character and screen it? --Gimmethegepgun 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Animated Gifs

I was wondering what the policy was on small (<150KB) animated GIFs to display the animation of weapons such as the Fellblade. I recently made an animated GIF of said weapon that is of decent quality yet low size, and was wondering on whether or not I should add it to the article: not as the main "screencap" image, but perhaps alongside the dye-effects to show people what the animation looks like. How would that fall into this policy? -- Twitch3z 11:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

animated gifs may be beneficial for things like the torment shield and the dragon swords-- 11:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally we don't like to have animated GIFs in the mainspace, but I can see how they could be beneficial to show animations, bugs, etc. You could upload it to the Talkpage and ask for others' opinions before adding it to the main article if you want to. (T/C) 11:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Enhancement

Quite a few of the images uploaded recently have been enhanced (had their brightness/contrast etc. adjusted), some very visibly so from what they would have looked when taken and mostly, ingame unless you play with gamma adjudted up a lot. While it can help make an image clearer, especially if it was originally, taken in low lighting, the more it's enhanced the more it gets away from documenting how it "really looks" as you see it ingame. IMO, over-enhancement should probably be avoided in the interests of accuracy... What do others think? Jennalee 13:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion on it here: Image_talk:Abaddon.jpg (remember there being more than that but...) I'm of two minds on this. I'll have to give it some thought. —♣Jedi♣Rogue♣ 13:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally always turn up my gamma anyways, higher especially when looking at darker things/areas. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My decision... no. Don't enhance with outside programs. Especially weapons and armor. If there is something that can be better seen with an enhancement,upload it as a separate screenshot and include it as a thumb. I have spoken. (Seriously tho, other opinions?)—♣Jedi♣Rogue♣ 16:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I find screenshots turn out slightly darker than I see things ingame normally and if that's normally the case for most people, a small level may be justified, but if you're going to the level of 50% and above, it will make it quite whitewashed... Jennalee 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Size Limit

Help:Uploading_files states the maximum file size is limited to 5 MB. This page states the size limit is 16 MB. I somehow doubt both are correct. Also, is there any reason to adjust the soft limit indicated on the Help:Uploading_files page upward from 150kb? Yamagawa 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the 16 MB may be leftover from before the wiki got moved to Wikia. On Wikia, the max size is indeed 5 MB. This policy is sorely in need of an update anyway, so that's just one more reason to do it.

I don't think the "soft limit" is something we can configure - we'd have to ask Wikia staff to change that. I think I misuderstood, because I just uploaded a 3 MB file without getting any sort of soft warning about the size. Were you talking about the 150 kB on this page? —Dr Ishmael 04:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so, as I don't see it on the page I'd said it was on. Arg. Yamagawa 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ToolBar thingy

Hey what's up with this new message we got about embedding what appears to be referencing External video and images? Is that ever going to be applied/allowed on this nook of the Wikia? And if not, then Why not? ...B/c I had to do some massive finagleing the last time I wanted to just thumbnail an external Image and stuff. :p --ilr(04,Feb.'09)

For images, it actually uploads the image to the local wiki so technically it's no longer external, and all existing rules apply. As for videos, the last time video topic was raised (when we got the YouTube extension) the consensus was to not have videos on the main namespace, with no regulation on user space or talk pages yet, and those "rules" still apply too. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I understand your question(s), but let me know if I don't answer them completely.

The new Video Embed Tool is a Wikia-wide feature that's going to be enabled everywhere, but it's only available if you're using the Monaco skin. So if you're like me and you abhor Monaco, tough kittens.

External image embedding is allowed but only from a select list of sites. —Dr Ishmael 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, as long as it's cool to use this feature on just our Userpages (images, not Vids), that's all I care about... and I'd register with Fliker(or whatever the hell it is) to do it --ilr (05,Feb.'09)

Now it sounds like you're talking about Special:ImportFreeImages, which can be used without registering for Flickr. Images imported with this are automatically tagged as CC-BY 2.0, I think, so there's no problem there. —Dr Ishmael 14:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And yu can now do that by clicking on the monaco edit box toolbar to import an image, select "flickr" and then search for something and import it. The license is whatever is set on flickr. --◄mendel► 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

What's the deal with the plethora of grammar issues on this page? I'd assume the "average user" is NOT allowed to edit this page - otherwise I'd fix it - but we've got a lot of run-ons and some then/than confusion... Just to point this outNewms34 06:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors can edit any page they want to fix grammar and spelling. It's just nice to ask if it's a userpage, though. :p (T/C) 06:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Editor" = "average user". --◄mendel► 16:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)