User talk:MichaelMaggs

Dear fellow Commons photographer,

I hope this message finds you well. As you might already know, the Flickr Foundation has been busy creating a new Flickr-to-Commons bridge (“Flickypedia”) this year. After a successful demo at the GLAM Wiki Conference in Montevideo, the Flickr Foundation team is now inviting all members of the Commons Photographers User Group to be the first to review their alpha, reporting any technical issues or other feedback via the Flickypedia project talk page.

At the same time, this message is an opportunity for me to thank you for your trust and support over the past couple of years. Since 2017, we've grown into being one of the largest user groups in the Wikimedia universe. I've tremendously enjoyed interacting with all of our members when it came to joint photowalks at Wikimanias, virtual Zoom meetings where we covered a wide variety of photography topics, as well as our annual “Most memorable shot of the year”, among many other events. As I'm not running for an official position in our current board election, this will be my last message on behalf of the user group to you. Thanks for all the happy moments we shared together over the years! I hope you'll continue creating free images for the millions of people we serve through Wikipedia and Commons.

All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MichaelMaggs !,

Just a quick reminder that the deadline for submitting your most memorable shot of 2023 is swiftly approaching! As tradition holds, since 2018, we've been sharing our favorite captures from the past year with each other. This year marks the sixth iteration of our beloved "Most Memorable Shot" tradition, and we're excited to see what everyone has to share.

Whether you're a member of the Commons Photographers User Group or not, you're warmly invited to participate. Your unique perspective adds to the richness of our community, and we'd love to see the world through your lens.

So, if you haven't already, take a moment to pick out your most cherished picture of 2023 and share it with us on the designated page. The deadline is February 29th, so don't let time slip away!

Let's keep this wonderful tradition alive and celebrate the beauty and diversity of our collective experiences through photography.

Looking forward to seeing your memorable shots!

Best regards,

Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

I'm inviting you to our next virtual meeting on Saturday, April 13, 2024 at 9.00 UTC ( start time in your timezone (via zoneStamp!) (expected duration for 2 hrs). The primary agenda of this gathering will revolve around discussions regarding the Movement Charter. Your valuable input and participation in these discussions would be highly appreciated. If you're interested in attending, please sign up on this page: Virtual Meeting on April 13, 2024.

I hope you're having a great time taking photos and I'm looking forward to seeing you.

All the best, -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm new to contributing to Wikimedia and Wikipedia, but I've long done photography and been an amateur archivist for specific historical and archeological topics, and I'm seeking clarification on the specific nuances with the above policy and positions of the WMF regarding Faithful/Slavish reproductions of 2d out of copyright artwork.

I saw you did a lot of early editing on the page, and was wondering if you could answer further questions, or point me to existing discussions on how to interpret the policies in question? The page refers to WMF's legal team chiming in on the issue of coins, but that's about all I can find, despite the page also mentioning specific photos of textiles or stained glass mosaics etc being okay.

Additionally, I'm seeking to get in touch with photographers in other countries to coordinate getting photos at specific museum exhibits. Would you be interested in that at all (or are there existing groups on Wikimedia for that sort of thing?), even if it's something I'd have to pay/compensate you for taking the time to visit and take photos at?

Thank you!

MajoraZ (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MajoraZ, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm not very active on Commons at the moment and I'm not keeping closely involved in recent policy discussions. What I can say is that in most countries there is a fundamental distinction between photos of strictly two-dimensional objects (paintings, drawings etc) and photos of three-dimensional objects (sculptures, 3D decorative items etc). The PD-Art tag is applicable only to photos of two-dimensional art because in the majority of countries a person who makes a faithful photographic replica of an out-of-copyright artwork can never in so doing generate for themselves a new copyright in their own photo. Somebody taking a photograph of a three-dimensional object, on the other hand, has quite a lot of artistic choices available to them as to lighting, camera angle and so on, and they may very often be entitled to a new copyright in their photo even when when the original 3D work is copyright-free. The PD-Art tag is for use only in situations where the photographer or copyist can never acquire any new copyright, hence its inapplicability to three-dimensional objects. Certain low-relief items such as coins and certain fabric designs may lie on the boundary between 2D and 3D, and in such cases Commons takes a cautious approach and doesn't allow use of the PD-Art tag.

I believe that you're already a member of the Commons Photographers User Group, they will probably be your best bet in trying to coordinate photographs of specific museum exhibits. Many Wikimedia chapters could probably help, as well, and I know for example that Wikimedia UK have a number of photographers who are particularly interested in museum photography. If there are particular items that you want to have photographed in London, or in Southern or South West England, I might possibly be able to help out myself on an ad hoc basis, but that would be on a purely voluntary basis without payment. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response!

Yes, i'm aware of the 2d-3d distinction (though I believe some of the language adopted by some EU countries as part of the EU DSM for Article 14 may not make a distinction between 2d and 3d reproductions... something I wish to look into more!), but the questions I have primarily deal with the ambiguous grey area where if something is two or three dimensional is debatable: incised or engraved text/glyphs on a flat surface, flat mosaics composed of feathers or stones, cases where a photographer might be photographing a flat out of copyright mural but raised or lowered portions of the wall or columns might be on the edges of the frame (I'd assume I could merely crop the image, but...?),

etc. Hence me bringing up the one coin discussion I found and the point the page makes about stained glass mosaics (the language around the latter might imply it depends on the fidelity of the image, but then Wikimedia has some absurd, 100,000+ pixel tall scans of some paintings where the blobs of paint have significant 3 dimensional depth, so...?)

If you don't keep up with the policy discussions on this, do you know who might or where to ask questions about this sort of thing, or where existing/past discussions around how to interpret it are stored?

Re: photographs, nothing super urgent in London or Southern England.. the British Museum is obviously always going to have some stuff I'm seeking photos of but at the moment my main concern is the Quai Branly Museum in France and the Getty in California due to two exhibits they have going on right now. I'm going through the users on the Commons Photographers User Group to see who in France may be good to contact (User:Rama would have been perfect but they don't seem to be active, sadly), but if you have any additional ideas or input, let me know.

MajoraZ (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

I had some questions regarding COM:ADVERT and COM:WATERMARK, and you just so happen to have been heavily involved in policy discussions around COM:SCOPE which crafted those policies around Advertising and to a lesser extent Watermarks, so once again, you seemed like the person to contact! Apologies for yet another lengthy post on your talk page!

As mentioned in Section 5 above, I do a lot of photography, amateur archival efforts, as well educational ports on some niche historical and archeological topics. As part of that, i'm in a rare situation where I have contacts both with other hobbyists, professional researchers and archeologists, as well as commercial artists, developers, photographers and authors who make media featuring these historical topics.

Some of said artists, authors, developers, etc are open to contributing some of their work to Wikimedia with eligible CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, at my insistence/encouragement, and/or if I were to pay them to license the images. However, in some cases, they would only be open to this on one or both of these conditions

1. That the file page links back to their websites or commercial works. I've seen files link to the authors personal websites, Flickr pages, or provioding contact information, but I imagine it might get more questionable when said site is selling games, photographs, or artwork. I suspect this would still be fine provided the images are legitmately educational (see below), but I wanted to ask just in case.

2. That the images contain their watermark or logos. [COM:WATERMARK]] does say that minor, non-destructive watermarks are merely discouraged rather then not allowed, so I assume that a relatively non-obstructive watermark of the authors name or the IP holder would be okay (though I'd like some guidelines on what is considered "non-destructive"?)... but if I'm licensing artwork from a commercial game or comic (and yes, the IP holders are willing to release the images with a CC-BY-SA license, and fully understand the implications of that) and they want the product or company logo to still be present in the corner of the image, I imagine that would potentially fall under the "no Promotional watermarks" part of the policy, which is explicitly not allowed rather then merely discouraged.

To be clear, these images would undoubtedly be considered educational, and would be of massive benefit if they could be uploaded and used: There is very, very, very little good artistic reconstructions and visualizations of Mesoamerican cities, clothing, architecture; and having high quality, well researched, authentic artwork and 3d renders would be a huge service not just to articles on Wikipedia (which almost entirely rely on heavily stylized and often inaccurate historical manuscript depictions, as well as ruins/artifacts) but broader to online education and awareness as a whole. And some of the art and photos in question are THE best images of the subject matter which exist, and/or are the ONLY accurate depictions or photos of the clothing, historical figures, cities, and structures that have been produced, ever.

Do you have any advice on how to gauge if the images would fall foul of the policies in question, or do you know if any other admins could way in on it if you cannot? I can probably post some specific examples of the images in question if necessary.

Lastly, on a related note, in some cases, the only available reproductions of historical manuscripts are watermarked: There's a number of Mesoamerican Codices which are held by the Vatican Library and who have the only photographic reproductions (which undoubtedly are covered by COM:PDART as being slavish reproductions that are OK to upload) of the documents in question, which they watermark. Their watermarks are... not what I would call destructive, but still cover much of the image even if at a low opacity that doesn't block the content's visibility: see this image as an example... how would this intersect with COM:WATERMARK?

I'd personally argue even if that were to be considered "destructive" (would it be? This would help give me an idea of where the line is if it is/isn't), the historical significance and educational value are clearly impossible to ignore and that should outweigh the watermark, especially when there are no alternatives: These scans are all we have. (There are re-painted facsimiles without such watermarks for some codices, but A: only for SOME codices, B: these are not always out of Copyright and C: Are actually not the same work a modern painted copy of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa).

Once again, apologies for such a long post again, but any sort of advice or guidance or can point me in the right direction, i'd be apperciative!

MajoraZ (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of providing a link back to a commercial website, that should be OK provided that the link is purely informational and goes back to the actual page on which the image can be found. The link can't take the form of an advertisement, nor can it link to anywhere else, for example to the homepage of the commercial site. Something like this is typically OK:

[[https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30623219982&searchurl=an%3Dbuchan%26attrs%3Dused%2Bhc%2Bfe%2Bdj%26bi%3Dh%26dj%3Don%26ds%3D30%26fe%3Don%26n%3D100121503%26rollup%3Don%26sortby%3D17%26tn%3D39%2Bsteps&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp0-_-title1 Abe Books]]

which renders as a visible link to Abe Books.

Watermarks are strongly discouraged, and if you were to upload a sequence of images from the same source, with similar watermarks, that is very likely to be considered promotional activity. If your contacts would allow images to be uploaded only with watermarks, I very much doubt that Commons will accept them, no matter how educationally useful the images may be. That's particularly in the case where the watermark overlays the entire image, as in the example you gave, as these can't easily be removed. Editors will sometimes deal with a small watermark in the corner of in an otherwise-useful image by cropping it out and re-uploading (which is of course allowed under the terms of the licence and can't be prevented by the licensor). Don't read too much into COM:WATERMARK, as that's just a proposed guideline with no force.

I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently up-to-date with current practice to provide you with anything more detailed on these issues, and I'd suggest you ask at WP:VP. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply!

> Don't read too much into COM:WATERMARK, as that's just a proposed guideline with no force.

Ah, I didn't see it was just a proposed guideline rather then an official one, but I do now.

In that case, what is the "official" policy around watermarks? Presumably one still exists, since for removals on the basis of watermarks to occur, that would have to cite/refer to some policy to happen too, right?

There doesn't seem to be mention of watermarks on COM:DP ; and COM:SCOPE only mentions "advertising" without calling out watermarks. Wikipedia's WP:IMAGEPOL seems to blanket ban them, but A: that's Wikipedia rather then commons, and B: that is clearly not how Wikimedia handles it since Category:Images_with_watermarks exists and has tens of thousands of images, and that page also merely states watermarks are discouraged and states in some situations "some projects may wish to continue using the old, watermarked version".

Also, if I wanted to chime in on the proposal there, then, would I just do so on the talk page of COM:WATERMARK? What's the process like for having a proposed policy become an official one, beyond just submitting one at WP:VP? I assume that there's more steps involved, even if informally, considering that Watermark policy has been a proposal for over a decade?

In general I am still sort of confused on how interpreting and proposing policies here on Wikimedia works. A lot of things seem pretty nebulous, and while I get that that Wikimedia wants to encourage good faith uploads and likely is trying to promote a "Do first, ask questions/forgiveness later" approach rather then having red tape around contributing uploads (aside from licensing, which has a very clear, strict process), it's personally pretty difficult for me to justify time or money in securing licenses for images or investing time in uploading content if I'm not sure it won't be removed anyways.

Is there not a way to specifically ask Administrators, Bureaucrats, Sysops, etc about a specific situation in advance to get clearance for something or to confirm it wouldn't be allowed? You bring up the WP:VP and that seems like a useful tool I'll make use of, but glancing at it that still seems to mostly be random users giving their personal input rather then something more concrete, and while there is a VP section for admin questions, I get the impression seeking permission/approval on specific uploads there isn't what it's intended for?

The ambiguity isn't even just for uploads: I've tried asking a few admins about what the process is for applying for/getting special licensing templates, and many of them have given conflicting answers, there doesn't seem to be a formal process for a lot of things unless I'm missing it?

Once again, thank you so much for your time and patience, and I look forward to any further input you can give!

MajoraZ (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that many policy matters on Commons are rather nebulous, and the expected approach especially for a bigger or potentially contentious projects is to discuss in advance and see if you can obtain community approval for what you plan to do. There isn't a single person or group who can give you prior approval, as Commons doesn't work in that hierachical way. Proposals for a new policy or guideline should go to the special sub-page of the Village Pump, Commons:Village pump/Proposals. The COM:WATERMARK page is effectively moribund. It was no doubt proposed by somebody, years ago, but the lack of recent interest suggests that nobody has in recent years felt the need to push it forward, and the lack of agreement on the talk page tells me it may well not succeed if proposed as formal policy in its current form. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]