Forum:Restrictions on "images by" categories

Forums > Consensus track archive > Restrictions on "images by" categories

The following was a proposal to restrict "images by" categories to user-created and user-edited images only. The result of the discussion was that the proposal passed. This forum is an archive. Should you wish to add your opinion on the matter, please do so on the forum's talk page.

---

This is a proposal to forbid the use of “Images by” categories unless the images within them were created by or modified by the user in question. Let me explain this one in a bit more detail. I have a category I’m going to use as an example, but let it be known that this is NOT an indictment of the user in question. I just needed an example to explain my point more effectively. It will help you to more clearly understand what I’m talking about.

The example in question is Category:Images by Jasca Ducato. If you take a look inside, very few of those images were actually created BY Jasca Ducato. Such a category is basically implying that the user actually created or modified the images in there, which is not true. The whole thing is incredibly borderline when it comes to respecting copyright law, but more so respecting the people who really DID create the images. Think of it like this: if you created a whole bunch of artwork and then went to another website and saw that they were in a gallery of images called “Images by John Doe”, wouldn’t you be a little upset? It’s one thing to use an image with permission or under fair use, but it’s a whole other thing to imply, even if inadvertently, that you created it.

A good example of how these categories should be used is Category:Images by Victor Dorantes. Every image in there was either created by Vic or modified by Vic (NOTE: modifications do not mean “I CROPPED IT OMG LOL IT’S MAH IMAGE NOW WEEEEEEE”, but rather that you made significant (and legal) changes). He doesn’t have licensed images in there like Images by Jasca Ducato does. It’s Vic’s type that should be allowed, whereas Jasca’s type should be disallowed.

Let’s be honest here. Unless you really need a big pat on the back for your ability to click a few buttons, you don’t need categories saying that you uploaded an image, because that’s (for the most part) all a category like “Images by Jasca Ducato” is - a category of images he uploaded to this wiki. You might as well start making categories like “Articles edited by Brandon Rhea” or “Proposals voted upon by Drewton”. It’s useless, but when it comes to this sort of thing it’s disrespectful.

If this passes, I will add a section to the categorization policy addressing this. This forum will last from Friday, May 1, 2009 to Friday, May 8, 2009, unless an extension is required or there is overwhelming consensus on either side. All matters of the voting policy apply. Please remember to be civil.

Voting

Support

1. As the proposer. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I was under the presumption "Images by" implied they actually were "Images by". No, no it's not fair on the real artist otherwise. Per Bac. -- ^{(talk) (contributions)} 05:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm all for it. For a while, it seemed like such a fuzzy policy, the current usage of the "Image by" category. For my category, I only included images I drew or photographed. Other images that I didn't draw or modify in any way I never included in my Image By category. (At least I don't think I did.) But then I'd be browsing images at random and coming across Image By categories filled to the brim with fair-use images that were obviously not created by the owner of that category, which would leave me a bit confused. This policy will definitely help clear that up. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wylind (Conference Room) 15:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Well, I suppose it makes sense. -- Knowledge the Article Writer ^talk 19:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Unit 8311^Talk! 19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Sounds reasonable. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Definitely. –Victor ^{(talk page)} 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Tom. --Arav ^{(Ancient Grove) (Lost Archives)} 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
10. I support to.(Babylon 8 ^(Talk) 02:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
11. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 02:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Whatever.--Nightmare⁹⁷⁵ 20:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
13. --Kathkira ^talk 00:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral because I've found it useful in the past looking back on all images I've uploaded that way. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 22:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
   • Stick them into a user page gallery then. It's not fair to the real artist to have you claiming that the image was "by Drewton". - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
     • Couldn't we just leave a disclaimer on the category? --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
       • Nah, copyright violation. And Drewton, you can look on Special:Log, specifying your username and upload log only to see your uploaded images. If you mean literally to see, then like Brandon said, you could post a gallery as a sub page of yours. –Victor ^{(talk page)} 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep all discussion about the proposal in this section. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just wondering, how would game screenshots taken by the user uploading them work? Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The characters portrayed in those screenshots along with the environments they're in weren't created by you, so I believe that you can't claim that you had created them unless it's a screenshot of a mod that you had created yourself. You can't take a photograph of the Mona Lisa and claim that you're the painter. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whats this page talking about again?(Babylon 8 ^(Talk) 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

• It says everything you need to know in the proposal. What it's talking about is something you should've figured out before you voted on it. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• I recommend reading it. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• If for whatever reason you don't wanna read it, here's the tl;dr version: "Those 'Image By' categories should only contain images created by that user. Who supports?" Though, as others have said already, you really should get into the habit of reading the entire proposal first before voting. It's like shooting first and asking questions later. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Two questions,
  • Would "Images Uploaded by" be a good replacement, instead of "Images by" for images you have uploaded, but not made yourself?
  • Would this proposal affect the "Images from" categories?

--Nightmare⁹⁷⁵ 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, it would not affect "Images from" categories. And no "Images uploaded by" would not be a good replacement. That's so beyond useless. As I said, that's like making a category called "Proposals voted upon by". - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A categorization question; with these images moving out of the "Images by" category, what sort of requirements are there to replace that? For example Katha.jpg would be moving out of "Images by Kathkira" since it is not my work. It is in Category:Fair_use_images automatically because of the licensing policy; but would it require an additional category such as "Book covers" or "Game screenshots", or is that more user preference and just the licensing category is sufficient? --Kathkira ^talk 00:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Eventually, we're going to need to start categorizing all of our images. For now, though, I'll chalk it up to personal preference but strongly suggest that you categorize them anyway. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)