Commons talk:Problematic sources
Add topicIt seems to be additional to Commons:Bad sources, I think it should be linked at "see also" section. For the "Fan sites section" I think it would be good to add a notice that images from blogs also mostly not should be uploaded on Commons. --GeorgHH • talk 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
- I didn't know about Bad sources... Michael has linked to it. Blogs should, IMO, be mentioned at Bad sources. I have yet to see a blog that is a usable image source. They all hotlink to wherever they feel like, and very rarely give any copyright info. Lupo 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
- Added blogs and forums anyway. Lupo 09:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
- Any reason for not mentioning w:Wikia as problematic? Many of their wikis are fan sites for individual copyrighted entertainment franchises in which basically the entire image collection consists of excerpts of this copyrighted material included under a rather-shaky stretch of "fair use" (one can quote copyrighted material to comment upon it). In some cases, commercial and non-commercial licences are being mixed haphazardly to the point where the same project in a different language may have a different, incompatible license. It is also very rare for a questionable image to actually be removed, short of the copyright holder demanding this be done. It doesn't happen proactively. Wikia is a fan site, nothing more. It is not Wikipedia. 66.102.83.61 13:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Reply
In Commons:Problematic sources#Project Gutenberg, I’ve written that PG images are almost always acceptable at English Wikipedia, since PG and en:WP both operate under U.S. law. The one exception are items that are not public domain, but for which limited permission has been granted to PG.
I believe the summary is correct and as concise as possible, given the issues – modifications and clarifications are welcome.
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Reply
- See also Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Sep#Google Pdf Scan, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Jan#Google Book Search, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Apr#Images ripped from Google Books, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Nov#Google copyright.3F
Someone suggested to add Google Book Search here. --Nemo 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Reply
We have an ongoing problem with Flickrwashing that seems unresolved. Is there some standard for identifying potentially problematic images? Some scripted way of checking for problems? (For instance: bot-uploaded images from Flickr whose Flickr uploaders have had their accounts removed, which are not used in any articles but have tineye matches elsewhere online?) --SJ + 07:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Reply
Shouldn't we mention those as problematic or just bad? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Reply
The first sentence of the subsection "1924 to 1978" begins with "If first published after 1924, it depends..." Given that the category includes works published in 1924, would it be more accurate to use wording like "If first published in or after 1924..." or "If first published during or after 1924..."?
In addition, since there is a separate subsection ("1978 or later") that comes afterwards for works that were published in 1978 or later, would it be useful to change the "1924 to 1978" subsection heading to "1924 to 1977" instead? --Gazebo (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Reply
Matthias Winkelmann referred to Commons:Problematic sources as a "policy" in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jan_Eliasson_2010年06月17日_003.jpg. He seems to really believe this.
If Commons:Problematic sources is a guideline, not an official policy, I urge its maintainers to spell that out more clearly, in the lede. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- @Geo Swan: I may have used the term policy without knowing/thinking of/realizing that it has a significance within this community that is somewhat different from common usage. What can I say... I was young back then. Aside from the term, I seem to have afforded it no more than the intended, guideline-ish level of deference by offering it in a comment (not a vote) and equivocating on the substance.
- As I just noticed, courtesy deletions also are policy according to Commons:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_deletions, although the specifics only take the form of a proposed guideline at Commons:Courtesy_deletions. It seems the issue is contentious and unresolved in the sense of allowing any possible interpretation as to its status.
- I would suggest replacing the specific section here with a reference to the proposed guideline and how it may or may not be incorported in official policy. It being a shall consider...-mandate, the difference between policy, guideline, and inescapable nature of reality isn't as significant as in other cases, anyway. Adding Template:Guideline also wouldn't hurt. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- I would rather support to design this page as an {{Essay}}, rather than a policy and/or a guideline. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Reply
The wording of this section is a bit misleading. There is a vast collection of older promotional/publicity photos (50s, 60s, 70s, 80s) that were published in the USA without copyright notices, and are suitable to upload to the Commons. There should be a mention of this somewhere. Examples: File:Buddy Holly Brunswick Records.jpg & File:Prince 1981.jpg
Should add something like this: Promotional/publicity photos published in the United States prior to March 1989 may be suitable to upload, if the photo was published in the USA without a copyright notice. See the Hirtle Chart for more details. PascalHD (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Reply
The content currently present in Commons:Problematic sources#Fan sites primarily focuses on celebrity fan sites - including some specific examples which no longer exist! - and could use some adjustments to be more applicable to other types of fan sites. In particular, some language specific to Fandom.com would be useful, as the licensing situation of content on those wikis can be somewhat confusing.
Proposal:
- == Fan sites ==
- Fan sites very often use
(削除) celebrity photos (削除ここまで)copyrighted media, such as celebrity photos, game screenshots, or album covers without caring much about copyright.(削除) For instance, many images found here are actually copyright violations taken from FilmMagic. (削除ここまで)[The linked web site no longer exists, so this isn't a helpful example.] A few fan sites may actually(削除) have their own photos (削除ここまで)use images which they created themselves and have released under a free license, but that is the exception from the norm.(削除) For instance, there is no photographer info at all for the images found here, not even any uploader info. At least some of these images are copyright violations. For instance, this image is clearly the same as image ID 2434227, ©RDiamond/WireImage, 23 Mar 2004. (削除ここまで)[Again, the site no longer exists.] - Editors should not assume that images or videos on community-run fan sites, such as Fandom.com wikis, are freely licensed. For example, fan sites for video game, film, or other media franchises frequently use screenshots or other content under an presumption of fair use. These images are almost never freely licensed and may not be uploaded to Commons.
(削除) Photographs (削除ここまで)Media [Generalizing] from fan sites should therefore in general not be uploaded to(削除) the (削除ここまで)Wikimedia Commons. We need precise and correct photographer(削除) and location (削除ここまで)[this isn't "needed"] information, and precise and correct licensing information, and the license must be a free license. Because fan sites often do not own the copyright to the images they host, it is futile to ask the operators of fan sites for(削除) a (削除ここまで)permission.
Any comments? Omphalographer (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Reply
- I'm generally supportive but finding it a little tricky to compare old vs new with the strikethroughs and bold. Could you show both before and after using Columns templates, e.g.
- {{Columns-start}}
- Old content
- {{Column}}
- New content
- {{Columns-end}}
- Thanks Consigned (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Reply
The text in Commons:Problematic sources#United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states that if the USHMM assert that an image is in the public domain [in the United States] then one cannot assume that it is in the public domain in Germany. If such an image is indeed in the public domain in Germany, what tag should one use to satisfy the United States requirements? Martinvl (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Reply
YouTube CC BY videos should be on this list. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 02:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC) Reply