Image templates and Image Policy FAQ

[rbarenblat]

Hi everyone! We've been hard at work on refining our proposed Image Policy FAQ, and at long last, here it is -- below the cut. We hope that it answers your questions about images on Fanlore (ranging from "How do I add an image to a Fanlore page?" to "What kinds of images on Fanlore can I expect to have warnings?") Along with this FAQ, we're debuting a set of image templates which we hope will make the uploading of images (along with their meta-data) easier.

We welcome questions, comments, and feedback on the FAQ and on the image templates. Members of the wiki committee and members of the Board will be keeping an eye on this post and we'll do our best to answer questions in a timely way. RL does occasionally keep one or another of us offline; thanks in advance for bearing with us.

With no further ado...



QUESTION: How do I add an image to a Fanlore page?

There are two steps which you can do in either order. You need to upload the image, using our image template and then you need to link it in the appropriate page. Probably the easiest way is to edit the page you want to include the image on and add the link first. It should look like this:

[[Name_for_your_image_with_no_spaces.jpg|thumb|This is a caption for my image!]]

When you save this edit, you will then see a red link for the image name. When you click on this, you will be taken to the upload form.

QUESTION: What information should I include when uploading an image?

When you are uploading an image, you will see a small form like this:



Please include as much information about the image as you can in the *Summary* field. Please edit the image page itself (i.e. access 'edit' on the page that you are on after uploading an image) to add the following information if you have it:

Creator: who made the image

Description: a text description of what's in the image (helpful for people using screenreaders or browsing without images)

Copyright: whether this image is in the public domain or if the copyright is owned by you or someone else.

Source: where you got the image from (eg, the URL if you found it online, "I scanned this from a zine I purchased in 1997 at Escapade," etc)

When you're editing the image page itself, please use the following template: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:ImageSummary

QUESTION: Do I need to add anything else, or can the image stand on its own?

When you upload an image, you'll be prompted to offer information which will go in the image's summary box (e.g. creator, description, copyright, source.) Images go on their own pages; article pages can link to those image pages, and that's how the image will come to appear alongside some text. Remember to use our image summary template to describe the image (it's here: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:ImageSummary)

If you're uploading an image for a specific article page, please include some text about the image you've uploaded within that article: explain why the image is important or interesting, tell readers what trends it illustrates or represents, write about why you wanted to preserve the image in the first place.

QUESTION: Can I upload copyrighted images on Fanlore without the permission of the creator?

Yes, as long as doing so would be a fair use! Here are some key aspects of fair use of images:

First, please make sure you give credit to the creator! (It’s also helpful for future editors if you make a note where you obtained the image.) Attribution is very important; we want to give honor to the fanartist(s) who created the work in the first place.

Second, the images should there to illustrate a point. Please consider whether putting the image on Fanlore adds new meaning or message. If you're going to upload an image, please also include some commentary on why the image is noteworthy. Fanlore is not an archive, so it's not appropriate to upload all of the artwork created by a given fan artist just to create a gallery of that artist’s work. Instead, we might upload a selection of images to illustrate that artist’s style or range, alongside some text about that artist and their work, and then link to the artist’s personal website instead. Or an image might be used to illustrate a particular fannnish trope, or a particular trend in fanart. Or, if the page is about the artwork itself, the article should make note what is interesting or important or beautiful about it.

Third, you should use the resolution/image quality you need to make that point. For instance, if you were working on a Fanlore article talking about illustrated borders on zine covers, or a particular artistic technique in icon-making, you might need a very high-resolution image to make your point. If you were writing a page about the details of a particular artwork, you’d want a good enough copy to be able to show those details. In other cases, a lower-resolution image will be enough.

QUESTION: How do I know what resolution is appropriate?

This is a very good question, and the answer is: use what resolution you need to make your point. Please use your best judgment! The OTW Legal team will review cases if a complaint is made.

QUESTION: What about images I've already uploaded? Do I have to go replace all of them with low-resolution versions?

You do not! If a complaint arises, and a review by the Legal team concludes that a lower resolution image would be more appropriate in a given case, it can be replaced then.

QUESTION: I am a fan artist and low-resolution images of my work are posted on Fanlore. They look bad! I want my work displayed in better quality.

If you give permission, we will be happy to upload higher-resolution images of your work to replace the low-resolution ones as quickly as our editing resources allow. (You are also welcome to do this yourself, of course, but we will make an effort to do it for you if you are unfamiliar with wiki editing.) We can also arrange to make sure that low-image versions are linked to higher-resolution versions on your site or elsewhere, if you provide us with the links.

QUESTION: I am a fan artist and I don't want any of my work displayed on Fanlore. Will you take it down?

As described above, some uses of images without permission are fair use, and as such we don't remove images automatically on request by the creator. Protecting fair use rights is hugely important for the benefit of all fan creators -- these are what give fan artists the right to make their work in the first place.

However, we are all fans here and want to respect your concerns as well. We will gladly work with you to ensure that your work is being used according to fair use rules. We will also make sure that your work is credited appropriately, link back to your own site, and if you wish use higher resolution versions of your work.

QUESTION: Wait! Someone uploaded my image without permission and it's not being used in any article. What should I do?

You have options! One option is to add text which contextualizes the image, or to ask the person who uploaded the image to do so. Another option is to leave a note on the talk page asking for the image to be deleted because its use doesn't fit fair use parameters.

QUESTION: What kinds of images on Fanlore can I expect to have warnings?

Images that are sexually explicit, depict rape or sexual assault, or depict people or characters who are underage engaging in sexual activity should have warnings on Fanlore. Users are responsible for reading and heeding the warnings provided by the person who loaded in the image. Risk-averse users should keep in mind that not all content will carry full warnings and consider whether they should set up filters for viewing images, as described below. If you think an image should have a warning, feel free to add the warning; bear in mind that other users may edit the page.

QUESTION: I just saw a disturbing image with no warning! How do I add a warning?

We have templates for Sexually Explicit Images, Images Depicting Non-con and Sexual Assault, and Underage Persons in Image. They can be found in the Templates section of the wiki, and here are direct links:

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:SexuallyExplicitImage

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:ImageDepictingNon-conOrSexualAssault

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Templates:UnderagePersonsInImage

You can add a warning by editing the page and adding the appropriate template.

QUESTION: Can I filter out all images when I am browsing on Fanlore?

Yes, you can. We have detailed instructions for how to filter out all images when browsing Fanlore. You can find them here: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Help:Filtering_images

QUESTION: I have other questions about images which aren't covered here.

Contact us and ask, and we'll do our best to answer promptly!

Comments

[ratcreature]

I'd just like to point out that despite it being months since my complaint the very high resolution versions of my art are still archived as files on fanlore without permission and against my wishes, because old versions were not deleted after someone uploaded an excerpt thumbnail over the large (some 1000px sized) images.

Also I still find this policy is defying all fannish community standards about not archiving and distributing fannish works against the wishes of the fans who made them.

[rbarenblat]

I just looked up the entry on your art in fanlore, and I see text which reads, "Low-resolution copies of a selection of works by this artist are posted here to illustrate their style. Please visit the artist's own site to see the original full-resolution versions." On the page itself, I see thumbnail images, not large files. But you're saying that the full-resolution versions are still hosted on fanlore somewhere, even though the page on your art has been edited to show thumbnail images instead? (I'm sorry if I'm being dense -- I want to make sure I understand the problem so I can figure out how to fix it.)

[ratcreature]

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Just like the article history as default stores all old versions of an article, the Image file history stores all old versions of the image, unless specificially deleted by someone with special permission. That's how the wiki works. So if you click the thumbnail, you get to the wiki image page, see old versions, and can click the link to them instead of the most recent one, and see the file, which Fanlore has archived.

[aethel]

The high-res versions have been deleted.

Sexually Explict Image Template

[morgandawn]

I think this one phrase: "This image is sexually explicit and should be minimised for user's safety"

could be reworded so as to not stigimtize the artist and be more sex positive. Something that avoids implying that sexually explicit images = dangerous.

"This image is sexually explicit and should be minimised."

If a reason needs to be given it should include all the possible reasons for people to be objecting to an image that might be considered 'explicit' not just 'safety' (which really isn't a clear reason for objecting unless we're saying: "Be careful with that protruding...body bit..you could poke someone's eye out". Other reasons that people might object to an explicit image would be religious objections, that children might see it, other legal concerns, personal objections, matters of subjective taste.

I think it would be better not to list every possible reason, but if we're going to start categorizing sexually explicit images as X,Y or Z, we need to be even handed.

Re: Sexually Explict Image Template

[rbarenblat]

Thank you, morgandawn -- actually we meant to edit that text in exactly that way before the templates went live, and apparently we missed that one. ::facepalm:: We will fix that asap!

[ratcreature]

On another practical note, I have a question about how the templates will work in practice in some cases in which the images are special formatted. Like some artists have asked to have the preview images relatively large, e.g. Gayle F's gallery is an example. The pages have notes that you mustn't resize the images smaller. There is a ton of images with visible penises and anal intercourse and such, which I assume counts as unambiguously sexually explicit under this policy. So some images would be resized small. What about the agreement that was negotiated with the artist and the layout and such?

[rbarenblat]

That is a good question. I think this may be a place where the desires of the artist to have an image seen in full, and our policy of using these warning templates so that people who feel the need to not be exposed to sexual material can have that need met, pull us in different directions. Let me bring this to the wiki committee; we can talk about it via email today, and if we can't reach resolution that way, we'll put it on our agenda for our next meeting, which will be in about ten days (we meet via chat twice a month.)

[ratcreature]

I didn't just mean the priorities in principle, but also the technical question which size overrides in case the image is put onto the page with a pixel size specified, because there are a TON of galleries with that, both on artist's wishes as well as mere aesthetic page formatting reasons. So if the page directive for sizing overrides the template directive thousands of image sizes would need to be hand edited on explicit images for the policy to affect them. Similarly, if the image template overrides the page specific formatting, there are potentially thousands of places with broken layouts.

Initial Thoughts/Feedback

[morgandawn]

A few of these issues have been raised before in previous conversations but I'll try to focus on the actual FAQ text to give this context.

1. I am concerned that the level of detail that is being asked to accompany every new image will be a significant barrier to participants. Specifically, the demand that every image be justified as to why it is being uploaded. In some cases, the items are being uploaded in order to offer others an opportunity to comment - to do what wikis are designed to do - which is to build a basis for discussion in order to allow others to come along and add text or flesh out the topic. Of course, in order for that to work, I think we need to help direct people to these areas where additional discussion is wanted/needed.

So I'd tweak the policy to avoid implying that every image needs to be accompanied by a dissertation and a full blown analysis. And I'd make it explicit this wiki is not academic focused - and keep the Wiki firmly in the fannish sphere.

ex: For this section - "Second, the images should there to illustrate a point..." - I'd add at the end....

"This does not mean you have to write a dissertation on every image or feel obligated to manufacture a reason that sounds academic or scholarly. Fanlore is a fannish wiki and we want to document what *fans* think is important and noteworthy. In some cases, uploading a zine cover to document the existence of a fanzine is in itself a good enough reason. Or perhaps you want to upload an image in order to invite others to discuss a trope, a fanwork, or a trend. If this is the case, then please consider using the 'Needs more commentary' Template."

2. Images and Permission On 'Unused Images'

I'd adjust this next bit to indicate that you don't have to (nor should you) have to track down one person in order to ask them to make your edits. Also, to stress that deletion is not the first 'go to" choice.

QUESTION: Wait! Someone uploaded my image without permission and it's not being used in any article. What should I do?

"Another option is to leave a note on the talk page asking for others to add the additional commentary. It may take a few days for people to respond, but since Wikis are collaborative efforts we want to include as many possible POVs and incorporate as many ideas as possible. If neither of these options work, you can leave a note on the talk page asking the image to be deleted because its use doesn't fit fair use parameters."

3. You might want to include a section to address the concerns artists might have upon seeing their art labeled as explicit, depicting rape or depicting underage sex ("Explicit? That's not explicit. That's just Snape waving a banana around. He's not going to do anything kinky with it! Wah!")

Something like: "Help! I think an image is incorrectly labeled as sexually explicit, depicting rape or sex with underage characters. What do I do?"

and...... I''ll let others take the initial stab at answering this tricky question. ;-)

4. And last......"I see an image that is lacking all the required Summary Information on the Image page. Should I just delete it?"

"We ask that you do not delete an image simply because it seems to be missing some - or all - of the Summary information. First, head over to the page where the image is being used in an article - you can find that by looking at the "what links here" section at the bottom of the image page. The copyright and attribution info is often placed on the article page where people will actually be viewing the image. If you want, you can transfer the summary info to the image page, but it is not necessary. Also, keep in mind that many images were uploaded under different image policies so the info may not have been included for a reason.

If there is no copyright info (source or link to where the info came from) then you can contact the person who uploaded the image to see if they have the info. You can also attach a Gardener notice asking for help in tracking down source and usage info. There are thousands of images on Fanlore that have been uploaded by many different people so there are bound to be inconsistencies. "

Re: Initial Thoughts/Feedback

[ratcreature]

But normal wiki users can't delete anything. The most they can do is to upload something new over the other image, but a revert would undo that. I think it is misleading to imply that a plain user could delete.

Re: Initial Thoughts/Feedback

[rbarenblat]

I have to go to class in a few minutes so I can't respond to this in full now, but wanted to respond quickly just to say: thank you! these are really helpful suggestions. More soon!

[(Anonymous)]

Template:ImageSummary

What's the difference between "source" and "location"? One field that's missing and that I've used/needed for most of the fanart I've uploaded is "notes". Notes include information like that it's an illustration for story/zine X or was created for challenge Y and sometimes commentary the artist included in their header when they posted the art, etc.

QUESTION: I just saw a disturbing image with no warning! How do I add a warning?

1) The most disturbing image I've seen on fanlore is one that doesn't fit any of the warnings (I don't find sex particulary disturbing). It's on a Sentinel zine page and I feel sorry for the zine when I see it. :( http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:2.jpg

2) The options on how to deal with content that might need warnings are very limited. All warning templates say "To link to this image on an article, please use a pixel size of 100." This is very small and only makes sense when the image is a close-up of a sexual act. Everything else is already quite small in a normal thumbnail version of the image. Also, if the page is about a kink, trope, pairing, it makes sense to include these images in a reasonable size and someone clicking on BDSM shouldn't expect tiny safe pictures. Also, this directly contradicts this part: "QUESTION: How do I know what resolution is appropriate? This is a very good question, and the answer is: use what resolution you need to make your point." I would wish for more flexibility and a warning text that says something like "Only link to this image in a normal thumbnail version when it's used in articles where this kind of content is appropriate and expected, otherwise please use a pixel size of 100 (or wikilink to it using a text link)." (You can wikilink to images without displaying the image on a page by adding a colon at the beginning, for example [[:Image:imagename.jpg]]) Another way to deal with this would be to create categories for these warnings and add something like [[Category:Explicit Content]] to article pages with explicit content and/or [[Category:No Warnings]] to other pages...

QUESTION: Can I upload copyrighted images on Fanlore without the permission of the creator?

I understand and support some of the reasons behind this policy but IMO this is far too broad to apply it to a fannish context. Of course it's much more convenient to say "it's fair use!" than to have a long list with explanations and exceptions and examples, but sometimes in fandom it's better to be more specific.

For example, there is a difference between copying and reposting online art and taking a picture of a physical object like a zine. I can accept the latter as fair use (there are several good arguments for this), the former, however, is more complicated. Personally I use the "Schöpfungshöhe" (don't know the English expression, something like "individuality"?) of the artwork in question as a criterion.

If it's a screenshot/photo with a caption, I wouldn't ask for permission. If it's a screenshot from a vid (vids often feature manips or other art) I wouldn't ask for permission either.

If it's a complex photo manipulation, I would check the artist's policies (some give blanket permission, etc) and usually ask the artist for permission. There may be exceptions when the art isn't online anymore but the artist and artwork had a certain kind of mainstream exposure (for example The Theban Band).

If the online art is drawn or painted, I almost always ask for permission. There may be exceptions when the art is explicitly created as a cover for a story or a promotional banner because then using the artwork on the wiki would be using it for its intended purpose.

I think situations where only one particular piece of online art can illustrate a point that no other art by an artist who doesn't object to this use can illustrate as well are pretty rare. It probably can be argued that fair use is more important in these rare cases than the artist's wishes (after all, we use screencaps of blog entries when the entries were deleted in the middle of a flamewar or wank, so it's not that fandom doesn't go occasionally against the wishes of the creator), but IMO that doesn't make it alright to extend the fair use argument preemptively to all artwork.

~Doro (frogspace)

Template:ImageSummary

[aethel]

regarding the first point, the information you described as needing a notes field--illustration for story/zine X or was created for challenge Y--could go in the description field (though I'm not sure about the "created for a challenge" bit). I think we'll need to add a key to the template page to indicate what should go in each field...

Re: Template:ImageSummary

[frogspace.livejournal.com]

Check out this image for an example of notes: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Miscmerlinonedge.jpg :)

I just noticed, also missing from the template is "title".

[msilverstar]

Just as an instructional design issue, it's much easier to visually parse a screenshot when it has a border.

[facetofcathy]

First I want to state that I think Fair Use is an important legal right in the United States for some fan creators and it deserves vigorous protection, so much so that I wrote the Fanlore page on the topic. However, I want to talk about this section:

QUESTION: I am a fan artist and I don't want any of my work displayed on Fanlore. Will you take it down?

As described above, some uses of images without permission are fair use, and as such we don't remove images automatically on request by the creator. Protecting fair use rights is hugely important for the benefit of all fan creators -- these are what give fan artists the right to make their work in the first place.

However, we are all fans here and want to respect your concerns as well. We will gladly work with you to ensure that your work is being used according to fair use rules. We will also make sure that your work is credited appropriately, link back to your own site, and if you wish use higher resolution versions of your work.

This answer is really a statement of values held by Fanlore as an entity, and lays out how Fanlore will prioritize competing interests.  It doesn't actually answer the question, though. 

The commitment to Fair Use is set in opposition to respecting a fan's concerns.  But what follows assumes the images will stay on Fanlore.  It assumes that the images conform to this instruction:  "Second, the images should there to illustrate a point. Please consider whether putting the image on Fanlore adds new meaning or message. If you're going to upload an image, please also include some commentary on why the image is noteworthy..."  But since it never directly addresses the question, it reads like the very worst customer service language, "Your call is important to us..."  And we all know how that one ends.

Frankly, if the real answer to this question is always no or nearly always no, then we should respect fan artists, and the wiki editors who will be uploading images, enough to say so. 

The next question:

QUESTION: Wait! Someone uploaded my image without permission and it's not being used in any article. What should I do?

You have options! One option is to add text which contextualizes the image, or to ask the person who uploaded the image to do so. Another option is to leave a note on the talk page asking for the image to be deleted because its use doesn't fit fair use parameters.    

assumes that the only image that could ever serve no function covered by Fair Use is an image not on a page.  I don't think that assumption is valid at all.  (Also this section assumes the fan artist is required to get an account and navigate talk pages, and just, no.  The burden of effort should not be on the fan artist.)

Doro said:  "I think situations where only one particular piece of online art can illustrate a point that no other art by an artist who doesn't object to this use can illustrate as well are pretty rare. It probably can be argued that fair use is more important in these rare cases than the artist's wishes (after all, we use screencaps of blog entries when the entries were deleted in the middle of a flamewar or wank, so it's not that fandom doesn't go occasionally against the wishes of the creator), but IMO that doesn't make it alright to extend the fair use argument preemptively to all artwork."

And I couldn't agree more with that statement.  Fan artists are not Universal Studios and Fanlore is not YouTube.  It might very well be true that Fanlore can use any fan-made image it wants to, but that doesn't mean it should.  And telling fan artists it's all for their own good ("these are what give fan artists the right to make their work in the first place") is just patronising, and I don't think sets the right tone for interactions between fans who want no part of Fanlore and the wiki editors or committee who will be helping them.

[rbarenblat]

Hi facetofcathy -- I'm on my way to bed right now but wanted to offer a quick response to say thanks for this comment & to let you know that it's been heard and received.

I'm sorry that the text about fair use comes across as patronising; that was not our intention.

More soon!

[ratcreature]

You know, I didn't realize why the FAQ reply seemed so grating (besides that I think like I said above that it goes against fannish social norms with legalistic arguments), but yes, you pinned it down with the customer service language.

ETA: Also what gets to me is that this seems to say that if it is non-fair use at present, they still won't let the fanart out of the wiki's clutches but you are expected to "work with them" but not to further your goal (get the image removed) but to change the wiki so that the image doesn't have to be removed legally and they can just keep it, i.e. work against your own goal and wishes. I mean the organigram laid out in this policy is not "is the current use of your fanart fair, y/n? y: we don't take it down. n: we take it down." but "is the use fair, y/n? y: we don't take it down. n: we expect you to help as to make it the use fair so we don't have to take it down."

The honest answer to the "Will you take it down?" question seems to be: "No we won't take fanart down just because the artist doesn't want their art archived on the wiki. We think any image can be taken as fair use and expect you to work with us to help make the wiki-use of your image to fit with those criteria if it isn't already."

[rbarenblat]

I'm sorry that the language comes across to you as customer service language -- that was not what we were aiming for.

On the bigger-picture stuff you're talking about: If a fan loves an image enough to want to show it on fanlore (or thinks it is noteworthy enough to document there), then that person's desire to document a piece of fandom which is important to her matters to us. And, the fanartist's desires also matter to us -- that's where the potential difficulty arises!

What I'm hearing is that you're coming from a place of assuming that the fanartist's desires should automatically trump the desires of a fan who wants to document a beloved piece of fanart, and we're trying to find a way to harmonize those two sets of desires. It's our job to serve both the fan who wants to upload the image, and the fan who isn't comfortable having her work documented in this way! So we're trying to shape a policy which will allow us to work with both of those fans.

The wiki is a place for preserving history. So our first option if someone complains about her work being on Fanlore is to see if we can make her more comfortable with the work being there, and/or if we can make it more appropriate for the work to be there. Deletion of the work is also an option, and we tried to make that clear in this faq. But as morgandawn says in a comment above, we want to show that deleting an image is not generally our first choice.

I'd like to move away from framing the conversation in terms of "having fanart in the wiki's clutches" -- when it's discussed in those terms, it's already automatically a confrontation, and that's exactly what we don't want these conversations to be.

Is this helpful? I'm going offline to go to synagogue shortly, but will try to check in later today.

[saraht]

What I'm hearing is that you're coming from a place of assuming that the fanartist's desires should automatically trump the desires of a fan who wants to document a beloved piece of fanart,

At just about every archive in the fannish civilized world, this is the case. The norm against public distribution of a fan-creator's work against her will is nigh-universal in fandom. I really can think of very few norms that have as widespread support as that one, to the point that it's a genuine brouhaha when a fic archive is merely handed over to a different maintaining organization.

I'm intimately familiar with the fair-use argument. I also know that Fanlore casts itself as a fannish institution supporting fannish norms. It would be entirely legal for Fanlore to allow users to post real names of other fans. That is, of course, not its policy. Just because it's legal to do something doesn't mean that Fanlore should be doing it.

[frogspace.livejournal.com]

I just noticed something. When you say: QUESTION: Can I upload copyrighted images on Fanlore without the permission of the creator?, that's the first time you mention the word permission. There is no section that covers the part of having permission. Who has it? When should I get it? What should I do when I can't get it? The question of whether I can upload something without permission should follow after that. Maybe that would solve some of the problems.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, that would be good. Also because currently it is for example not clear what rights an artist relinquishes to Fanlore if they "give permission" rather than withhold it. Like, does giving Fanlore permission to use your fanart to illustrate a trope for example mean you release it under the wiki's CC license to the world at large, or is the permission in that case limited to Fanlore?

More Feedback

[(Anonymous)]

QUESTION: How do I add an image to a Fanlore page?
You need to upload the image, using our image template and then you need to link it in the appropriate page.

That sounds like you need an image template (warning? summary?) to upload a file but it doesn't seem to work like that. The warning template is something that is added later by editing the image page and it seems the image summary template is also added after upload. You later refer to this "image template" as "upload form", so maybe use that wording instead.

This is probably a matter of preference, but I find it easier to upload the image first, edit it to add all the information that's supposed to be on the image page, and then link it on the article page where I want to use it. Maybe including a description for that (the link to the upload form is in the sidebar), would be a good idea.

[[Name_for_your_image_with_no_spaces.jpg|thumb|This is a caption for my image!]]

If someone does it like that, the name of the red link image should begin with "Image:Name_for_your_image". For what it's worth, uploading an image with spaces in the name works fine. Are there technical reasons why we shouldn't do it?

Please include as much information about the image as you can in the *Summary* field.

Adding all the information to the Summary field (that's the part that's visible in the editing history of the page) and then later adding everything again to the ImageSummary template is doing the same work twice. It seems more practical to use the summary field in the upload form like you would on any other page (giving a short summary of what you are doing) and then add all the information to the ImageSummary template. Putting everything (link, info, permission status) in the summary field could be the shortcut approach when someone is uploading a lot of images and doesn't have time to properly put it all in the summary template. They or someone else could then come back later to copy it to the ImageSummary template.

(Also, it may be worth noting that the "ignore any warnings" option doesn't refer to warning templates, it refers to image size. Images should be 150KB or less. If they are bigger, you'll get a warning and you have to confirm that you really want to save it and no, you don't want to upload a smaller image instead.)

When you're editing the image page itself, please use the following template: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:ImageSummary

That should probably come first and then all the information the template prompts you to add. The ImageSummary template has the field "Copyright/Permission Status". Therefore the permission status should also be added.

The description field covers a lot more than just a text description of what's on the image. For examples see http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:The_ceremony_by_obsidianserpent.jpg and http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Voice_Of_The_Sea.jpg. Fanart description can include: title, rating, paring, notes and information whether it's a thumbnail or a version that has been reduced in size.

Copyright/Permission Status can also include a link to the artist's gallery, home page, journal profile, masterlist of fanart or a link to where someone can leave feedback, etc. (See examples. Or should that information go to the description box too?)

The Image Summary template right now says "artist", which works great for fanart and is better than "author", but it doesn't fit for all types of images. Maybe change it to creator? I think on Wikipedia the "author" field refers to the person who created the digital file? IDK.
Also, the Summary template has a fandom field (and a location field; don't know what that's for). Maybe including a screenshot of the Summary box with all the added information on an example image page would be useful.

Re: More Feedback

[(Anonymous)]

ETA: I forgot that I'm not logged in. ^^°

~Doro (frogspace)