fanlore | Image templates and Image Policy FAQ

Entry tags:

admin: policy

Image templates and Image Policy FAQ

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!

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.)

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.

I'm looking in to this now. Thank you for explaining so clearly.

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.

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!

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?

Hi again. Thanks for raising this and for explaining it -- I didn't realize that the high-res images were still visible. We're going to remove the high-res images asap, and will let you know once that's been done.

Great.

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.)

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.

Edited 2010-10-21 15:50 (UTC)

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. "

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.

The good news is that, as far as I know the policy of minimizing sexually explicit artwork on art pages wher the aryists have requested image sizing may impact only 4 artists: Gayle F, Marilyn Cole, Caren Parnes and Joey R. As I've said before, we do not need to create policies just for the one off exceptions. I think this can be handled on a case by case basis which the Wiki is able to do. For example when you complained about the use of larger images on your article page, they worked with you to make the images smaller and also edited your page to put links back to your art portfolio website since you were worried about losing web traffic.

Also, keep in mind that some artists will not have a problem with the labeling (and minimizing) of their art while others will be very unhappy, so the case by case basis seems to be the way to go.

But in taking a spin at the art page of these four artists:

1. Joey R has no explicit art. Not an issue.
2. Marilyn Cole has one image with a penis (but you really have to squint). She has a lot of bare butts and semi naked men. See my comments below about genitals and non-sexual nudity
3. Caren Parnes has asked that explicit images be removed from her page - which is the only page with her request for larger images to displayed. Not an issue.
4.......which leaves us with Gayle F. I'd be willing to put the wiki in direct contact with Gayle to discuss this issue with her.

*On to the issue of genitals and non-sexual nudity. To me sexually explicit means depicting the sexual act in explicit detail. It does not mean a picture of a flaccid penis, a naked butt or clothed/unclothed men and/or women kissing. It does not mean an image of a naked breast or a mother nursing. I realize that many works of art in Europe were ruined when the Catholic church required that all genitals and breasts in any context be painted over or covered with metal or plaster fig leaves. I'd like to think we're not regressing to such a restrictive approach to art, but from what I see in the policy there will be room for us to discuss as a community - and again on a case by case basis - whether the fannish version of Michelangelo's David qualifies as sexually explicit and needs to be obscured.

It is true that artists have requested this only on a few pages, but editors have formatted images larger on many more to make pages look pretty. And depending on which direction overrides what (i.e. page formatting size>template or template > page formatting) there is either a lot of broken layouts that need to be edited manually or the policy does not work because images are not actually made smaller.

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!

Now that's an interesting technical point - will the hand coded pages with custom image layouts override the template to minmize. I know the committee is thinking more along policy lines, but it's be helpful to understand how much coding work will result as a result of the new resizing template. Both going forward with new images as well as retroactively.

And of course....we need to understand who will do the work. We should always ask (and answer) that question whenever a new policy is implemented.

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)

Yes. I mean, this FAQ includes screenshots answering how-to questions, so to me that seems like its aim is not just the lofty top-level policy level, but the practical. And for that the part how these templates work is kind of crucial to know. I guess it'll show soon enough once the first images get some template, then one can see how it works, but either way it has consequences and potentially lots of broken looking pages.

The high-res versions have been deleted.

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...

I just tested it here: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Fanlore:Sandbox

There is no automatism, you can add the image as 200px, 300px, whatever. If you add the template to the image page, the only page it has any impact on is the image page itself. The template just adds the warning to the image page and tells you how to insert the image on other pages. However, the copy/paste text is missing "Image:" at the beginning of the file name so copy/paste doesn't work.

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".

Huh. I thought the template would resize the image everywhere you already included it, merely by changing the image page with the template without putting anything extra on the article page.

Have I completely misunderstood how this works?

I don't know. I'm a bit confused too.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

Image templates and Image Policy FAQ

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Sexually Explict Image Template

Re: Sexually Explict Image Template

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Initial Thoughts/Feedback

Re: Initial Thoughts/Feedback

Not such a wide spread issue to start with

Re: Not such a wide spread issue to start with

Re: Initial Thoughts/Feedback

Re: Not such a wide spread issue to start with

no subject

Re: Not such a wide spread issue to start with

no subject

Template:ImageSummary

Re: Not such a wide spread issue to start with

Re: Template:ImageSummary

Re: Not such a wide spread issue to start with

Re: Not such a wide spread issue to start with