Help talk:Adding images

Outstanding!

A huge thanks to the rock-star Dustin McAmera for adding that explanation & sample code for grouping images! --Vox 14:48, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Worrying redundant templates

• {{public domain voluntary}} for images released into public domain by their author (please follow the link for the details)
• {{public domain 1923}} for images in public domain published before 1923;
• {{public domain US no copyright}} for images published in the USA without copyright notice between 1923 and 1977;
• {{public domain UK}} for images in public domain published in the UK between 1923 and 1937;
• {{public domain Germany}} for images in public domain published in Germany between 1923 and 1937;
• {{public domain Japan old}} for images in public domain published in Japan before 1946;
• {{public domain Japan new}} for images in public domain published in Japan between 1946 and 1957.

Link pointing to the Flickr pages

It took me two painful hours to browse the images in Camerapedia's Flickr pool and add a link back to the corresponding page in each place where we were making a direct hardlink.

From now on, any image that does not have a link pointing to a page in Camerapedia's Flickr pool is suspect, and needs to be commented out if the source cannot be found easily.

--Rebollo fr 13:17, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

大変お疲れ様でした！白髪 20:16, 10 June 2006 (EDT) PS is there more work to be done? (Not that I can even start on it for 48 hours or so.) More importantly, how did you find the links to images hosted elsewhere, and is there more work to be done there? (I looked in "Special pages" for "Pages with images" or similar, but didn't find anything.) -- Hoary 22:15, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

I ran a link checking software on the whole site. You learnt me the existence of these tools some weeks ago, and I thought they could be used for such an usage. If the software is reasonably well conceived, it allows you to search for a regular expression in the links. I tried with "jpg" and easily found the links to anything other than Flickr.

There were two images directly linking to a commercial site, and one to a site where it is stated that the image was taken from a commercial site (!) These three were immediately deleted. There are two pages (Riley and GAF) where I am confident enough that the contributor and the author of the website are the same. I left them in place, but I will investigate and ask them if they can put the images in Flickr.

Now there are still some images that are in Flickr, but not in Camerapedia's pool. The same tool I used will point me to all the pages with a Flickr hosted image, but won't do the difference between the legit ones and the others. It won't be too long to check however. --Rebollo fr 05:50, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Excellent work, Sir! -- Hoary 10:02, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Update: the Riley page is OK and I have received a private mail to confirm it. The GAF page is certainly not OK because the images have the eBay watermark, so I removed them. I will contact the site owner.

The Fujipet, Polaroid 600/600 SE and Yashica Electro GX pages are probably OK in the sense that the owner of the images is certainly Cameron. There are problems remaining because the Fujipet image appears in Flickr with "© all rights reserved" in the user page of some of Cameron's pseudos. Also I am not sure if the signature in the Yashica Electro GX is required by the Creative Commons licence, or if it needs to be removed. I am trying to contact him.

If you find other images with no link, please tell me. --Rebollo fr 10:14, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Creative Commons and GFDL aren't the same . . . and other problems

We read: You must assume that any image is copyright in such a way as not to allow this unless it is accompanied by a clear statement contradicting this, e.g. that it is copyleft under a "Creative Commons" license.

Fine. But that wouldn't imply that a CC-licensed image could be used.

Let's suppose that I found an explicitly CC-licensed image, which I'll call X.jpeg, on a non-Flickr web page that I'll call X.html. But writing [http://foobar.org/X.html http://foobar.org/X.jpeg] raises numerous problems. Now let's suppose that I copy it to C'pedia's part of Flickr. Uh, I don't think so -- Flickr has its own conditions. Now suppose that C'pedia is suddenly given millions by some philanthropist: could it now be hosted here? No it couldn't, because this site is GFDL and CC is not GFDL.

I don't pretend to understand the issues that are raised by incorporating images hosted by other sites, and am a bit too tired right now to attempt to think it through. However, I suspect that the only thing to allow are links to the Flickr area (as long as Flickr permits this) -- and the admission of photos to that may need its own policing (groan) -- and links to sites that editors here credibly claim are their own. These editors had better be willing to have these photos appear elsewhere, because the main page of this site says "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" and it would be hard to claim that an image appearing within the page is not "content". -- Hoary 05:17, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Is it possible to upload a public domain image to Flickr's CP pool? Flickr's guidelines are not very clear. --Rebollo fr 05:53, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

You can do anything you like with something that's in the public domain; therefore, yes. -- Hoary 06:43, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Even if that means adding the public domain image to your own pictures? Flickr requires me to upload pictures that I took myself. In a broad meaning: pictures on which I have rights, so public domain is OK, Creative Commons is OK too if I mention the author and do the other things required by the licence. In a restricted meaning: pictures that I took myself bar none, so nothing else than what came out of my camera when I pressed the button myself. --Rebollo fr 06:50, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Real name

Vox, you've just now made the following edit (adding the bit I've underlined):

Image_by: photographer, author or copyright holder. For Flickr users it's preferred to use their real name, capitalized normally, when this is publicly available (screen names can change over time).

You mean, instead of the Flickr handle?

Let's suppose that the Flickr handle of a kind provider of photographs is "squirrelface", and that "squirrelface" announces that his real name is Nicolas Bourbaki. What should we do?

As I understand it, addition of

image_by= XYZ

will (via some mechanism that I don't understand) automatically generate the addition of "[[Category:Image by XYZ]]". Well, do we want "[[Category:Image by squirrelface]]" or "[[Category:Image by Nicolas Bourbaki]]" or "[[Category:Image by squirrelface (Nicolas Bourbaki)]]" or "[[Category:Image by Nicolas Bourbaki (squirrelface)]]" or something else? Zuleika 07:40, 29 March 2011 (PDT)

This will definitely require more discussion with whoever coded the mechanism which generates image-by categories. Ultimately, we want one page per photographer. The difficulty is that people change their Flickr screen names, sometimes unrecognizably. ("Century Graphic" became "Dustin McCamera.")

A person's real name, alone, is probably the most stable way to name their images-by page. Thus it should be the preferred way to enter attribution into the Flickr template. It's still not the whole solution because any variation (capitalization etc.) still seems to spawn a new category. --Vox 08:13, 29 March 2011 (PDT)

Arranging images, intend to revise

This help page is linked directly off the wiki main page. It is important as a how-to tutorial; but it is also where newcomers may get their first impressions about our project.

The section on grouping images still needs to be made clearer and more consistent. The problem of arranging images is one that has confused several would-be contributors (and I'm the one who has talked to them). The Flickr template is (reasonably) self-explanatory; and wiki tables are at least somewhat mnemonic. As Dustin McCamera originally suggested, beginners will find it most comprehensible to combine those two tools, even if a particular image arrangement could be written more compactly in another syntax. So this is the method I feel we should promote here. This does not prevent any editor from using some other syntax they prefer.

The wiki tables currently shown in this section have double pipes before each image; while apparently that is harmless, I believe single pipes are correct (double pipes are used to separate cells all typed on the same line). --Vox 20:58, 24 April 2011 (PDT)

Perhaps I'll get to this later, if nobody else beats me to it. In the meantime, this page has bigger problems. See the section below. Zuleika 01:39, 25 April 2011 (PDT)

I don't understand what we say about the licenses

I don't understand what we say about the licenses. Here are the upper rows of the table, with my addition of two index numbers in white on red:

{{creative commons}}	for images licensed under Creative Commons	check license on Flickr before any re-use
{{non-commercial}}	for images licensed under Creative Commons	similar,(1) but explicitly non-commercial
{{commercial}}	for images licensed under Creative Commons	similar,(2) check license on Flickr before any commercial re-use

• (1) Similar to what?
• (2) Similar to what?

For the first, I can only think: "Similar to the row above. This to me implies: "Just like the row above, except that commercial use is definitely a no-no, so if that's what interests you, don't even bother looking."

For the second, I can only think: either (a) similar to the row at the top; or (b) similar to the row immediately above.

Well, which?

Let's try option (a). The very title is "Creative Commons (commercial use allowed)" (my emphasis). Not allowed in some circumstances or possibly allowed, but allowed. "Whoopee," think would-be commercial users. "Funny, though, that commercial use is allowed, but other use requires a reading of the license. Oh well, none of this 'wiki' stuff seems to make any sense anyway...."

Let's try option (b). So "Creative Commons (commercial use allowed)" is "similar" to "Creative Commons (not for commercial use)" (my emphases). Hang on, we're saying that the allowing of commercial use is similar to the prohibition of commercial use? This is getting screwier and screwier.

In an effort to find out, I click on Image license: Creative Commons (commercial use allowed). Its title announces that commercial use is allowed. Yet its text says that "Commercial use of this specific image may be allowed" (my emphasis). Uh, what? For now let's not worry about the fact that no namespace "Image license" exists. Instead, let's look at the subtitle. Shouldn't it be "commercial use in some circumstances", or similar?

"Whew," I think, "Who wrote this?" Some fool called Zuleika, it would seem. However, Zuleika retained (i) the title, and (ii) the exact clause "Commercial use of this specific image may be allowed" from a previous editor.

The whole thing makes no sense to me. Actually, the whole enterprise makes no sense. Why do we, a bumbling group of non-lawyers, link to our own pages? Even when the blatant contradictions within these pages are ironed out, they'll still be phrased inexpertly. Why don't we instead specify the precise license, and link to that precise license? Zuleika 01:39, 25 April 2011 (PDT)

An item on our To Do list is to create an image-importing tool which would automatically copy the exact license terms using the Flickr API. It will probably be Steevithak writing this (unless some other code whiz appears), and importing the full specific CC license is his intention.

Camerapedia only had a single "creative commons" option, and most instances in CW continue to use this —regardless of whether an image license specifies non-commercial or not. Recently, someone added "non-commercial" option to allow for a stronger statement that commercial re-use was forbidden. This is just an interim patch-up, awaiting the more automated solution. I would not invest much energy in trying to fix it.

I feel that the option "commercial" is superfluous. We already have "creative commons," and tell people to check the user's Flickr page for the exact license. It also seems to be an encouragement to copy and exploit the image—why? I would remove that option from the table.

I have added a link to Flickr's page about CC licensing.--Vox 07:32, 25 April 2011 (PDT)

That all sounds very sensible or welcome or both. Zuleika 06:50, 26 April 2011 (PDT)

Floating an image left or right; no table

Pentacon FM, export model of
the Contax FM
Image by Marino M. (all rights reserved)

Just a little demo that might interest somebody:

Here we have an image in a DIV floated to the left, and another in a DIV floated to the right. The image on the left (I mean, the actual JPEG) has quite a bit of white space on all four sides, so here I've given it a right-hand margin of minus 35 pixels. I've also explicitly put the caption below it into a paragraph, in order to give this paragraph a left-hand margin of 60 pixels and a top margin of minus 40 pixels.

It's just an illustration of what can be done without tables but with some CSS. But of course for most images no such specific CSS is required, and a default floated DIV could have margins of zero above and on the outer side, and a fixed amount (10 pixels?) below and on the inner side.

As I view the page in the browser + window size + other variables I happen to be using now, the tiny blue square-plus-arrow icon for links appears in the middle of the text I've written. It's a result of the negative margin, which of course is unusual. But I could probably render it invisible by use of the CSS "z-index" property or similar. (I'm a bit rusty at this kind of thing.) Zuleika 07:28, 26 April 2011 (PDT)

We know the div approach from the beginning of camerapedia. We used it a lot, and let thes divs flot left or right as You do You'll find many <div class="floatright plainlinks" ... stuff in old pages. What's new is Your margin pixel thing. But if DIV or TABLE, You can define margins as well with tables, it's a matter of Your personal taste. What's really in discussion to make things XHTMLized. There are recipes to solve disadvantages of XHTML, but concerning images these require the original HTML image tag. That's because the workarounds for XHTML disadvantages need size-control of the applied images. But You can't resize external images as we use them from Flickr by means of wiki syntax, and the img tag is forbidden in the Mediawiki wiki for some ideological reasons. Maybe Steevithak as our hoster can help by suppressing the mediawiki img tag suppression somewhere deep in the mediawiki code. Then we could create an even strict XHTML template, but only applicable for resized images.

HTML demo page shows that table based image presentation can be as nice, as well as many illustrated pages in this wiki, and You have the advantage to align the tables with the images in the center as well as floating right or left. The same may be possible for divs if You only use the align attribute for that tag. But that's just "XHTML 1.0 Transitional". Remember that even Mediawik software fails to deliver that minimal XHTML recommendation completely.