Commons talk:Problematic sources

Suggestions

It 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)

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)

Added blogs and forums anyway. Lupo 09:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Project Gutenberg almost always ok at English Wikipedia, correct?

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)

Google Book Search

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)

Washing

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)

Doujinshi websites e.g. Pixiv and Deviantart

Shouldn't we mention those as problematic or just bad? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Wording in the subsection "1924 to 1978"

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)

Clarification please...

Matthias Winkelmann referred to Commons:Problematic sources as a "policy" in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jan_Eliasson_2010-06-17_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)

@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)

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)

Promotional photos section

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)