Commons:Village pump

‎discussion
← Older revision
Revision as of 04:31, 22 March 2013
Line 850:
Line 850:
 
::The general problem with watermarks is twofold... 1) Commons should not be an advertising vehicle for every shutterbug trying to advertise his website. Attribution yes, watermarks no. Not to mention watermarked images look quite unencyclopedic. And 2) Watermark removal is normally a time consuming process. I should know, I've spent a LOT of time removing watermarks. Graphists here in general have spent a HUGE LOT of time removing watermarks. And the watermarks keep coming... and coming... and coming... much faster than we can get rid of them. – [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta#top|talk]]) 19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::The general problem with watermarks is twofold... 1) Commons should not be an advertising vehicle for every shutterbug trying to advertise his website. Attribution yes, watermarks no. Not to mention watermarked images look quite unencyclopedic. And 2) Watermark removal is normally a time consuming process. I should know, I've spent a LOT of time removing watermarks. Graphists here in general have spent a HUGE LOT of time removing watermarks. And the watermarks keep coming... and coming... and coming... much faster than we can get rid of them. – [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta#top|talk]]) 19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::I too have experience, and it's a trivial matter which becomes more trivial by the day. [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::I too have experience, and it's a trivial matter which becomes more trivial by the day. [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
::::@Penyulap: I've now seen some of your work, and am truly amazed at some of the watermarks that you managed to remove, where I would have said: impossible without pixel-by-pixel editing. I would sure like to know how you do it. If we can duplicate your skills, we can work on our backlog faster. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

 
*{{support}} '''"against policy"''' and thus a '''"clear policy"'''. At this time, we give the "watermarkers" the illusion that they can effectively advertise for free on Wikimedia. While the end result (after countless hours on our end) is that their pictures are only used after watermark removal. The only hope they have is that they will enjoy a period of free exposure through the "commons cat sister links" under many Wikipedia and Wikiquote articles (this goal is sometimes reflected in over-catting). I think having a clear policy is in everybody's interest as it avoids any kind of unjustified expectation by the advertiser. Obviously an exception must be made for archival material of which no watermark-free copies exist. And we could and should spend our editing time, skills and resources on those. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 01:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*{{support}} '''"against policy"''' and thus a '''"clear policy"'''. At this time, we give the "watermarkers" the illusion that they can effectively advertise for free on Wikimedia. While the end result (after countless hours on our end) is that their pictures are only used after watermark removal. The only hope they have is that they will enjoy a period of free exposure through the "commons cat sister links" under many Wikipedia and Wikiquote articles (this goal is sometimes reflected in over-catting). I think having a clear policy is in everybody's interest as it avoids any kind of unjustified expectation by the advertiser. Obviously an exception must be made for archival material of which no watermark-free copies exist. And we could and should spend our editing time, skills and resources on those. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 01:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::what about camera time-stamps ? seems if something is written into the image, it doesn't automatically make the image worthless, if it is spam, there is a spam policy, if the images were ruined, why do camera manufacturers have timestamped images ? [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::what about camera time-stamps ? seems if something is written into the image, it doesn't automatically make the image worthless, if it is spam, there is a spam policy, if the images were ruined, why do camera manufacturers have timestamped images ? [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
::::Well, I think camera manufacturers added that at the request of users. In the digital camera age it is of course utter nonsense to "burn" the date/time into the image, rather than using file date/time and exif. Anyway, again, if the original has the date/time "burned in" and no clean original is available, it should be accepted (and cleaned), provided the picture is worthwhile. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

 
= March 21 =
 
= March 21 =

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=93066662&oldid=93066508