Grants talk:IdeaLab/Add optional Avatar which you don't have to license for modification and commercial use (as a new non free use rationale special case)

Non-free vs licensing images

Non-free content on wikipedia is content that is copyrighted by someone else (see the Licensing policy). Suggesting that people use non-free images as avatars would then mean that people could use other people's copyrighted works as their avatars. Is that what this proposal is suggesting? Or is the proposal suggesting that avatar images are not licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 and are therefore not available to be freely reused? Ca2james (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It means the latter, that they can upload their own avatar images under a new non free use rationale. Similarly to the way you can upload low resolution images of book covers cover image of Goblet of Fire, or you can upload images of historical events that can't be rephotographed.

The new rationale would be that you can upload an avatar if

• It is only for use as an avatar for your signature on talk pages, or a user image for your user pages.
• It's low resolution, say max of 500 by 500 pixels
• It is not displayed to anonymous users and registered users can choose to hide it.

I'll edit it to make it clearer. Will add a new section on the new non free use rationale.

I don't know if this is workable, it's just a suggestion. If it can't be done this way, is there any other way to permit it? The reasoning is that this is a special case as Avatars are so common nowadays and since adding avatars to Wikipedia would not impede in any way its ability to function as an encyclopedia with content that can be used in any way including commercial, seems to me, is just there to improve the experiences of editors. Robert Walker (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Have fixed it, hopefully the idea is clearer or not. Whether it is workable and acceptable is for editors to discuss or endorses or not, but the main thing is, is it clear now what the idea is? Robert Walker (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to rewrite your points from the main page. Although you say that the idea is about the way images are licensed, it looks like the idea is suggesting both using non-free images for avatars (for example, a person could use album covers or artwork or any other copyrighted image they pleased, as long as it was for an avatar) and not licensing CC BY-SA 3.0 (in other words, avatars are not uploaded under the same license as text and so cannot be used for any purpose off-wiki). It also seems that the idea is using the terms interchangeably, as with this statement: "Avatar images are permitted to be non free for understandable reasons. As a clear example, as it is now, someone could use my image in an advertising campaign that I might not approve of. I might have some way to stop them - but it would be much easier to stop something like that if my photo didn't have a CC by SA license." An image need not be non-free to be not licensed CC BY-SA 3.0; non-free use of an image within the encyclopaedia is not at all the same thing as CC BY-SA 3.0 licensing for use outside of the encyclopaedia. Ca2james (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no I don't mean that. I need to make it clearer. They obviously have to have permission to use the image. I see the confusion now. I mean images that they have permission to use, unlike book covers, but ones that they don't want to license as CCY BY SA (any version). Of course we don't want to encourage them to use other people's images. It would not be an acceptable non free use rationale for the cover of a Harry Potter book for instance!

Something like this:

1. It's an image that they have permission to use for this purpose or own the copyright for.
2. Any license is acceptable so long as it gives them permission to use it as an avatar. It doesn't have to be CC by SA (any version) or similar.

I've just added that, I think that should fix it. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that okay? Any other issues? If it's done, well will just see if I get any endorsements. It's just an idea that I happen to think would be good myself, and will see if anyone else is of the same mind. Robert Walker (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes much more sense, yes, and thanks. However, there's still the use of "non free" throughout, which is a bit confusing because it has a specific meaning on the english wikipedia, at least - it's related to the copyright status of the image. This proposal would be even clearer if you were to replace those mentions (including in the title) with something else. Ca2james (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh good, making progress. I used the word "non free" to refer to images that can't just be uploaded to wikimedia commons and used like that. And the rationale page refers to images like that as "non free" in the page Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I'm obviously missing something here. Why does "non free" not apply to an image I upload of myself which I don't want to release as CC by SA? Do you have an alternative phrasing that states the idea more clearly? I often get caught out by things like this, where a word has a specific meaning on wikipedia that I'm not familiar with. Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, it turns out that I was not quite right; I thought "non-free" had one meaning but it actually has several specific meanings (including the meaning you're thinking of). According to the English Wikipedia non-free content guideline, free content [is] defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. Any content not satisfying these criteria is said to be non-free. (bolding in original)

This means that non-free content includes images that the uploader doesn't want redistributed or used elsewhere. It also means that non-free content includes works not copyrighted by the uploader. Moreover, the phrase "non free" doesn't differentiate between the two types of content. Because "non free" has multiple meanings, it would be better to be completely clear about which meaning is being used and what you're proposing throughout the proposal.

Regarding the title, based on everything here and on the proposal page, it looks like you want to propose that avatar images be non-free content (because you want them to not be licensed for use outside of Wikipedia), but the current title proposes that avatar images can use non-free content.

Finally, regarding not uploading these images to Commons, doing that is part of the way a Wikipedia handles non-free content, and not all wikis are able to do that. The entire English Wikipedia guideline/policy on where to put non-free images and where/how the content can be used is at w:WP:NFC. Ca2james (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, good points. I think I'll add an extra section on "meaning of non-free in this proposal", summarizing what you say. Right, in that case you could only use the English wiki ways of doing it where it works. If this proposal went anywhere, I think would be a case of starting where it is easy to do, and see how it goes, and if it works well, other wikis can try and find a solution later. I'll check out the guidelines.

I haven't had any endorsements yet. But I suppose part of that might be because the proposal isn't as clear as it could be. At any rate I'll make it as clear as I can get it and just see what happens. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's done now, how does it look, anything else? Robert Walker (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's much, much clearer! Thank you! Ca2james (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear it! And thanks for your help with clarifying my proposal! Robert Walker (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not Avatar, but Profile Photo

• Avatar means something that is there instead of You, some representative, like a picture of Daffy Duck.
• Profile Photo means a photo of You, preferably showing Your face.

Systems that ask their users to upload avatars do not expect You to upload a real picture of You and those may not even be accepted, but certainly in the minority. Avatar pics are mostly low res like 100x100. Systems that want to see how You look, like online dating sites will prohibit display of roaring lions, erected penis and pics photoshoped beyond recognition. But they will ask You to upload something high res like 500 - 1000 pixel hight. To show Darth Vader or My Littel Pony on Your user page will IMHO not help at all to minimise bullying. Only Your real looks will enhance the notion one speaks to a real person and should behave. Therefore I ask You to change this title and description accordingly. You could upload Your picture on this talk page for illustration ;-) --Manorainjan (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) thumb|160px|Me, MySelf & I Sorry, I don't get mine to work here ....

Grants to improve your project

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tommorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

• Submit a grant request
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants

The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)