The Signpost


Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from photos

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Vysotsky

I like to add photographs to Wikipedia articles. The addition of a visual aspect improves the quality of an article, and gives a better view on a subject. If the photo isn't reflecting reality, it can also influence the opinion of readers. That’s why many Wikipedians try to improve the quality of photos. I have seen astonishing improvements of photographs, but also weird effects. Some photographs are beautified so much, that the new photograph is an improved version of reality.

Watermarks, scratches and cigarettes

I have to admit: I crop photographs. I also remove watermarks, or ask skilled colleagues to make that happen (thank you, Wikipedians at the Graphics Lab). I don’t particularly like scratches and blurs, but where’s the limit? Clearing a background, removal of persons or buildings, image restoration: it all happens at Commons. There’s one line I won’t cross: changing the characteristics of a photograph. Yes, I have seen cigarettes removed from the lips of one of my cultural heroes (“just a small retouch”), and the retouched photograph was used in 10 language versions of Wiki, over a period of six years. I pushed the original photograph back in.

Vanity of vanities! All is vanity

When money is involved, attitudes change. The management of The Weeknd wanted his image to change in 2020, and thus wanted to abolish the then current photo in Wikipedia. They hired a company to take legal action via a request for removal of this 2017 photograph in Wiki (DMCA Removal Request, 2020). The result was devastating for Commons: not only was the photograph removed, but two great administrators resigned during the resulting row.

Removing watermarks and copyright signs

I love removing watermarks and copyright signs from photos in Commons– if permitted by the license. Most photographs in Wikimedia Commons have either a PD or a CC-BY-license, and both permit removing watermarks. At the same time, I like to respect photographers. The rules in Wikipedia regarding removal of watermarks are quite clear. I'm inclined to adhere to the most likely interpretation (in short: removal of (copyright) watermarks is in line with CC-BY-SA and not a legal violation), because CC-BY permits changing of files and removal of watermarks. Some Wikipedians say this issue is not an issue of copyright, but is about ethics. They say it would be disrecpectful or insulting to remove the copyright claims. My simple answer: if you don’t want your photo to be touched by others, don’t bring them under a CC-BY-license.

My suggestion: the proposed Commons guideline should also promote removal of visible copyright signs of images under a CC-BY license.

In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

but two great administrators resigned during the resulting row - Link to relevant discussions? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant to dig up old dirt, but you are right in asking. Here are two refs: Discussion at Commons about the DMCA notice and the unfortunate discussion leading to two admins resigning. Vysotsky (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Careful now

The whole "removal of visible copyright indicators" has caused loads of problems for historic media in the past. Postcards that had text on the image identifying the publisher, the cabinet card mounts of old photographs, and many other things are an intrinsic part of the design of the media. I know what you're advocating for (and, for those situations, it's perfectly fine), but be careful exactly how it's phrased.

Also, the attempts to remove a cigarette from a photo are nothing new. Look closely at the hand on the table in from c. 1907 Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 05:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0