Wikidata:Property proposal/external image URL

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

external image URL[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done
DescriptionURL of an image, typically non-free, held outside the Wikimedia system; or on that system under fair-use provision
Data typeURL
Allowed valuesURLs of images
See also
  • image (P18)
  • Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765)
  • Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/7#Image
  • Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/22#non-free_data_available_at
  • Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/29#non-free_file_URL
  • Wikidata:Property_proposal/Proposals_for_files
  • Motivation

    A need for a way to link to images which we cannot host on Wikimedia Commons because they are not free to use (i.e. not under an open licence, nor copyright expired) has been shown. Use cases include album and book artwork, film posters and stills, portraits and artworks; and news events. Often these are the only available images of the subject.

    The proposed property would not be used where a suitable image is available on Wikimedia Commons.

    We should link to the images themselves, not the page hosting the image (which may hold more than one image) though the latter URL may be included as a qualifier or reference (as demonstrated in the first two examples, above)

    Question: For 'fair use' images on projects like en.Wikipedia, should we prefer to link to the original source, and only use the Wikipedia URL if none is available; or the reverse? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


    Symbol support vote.svg Support per previous discussion − Pintoch (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment added some previous discussions at "see also".
      --- Jura 13:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support certainly.@Pigsonthewing, Pintoch: Thanks for attention David (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per previous discussion. At the very least... unless the scope of this property is circumscribed to images published by reliable sources. If it means linking every image we are able to find in the Google Images service regardless who published it, we could be linking clear-cut "copyright violations" (not exactly the same as linking "copyrighted material"), becoming a pirate web. Why not linking copyrighted films uploaded to Mega (Q2580273) too? It would be awesome, for sure, and we'd only include the download link, not the file or the page. Also, I also have concerns with this property probably dampening Wikimedia Commons and free knowledge/media, being a way to bypass free licenses. strakhov (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Strakhov: I do not think the presence of such a roperty will affect Commons because the production of free images does not stop David (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Then we agree to disagree. strakhov (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
          • @Strakhov: if your concerns were valid, they would apply to any property that accepts arbitrary URLs: we can already link to copyright-violating material with described at URL (P973) or full work available at (P953) if we want to (and of course we should not). So the point about Mega (Q2580273) really doesn't hold: we can already link to that with full work available at (P953). There are two distinct and independent discussions to be had: the one about property creation (where we talk about schemas and ontologies) and the one about WMF policies on external links (where we talk about copyright law and ways to promote openly licensed content).

            Also, I don't think Commons would suffer much from this property. It will still be more interesting to have a image (P18) than an "external image URL", because the integration of image (P18) is much better (you can see the image from the Wikidata editing interface, or in other derived tools).

            Overall, the previous discussions were about broader properties (this one is only about images), and I don't see any valid point being made there (please dig them up if you find some). − Pintoch (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

            • Labelling other contributors' comments as "valid" or "not valid" seems to me somehow pretentious, but let's go. I'll do not answer your first point "this property becoming a messy crap of urls not belonging to reliable sources honouring copyright is not a problem because we already have other properties to do that". Second, this thing allows people to link their non-free images in Wikidata (and because of that in many other places) bypassing the need on free licensing them. I do not know how that serves Wikimedia Commons or free content (Q14075) movement. You think it does? Well not. strakhov (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
              • Pintoch did not label your comments as invalid; he implied that your concerns are; that's a perfectly ordinary - and applicable - English phrase. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
                • @Strakhov: sorry if I offended you! As you can imagine, I do care about open content too (I would not be here otherwise). I am just trying to point out that Wikidata already links to a wide range of external websites which are not openly licensed. We badly need these external links to non-free content: otherwise we would not be able to cite any newspaper to back a claim! So yes, references to non-free content are allowed, and they are even encouraged. Citing a book is not the same as printing a copy of it and the same holds for websites. The Wikimedia movement does promote free content, but in a world dominated by non-free content that it would be foolish to ignore. − Pintoch (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • No offense taken, it's just not pleasant to discuss other people ideas/concerns/comments in terms such as "valid". I guess "convincing" would be nicer. I have nothing more to say: IMHO 1) this property harms Commons and 2) "we" ('we' as Wikimedia Projects) do not badly need this property. Let's see what other people think below and move on. strakhov (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
      • If Pinterst, Flickr, Instagram and Google Images haven't killed Commons, then I doubt this property will. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Will this property require a mandatory license (P275) qualifier? --Pasleim (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Pasleim: License items may be used.Thanks David (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      • No, because licences are not always stated, especially for non-free media, and cannot cannot be assumed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First I think that Wikidata as an open data project should fight for more free data instead of accepting the current situation. But if one creates links to non-free images one should at least enforce that ownership and license are displayed, otherwise image piracy is promoted. Note, that recently Google image search has removed direct links to images to avoid any legal accusations. --Pasleim (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
          • What licence should be displayed, for non-free media? What licence do we display, when we link to non-free text? Or non-free YouTube video ID (P1651)? Or non-free iTunes app ID (P3861)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
            • We don't link directly to video files but only to pages in which the videos are embedded in. Together with the video you see on those pages the name of the owner and the license of the video. The same with iTunes apps. It's not a download link but only a link to page where you see detailed information about the app including copyright ownership. --Pasleim (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
              • The example used on YouTube video ID (P1651) is - There is no licence visible on that page. You also ignored my point about linking to text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
                • On YouTube you have to click on "show more" below the video to see the full licensing information. Links to texts are also not problematic because the owner of the text can add a hyperlink to the legal notice, as it is done on most webpages. In contrast, linking directly to image files makes it impossible for the image owner to add a license and for the user to retrieve the license information. --Pasleim (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How would these links be maintained/monitored?
      --- Jura 10:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

     Not done No consensus. Micru (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

    • Symbol support vote.svg Support makes sense − ShadessKB (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)