Template talk:Tasnim
Proposing a change in the template
[edit]This template says "Per this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license." I think this sentence needs to be removed from the template, because it is right to consider files with a typical watermark to be a work by Tasnim but vice versa is NOT necessarily correct. While I agree that files without a typical Tasnim watermark should be uploaded with care and cautious, exceptions found to this sentence means that we cannot rely on it as a criteria (I have documented examples at User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim). I ping User:Czar and User:Ww2censor (who were involved in this template before) for giving opinions on this. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't that what that sentence says? If an image lacks the watermark (which is the "vice versa" you mentioned), we presume that it's outside the license unless otherwise stated. It creates a bright line that watermark = okay to upload and no watermark = not necessarily covered by the license. czar 12:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is making a confusion that a lack of watermark means copyright issues, for examle: Commons:Deletion requests/Alireza Vasighzadeh Ansari for Tasnim News Agency. HeminKurdistan (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim. The "presumption" sentence may have been correct in 2017, but it no longer reflects consensus on Wikimedia Commons. I will update the English text to align with with consensus as it is applied today. Streamline8988 (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi POS78, can you please explain your recent edit to this template? Streamline8988 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- The consensus in 2016 was based on the argument by User:Stefan2 (agreed by four others):
Make it more clear from the template that there are lots of images on the website which are not covered by {{Tasnim}}.
- This is the change proposed by Streamline8988 to represent the consensus unambiguously. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the word "presumed" tends to indicate something rebuttable—it's isn't a 100% certainty type of thing. But, absent evidence to the contrary (such as a credit in the text of a photo caption, or in an article), absence of watermarked attribution to the agency may raise significant doubt about the image's freedom. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- +1. That's my thinking about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the presumption language is useful and should continue to be used for photos that have no Tasnim watermark at all, which are usually not works by Tasnim. But I think that current license reviewer practice and our knowledge of Tasnim indicate that works without credited photographers but with Tasnim watermarks are usually works by Tasnim, so I would like to change template text there. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)