This page, part of the Graphics Lab Wikiproject, is an
archive of requests for 2022.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. You can submit new requests here.
Hi. Please increase the resolution of both images and remove the auction watermark in the top right corner. Image number three suffices with just a resolution increase. Thank you in advance, --
LouisAragon (
talk)
23:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I've colourised this 1909 image with AI, and am hoping to have the postcard stamp and text removed if possible (and possibly those wavy lines at the bottom left). -- Floydianτ¢03:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Please, crop this picture from about mid body (at the bottom of the Emperor's left elbow) to the top of the sceptre, and crop out the throne and the people in the box. Upload it as a separate file. Thank you. --
Vinícius O. (
talk)
22:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Hey,
Vysotsky, the Creative Commons license these images use states "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work..." (my emphasis,
CC-BY Section 4c). I thus believe removing the watermarks would violate the license, and be copyright infringement punishable by applicable laws.
Thanks for your comment, but I beg to differ. Your link is to a DIFFERENT CC-license (CC-BY-NC-2.0). User:Gaudi Renanda has uploaded these images himself under a
CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, which allows remixing and transformation. I wrote a
short piece for The Signpost about removal of watermarks a month ago. My conclusion there: "if you don’t want your photo to be touched by others, don’t bring them under a CC-BY-license".
Vysotsky (
talk)
11:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Hey
Vysotsky, I apologise for my mistake, but even the CC-BY-SA license contains similar wording: "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor .... a copyright notice". I do not love copyright, not at all, and I agree with your cited conclusion, but I personally would not take the legal risk of going against what I understand is the text of the license. Cheers! --11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
95.89.81.91 (
talk)
11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the link. In the very conclusion at the bottom, it says in the case of statutory copyright notices (that is the copyright symbol, year of publishing, and name of copyright holder) the "weak" argument for keeping the watermark becomes much stronger. We are talking about exactly this case, as the watermark is a statutory copyright notice in this format. Well, in any case, this is a legally ambiguous situation. I am not personally willing to go to court to test this. I hope you have a good day!
95.89.81.91 (
talk)
12:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This page, part of the Graphics Lab Wikiproject, is an
archive of requests for 2022.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. You can submit new requests here.
Hi. Please increase the resolution of both images and remove the auction watermark in the top right corner. Image number three suffices with just a resolution increase. Thank you in advance, --
LouisAragon (
talk)
23:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I've colourised this 1909 image with AI, and am hoping to have the postcard stamp and text removed if possible (and possibly those wavy lines at the bottom left). -- Floydianτ¢03:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Please, crop this picture from about mid body (at the bottom of the Emperor's left elbow) to the top of the sceptre, and crop out the throne and the people in the box. Upload it as a separate file. Thank you. --
Vinícius O. (
talk)
22:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Hey,
Vysotsky, the Creative Commons license these images use states "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work..." (my emphasis,
CC-BY Section 4c). I thus believe removing the watermarks would violate the license, and be copyright infringement punishable by applicable laws.
Thanks for your comment, but I beg to differ. Your link is to a DIFFERENT CC-license (CC-BY-NC-2.0). User:Gaudi Renanda has uploaded these images himself under a
CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, which allows remixing and transformation. I wrote a
short piece for The Signpost about removal of watermarks a month ago. My conclusion there: "if you don’t want your photo to be touched by others, don’t bring them under a CC-BY-license".
Vysotsky (
talk)
11:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Hey
Vysotsky, I apologise for my mistake, but even the CC-BY-SA license contains similar wording: "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor .... a copyright notice". I do not love copyright, not at all, and I agree with your cited conclusion, but I personally would not take the legal risk of going against what I understand is the text of the license. Cheers! --11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
95.89.81.91 (
talk)
11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the link. In the very conclusion at the bottom, it says in the case of statutory copyright notices (that is the copyright symbol, year of publishing, and name of copyright holder) the "weak" argument for keeping the watermark becomes much stronger. We are talking about exactly this case, as the watermark is a statutory copyright notice in this format. Well, in any case, this is a legally ambiguous situation. I am not personally willing to go to court to test this. I hope you have a good day!
95.89.81.91 (
talk)
12:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply