Wikidata:Property proposal/Non-free artwork image URL

Non-free artwork image URL edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Done: non-free artwork image URL (P6500) (Talk and documentation)

Description	URL for image of copyrighted artwork on official collection or artist website
Represents	work of art (Q838948)
Data type	URL
Example 1	First Lady Michelle Obama (Q50304023) → http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NPG-PA_NPG_18_57
Example 2	Cloud Gate (Q589099) → https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dca/Public%20Art/cloudgate800.jpg
Example 3	Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial (Q536802) → https://www.nps.gov/npgallery/GetAsset/2CF47D2F-1DD8-B71C-079F463EAF89C187?
See also	Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765)

Motivation edit

It is important to be able to link to images of contemporary artworks, even when they are not on Commons. We cannot display the images here of course, but they are still very valuable. I was surprised to learn at Wikibase Summit NYC this week that some cultural institutions are putting their collections on a private Wikibase rather than Wikidata, largely because they cannot link to their images. The requirements for this property include that the URL be to an official collection or artist's website, so we are not linking to any potential copyright-violating sites.Pharos (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Comment See Wikidata:Property proposal/external image URL for previous discussion of this (which failed to reach a consensus). ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, please note that this is much narrower than the previous proposal, in that this is restricted to copyrighted artworks on official collection or artist's websites.--Pharos (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support just what I needed Nepalicoi (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Pintoch, Jura1, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Strakhov:@Pasleim, Micru, ShadessKB: - pinging those involved in previous discussion; note narrower scope here per Pharos. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am with expansion and not tightening, but enlargement was not accepted David (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I supported - and still do - the previous proposal. The "restricted to copyrighted artworks on official collection or artist's websites" condition on this one is effectively unenforceable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Restricted to items that do not already have a P18. We could also allow URLs to Wikimedia sites, where many fair-use picture are. Syced (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm okay if we link to a page which embeds the image, e.g. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial (Q536802) → https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=313AF650-1DD8-B71C-07476509DBD56534, but if you set a direct link to the image nobody will be allowed to use the image because you can not retrieve the license. --Pasleim (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasleim: What if we require a reference URL for the page with the license information and perhaps a publisher (P123) as qualifier? I think that should address your concern.--Pharos (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pharos, I think described at URL (P973) can be used as a qualifier. Germartin1 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cwf97 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Germartin1 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use "official website". --- Jura 16:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jura1: Why should "official website" be used for an image url? Germartin1 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To link to the page containing the image. It would be an official copy, not some random one? --- Jura 16:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an entirely different thing. The main official website may or may not have the best official image, and it is not possible to extract one url from the other. Often the best official copy will be on a sub-page of the official site, or on a site belonging to the artist rather than the museum, etc. We have proposed to use the website that the image is published on as a qualifier per Pasleim's concern above.--Pharos (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you would link to non-official copies of copyrighted images? Strong oppose --- Jura 12:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jura, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that websites often use URL's that are different from the URL of the official Website. A photograph could be kept somewhere 5 layers deep, whilst the official "website" often is the main URL. If you want to link directly to the image, you'll have to use the URL that is linked to the image, which is the page on which the image is kept and differs from the official "mainpage", for which the property "official website" exists. So in my opinion they are two completely different things.Oliviervd (talk) 09:20, 6 november 2018 (UTC).

Support This would be so helpful and a gap bridged for many GLAM's working with Contemporary art! --Oliviervd (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beireke1 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Oliviervd, Jura1: please abstain from voting twice. Germartin1 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think essentially this makes Wikidata a catalog of images for sale. I don't see how this is compatible with its purpose. --- Jura 14:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support this proposal in general - i think it’s important that we can still somehow include contemporary visual art, or public art in places with no FoP for example - but I have 4 comments/suggestions I would like to make on the specifics. 1) I agree with the above comment that we should not limit to “official” websites. Not only is this unenforceable but also would cut off a variety of useful and valid sources of images (eg art sale organisations like Sotheby’s website). Instead it would be better to try to link to the most “reliable source” website for the subject (what RS means in practice would be context-dependent). 2) I would not recommend linking to the image-URL directly as this would lose a lot of context about the image in question (attribution, licensing...), instead we should link to the most specific URL page that includes the image, this makes it tracable. 3) I would expand the scope to not merely be about “images” but any multimedia - video art could be included for example. 4) this is the most extensive suggestion.... why does it need to be only about Artworks? Could this not also be expanded to cover many things that we currently indicate on Wikipedia with Fair Use (for those WP’s which allow it) including corporate logos, music videos, film posters (e.g. on IMDB), exclusive/archival news footage of events... Wittylama (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the understanding that values that aren't links to official repositories will be removed. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful, also to check if an image is available or not and for scientific image analysis projects. Note we have also Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) Not sure if we should have a property with 'non free' and 'commons compaitible' as in some cases the copyright situation is unclear or can change in time. Would prefer to have one property and the copyright status (P6216) as a qualifier. --Hannolans (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly useful for the long-term aggregation of cultural content that doesn't necessarily have a home in our projects, for whatever way. Sadads (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasleim, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ChristianKl, Oliviervd, Pharos, ArthurPSmith: @Nepalicoi, Germartin1, Wittylama, Hannolans, Sadads, Syced: @Pigsonthewing, Cwf97, Beireke1, Jura1: Done: non-free artwork image URL (P6500). − Pintoch (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]