Improvements to images guideline RSG §13.1.4.

Hello.
rideon77 have submitted 5 releases with watermarked images.
Also added images for 3473380, and I left a comment on that one.
If can the images without watermarks, it would be ok pictures, it seems.

According to RSG §13.1.4, the watermarked images are not allowed.
Disable all?

Edit: Changed thread title.

orjanbirkus
According to RSG §13.1.4, the watermarked images are not allowed.
Disable all?

yes. images should be ed free of any watermarks (digital or physical) pertaining to ownership over the image.

And they haven't replied in 3 days now...

All been disabled already.
Thanks phallancz

The guidelines say the images "should" be free of watermarks, not must be. Just like they should be of "good quality" (same sentence of guidelines). We'd rather have good quality than less good, but we have some pretty mediocre pictures rather than nothing. I've taken this to mean that a non-watermarked image is a best practice but a watermarked image is acceptable within reason (no huge ads or anything) if that's all there is, in which case they should not necessarily be disabled.

beautman
a watermarked image is acceptable within reason (no huge ads or anything)

nope watermarked images are not allowed

If you are correct, the guidelines should be revised as that's not what they say currently.

beautman
The guidelines say the images "should" be free of watermarks, not must be. Just like they should be of "good quality" (same sentence of guidelines). We'd rather have good quality than less good, but we have some pretty mediocre pictures rather than nothing. I've taken this to mean that a non-watermarked image is a best practice but a watermarked image is acceptable within reason (no huge ads or anything) if that's all there is, in which case they should not necessarily be disabled.

Absolutely wrong. Watermarked images (as well as the majority of non-watermarked images) are protected under copyright law. It is against the law to use content (photographs, scans, written text, etc) that have a copyright unless you are the copyright holder.

You are conflating two issues, copyright and what the image looks like.

No question, at least from me, that images under someone else's copyright shouldn't be ed here, which as you noted is not tied to whether or not there is a watermark. But a watermark doesn't mean the use of ing is not authorized, such as when the photographer gives permission.

The question is whether an image that is NOT subject to someone's copyright may be ed if it has a watermark. Read literally, the guidelines discourage but do not forbid this.

ChristalBeerman
is against the law to use content (photographs, scans, written text, etc) that have a copyright unless you are the copyright holder

While true I'm not sure what this has to do with what you quoted...which is talking about whether or not this site wants us ing our images with watermarks on them.

DarreLP
which is talking about whether or not this site wants us ing our images with watermarks on them.

exactly

DarreLP
which is talking about whether or not this site wants us ing our images with watermarks on them.

They most certainly do not. It's unfortunate that sometimes the guidelines aren't written more forcefully, but it's on purpose.

DarreLP
While true I'm not sure what this has to do with what you quoted...which is talking about whether or not this site wants us ing our images with watermarks on them.

It's pretty clear. beautman is saying that it's acceptable to watermarked images. What do you think a watermark is? It's a physical declaration that the work is copyrighted. No, it's not ok.

beautman
a watermarked image is acceptable within reason

No, it is against the law and Discogs would be liable for any damages should the copyright owner decide to pursue the manner.

beautman
But a watermark doesn't mean the use of ing is not authorized, such as when the photographer gives permission.

Actually, it does. I am a professional photographer and filmmaker and have studied this very issue with both intellectual property law lawyers and with government officials from the Copyright Office. If permission is given by a photographer/copyright holder then you would be given a copy of the work in question that is watermark free.

ChristalBeerman
What do you think a watermark is? It's a physical declaration that the work is copyrighted.

OK - you're just wrong on that, no matter how many different way you restate it, and you're mixing up the issues. A watermark means there's some translucent text or non-text material overlaid on the image. It's content could be anything. It could say "creative commons license" and it could say "authorized by owner for on discogs" or it could be a little non-verbal design because someone just likes overlaying designs on his photos. Watermarked does not equal illegal use.

Hatfulofelt responded to the actual question, which is does the site categorically forbid translucent markings across otherwise legal-to--here photos, notwithstanding that the language of the guidelines is advisory rather than definitive.

beautman
Read literally, the guidelines discourage but do not forbid this.

Discogs actually does forbid it.

"Please don't images with watermarks, or images of generic sleeves."
"By ing images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:
Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception).
You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license.
Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license.

http://screenshot.co/#!/5765334cfe

The first sentence you quoted is helpful. The rest is not.

What I wrote was "the guidelines discourage but do not forbid this" and I think that stands. They should probably be edited, since that's where one is supposed to look for guidance, if the consensus is, or the site owners say, no watermarks *(irrespective of rights to use the photos which is a separate issue).

beautman
OK - you're just wrong on that, no matter how many different way you restate it, and you're mixing up the issues.

Trust me, I'm not wrong and VERY well versed in this issue. I have had to deal with this very issue in my profession and I got my info straight from lawyers that prosecute cases on this very issue. And I'm definitely not mixing up the issue. We already had a lengthy discussion in the forums about this earlier today. All you're doing is dredging up an already resolved issue and flogging it to death.

No, watermarked and copywritten images are expressly prohibited by Discogs.

beautman
A watermark means there's some translucent text or design.

It can be digital - completely invisible and undetectable by the human eye, as well - only computers are able to read digital watermarks.

beautman
it could say "authorized by owner for on discogs"

beautman
Watermarked does not equal illegal use.

That's not how watermarks work. Ask any intellectual property lawyer or any of the thousands of professional photographers and filmmakers that I know or have worked with. I can guarantee you not a single one has ever issued a watermark like that. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make you right.

Where we do agree that the guidelines need a re-write.

beautman
exactly

Exactly...what? I don't understand what your copyright comment has to do with this conversation about watermarked images.

ChristalBeerman
It's pretty clear. beautman is saying that it's acceptable to watermarked images. What do you think a watermark is? It's a physical declaration that the work is copyrighted. No, it's not ok.

I was referring to his copyright statement. FYI, a watermark is just a watermark. You can add a copyright statement to it, but copyright law (at least in the US) has nothing to do with with watermarks.

ChristalBeerman
No, it is against the law and Discogs would be liable for any damages should the copyright owner decide to pursue the manner.

That's true with or without a watermark. Copyright is granted to the creator. Watermarking doesn't change that one way or the other.

There is a bigger question as to what rights does a contributor retain vs. gives up when ing their images to this site. I can't find anything in the ToS that mentions it specifically (though I only gave it a cursory read).

ChristalBeerman
"By ing images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:
Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception).

Oops! Spoke too soon! So there you have it, by ing an image, you are saying it's in the public domain (meaning you took the image, and are placing it in the public domain by ing it here).

Again, watermarking has no affect on that one way or the other...it's just really annoying for everyone that wants a clean image to look at without advertising on it.

DarreLP
There is a bigger question as to what rights does a contributor retain vs. gives up when ing their images to this site. I can't find anything in the ToS that mentions it specifically (though I only gave it a cursory read).

The only mention that I can recall seeing of that is in the screenshot that I linked earlier.
http://screenshot.co/#!/5765334cfe

You grant Discogs a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license.

ChristalBeerman
Trust me, I'm not wrong and VERY well versed in this issue.

Eh, sorry, this isn't the norm. Maybe you were dealing with a specific case or situation or just had lawyers that had very specific preferences.

But in the US, at least, copyright is granted *automatically at the time of creation* to the creator. Whether or not the creation is marked with a copyright notice is irrelevant.

A lawyer might argue that a watermark makes it *easier* to prosecute infringers simply because the evidence trail is clearer, but it is not legally required at all.

Regardless...I still don't see a connection to this particular web site and the ing of images to the database. Even if it's watermarked, as the previous comments point out, by ing it here, you are declaring it public domain.

Now, would that hold up in court? I have no idea. But that's a whole other debate...

DarreLP
you are saying it's in the public domain (meaning you took the image, and are placing it in the public domain by ing it here).

Essentially, yes. Discogs doesn't claim an exclusive right, so theoretically there's no reason why you can't to Discogs a photograph or scan taken by you and then use it elsewhere. If that was the case, I wouldn't be ing my scans as I'm writing some books/websites pertaining the most comprehensive discography of a specific artist and specific record labels - where I will be using my scans.

DarreLP
Exactly...what? I don't understand what your copyright comment has to do with this conversation about watermarked images.

Meaning we are saying the same thing. The question is about how the site wants the images to look, not anything about copyrights. Someone else interjected that into the discussion.

beautman
Meaning we are saying the same thing. The question is about how the site wants the images to look, not anything about copyrights.

Ah! Gotcha. Yes, we're in agreement.

(oops, double post deleted)

Feel free to post agreement with me as many times as you want. :)

DarreLP
But in the US, at least, copyright is granted *automatically at the time of creation* to the creator. Whether or not the creation is marked with a copyright notice is irrelevant.

I never said that it wasn't. I don't see anywhere where automatic copyright was mentioned. If it was, I'd be the first to point out that the author of a work is automatically granted copyright upon creation. This matter has humorously created some interesting cases where non-humans could theoretically be given copyright when they pressed the camera shutter - not a human.

DarreLP
Eh, sorry, this isn't the norm. Maybe you were dealing with a specific case or situation or just had lawyers that had very specific preferences.

I don't know what you're referring to. I think there is a miscommunication somewhere?

DarreLP
A lawyer might argue that a watermark makes it *easier* to prosecute infringers simply because the evidence trail is clearer, but it is not legally required at all.

Exactly. I never said that a watermark is required. Again, I'd be the first to point out exact what you just said. A watermark is instrumental in recovering damages, however.

1) Watermarks look bad in Discogs entries, period. 2) It's best not to include them here for legal reasons, too. 3) All pictures that are ed must be of the exact item, ideally taken by their poster. 4) So just don't do it.

beautman
The question is about how the site wants the images to look, not anything about copyrights.

You may interpret it that way, but if that was the case it would not have said this:

"By ing images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:
Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception).
You own the rights to the image

^ THAT is a legal liability clause.

Any major website worth it's salt has legal clauses in their ToS, Guidelines, etc.

hatfulofelt
1) Watermarks look bad in Discogs entries, period. 2) It's best not to include them here for legal reasons, too. 3) All pictures that are ed must be of the exact item, ideally taken by their poster. 4) So just don't do it.

All of this.

Now can we put this issue to bed?

>>You may interpret it that way, but if that was the case it would not have said this: "By ing images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements: [...]<<

That's a non-sequitur but I'm not going over this again.

beautman
I've taken this to mean that a non-watermarked image is a best practice but a watermarked image is acceptable within reason (no huge ads or anything) if that's all there is, in which case they should not necessarily be disabled.

This stuff has been discussed to death. Reading into "should" and "must" is taking this too far. The images do not belong here and should be disabled.
Aside from the pretty clear guideline and community of it just about everywhere you look, here's a quote from staff as well.
https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/713405#7088283

ChristalBeerman
I don't know what you're referring to. I think there is a miscommunication somewhere?

Quite possibly. This thread has veered all over the place. :)

ChristalBeerman
A watermark is instrumental in recovering damages, however.

In the sense that it may help prove infringement, possibly. But in of the law, what is key in recovering damages is that the piece be ed with the federal U.S. Copyright Office.

So, anyways, it seems pretty clear that discogs really really really prefers we don't have watermarks on our images. But even if we did, it really has no bearing on anything other than how they look, as the process of ing the image here clears discogs of copyright liability.

DarreLP
In the sense that it may help prove infringement, possibly. But in of the law, what is key in recovering damages is that the piece be ed with the federal U.S. Copyright Office.

Yep!

DarreLP
So, anyways, it seems pretty clear that discogs really really really prefers we don't have watermarks on our images. But even if we did, it really has no bearing on anything other than how they look, as the process of ing the image here clears discogs of copyright liability.

It has been stated expressly many times that images that have a watermark and/or copyright are not allowed. Staff may say that how it looks is the primary reason when it comes to watermarked images, and I'm not disputing that. All I've been trying to point out all along is that there is a legal reason on top of that. A staff member doesn't have to say that or even know that for it to be true. Not all content with a copyright is marked with a watermark! If there was no copyright reason why would it mention that images must be copyright-free??

Again, if there were no legal issues, they wouldn't have put in a clause stating that the image must be copyright free. That is all that I'm saying.

Btw, putting in that clause doesn't free Discogs fully of liability. But it does mean that it's a warning to s that violating that term can lead to consequences. Same goes for Facebook or any other based website. Usually, the copyright holder files s the website and the offending images are taken down. In other cases, the copyright holder bills for unauthorized use. I have done both and have been able to get all instances of infringement dealt with civilly.

So, it comes down to this. If you do not have the copyright or a CCo for an image, you cannot use it. Simple.

"Please don't images with watermarks, or images of generic sleeves."
"By ing images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:
Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception).
You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license.
Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license.

http://screenshot.co/#!/5765334cfe

To break down exactly what I'm saying into two scenarios for those who are confused and think I'm "conflating":

Image #1 (with watermark) = watermark looks bad = not allowed on Discogs
Image #2 (without a watermark and no CCo) = has a copyright = still not allowed on Discogs
Image #3 (with a CCo) = no copyright = Ok to use

Image #1 (with watermark) = has a copyright = not allowed on Discogs
Image #2 (without a watermark and no CCo) = has a copyright = still not allowed on Discogs
Imgae #3 (with a CCo) = no copyright = Ok to use

Pick whichever scenario you like better. Doesn't matter. The reasons and the results are the same.

ChristalBeerman
Again, if there were no legal issues, they wouldn't have put in a clause stating that the image must be copyright free. That is all that I'm saying.

I agree. I think what's happening is we're mixing up the issue of copyright and the issue of watermarking.

There is no *legal* issue with the watermarks. The requirement is that you declare the image as public domain or grant discogs a creative commons license. I can do that with or without a watermark.

It's just that watermarks are ugly.

(But...yea...doesn't really matter. In the end, the policy is no watermarks. The reason doesn't really matter...)

DarreLP
I think what's happening is we're mixing up the issue of copyright and the issue of watermarking

That's my point. :) Everyone is focusing on what a watermark means, but they're completely disregarding half of what's stated. No watermarks and no images with a copyright. I'm not trying to turn this into a debate about copyright. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter how you interpret the statement about watermarks - Discogs takes it further and says no images with a copyright.

DarreLP
There is no *legal* issue with the watermarks.

But there is! A watermark is a legal declaration as to a work's copyright status. A watermark is (literally, in come cases) a big statement of "I'm copywritten! Do not use!". What I'm saying is that a watermark means you can't use it - regardless of if it looks bad or not. It doesn't meet BOTH of Discogs requirements, not just one.

ChristalBeerman
A watermark is a legal declaration as to a work's copyright status

aha! This is the only point of contention we have.

A watermark that is explicitly a copyright notice is a declaration of copyright:

THIS IMAGE (C) ME 2017. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DO NOT COPY OR I WILL SUE YOUR ASS!

However, a watermark can be anything such as:

VISIT MY-AWESOME-WEBSITE.COM

and that has no legal connotation what-so-ever. That's just me advertising my web site as an ugly watermark.

Furthermore, going back to the first example, I could still relinquish the copyright. That there's still a copyright notice watermarked on the image would be incredibly confusing, but may not actually be accurate anymore.

I could also take someone else's image, put my own watermark on it. But that doesn't change the legal status of the original copyright holder at all. That's just me infringing someone else's copyright by plastering my own watermark on it.

A watermark is simply disfiguring an image with some sort of text or imagery.

Lots of photographers stamp all their images with their name, for example. They don't have to remove their name from the images if they want to release them as public domain images.

DarreLP
VISIT MY-AWESOME-WEBSITE.COM

and that has no legal connotation what-so-ever. That's just me advertising my web site as an ugly watermark.

I have issued these watermarks on a daily basis for over a decade. Sometimes I issue 4o of those watermarks a day. They ABSOLETLY ARE a copyright declaration and I have won legal damages by LAW based (watermark is not required but can lead to additional damages rewarded) on that watermark. LEGALLY, it IS a declaration. The courts agree with me.

DarreLP
Lots of photographers stamp all their images with their name, for example. They don't have to remove their name from the images if they want to release them as public domain images.

Do they have to? No? Of the thousands of photographers that I know personally, some who have been professional photographers for 5o+ years have NEVER done that. Because that is not a thing that photographers do.

You're mixing up CCo and limited licencing.

Right, DarrelLP. Obviously. And don't forget about watermarks on things like currency to prevent counterfeiting. I've tried every way to explain this but he doesn't want to accept it.

ChristalBeerman
They ABSOLETLY ARE a copyright declaration and I have won legal damages by LAW based on that watermark. LEGALLY, it IS a declaration. The courts agree with me

Like I said before, it is an evidence trail.

But since a watermark can be applied to any image, they are hardly, in and of themselves, proof of copyright. One still needs to prove they were the source of an image.

Otherwise, I could just put my watermark on your images and claim they are mine because of the watermark. :)

ChristalBeerman
Because that is not a thing that photographers do.

I didn't say they *do* that. I'm saying they *could* do that. To point out that a watermark, in and of itself, isn't proof of copyright status (or lack thereof). An example of that are all the shady click-bait web sites out there that just lift images wholesale from other sites and slap their own watermark on them.

We're also not talking about professional photographers for the most part. We're talking about record collectors and record store owners.

DarreLP
they are hardly, in and of themselves, proof of copyright.

Again, I said that they are a legal declaration. NOT the only single piece of proof needed. Not only do you keep putting words in my mouth, but words that are completely contrary to my whole point.

As stated, the www. .com watermark has been something that has awarded me additional damages on top of what I was already awarded.

But you're really pushing the semantics now just because you want to be argumentative.

BTW, ChristalBeerman, I just took a look at your web site. I love your work!

ChristalBeerman
But you're really pushing the semantics now just because you want to be argumentative.

It takes two to argue.

But, honestly, I wasn't intentionally trying to make in an argument. I work in the creative industry too and just have always been interested in the topic. No ill will intended!

DarreLP
BTW, ChristalBeerman, I just took a look at your web site. I love your work!

Thanks!! :)

DarreLP
But, honestly, I wasn't intentionally trying to make in an argument. I work in the creative industry too and just have always been interested in the topic. No ill will intended!

It's all good. No ill will on my part, either. I'm pretty ionate about it, too, as you can see! lol

What type of work do you do? :)

ChristalBeerman
What type of work do you do?

These days...eh, not so creative anymore. I'm a UX designer in a large company. Not so exciting but pays the bills and gives me a record collecting allowance. :)

But I went to art school and have always done graphic design. Less so these days (unfortunately). But still do some app design and development on the side and pick up logo gigs whenever I can so that I don't get too rusty.

DarreLP
I'm a UX designer in a large company.

Is that similar to QA?

DarreLP
pays the bills and gives me a record collecting allowance. :)

That's the important part! Priorities! ;)

DarreLP
But still do some app design and development on the side and pick up logo gigs whenever I can so that I don't get too rusty.

Cool! I've always been very interested in graphic design, though I've never been to school for it. I have tons of graphic design and layout books and like to play around with it for fun. I designed my logo myself (I prefer the version on my website over the version I used on here). I've been thinking of exploring graphic design more. It's so competitive these days, though, isn't it? I always thought it would be fun to design music and movie press kits and such.

ChristalBeerman
I have issued these watermarks on a daily basis for over a decade. Sometimes I issue 4o of those watermarks a day. They ABSOLETLY ARE a copyright declaration and I have won legal damages by LAW based (watermark is not required but can lead to additional damages rewarded) on that watermark. LEGALLY, it IS a declaration. The courts agree with me.

agreed. they may not own copyright to the content shown in the image, but they claim ownership over that particular image documenting the item.
and that can be an issue for discogs. hence, don't use such images.

also, images should document the release only. any watermarks or other signs of ownership over the image (ie, a post-it note claiming the image as yours) might get interpreted as being a part of the release, depending on how discrete the watermark may be, causing confusion. and any image that can lead to confusion when ed intentionally (and the watermark is added intentionally by the er) can be reported as a malicious image for permanent removal.

feel free to report all these watermarked images as malicious to clear up some server space.

ChristalBeerman
Is that similar to QA?

I guess distant cousins. UX in simple is essentially "help design things to be easier for s to use".

ChristalBeerman
I've been thinking of exploring graphic design more. It's so competitive these days, though, isn't it?

Yea, it is. UX definitely pays better. :/ I should have gone with a cheaper hobby than record collecting. :)

Watermarked images should be disabled.

Diognes_The_Fox
Watermarked images should be disabled.

Maybe you must (should) say "Must" instead of should, that seems to be a issue here, probably also a change in the guidelines, that forbids any type of markings on an image would also stop this type of discussions.

That would go against making any sort of definitive ruling, which I read was being avoided (from another thread this week).

phallancz
Maybe you must (should) say "Must" instead of should

+20!
Why can't staff be more clear in their statements, specially after we're discussing about "should" and "must"???

I think because "must" says there's a penalty, and implies the ruling is enforceable. Whilst SRs can be filed (and may be acted upon), this puts the burden of action upon management, in of the community wanting results. And perhaps that's not the desire of those who have the power to enact such mandates. I could be completely wrong.

there *is* a penalty: the image will be disabled.

+1 for suggesting discogs make the guideline clear with the term "must"

hatfulofelt
I think because "must" says there's a penalty, and implies the ruling is enforceable.

Any can disable watermarked images, so the ruling is enforceable, like any other guideline, the clear they are, more easy they are for others to understand them.

hatfulofelt
this puts the burden of action upon management, in of the community wanting results. And perhaps that's not the desire of those who have the power to enact such mandates. I could be completely wrong.

On the contrary if the guidelines clearly state that watermarked images are forbidden (which they are), it makes it easy for the er to understand that what they are doing is wrong and it also makes it easy for other s to disable those images, without any input from staff , the more clear the rules are the better it is for everyone to follow them.

When I said penalty, I was only thinking along the lines of larger reprimands such as being kicked off the site, not just having one's actions undone.

+1 cip should apply to images as well as some s have made a career of ing bad images.

DarreLP
+1 for suggesting discogs make the guideline clear with the term "must"

discosanddragons
+1 cip should apply to images as well as some s have made a career of ing bad images.

+1 on both of these from me as well.

This has implications for the marketplace as well as the database as an incorrect image could be used as justification for an NAI item. If the image and the data conflict, a likely issue with web images, then it's far less clear what the release really is.

Sorry for hijacking, but i'm curious for the other way round. I found my images ed here for a record on ebay ^^ though, i do not mind...but is there any habit for that?

Scanner
but is there any habit for that

Yes, people are lazy and steal images all the time.

DarreLP
Yes, people are lazy and steal images all the time.

If only there was a way to put a translucent stamp to show one's image ownership... *thinks hard* nah.

phallancz
Diognes_The_FoxWatermarked images should be disabled.

Maybe you must (should) say "Must" instead of should, that seems to be a issue here, probably also a change in the guidelines, that forbids any type of markings on an image would also stop this type of discussions.

I completely agree. The semantics play is strong with some. So many needless debates could be eliminated with a firm stance on rules. I strongly agree with a guideline re-write.

hatfulofelt
DarreLPYes, people are lazy and steal images all the time.
If only there was a way to put a translucent stamp to show one's image ownership... *thinks hard* nah.

No idea what that could be! :D ;)

hatfulofelt
If only there was a way to put a translucent stamp to show one's image ownership... *thinks hard* nah.

Well, technically, once ed to discogs, they are public domain or CC. So legally, people can use them. It's just really tacky for an ebay person to use them instead of taking photos of the actual object they are selling.

I see. I really do not have a Problem with that, just curious. And the ebay seller is also the same seller here on discogs, I guess ^^ that's the reason how and where he got the Images from :-D

Disable all watermarked images.

Serial violators should be reported via SR.

Images of physical items must come from you and cannot be sourced from the internet.

*You being the person that photographed/scanned/etc those images.

Scanner
Sorry for hijacking, but i'm curious for the other way round. I found my images ed here for a record on ebay ^^ though, i do not mind...but is there any habit for that?

If your photograph/scan was lifted from another site and not ed by you, it can be removed if a copyright claim is made.

This is one of the many reasons why getting images from the internet is extremely problematic.

Proposed update, my suggestions in bold:

RSG §13.1.4. Images should be good quality, face-on, readable, correctly oriented and must free of any copyright, watermark, URL, or other marks. Images should be static, no animated GIFs please. They must be of the exact release they are attached to, please make sure of this by checking the catalog numbers, matrix numbers and other identifiers. Do not add images of releases with different catalog numbers, labels etc. You must have the exact release in your possession when you submit an image. Images of physical items must be taken by you and cannot be sourced from other websites or third party sources.

I want to remain somewhat lenient on some amount of less than perfect images at the guideline level at the moment. Scanning / photography isn't exactly the most foolproof process and I think we can be doing more at the education level before locking down at the policy level.

Digital items are different when it comes to images, which is why I worded the last statement at physical items.

That's better. But is it clear "must be free of any copyright" means only notices about the image and does not apply to copyright notices printed on the media jacket or labels that are being photographed?

The item being photograph would still retain copyright. We're just talking about the photos of said object.

Well sure. I read it as saying the image must be free of any copyright marks. Read the whole phrase: copyright, watermark, URL or other marks. Maybe it is obvious enough that means marks to the image, not to the subject of the image, but if it's being edited to make things perfectly clear I thought I'd point out that possible confusion.

"must free of any overlaid copyright, watermark, URL, or other marks."

would that clear enough for you?

orjanbirkus can you rename the thread to Improvements to images guideline RSG §13.1.4.
thanks

beautman
I thought I'd point out that possible confusion.

Oh! Yes, I do agree with you. That could be a bit confusing.

PabloPlato
"must free of any overlaid copyright, watermark, URL, or other marks."

I think that helps.

However, it might be easier to just say:

"Image can not be watermarked or include any advertising in the shot"

In other words, just omit the part about copyright notices. We don't really care *what* the watermark is...we just don't want watermarks of any kind.

DarreLP
Image can not be watermarked or include any advertising in the shot"

That sounds like the best solution so far.

PabloPlato
"must free of any overlaid copyright, watermark, URL, or other marks."

I don't think that's a good idea, then people will argue that a non-watermarked image that they've ed that does carry a copyright is ok because it isn't overlaid in the fashion of a watermark.

Diognes_The_Fox
RSG §13.1.4. Images should be good quality, face-on, readable, correctly oriented and must free of any copyright, watermark, URL, or other marks. Images should be static, no animated GIFs please. They must be of the exact release they are attached to, please make sure of this by checking the catalog numbers, matrix numbers and other identifiers. Do not add images of releases with different catalog numbers, labels etc. You must have the exact release in your possession when you submit an image. Images of physical items must be taken by you and cannot be sourced from other websites or third party sources.

This is the best way to go. It clearly states that watermarks are not allowed, must be copyright free, and that the images ed must be images that you have made.

Maybe something extra in the guidelines about the grouped parts ebay style images not being allowed? Like these types:
https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/2558523#images/4674818

beautman
Well sure. I read it as saying the image must be free of any copyright marks. Read the whole phrase: copyright, watermark, URL or other marks. Maybe it is obvious enough that means marks to the image, not to the subject of the image, but if it's being edited to make things perfectly clear I thought I'd point out that possible confusion.

Are people really confused by the difference in the copyright attached to the item vs the copyright of the photo of the item? That's just common sense.

jansenENjanssen
Maybe something extra in the guidelines about the grouped parts ebay style images not being allowed? Like these types:
https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/2558523#images/4674818

^ This too, please!

Diognes_The_Fox
RSG §13.1.4. Images should be good quality, face-on, readable, correctly oriented and must be free of any copyright, watermark, URL, or other marks. Images should be static, no animated GIFs please. They must be of the exact release they are attached to, please make sure of this by checking the catalog numbers, matrix numbers and other identifiers. Do not add images of releases with different catalog numbers, labels etc. You must have the exact release in your possession when you submit an image. Images of physical items must be taken by you and cannot be sourced from other websites or third party sources.

Yes, please.

jansenENjanssen
Maybe something extra in the guidelines about the grouped parts ebay style images not being allowed? Like these types:
https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/2558523#images/4674818

And please forbid these too.

I think his wording "face-on, readable" covers that.
+1 DTF proposal.

I could see those types of images having some benefit as the last image in the stack as something like an index shot to show all included items if it where a particularly complex release, but I agree that they are generally painful.

Objections to that usage or outright none?

Diognes_The_Fox
as the last image in the stack as something like an index shot to show all included items if it where a particularly complex release

I can live with that, as a last overview type image.

Not on topic, but about images.
When ing images, I always add the images of poster-like CD booklet as a overview + details for each "side"
See my examples:
Bathory-Octagon #2

Diognes_The_Fox
I could see those types of images having some benefit as the last image in the stack as something like an index shot to show all included items if it where a particularly complex release

Do mean box sets with extras and the like? Because for other releases like a standard LP or CD, there really is no point for having the grouped bits ebay-style images.

jansenENjanssen
Because for other releases like a standard LP or CD, there really is no point for having the grouped bits ebay-style images.

Agree. Must be for the boxes with extra.

Diognes_The_Fox
I could see those types of images having some benefit as the last image in the stack as something like an index shot to show all included items if it where a particularly complex release, but I agree that they are generally painful.

Objections to that usage or outright none?

In principle, I don't disagree. The trouble with that is that people will images like that and argue that it's the only image they have... and since it's then allowed it will end up being the primary image until someone else decides to a full set of proper images - which often doesn't happen. It would just end up being another way of getting around what is preferred, rather than being in addition to a full set of images.

jansenENjanssen
Do mean box sets with extras and the like? Because for other releases like a standard LP or CD, there really is no point for having the grouped bits ebay-style images.

Yes, that is what I meant.

ChristalBeerman
In principle, I don't disagree. The trouble with that is that people will images like that and argue that it's the only image they have... and since it's then allowed it will end up being the primary image until someone else decides to a full set of proper images - which often doesn't happen. It would just end up being another way of getting around what is preferred, rather than being in addition to a full set of images.

This is a fair argument.

TopCats45s
I think his wording "face-on, readable" covers that.

Let's cover it under this wording.

pending any last minute objections, I am going to try and get this updated later on today.

Diognes_The_Fox
Images of physical items must come from you and cannot be sourced from the internet.
*You being the person that photographed/scanned/etc those images.

I smell a tsunami of crappy auction-site-alike living room stills coming over Discogs soon. :P

But…

Diognes_The_Fox
any last minute objections

No, so be it.

Diognes_The_Fox
I could see those types of images having some benefit as the last image in the stack as something like an index shot to show all included items if it where a particularly complex release

Yes, in case of box sets or similar it could be useful.

https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/356624?page=1#7278307

Yes!
One of the best Guideline change ever.

Diognes_The_Fox
Yes, that is what I meant.

If this could be specifically covered in the guidelines, something like Images of grouped parts should only be used for releases such as box sets with extra materials, should be face on and not from the side, do not add as primary.

What seems to be missing in the images guidelines is in which cases images can be disabled. If something were to be added like: any images that do not conform to RSG §13.1.4 can and should be disabled.

https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/356624?page=1#7278307

Thanks, very clear and very helpful.

jansenENjanssen
What seems to be missing in the images guidelines is in which cases images can be disabled. If something were to be added like: any images that do not conform to RSG §13.1.4 can and should be disabled.

Good point, but I think any of us could (without any dissent) disable an image that didn't meet those new guidelines. In a way, like other guidelines: if it goes against them - act.

jansenENjanssen
What seems to be missing in the images guidelines is in which cases images can be disabled. If something were to be added like: any images that do not conform to RSG §13.1.4 can and should be disabled.

Yes, this new guideline is a good change. But there is ambiguity in the community about what we can do about wrong images. We don't vote on images RSG §20.2.4 - so although a C&C vote needs good images, we can't vote down a release that has wrong images, even though the new guideline specifies that you must make sure images match cat. no. and matrix (if shown in release).

Obviously, disabling images is preferable to a vote, if we have proof. But can a wrong image edit be voted EI?

E.g. I don't know how to tackle this r5299825

Other than that's a mess, IDK. Hopefully patience. Good luck.

in.spirit
E.g. I don't know how to tackle this r5299825

PM the OS if they can check the images and see which belong to that sub?

jansenENjanssen
PM the OS if they can check the images and see which belong to that sub?

I held off doing that, as didn't seem to be here much for a month. Might give it a try.

Or I could just go nuts and disable all images, and replace with a full set of my own. After all, since we don't vote on images, what's the worst that can happen? I might end up sobbing in my pillow from a few harsh comments, but I could do with toughening up. And it bugs me when I have things outstanding.

One more images whinge...

I'm a new voter, and trying to use it. I voted a release Correct, held back from C&C only over images - C&C voting specifies "Good quality scans of the printed areas of the item". Voted C, commented about images. Contributor added full set of images same day. I went back to vote, and I can't!

I feel a bit of a heel for teasing the offer of a C&C.

System seems to treat image edits very differently. Doesn't a change in release, so voting button not live. You get contributor points for images, but are you listed among contributors? Also, if a release gets an up or down vote, do contributors who only add images that vote on their profile?