Template talk:Tasnim

Proposing a change in the template

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)