Forum:Externally hosted images

The use of externally hosted images on Wikia sites is soon to be restricted. This usage has always been discouraged and there are many benefits to uploading images locally instead. Please see Help:Externally hosted images for a list of the reasons for using local images rather than externally hosted ones.

Please contact me if you would like a list of the pages on your wiki currently using external images.

Angela (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this also apply to embedded youtube videos? (I personally would shed few tears over them, but I think others on our wiki disagree.)    Ryan W 00:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, YouTube embedding will continue to work in the same way. Since MediaWiki isn't yet good at handling videos on its own, external solutions are best for now, and we're going to be extending this feature to allow embedding of videos from Google Video too. Angela (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well, thank you for replying.    Ryan W 07:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read all about this future restriction on the link given. But i think that images hosted on free hosting services like ImageShack mostly do no harm. I used them sometime when the image i want to put on "my" wikia project is not suitable to be use by other user. Like when posting an image of a screen capture in the Forum. ScreenCapture and ImageShack uploading is integrated in my windows. I use it a lot on reals forums. I understand that Wikia is not a forum, but if i can't used ImageShack anymore, i will feel like polluting wikia sometimes. We used hundred of images on the french Guild Wars wikia, but there's like only twenty externals images, i think. — TůζipVõrζąx Talk 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How does ImageShack work? Do the images stay there forever, or until the person who uploaded them deletes their account? My concern is that useful images needed in the articles could disappear in future and it would be hard to get replacements. Angela (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You can upload images to ImageShack with or without an account. As I remember they stay around forever, unless you upload them with an account and delete them yourself. But it's a good thing even without use in articles. On The Gaiapedia people come along to make profiles to much, and they upload images which have no point, or have a number of issues to them. All just so they can stick it up on their own personal userpage. Because of that we don't allow anyone to upload images for use on their Userpage and tell them to instead use an external hosting service and embed them into their userpage. Completely disallowing any use of images on Userpages cause external embedding doesn't work is fine, but It's kinda easier to just say, don't upload here, upload it elsewhere. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Sep 11, 2007 @ 02:33 (UTC)


 * I don't understand whether you're arguing for or against external images, but users should not be banned for uploading a profile photo. It's often the first step in joining a community which is something we want to encourage. If you look at Marvel Database, you'll see user profiles with an easy way to add your own avatar. User photos are not a bad thing. Angela (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya, that's very true for most things. Unfortunately false for Gaians. Time has proven that Gaians come, make a profile, and then never come back. They don't have the mentality to stick around and contribute, they're just there so they can get themselves another profile page or create an article about themselves. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Sep 11, 2007 @ 22:09 (UTC)

Will usage of logo from a wikia site on Central be affected? I believe most info pages here right now hot-link the logo instead of uploading a duplicate to central. -PanSola 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Wikia sites are whitelisted. Certain other sites may be whitelisted as well if needed. GHe (Talk) 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All Wikia sites will be whitelisted so that images can be shared between them. Angela (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You (Angela) were asking about how does ImageShack is functionning. No, the image dont stay there forever. In their FAQ we can read :
 * Your files will only be deleted if they do not adhere to our Terms of Service. If you are registered, your files will be available forever. If you are not registered, any file that you upload will continue to be available if it is accessed by anyone at least once per year.
 * So, it is certain that file we dont want to see vanishing ever should be uploaded to Wikia insted. But what when i want to share something in the forum that doesn't need to be kept forever ? Yes, i could upload anyway and delete later. But, how to be sure that this particular image has not been loaded by any user agent (browser) lately ?
 * Images on ImageShack never disapear if they are been used. 12 month is a lot of time. And about bandwidth; the purpose of the existence of ImageShack is too permit people to use images on web sites, forums, etc. In their FAQ they say this about bandwidth :
 * ImageShack allows unlimited bandwidth for videos and flash files, and allows each hotlinked image 100 megabytes of transfer per hour. If a hotlinked image exceeds this amount, it will become inaccessible, and you would need to send us an email in order to have it enabled again. In order to prevent inaccessible hotlinked images, please utilize the clickable thumbnail function as often as possible instead of hotlinking full images. Clickable thumbnails are generally small in size and do not use as much bandwidth as large images. Your images' viewers will be able to click on the thumbnails in order to see the large images. The most common causes of large bandwidth usage are animated gifs inside the avatar and signature section of message boards and non-thumbnailed series of large images.
 * But, i will understand if Wikia staff dont want to whitelist ImageShack anyway; it your right to take needed mesures to prevent abuse of services or encourage a better use of Wikia. See ya. — TůζipVõrζąx Talk 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll add imageshack, but I still recommend uploading locally so you can give details on the author of the image. Angela (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this an absolute requirement? I tend to externally upload images that are used for skins only. Plumber
 * Skins are the worst thing to use external images for. If you rely on these images, you need them under the control of the wiki community, not on an external site where anything could happen to them. Angela (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I usually use Imageshack to host fan creations and stuff like that, and I'm trying to get people to make some of it (and fan comics, too), and in the past we ideally had people do that, but now that seems like it's being discouraged. --Crazyswordsman 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Images from Imageshack are now excluded from this, so you can continue to use it, but for long term use on the wiki, it is much safer to upload them locally. Angela (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I recently had another complaint, from Diablocon. He said " This fucking sucks! Now my 360 gamer card doesn't show on my userpage! I can't upload it to the Wiki, the image updates every time I log into XBox Live! The site I got it from made it specifically for Wiki use, now that's ruined!"  As the highest ranking active member of my Wiki, I have to represent my constituents, and he's obviously not happy about this.  What should he do? --Crazyswordsman 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are ways around this without adding to the external image whitelist. For example, http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/diablocon.png could be added via site-wide javascript, or even via css using a "background-image: url" definition (if it was just for one person). If however there is a clear community use for this on ffwiki, it would be definitely considered. --Splarka (talk) &lt;Staff&gt; 08:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I spoke to Diablo about this; he needs instructions. --Crazyswordsman 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is he a sysop? If not, one will have to do it for him. --Splarka (talk) &lt;Staff&gt; 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he is. --Crazyswordsman 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Left him some instructions. --Splarka (talk) &lt;Staff&gt; 08:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can inline css (with style=" ... ") be used for this ? That might solve many things... TulipVorlax 08:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That won't work. Mediawiki wikicode parsing strips background-image definitions from inline css. --Splarka (talk) &lt;Staff&gt; 09:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i just experienced a strange situation. I have some images on ImageShack that are there since more than 2 years now. But their URL doesn't contain imageshack so thoses are still blocked. No problem. I will just re-upload them. And i think i'll open up an account on ImageShack. Images of people with an account are never deleted unless the user does it or in the case of inapropriate content (i think). So, if some images on ImageShack are still blocked, it's because they have been uploaded before ImageShack decided to change the way they "construct" URLs. TulipVorlax 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hum.. It seems i've "talked" to soon....
 * All ImageShack images are currently blocked.
 * http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2340/vorlaxtransparentcu5.gif
 * TulipVorlax 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! Wanted to preview but must have clicked the wrong button.
 * But, the preceeding image show up here but not there : TulipVorlax 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's back, thanks. TulipVorlax 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Making an ImageShack template
I've just had an idea and made it in a sub page of my user space. It would be a template for images hosted on ImageShack. It's there : User:TulipVorlax/ImageShack. I did not tested it yet. I will put an image on ImageShack to test it later. By the way, this thing could support all languages (except that parameter names are in english). See ya TulipVorlax 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Image license aspect
I'm completely missing the image license aspect in the above discussion. I know many Wikia wikis don't take copyright seriously, but in my wiki we do, and therefore we demand license information for any image, and do not allow the uploading of copyrighted, unfree images under "fair use" claim. Only images under a free license such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA, or public domain, are permitted.

This means that we can not just upload any image we want to use in our wiki. 99% of all images that are available do not qualify. Uploading copyrighted work is only permitted if the copyright holder licenses their work in a way that is compatible with the GFDL. Many artists/photographers don't want this; for example they often don't want to permit commercial use, or modifications of their images.

So external hosting is probably the only possible way in which we could use such non-GFDL-compliant images - just like we embed YouTube videos which are non-GFDL-compliant - which is okay since they are external and not "part" of the wiki in any legal sense. It is therefore good if ImageShack and similar image hosting sites are, and continue to be, whitelisted for hotlinking in Wikia. Spankart 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, if an image can't be uploaded to wikia because of liscensing incompatiblities, then the same image can't be hotlinked from any other even free hosting services like ImageShack. Don't you know that even ImageShack or PhotoBucket say in their terms of services that you're not supposed to upload to them copyrighted material ?
 * Now, about copyrighted images hosted on the servers (or hosting) of the copyright holder : the image is still copyrighted ! If we can't upload it, we should not be able to hotlink to it.
 * Of course ImageShack, PhotoBucket allow copyrighted material. You can upload it if you are the copyright holder. Remember that every photo you take yourself is copyrighted by you. So is every drawing you draw. You can always upload your own work to ImageShack. And these hosts explicitly allow hotlinking the hosted images on other sites. Spankart 11:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Every image that appear in a wiki page should be clickable and when we click on it, a page showing all sort of information about the specific image should load and that information should include licensing terms. And only free licenses are permitted on Wikia wikis. And Wikia is commercial so anything preventing commerial use can't be used on Wikia.
 * You can still make it clickable, and direct that link to a page that states the licensing terms. Spankart 11:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * YouTube is another matter. For every single video they are hostin, they are offering code so user can post them in blog and forums. I don't know about the use of YouTube videos on Wikia except that the extension permitting it is part of the standard wikia wiki installation.
 * Now that the boring part is cleared out, would you please be more specific when you say "our wiki" and "image we want to use". I am the fouder of the french Guild Wars wikia. We have a real lot of images there that are copyrighted. Mainly, screen captures of the ingame thing the purpose of the wiki is to document. This mean, if we could not use thoses screen captures, our (fr.guildwars) wiki would be unable to fullfill his purpose. And that is why, i think, thoses screen captures qualify as fair use on Guild Wars Wikia. The sames images on another wikia wiki would not qualify as fair use.
 * So, we could hope that the images you want to use could qualify as fair use but you must tell us more. But even if they dont qualify, i'm pretty sure new images can be produced and released under a free license like GFDL.
 * As I said, we don't allow the uploading of images under "fair use" claim in my wiki, and I don't want to change this rule. I'm talking about images that the copyright holder explicitly allows us to use in our wiki, but which he or she does not want to put under a free license. My wiki is here and our current image use policy is here. Spankart 11:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside that, coprighted material is coprighted material. Hotlinking is stealing both the bandwidth and the work of others. — TulipVorlax 09:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was only talking about hosts that explicitly allow hotlinking, so bandwidth theft is not an issue with these. And I was only talking about using copyrighted material with the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Spankart 11:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In particular we are talking about licenses such as (CC-ND), (CC-By-ND) and (CC-NC), all copyrights that compatible with a wiki encyclopedic needs, but not compatible with GFDL hence why the cant be uploaded to the wiki directly. All the above licenses are compatible with Free hotlink hosts like Imageshack, Photobucket and Flickr terms and agreements.
 * A Template can even be created for the click and link back requirements can be meet simply. --Roguebfl 12:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Images are generally considered to be separate documents that can be under one of several licenses or used under "fair use". So they don't have to be exactly compatible with the general license of the wiki. for example, you can use Creative Commons licensed images on a GDFL wiki. Or a wiki may decide to use "copyrighted, permission given" or fair use images. As long as there is justification for the use, it's all fine.

In general, and without specifically knowing the legal aspects, I would say that hotlinked images are just the same. They don't have to match the wiki license, but if you don't have permission (via a license or specifically) or a good fair-use argument, then you shouldn't use them. That's just ethics if nothing else!

On the other ethical issue of bandwidth theft, that's a large part of why hotlinking has been restricted. But we allow image from hosting services that specifically accept hotlinking. Of course, that doesn't mean that copyright should be ignored from these sites either. I hope that's helped -- sannse (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is interesting news because I was led to believe that the fact that all our wikis are under the GFDL also means that all images in our wikis must be under the GFDL, or a license that's compatible with the GFDL (with the exception of of "fair use" images). Do you really mean to say that the GFDL applies to the text part of the wikis only, but not to the images? If so, that would open up endless great possibilities of using images under other, non-GFDL-compliant licenses. But Wikia's Terms of use explicitly say "Any content you upload or post to any Wikia, Inc. wiki must be compatible with the relevant license (for example, the GFDL for any Wikia)". --Spankart 08:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, images can be under other licenses. That's considered compatible with GFDL text.  If you have a look at Wikipedia, they use the same structure, with GFDL text and images under one of several free licenses (or fair use).  -- sannse (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also cases where the text of some articles may be put under a different license. I don't know which ones, but there are some Gaming wiki using content under some Open Gaming License I believe. I think the distinction to be made here is, "Unless other wisely tagged". So basically, you edit in GFDL normally, but any taging of some content using a license template overrides the default licensing. The key point to remember there though, is that that text will always remain under that license no matter how much you edit it, and while you're working on that, you need to adhere to what that license says, and not what the license of the wiki says. Which is for the most part why we avoid use of it in content pages. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Dec 11, 2007 @ 14:14 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are various other licenses (e.g. CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) that are compatible with the GFDL and we can upload images under any of these licenses. But do you really mean to say we are allowed to upload images under licenses that are incompatible with the GFDL, such as CC-ND, CC-BY-ND, CC-NC, CC-BY-NC, CC-ND-NC, or CC-BY-ND-NC (which forbid derivative works or commercial use)? Doesn't this contradict the Terms of Use ("Any content you upload or post to any Wikia, Inc. wiki must be compatible with the relevant license (for example, the GFDL for any Wikia)")? AFAIK, uploading such work is forbidden in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons exactly for that reason. Spankart 11:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahah! When Sannse said "images under one of several free licenses (or fair use)", i was pretty sure she did not entirely understood that you want to be able to use Non-Commercial things and other not so free licensed content.
 * On the Common mistakes page it say "You are explicitly not allowed to upload images under licenses which forbid commercial use or the creation of derivative works" and permitted licenses are "public domain, GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, BSD, GPL, LGPL".
 * — TulipVorlax 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And that is why, if a wiki chooses not to permit the uploading of images under "fair use" claim, external hosting is the only legal way for such wikis to use images that the copyright holder does not want to put under a GFDL-compliant license, and it's good that this technical way remains open. Of course, for ethical reasons, such image hotlinking may only be done with the permission of both the copyright holder and the hoster. Up to now we don't allow image hotlinking in my wiki, but I'm considering changing that policy to allow it in certain cases, where we couldn't use the image so far because the artist didn't want to release so many rights. Spankart 11:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)