Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Category talk:Images from Un-Cruise Adventures


moved from Commons:Village pump#Wanted: Cruise enthusiast

thumb|Snorkelling fun. We have a release by Un-Cruise Adventures for the professional photos in their media gallery. I have uploaded an initial example referring to the OTRS ticket, but the website layout does not make for a simple batch upload and we could do with an enthusiast that fancies uploading these cruise ship photos (there are about 200). The ship photos seem great quality and there are internal shots of cabins, decor, folks having fun on holiday and ship schematics that might be interesting. If you choose to upload any of these please use Category:Images from Un-Cruise Adventures so we can keep track of which images need OTRS tickets. -- (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

At the site, it says that «These photos are solely for the use in promotion of Un-Cruise Adventures (InnerSea Discoveries LLC.)» and that «Any other use is prohibited.» Wont this someday cast doubt on the validity of the OTRS ticket? -- Tuválkin 12:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The release by email is well written and is a full release using the standard statement we expect including commercial re-use (it appears a cut and paste from the en.wp advice). The email is from the Director of Communications for the company (the same person named as the PR contact on the media page) and from the an email belonging to the company in Seattle (i.e. the domain with convincing phone numbers and so forth in the signature. I'm happy to have another OTRS volunteer review it and decide if we need further verification, or comment here, if you think there might be a potential flaw in it somewhere or I might have overlooked something.  
I think it would be common-sense to consider the release of the media part of the website effectively time-limited. For example, if someone wants to upload a new set of photos in 6 months or a year's time, we probably should write back and confirm that the email release covers the new media available. -- (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
At least this one image is watermarked. To remove, surely? -- Tuválkin 12:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. We should remove the watermark (the release licence allows this) or not bother uploading those that are marked. Out of courtesy, I suggest that where a photographer's name is watermarked, their name is mentioned in the author field in addition to Un-Cruise Adventures. There are some great quality photos there, so I think it is worth a little fiddling or cropping. -- (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay — that’s what {{watermark}} reccomends, too. -- Tuválkin 13:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Easily extracted from the page (all image links are in — some puny text/HTML editing with a bit of regexp magic, "save all images", and voilà!), and now being uploaded into Category:Images from Un-Cruise Adventures, with the same license as in master snorkeler’s starfish memento shot. Next adding further categories etc. -- Tuválkin 12:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Also need descriptions, lack even the most basic. Dankarl (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In the tidy-up could you ensure that the template errors are fixed (I see that many have some sort of double template going on, see File:Dolphins_-_skiff.jpg as an example), that descriptions are added based on the source as Dankarl points out, that the author is correctly attributed as Un-Cruise Adventures and that there is a link back to the source, preferably both a link to the image and the gallery page that gives it context? It sounds like a lot of stuff, but there are only just over 200 photos to sort out as a mini-project. Thanks -- (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I’m doing that, going around the whole collection, fixing and adding stuff — namely categories the link back to the big-size image. The mis-nested info templates were due to my inexperience with Vicuña. Authorship is, for most photos, unknown/uncredited, so it can be attributed to the company (as said above a few images have an authorship watermark). I hope you can trust me to take this mini-project to good port, so to say. -- Tuválkin 14:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries. If you haven't tried it before, you may find VisualFileChange.js helpful for mass changes, this is just the right size for it to be a handy tool. -- (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Three of these images had to be uploaded as thumbnails as they were incorrectly linked to duplicate originals; these should be requested from the website operators and later overwritten with hires versions:
-- Tuválkin 14:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, some of these images are shown twice in the original website, both as thumbnails and as linked hires originals. These were kept in Commons as a single item (had to do some {{duplicate}} before I caught them all.)
-- Tuválkin 14:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
One image was recently removed from the website — File:Port Call in Alaska.jpg. It is not yet available in archive.or, but may be soon, or at least its thumbnail. In its place in the same source slideshow there is now File:Skagway car.jpg and File:Yukon@tunnel&bridge.jpg, meanwhile dutifully added to Commons. -- Tuválkin 00:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Doctored imagesEdit

Photoshop paintjob!

While categorizing this collection, I come across with images which seem to be doctored. A few of those may be just my ignorance of photography showing, but the follwing may be problematic:

  • Images of S.S. Legacy before Aug. 2013, modified to (crudely) show its later livery, which introduces an anachronism in dated media and looks bad.
Looks like a studio backdrop.
For contrast, this one looks natural: Either untouched or only slightly enhanced.
  • Outside landscapes as seen through cabin windows in most ship interior photos. These were probably made by superimposing two identical shots with different lighting, aiming to document both the cabin’s details and the outside landscape, and as such are not really fakes — but they do look fake.

This doesn’t question the licensing of this collection, nor makes it less useful (especially as the whole is still better documented than so many other images in Commons), but it is a bit of a disappointment (o.t.o.h., it is originally business advertisement — straying from reality is structural to it). -- Tuválkin 15:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As the uploader, a deletion request raised by you would have a lot of weight. If you feel the doctored images are of doubtful educational value, then a DR can be raised on the basis of failing COM:SCOPE. A single bundled DR with the list that you think are misleading and therefore lose their educational value would be fine as a housekeeping action. Note that digitally enhancing a photo is not a reason to delete of itself, we have many of "digitally repaired" scans of damaged old photos and many photos end up with licence plates obscured, careful cropping, photoshopping distracting objects out of the photo and so forth. Sometimes the "doctoring" itself is later of educational value.   -- (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I don’t wish to delete any of these, as they are educational/informative even in the worst case scenario: We get to know how these ship interiors look like, even if the portholes show pink elephants frolicking on the surface of Mars outside, and we get to see the Columbia/Snake locks, regardless of the hackjob done to the hull and smokestack pixels. The latter is borderline — it is informative about the local landscape and as such a real keeper, but very misleading if used to document the biography of this particular ship. If there are any warning templates and/or categories to mark these photos as doctored, though, I’d like to know about it. That would also avoid tainting the whole collection as unreliable, what would be unfair and a loss. -- Tuválkin 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of a template, anyway it's probably poor practice to stuff too many odd templates on an image page. I suggest adding a polite note at the bottom of the description along the lines of "This photograph appears to have been digitally enhanced, please take that into consideration when reusing." -- (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Links to the original imagesEdit

Could the uploader or someone else with the necessary technical knowledge go back and recover links to the individual images and add them to the image pages? If you expect whoever does the description to do this manually you might as well have left them for manual upload. Dankarl (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looks like this has been done (manually?) for some, but some links return a "File not found" screen. Others still just link the website. Dankarl (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, manually. Any 404 could my blamed on sticky fingers — pls report them here, or in the talk page of the category. Manual upload would have been too much of a trouble, editing already created file pages and change the generic website url with the exact remote original image link is much less so. -- Tuválkin 00:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I need to ask again which are those «some links »that« return a "File not found" screen.» I checked all remote image links added so far and the only one in error links to the url originally provided in the source website, where it is now broken — nothing we can do to fix this, except to mark the origin as stale and link instead to an archived copy and to the thumbnail. Which are the other images here with a broken link to their remote sources? -- Tuválkin 15:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
F.t.r., there’s right now 73 of these images with an exact original image link (of which some are 404?) and 138 linking to source= [ Un-Cruise Adventures]. -- Tuválkin 01:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The number of these images still not linked to the remote original file is now down to 97. -- Tuválkin 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
And now is down to 59. -- Tuválkin 20:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
200 done, 19 to go. -- Tuválkin 06:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
All    done . -- Tuválkin 15:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright issueEdit

As mentioned above, two of these image have watermarks for authorship:

The exif info says:

  • Copyright holder: © Cameron Zegers Photography
  • Copyright status: Copyrighted
  • Usage terms: With Expressed Permission Only
  • Contact information:

Does the OTRS ticket cover these two? -- Tuválkin 14:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto for Jocelyn Pride in these photos:

(No conditions in exif for these, though.) -- Tuválkin 15:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

One more:

watermarked to Yvette Cardozo, with a very scary exif (not to mention really whacky, too: check out those keywords, and the subject distance!). -- Tuválkin 16:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet another:

watermarked to Ryan McNamee. -- Tuválkin 16:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Plus one doubtful case, two photos:

These seem to depict S.S. Legacy back when it was still named Spirit of ’98 and were doctored to show its later livery. The exif info asserts copyright to Cruise West, which may or may have not been transfered to Un-Cruise upon purchasing of the vessel; there is a credit to a Jenny Joyce («Writer»), which may be the original photographer. -- Tuválkin 16:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I suggest we delete them and avoid uploading anything where there might be significant doubt rather than arguing a case. The ticket generally applies to the media page, but does not confirm that counter-claims such as these have been released and it would be safer to interpret "Express Permission Only" as needing an explicit release we can verify. Not a huge loss and probably not worth the volunteer time it would take to chase these oddities down to ground.  -- (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I’m also concerned about the the maps and ship deck plans — is the company in position of licensing those? (I really hope so, and would be bummed if not, but this needs to be ascertained.) -- Tuválkin 15:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Deck plans are specific to the ships, so it makes sense that these are created by the company. As for the maps, these might be an issue if anyone can spot the underlying maps have been taken from somewhere that is not open source. As we can grab the equivalents from Open Street Map, I doubt there would be much point in wrangling over details, or probing the provenance, if they get challenged. -- (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Deckplan cleanupEdit


The eight deckplans are all {{badjpg}}s and include an extensive legend area consisting of (English) text and example thumbnails (of images also in Commons and categorized together by ship name) showing typical accomodation cabins. I think each cropped deck plan has more encyclopedic value and I’m working now on File:Safari Endeavour - Deckplan.jpg for example sake.

  1. First step was cropping off the legend (leaving a whitespace margin of 64 px) and cleaning it up to a polychrome palette; this was uploaded as a derivative, in PNG format; in its file page was transcribed the original legend.
  2. As a second step I’ll replace all text labels with pictograms and document them in the text legend key, internationalizing the image itself.

-- Tuválkin 16:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Second step    done . -- Tuválkin 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request for some of the uploaded filesEdit

After further discussion by email with Un-Cruise Adventures with regard to the intended scope of their original release of the media page, the free release has been confirmed on a majority of the images, however there are 73 that on review they are not free to release. These are listed in the DR and have been added to a sub-category for convenience. -- (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Return to "Images from Un-Cruise Adventures" page.