File talk:AZEMA Sabine H-24x30-1996.jpg

Watermark

It is a watermark. Contrary to Picasso's signature, this is digitally added over the picture, and it's a company's name, not a person's signature. This information is already in the {{Information}} template and the EXIF metadata, so it's completely redundant and should be removed in accordance to Commons:EXIF#Purpose for using EXIF at Commons. I don't see how anyone would think keeping the watermark increases the educational value or usefulness of the image. –Tryphon^☂ 13:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a watermark, technically but it is also the signature of a great studio that let us some great pictures. We're not going to alter a painting to remove a signature, I believe removing the signature on a notable work of art is vandalism. - Zil (d) 15:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not an ordinary copyright of a totally unknown photographer. Studio Harcourt is a legendary studio, known worldwide, and their signature is an integral part of the work. Okki (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

ZOMG!!! An attempt at AUTOPROMOTION!

Rama (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about. I never said it should be removed because it's autopromotion, I never said any signature embedded in an image should be removed. Your attempt at trivializing my point of view is really pathetic and unhelpful. –Tryphon^☂ 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What I am talking about is that by your standards, we'd been mutilating works of art like Durer's because they contain a signature in a special form. Harcourt's signatures are an integral part of their work, as you can see if you do a trivial search on Google. Furthermore, the signature does not make the faces of the people difficult to read. As for the "publicity" notion, it's just plain ridiculous. There isn't the slightest excuse for removing these signatures. Rama (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not even a photographer's signature, it's a studio's logo. And I'm not sure why the notability of the watermarker would override Commons:Watermarks. Can you see why I think there's a difference between this and the digital watermark we have here? –Tryphon^☂ 16:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Question is not the notability of the watermarker, but the notability of the work of art by itself. This is notable work of art removing the watermark is altering the work of art. - Zil (d) 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's one point of view. personally I'll vote down any VI images that have a watermark that could be easily removed without altering the image quality. Would Apple or Microsoft releases pictures under a free licence, with their logo on them as a signature, would you let them go untouched? I seriously think we have no reasons to make exception globally for this studio, what ever notability the studio has. Now I have nothing against watermarked pictures illustrating the studio own article. Wikipedia should use these images because they are good quality portrait of the depicted people, not because they are 'by the studio'. Removing the watermark for wikipedia usage goes according to the existing policy. Esby (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As the license allows derivative works, creating a new set of images could be a solution : one set (the present one) with the studio signature, a second set (the new one) without it. Croquant (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I created Category:Studio Harcourt Paris - Files without watermark and just put the version without watermark that kyro had done in it. Esby (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why the license was changed to CC-BY-SA in the process ? Jean-Fred (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Blame the DW tool, I did not want to use the self template... Did not notice I picked the SA option... gonna fix it. Esby (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)