The Perplexing Process of Uploading Images to Wikipedia

Ever thought about who owns the copyright of a picture taken of you? You may be surprised to learn that the person who takes the picture, regardless of who owns the camera or who is in the picture, owns the copyright. At least this is true in the United States, whose copyright laws govern content on English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Of course, most Wikipedia users aren’t thinking about such questions, and that leads to a lot of trouble when they upload images to Wikipedia. 

Recently, I, a user researcher at the Wikimedia Foundation, embarked on a research project in partnership with the Structured Content team, to learn how users are interacting with and interpreting the upload interface, and how they understand the rules for uploading images to Wikipedia. The team has been focused on decreasing the number of ineligible files on Wikimedia Commons, and learned that there is a disproportionate number of image deletions originating from Wikipedia as compared to Wikimedia Commons. We hypothesized that the upload interface in the Visual Editor on Wikipedia may either encourage or fail to prevent ineligible file uploads.

Our challenge was finding the right users to interview. Initially, we wanted to speak with users who had uploaded copyright infringements to Wikipedia, but this group was difficult to contact. We decided to contact any user that has uploaded images to English and Arabic Wikipedia in the past six months. We reached out to every user who had EmailUser enabled and interviewed those who responded.

To our surprise, nearly all the users we interviewed had unknowingly uploaded copyright-violating images, according to the strictest interpretations of copyright law. However, most of these images had not been moderated, revealing that the issue of copyright violations is more widespread than our deletion metrics suggest.

Key Findings from the Research

Misunderstanding “Own Work”

One of the most prevalent issues we uncovered was the widespread misunderstanding of the “own work” designation. With two exceptions, all users we interviewed incorrectly labeled images as “own work”, the only choice presented on the upload interface. In our interviews, it became clear that users often believed that “own work” meant they had the right to use the image, even if they didn’t create it themselves. Understandably, this confusion stemmed from users’ lack of understanding of copyright laws, and their experiences with social media platforms where the rules are often more lenient. Those who had doubts about their eligibility to upload the image were dissuaded from pursuing a more lengthy process for uploading someone else’s work.

Copyright Confusion

All of our participants were unaware of the intricate copyright laws that govern image uploads on Wikipedia. For example, an IT professional uploaded their company’s logo, assuming it was permissible since the company owned the logo. However, logos are typically copyrighted by default, and the correct process for releasing the copyright of a logo is first proving ownership through the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) process, a step that is not communicated during the upload process on Wikipedia.

One of the most telling stories from our research came from one participant who was the marketing director for an intellectual property law firm. They uploaded an image of their CEO to the corresponding Wikipedia article, only to discover it had been removed due to the copyright of the photographer embedded in the image metadata. The participant faced significant difficulties understanding and rectifying the situation, leading to feelings of exasperation, despite dealing with U.S. copyright law on a daily basis.

Licensing Confusion

Not only are users confused about copyright, but our research revealed a significant lack of understanding regarding image licensing in general. Many users did not realize that uploading an image entails releasing it under a free license, as Wikimedia Commons does not host unfree media. Additionally, they did not understand the implications of releasing an image under a free license, which means that anyone on the internet can use it. Lacking this understanding, users regularly upload other’s copyrighted images, which produces a massive moderation burden for our volunteer moderators, and compromises the ownership status of the image.

Two User Patterns

Another unexpected finding is how neatly all of the users interviewed fell into one of two categories. For simplicity, we have labeled them Self-Promoters and Marketers. Self-Promoters upload images of themselves to an article about themselves, either published, deleted, or still in their sandbox. They are unaware of Wikipedia’s notability requirement and Common’s rule against personal photos. Additionally, their image is technically the property of the person who took the photo, and in all cases, that was not the person who uploaded the image. Marketers, on the other hand, upload images on behalf of their employers or an entity they represent, often logos or professional images, assuming they have the right to do so because of their work relationship. Both user types highlight a significant gap in understanding and interpreting Wikipedia’s image policies.

Our Takeaways

This research underscored the complexities of uploading images to Wikipedia. The findings emphasize the need for clearer and easily accessible guidelines, better user education, and more intuitive tools to support our users in contributing in accordance with Wiki policies. By addressing these areas, we can create a more user-friendly and compliant environment for contributors, encouraging more productive participation in building the world’s largest free encyclopedia.

For a more detailed report on our findings and recommendations, you can access the full report on Wikimedia Commons.