Image not appearing on artist page


What needs to be done to trigger the image to pull, and also appear on the artist’s MB page? I believe this image meets all of the requirements for use, but once the edit was made, nothing has happened at all.

“this feature” means showing artist images in general, not just Wikimedia ones.


And in any case, only images uploaded to Commons would be used (we can’t automatically check the license of that one). Of course, if the license is appropriate, the image can just be uploaded to Commons, I guess :slight_smile:

1 Like

I see. Oddly this enhances my concerns raised in a prior post regarding Internet Archive and album cover art. MB relies on such images (the cover art more than artist images though) and there is really no security to such things.

Is there a way for used to upload images, artist or album, while avoiding potentially unreliable third parties? I am not aware of the issue with Wiki, but it is more involved than simply using the images I believe… like maybe bandwidth or something as I doubt there is any sort of fraud or ill intentions. As MB already relies 100% on Internet Archive for album images, would they be willing to allow uploads of appropriately licensed artist images? I understand there is issue with verifying license as you mentioned, but I would think that as an uploader, when I upload my image I also upload the source which would be required to clearly state the license. I am sure someone is already looking at that, but just tossing out thoughts.

Reason- The artist images CAN be of good value and use to editors. For example, I have used them to identify an artist I do not know where the specific artist is not clear. I can do this by, for example, watching the video. I can then compare the person(s) in the video to their respective images, while at the same time seeing the other recordings and releases they are associated with in MB. Yes you can do this other ways, but it is more of a convenience is all.

1 Like

Yes, they agreed to already:


Without going into details can we have some idea of what the lawsuit ins about, Is this because Wikipedia images are deemed invalid /illegal is one way, or is it from Wikipedia not wanting you to link to their images ?

1 Like

Wikimedia are not involved and AFAIK they have zero problems with our image use. Not sure how much else I can say, but I can say that :slight_smile:


For any images other than CC0, we need to provide a credit (even if they’re just CC-BY like this one, the BY is still important!). We can’t do this unless either we store the credit ourselves, or link to the place the credit is in, in addition to the image itself. I personally feel that once the current issue is solved Commons is still by far the best option; they also have a team of volunteers specifically charged with checking licenses, and provide a clear way to get both the file and the credit/link in one go. Plus it’s not like the Internet Archive has proven to be that stable and problem free :slight_smile:


I see. There is obviously something going on here that cannot be disclosed, and it appears not to be as the initial statements imply. At least to me, it was implied that the issue was relating to the Commons group, but it now seems to not be true, but some other issue with an unrelated party. Probably someone complaining that their makeup was bad on an image used in MB, LOL!

I agree 100%, Internet Archive is not so problem free. But, they do provide a service which adds value. I can agree that Commons is the best answer for many reasons. My initial statements were misguided with the assumption that Commons was a part of the issue regarding using the images.

I have interest in this issue as it relates in many areas for me both outside and inside MB. I understand fully that you cannot disclose the details, but it would be great that if someone has issue with how such things are used that others are informed to avoid such issues, vs just not using it as a method of avoidance.

1 Like