Jump to content

Commons:Requests for comment/Policy update for AI content

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Background

[edit]

Large numbers of images that do not reflect reality are being uploaded. When an inferior AI image is inserted into an article it disincentivizes actual photographers and graphic artists from creating images because they are more inclined to create an image for an article that has none. AI-altered images make the detection of violations of copyright more difficult. Our current policies were not written with this in mind. This update aims to improve our content policies to enable our contributors and visitors to easily tell when they are looking at AI content while still respecting the needs of individual projects who in some cases wish to allow AI-generated content.

This update requires that some AI content is marked as such in-image. This update does not otherwise editorialize projects outside of Commons. Commons has no intention of editorializing other projects, we only want to ensure we are not contributing to misinforming the public.

Changes to project scope policy

[edit]

1. A new section on Commons:Project scope about requirements for AI content:

The following kinds of AI generated files are not allowed on Commons unless it is indicated in-image and discernible in a 250 pixels wide thumbnail that the work is not authentic. One way to achieve that is by including the initialism "AI" in-image. A watermark from an AI company is not sufficient if it requires familiarity with the company to be understood as AI. AI-generated works that have been covered by professional press and AI-altered works (see below) for which the unmodified original has been uploaded are exempt from this requirement. For files uploaded before [$proposal_acceptance_date] there is a grace period until [$proposal_acceptance_date+1_year] to allow uploaders and projects to make their files compliant or upload them locally.

[list of types that get support from the voting sections below]

AI-generated/modified files that comply with these requirements still need to comply with all other relevant requirements (like having educational value) to be allowed on Commons.

2. Addition of a bullet point to "Files that are currently in use may still be subject to deletion for reasons beyond their scope" on Commons:Project scope which links to the new section:

Please vote on the subsections below. The AI content section and bullet point won't be added if no subsection manages to pass. (status quo) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Votes and comments

[edit]

You may vote in all five subsections:

AI upscaling

[edit]

The AI-content section should include the following:

"Visual works that were upscaled using AI are not acceptable unless the inauthenticity is indicated as described above and the file page is tagged with {{AI upscaled}}."

AI-generated photorealistic images and videos

[edit]

The AI content section should include the following:

"AI-generated works where a reasonable person may perceive the work, not considering the filename or description, as a video or photo taken with an actual camera are not acceptable unless the inauthenticity is indicated as described above."

AI-generated artworks

[edit]

The AI content section should include the following:

"AI-generated works where a reasonable person may incorrectly perceive the work, not considering the filename or description, as a historical or commercial artwork or an artwork by a known artist are not acceptable unless the inauthenticity is indicated as described above."

AI-altered visual works

[edit]

The AI content section should include the following:

"Visual works that were modified using AI tools (e.g. restoration) are not acceptable unless the unmodified original is also uploaded and linked from the file page or available in the file history of the modified work. If this is not possible the inauthenticity should be indicated as described above."

AI-generated perceived authoritative representations

[edit]

The AI content section should include the following:

"AI-generated works where a reasonable person may perceive the work, not considering the filename or description, as an authoritative representation of a subject are not acceptable unless the inauthenticity is indicated as described above."

 Support Nettime Sujata (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Some questions you might have:

What is a "reasonable person"?
A reasonable person is a legal fiction. In this case, it is a person who is not a subject matter expert, not particularly inept but also not quite as capable as an average Joe. Some people have developed a "sixth sense" for even minor flaws in AI content, but this is an exception. An elderly person of sound mind is also a reasonable person, and many of them have great difficulty telling plausible AI-generated photorealistic images from actual photos.
What does "A watermark from an AI company is not sufficient if it requires familiarity with the company to be understood as AI." mean?
It means that a four-pointed star in the bottom right corner or a cloud with four-pointed star pupils ain't gonna cut it.
What is an "AI-generated perceived authoritative representation"?
This was added in response to this comment by Ckoerner: That Cleopatra image is exactly why I'm concerned about AI media on Commons. It's the default image used when this article is shared on social media. Out of context, does it over time become the default representation of the subject? Preferred over other art representing the subject? Used because it's the most "interesting"? The image has no basis in reality. There's no research into what dress folks wore back then, no careful representation of ethnicity or culture, it perpetuates modern beauty standards, etc. It's a refinement of noise from a sludge of data.
Will the grace period information be in the policy forever?
Some time after the grace period ends it'll be historical information and it may be archived.
This isn't fully banning AI upscaling!
It requires in-image clarification and file page tagging, making the files highly visible. This gives us the tools to make maintenance categories and ask the uploaders to upload the unmodified original and/or track the original down ourselves. If such an upscaled file goes unused it can be deleted as a non-notable artwork.
This isn't fully banning AI slop!
If it's unused, it can generally be deleted as a non-notable artwork which is out of Commons' project scope. That will be a community decision to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Do we now have to clarify the AI nature of File:AI generated woman with extra legs.jpg in-image?
A reasonable person would not perceive that image as a photo taken with an actual camera.
Why do indications of AI need to be in-image, can't we just put that on the file page?
When a thumbnail is inserted on a project a visitor may never see the file page. They will see the thumbnail, and if they click it, they will see a larger image in Media Viewer. When an image is hotlinked outside of Wikimedia (which is allowed), the file page may or may not be linked at all.
This will push projects to upload their files locally!
That's doubtful. Hosting content that isn't super educational doesn't really hurt our mission, but misinformation does. If any individual projects want to mislead their readers they should host their own slop instead of putting that burden on the Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic with this essay. Sapphaline (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the suggestions are good. But they should only apply to files they are in use. All not used AI generated content should just be considered as out of scope. I would suggest the following policy: All AI generated content is considered as out of scope and may be deleted under the "F10. Personal files by non-contributors" speed deletion criteria unless one of the following requirement is met: 1. The work was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. 2. The work is subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources or part of a set with this coverage. GPSLeo (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The work was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal" - that doesn't guarantee anything. Sapphaline (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should watermarking be reversible?

[edit]

Watermarking is a destructive process. It irreversibly modify pixels overlapping with and around the watermark. Should we set out methods to add watermarks in a nondestructive or reversible way? Approaches I can think of:

  1. Add a machine-readable metadata flag to the description page, then add a pre-processor in our thumbnail rendering engine to add the watermark to show them on wikis that use them (impractical due how how "quick" WMF implement things, 02:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC));
  2. Encourage users to upload the original version, and a bot will add the watermark afterwards, keeping the original copy in the file history.

1F616EMO (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. If a reader doesn't want to waste their time on AI slop (= any image generated by AI), we should respect their choice, and watermarking the initial image is the only reliable way to do this. Sapphaline (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not oppose to watermarking; in fact, this thread based on the assumption that watermarking will become policy. The question is: while the right of rejecting AI slops is the default, should we respect their choice of opting-into AI-generated materials if they explicitly ask for that? 1F616EMO (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1F616EMO, pre-processor in our thumbnail rendering engine
Believe it or not, exactly this (including the machine-readable metadata) had crossed my mind while drafting this RfC. However, I'm also a contributor to Phabricator and familiar with typical development timelines. If prioritized, such a feature could be implemented in -maybe- 3 months. But this is unlikely to get prioritized. Which means it would likely take (and let me stress this is not an exaggeration) more than a decade, if it happens at all.
Encourage users to upload the original version, and a bot will add the watermark afterwards, keeping the original copy in the file history.
Similar to what DatBot does on English Wikipedia to enforce their fair use policy, a similar bot could be created to aid the enforcement of watermarking. English Wikipedia's NFC policy does not depend on DatBot however, and neither does this RfC. Tools would certainly be helpful, but are not a prerequisite. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then (2) will be our only practical approach. The problem is that the bot have to find ways to prevent itself from going into an infinite loop, or fight with other bots that also do minor adjustments. 1F616EMO (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That could be solved in various ways. An obvious one would be for the bot to also categorize the image as having the required watermark when it overwrites the image. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About watermark symbol

[edit]

Why it has to be "AI"? What if the initialism is different in my language? Shouldn't be more elegant to add the AI spark symbol as a watermark? Tmagc (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The AI spark symbol originates from my box of detergent. (seriously, check the packaging of your detergent - it's likely on there!)
    Tmagc, it doesn't have to be, but it is suggested as an option that is always considered valid. I've chosen "AI" because it is understood (according to Wiktionary) in English, Danish, Dutch, Esperanto, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Maltese, Swedish and Vietnamese. The inverted "IA" (speakers of languages who typically use this likely also recognize "AI") is understood in Albanian, Aragonese, Catalan, French, Galician, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish. Even without considering that English is very popular as a second language, "AI" can be understood by a large portion of the world population.
    What needs to be indicated is inauthenticity. Meaning that what File:Alex Pretti AI comparison.jpg does (and I checked - it's discernible in a 250px thumbnail) is a valid way to go about it, even though it doesn't specify AI, but it clarifies that the right side does not come from a camera. There is no specific language requirement in the RfC text. If an image clearly targets a German-speaking audience (for example if it includes German-language labels within the image) it would be appropriate to use "KI". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add, in french many brand communication directly write AI, and not IA. Even when spoken, the advertisement are calling themselves AI (like at the end of this ad for Microsoft AI I believe it's the same in many other country.) Betelplouf (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal says "One way to achieve that is by including the initialism "AI" in-image." [my italics]. So, other ways can be used too.
    Perhaps this kind of misinterpretation would be less likely if more than one example was provided. -- Jtneill - Talk 10:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated diagrammatic images

[edit]

I've seen a substantial number of AI-generated images which would not be covered by any part of this proposal, generally skewing towards diagrammatic content:

  • AI-generated infographics (e.g. ones created by NotebookLM)
  • AI-generated maps
  • AI-generated graphs, flowcharts, and other diagrams

Personally, I would prefer that all of these be disallowed from upload entirely, as they frequently contain major inaccuracies which are impractical or even impossible to correct - but I'm sure others feel differently. Any chance this proposal can be expanded to encompass them? Omphalographer (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Omphalographer, this is a solid suggestion for a future RfC. Making an RfC too broad makes it more likely to fail, so in this one the focus is on ensuring everyone is informed. We almost certainly will need more RfCs to deal with all the challenges AI presents. Drafting a solid RfC often takes weeks if not months, if I make it look easy my apologies. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think one potential option would be simply categorizing informatic AI images as LLM contributions, which are already basically banned under WP:NOLLM Mausfield (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
w:WP:NOLLM is an enwiki policy and does not apply to Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actual proo

[edit]
  • Large numbers of images that do not reflect reality are being uploadedTemplate:Cn
  • When an inferior AI image is inserted into an article it disincentivizes actual photographers and graphic artists from creating images because they are more inclined to create an image for an article that has noneTemplate:Cn
  • AI-altered images make the detection of violations of copyright more difficult. Template:Cn

So is there any shred of proof of these things actually being the case? Or can we just create whichever fictional scenarios we want for the sake of policy pushing? --Trade (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does Template:Cn stand for? Tmagc (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tmagc: citation needed, I'd assume. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tmagc, I'd also guess it's meant to refer to "citation needed".
It's not hard to find examples.For more, try Category:AI-generation related deletion requests. Note that not every AI-generation related deletion request gets categorized, deletion tags without discussion (e.g. {{No permission since}} and {{Copyvio}}) don't show up there and we don't always manage to actually detect AI-generated hallucinations. Still, the /deleted subcategory currently contains 1,637 pages. That should be sufficient reading material. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Current exceptions in Wikipedia

[edit]

The English language Wikipedia holds an "Image use policy" that permits usage of certain AI-generated images: "Obvious exceptions include articles about AI and articles about notable AI-generated images [...]". This goes for most Wikipedia's, as far as I know. Does this mean that images used in articles like AI art are permitted as exceptions (after addition of the new AI-watermark)? Vysotsky (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vysotsky, yes. This RfC does not ban anything if it has a watermark. Images may be deleted on other grounds (copyvio, vandalism, etc) but COM:INUSE would protect them in most cases. The only way this RfC would cause a file to be deleted is if nobody is willing to add an in-image indication of inauthenticity. For the notable AI-generated images there's an exception, they do not need to be watermarked. Of course, any project community is free to upload a watermarked version of notable AI-generated images if they'd prefer to use that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We do already have guidelines that address nearly all of these in more detail; is this also a proposal to deprecate all of those?

[edit]

I haven't fully considered all of the proposals here yet, but my first impression is that we've spent an awful lot of time debating the finer points of multiple existing guidelines on these very same issues already. In some ways, these proposals are stricter; in some ways, looser. Since you're proposing modifying a policy, and given the relationship between policies and guidelines, isn't this also, practically speaking, a proposal to deprecate those guidelines (or substantially rewrite them)?

— Rhododendrites talk |  22:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: this is a complicated topic and debate about it probably isn't going away anytime soon. My take on this: these are, as you say, guidelines. Guidelines are primarily that: guidelines. They suggest best practices, but are not necessarily enforceable. There are some ifs and buts to that, for example, consistently ignoring a guideline may in some cases be seen as disruptive, especially if there's community consensus to follow a guideline for a particular set of files. Guidelines may also (again, my personal take) clarify specific situations on which policy may be unclear or not sufficiently detailed. COM:PEOPLE could be an example of that, which is also referred to by policy. But guidelines are not policy, and definitely can't override policy. Commons:AI images of identifiable people has been debated a lot recently. It's written as if it's policy, but it's not. The truth is, it's a guideline we never really needed. It hasn't actually enabled the deletion of anything, despite getting cited as the reason for deletion in some cases. Unused non-notable AI-generated images of people can be deleted because they're not educational. If an image can be classified as defamation it can be deleted on those grounds, AI-generated or not. The guideline can't do anything about material that is in use because that's policy. And AI-generated images that don't show people, no matter how problematic, are not covered by that guideline. In my view, there's no difference between an AI-generated image of a celebrity or an AI-generated image of Lake Tahoe. Neither would be an accurate representation of the subject, so it's likely neither would be educational. The only difference is that a lake can't have its feelings hurt. But hurt feelings are not related to AI-generation, any real photo that isn't too flattering carries the same problem. And we regularly see people or someone representing them uploading shiny press photos to replace a freely licensed photo on their article. Or nominate the freely licensed photo for deletion because they don't find it a very flattering image.
This RfC presents a requirement to indicate inauthenticity in-image for various cases. If there's a guideline that says that isn't required, this will override that. In COM:AIIP there's a section that suggests it is sufficient to link an external source that hosts an unmodified image. Given the prevalence of link rot I consciously decided not to include that (instead requiring unmodified originals to be uploaded here for those cases), so if this RfC becomes policy that's a part of COM:AIIP that can be scrapped. AIIP also allows an AI-generated photorealistic image of a person if it was published by the person it depicts, even if the image hasn't been covered by the press. If his RfC becomes policy, the inauthenticity would need to be indicated in-image.
Regarding Commons:AI-generated media and Commons:Upscaling, it doesn't look like this RfC really clashes with them, but if you believe it does please elaborate. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

[edit]

It would be helpful if these terms used above can be clarified:

  • "covered by professional press" - what is considered "professional press"?
  • "perceive the work...as a...commercial artwork" - what is considered a "commercial artwork"?
  • "authoritative representation of a subject" - this was mentioned in the Q&A, but the answer given is not really an answer. What is actually "authoritative representation of a subject", does it means images of people, or does it also include "non-photographic images like logos and emblems", as mentioned by Omphalographer here?

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "authoritative representation" - and if it does mean images of people, this seems like it overlaps heavily with "photorealistic images". Omphalographer (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been debate about this, and several Commons users don't seem to like having dependencies on definitions from another project (like Wikipedia's "reliable sources") in Commons guidelines or policy. They want Commons policy to stand on its own. Without a fixed list of organizations there will always be a grey area, that's unavoidable. If this actually ends up leading to regular heated debates on deletion requests we may create a guideline to define this term more tightly.
  • Commercial artwork: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:1960's art of cow getting abducted by UFO in midwest (ChatGPT Plus June 2026).png for an example.
  • That would include unofficial logos. AI-generated or not, those are generally out of scope and we would likely delete them anyway, assuming WMF legal doesn't beat us to the punch.
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply.
  • For the first point, I am still confused about the use of the uncommon term "professional press". It doesn't mean anything if it is not defined, because it is as confusing as if the proposal says the contrary: it applies to AI images covered by "unprofessional press".
  • For the second point, the term "commercial artwork" is misleading, I think it meant to say "physical artwork" or "human-made artwork" instead. It seems it's more about the artwork being incorrectly perceived to have physically existed in real life or have been created by a human, and less about the artwork being "commercial".
  • For the third point, I assume this meant that this section excludes AI images that are actually the "authoritative representation of a subject", for example a company's official logo that is AI-generated.
Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In the proposed text, I suggest linking "AI generated" to w:Generative AI instead of w:AI art because the proposed list of image types is broader than art (e.g., includes photorealistic images). -- Jtneill - Talk 03:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest "AI-generated" instead of "AI generated" -- Jtneill - Talk 05:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI colorizations

[edit]

How about vintage/old images that were colorized using AI? Huge examples are most of the uploads of the notorious user Liane777 (talk · contribs). While colorization helps in generating colors for the convenience of several modern-day users, it only generates colors subjectively. There is a possibility of inaccuracy or lack of objectivity in the AI-generated colorizations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is covered by the #AI-altered visual works section. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant text

[edit]

In the proposed text, the statement that "AI-generated/modified files that comply with these requirements still need to comply with all other relevant requirements (like having educational value) to be allowed on Commons." is not necessary (redundant) within the broader context of Commons:Project scope. -- Jtneill - Talk 04:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of proposed text

[edit]

Where is the proposed text to be placed in Commons:Project scope? Could a full draft of the proposed changed policy be provided? -- Jtneill - Talk 04:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this will be more suitable to be placed in a subpage, just like Commons:Project scope#Scope part 2: Pages, galleries and categories, given how complex and long this can potentially be. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI Agent jailbreak

[edit]

What about the images that were created by gaslighting the AI Agent into forgetting its rules? I am not referring specifically to illegal content, but to content that violates the Terms of Service of the AI model's company (and such a violation may also constitute a civil wrong). Vellion Eagle (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that would be considered the same as photographing in a museum with "photography forbidden" rules when entering (COM:HOUSERULES). I.e. we don't care about that. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In some scenarios, this might represent irresponsible disclosure, and if the context was corrupted by the gaslighting, image artifacts might reveal the method used. And the vulnerability might not be patched. Vellion Eagle (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not Commons' role to secure infrastructure that isn't part of Commons' remit, or to mandate particular methods of contributing. Instead, policy has to be set at the levels of the user account (to counter serial disruption) and of the individual file (which in theory is performing a role at one or more wikis). Arlo James Barnes 21:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An AI image is an AI image, and so has all of the drawbacks and negatives, and it doesn't matter whether it was generated with a prompt designed to evade input filters (I refuse to call this "prompt injection") or some other prompt, or whether it was generated with an uncensored or regular model. Also, the only possible use case for this in context of Commons I can imagine would be AI-generated images of various surgeries/injuries, something we absolutely should not allow here. Sapphaline (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

[edit]

For non-native english speaker terse wording here can be somewhat confusing. Proposals should have a bit more about the background before, such as "currently there is no restriction for AI-modified works, this section aims to limit or clarify their use and proposed wording .. etc.". Ipr1 (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What about other media types such as audio?

[edit]

The proposals are limited to visual works and don't include other media such as audio. Consider rewriting to more inclusive of different media types.

AI upscaling limited to visual works

The proposed text for AI upscaling refers to "visual works" but not also to audio or other file types which can also be upscaled. I recommend modifying to be more inclusive of media types which can be upscaled using AI.

"Visual works that were upscaled using AI are not acceptable unless the inauthenticity is indicated as described above and the file page is tagged with {{AI upscaled}}."
AI-generated photorealistic images and videos

The proposed txt for AI-generated photorealistic images and videos doesn't include other media types such as audio. I recommend being more inclusive of different media types.

"AI-generated works where a reasonable person may perceive the work, not considering the filename or description, as a video or photo taken with an actual camera are not acceptable unless the inauthenticity is indicated as described above."

... and so on (I haven't l listed the other proposals but they have similar limitations)

-- Jtneill - Talk 09:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scope or beyond scope?

[edit]

Point 1 ("A new section on Commons:Project scope...") seems to say that the proposed conditions for AI-generated content are about scope. (In other words, violating content would be out of scope.) Point 2 seems to say they are not about scope, because it categorizes them as one of "reasons beyond their scope". (In other words, violating content would have non-scope problems.) Isn't that a contradiction? --whym (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a two step check. First check for the AI policy and only if the photo is fine under this policy the check about general scope has to be done. GPSLeo (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use of authentic/inauthentic

[edit]

The proposal unnecessarily implies that non-AI media are "authentic" and AI media are "inauthentic". This is problematic for several reasons:

  • Authentic/inauthentic are not defined
  • The proposal unnecessarily conflates authentic/non-AI and inauthentic/AI; whereas some AI-generated/modified media can arguably be authentic (e.g., an svg diagram); and some non-AI-generated media can arguably be non-authentic (e.g., a hand-drawn picture of a dinosaur)
  • The wording implicitly frames AI-generated content as deficient or deceptive, embedding a value judgement into what should ideally be a neutral descriptive policy
  • Policy should focus on observable characteristics rather than debatable philosophical concepts

Instead, use language that is uncontroversial - for example, for the first sentence:

"The following kinds of AI generated files are not allowed on Commons unless it is indicated in-image and discernible in a 250 pixels wide thumbnail that the work is not authentic."

change to:

The following kinds of AI-generated files are not allowed on Commons unless it is indicated in-image and discernible in a 250 pixels wide thumbnail that the work is AI-generated."

Similar wording changes are suggested for each of the subsections.

-- Jtneill - Talk 10:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to check a 250px thumbnail

[edit]

What practical methods can a contributor use to check whether a watermark is clearly visible at 250 pixels? Could the proposal point to additional guidance?

-- Jtneill - Talk 10:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

[edit]

Could links to examples be provided for each proposed section? Contributors would likely benefit from seeing concrete examples that illustrate how the requirements are intended to be applied in practice. -- Jtneill - Talk 10:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Machine-readable identifcation of images having this watermark

[edit]

Please include some sort of machine-readable indication that a watermark has been added to the image, so wikis with "no watermarks" policies (e.g. w:en:WP:WATERMARK) can better audit when images from Commons will need to be replaced with some alternative. For example, all such images might include a specific template or be placed in a particular category. Anomie (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to add a parameter to the {{PD-algorithm}}. Something like a "comply=yes" if the file complies with this policy. GPSLeo (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would "comply=yes" be specific to watermarked images, or would people also use it for images where the "reasonable person" tests don't mandate a watermark? If the latter, that would not be sufficient for the auditing mentioned here. Anomie (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI upscaling has been the default for years

[edit]

Overall it's a good initiative. I wouldn't want to be in a situation when I open a category on Commons and I can't easily say which images are have been substantially altered. So everything here is my feedback to make the policy more effective.

Upscaling has been applied as the default for years [1], way before generative AI became a thing. Commons has thousands and thousands of such photos taken by phone cameras in the default mode. We probably don't want to remove or tag them so probably we need to define upscaling in a more precise way. Alaexis (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(I probably should go back and edit my vote on that section) That is a good point, wording probably should more precise. Abzeronow (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A faulty premise

[edit]

"Large numbers of images that do not reflect reality are being uploaded. When an inferior AI image is inserted into an article it disincentivizes actual photographers and graphic artists from creating images because they are more inclined to create an image for an article that has none. AI-altered images make the detection of violations of copyright more difficult." The proposal is based on this assumption, which takes several inaccuracies for granted

  • That photographers and graphic artists actually have that overly specific motivation.
  • That the work of photographers and graphic artists is superior to that of AI, just because
    • That the work of photographers and graphic artists "reflect reality", merely because they have a human author.
  • That the lack of an image will motivate someone to make an image to fill that void.
  • That photographers and graphic artists are always readily available to illustrate an article in need... or worse, that anyone can be a photographer or graphic artist to do so.
  • That the number of AI images being uploaded is indeed large.
  • That fanart is a new thing introduced by AI and that Commons is easily fooled by it.

This proposal is just an anti-AI witch-hunt, frequently seen on several internet pages. It is not based on reasonable arguments, just fear monguering. Cambalachero (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that no evidence was provided for load-bearing claims, I think that the problem is real. GenAI makes it possible to easily create unlimited number of artifacts, so absent some kind of filtering Commons can be swamped with AI-generated media. Alaexis (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quantifying how many files might be affected by new requirements would be a good step. It's tricky since AI 'detectors' are fallible, but even a ballpark estimate could help determine the scale of this RfC. Anecdotally, it's not hard to find examples which might fall on one side or the other of a given line in the sand. For instance, is file:POV of an ant walking inside an ant nest tunnel (Sora AI-video).webm a helpful visualisation which as the file description notes would be difficult or even impossible to capture in the wild, or is it just pseudozoological fiction (note the four-legged ant)? — Arlo James Barnes 20:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/Policy_update_for_AI_content&oldid=1238014759"