Visual policy
An image may document an organism, explain an idea or accompany a story, but these roles are not interchangeable. Here we explain how we check identity, provenance and rights, and when publishing without an image is the better choice.
We distinguish documentary photographs, explanatory illustrations and editorial compositions. A photograph shows a particular subject but cannot alone establish an entire species range or explain why an animal behaved in a certain way. An illustration can clarify a process without being presented as a real observation. The type and limits of a resource should be clear on the page.
Before linking a photograph to a species, we check that the identification fits the visible organism and that the source context does not contradict the text. Age, sex, life stage, season and place can affect appearance. A platform label alone is not a validated identification or proof of local occurrence. Species profiles require an identified documentary image with verified rights.
We check the original file page, not merely a provider-wide licence or search result. We retain the creator, source link, specific licence and reuse conditions, including attribution, changes and share-alike terms where applicable. Visibility online or inclusion in Wikipedia does not by itself permit republication. We do not use files with unclear rights.
Credits appear with the resource or at an accessible location linked to it, together with its source and licence. We may resize or convert a file for the page while preserving required attribution and declaring changes where required. Cropping must not make an image appear to prove something it did not show. Publishing external media on FaunaGuide does not transfer its creator’s rights to us.
For general stories and guides, an editorial illustration may be appropriate if no suitable documentary image is available and its rights are clear. AI-generated visuals are visibly labelled. They are not used as documentary depictions of a particular species, diagnostic traits, range or observed behaviour, and cannot replace the visual evidence required for a species profile.
For recordings and other media, we check the specific file’s provenance, creator, licence and conditions of use. We assess the organism’s identity, location and behaviour separately from its reuse rights. A recording may illustrate a call or soundscape, but its metadata must support the species and context claimed. A freely reusable file is not automatically biological evidence.
An ordinary story or article may be published without an image if it passes the other editorial checks. We do not add an irrelevant, repeated, misidentified or ambiguously licensed photograph to fill a space. Formats built around visual evidence, including species profiles and photo essays, have their own requirements; otherwise the item remains under review or changes format.
Each image should contribute to the specific piece. We avoid using one photograph as the main image of different articles and check existing uses before assigning it. A related species, a different habitat or another interaction cannot be shown as if it documented the exact case described. Visual variety never outweighs accuracy or rights.
Alternative text describes what the image contributes without turning uncertain identification into fact. Captions and credits distinguish evidence, interpretation and illustration. No single image should guide eating wild plants or fungi, handling wildlife, medical treatment or action affecting protected species. Such decisions require specialist assessment and further context.
Identifications, licences and links can change or prove wrong. A documented concern prompts a check of the original file and the claim it accompanies; a resource may be replaced or removed while the issue is resolved. Specific credits remain with each piece of content. This page sets out the general policy, not an image inventory.