I just wrote the following in a message on Wikimedia/Wikipedia
popularity to foundation-l:
> In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
> categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
> like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
> basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine). You
> describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
> and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
> something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
> search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
> Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa." You would, with a moment's
> thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
> that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.
The conversation came from one particular journalist and watching his
eyes light up at the idea of a free photo repository that was any
bloody good.
So. I've never used Getty Images or a similar stock photo database.
* What does Commons need in terms of indexing to be that *usable*?
* How are we for subject area coverage? (I have no idea what searches
are popular.)
* Do we have a list of taglines print editors can slap on photos and
be working within the licence? Shorter the better, obviously.
("Working within the license" here meaning that it would be clear to a
judge that when the paper put the photographer's name and "Reusable
under Creative Commons cc-by-sa 1/2/2.5" they were communicating it
enough for any sensible person and not even the most querulous
cc-by-sa user would have a real case. Though that's verging on
lawyering without a licence. But anyway.)
etc. What question have I missed? What do we need to be a useful image
repository for consumers such as commercial print media? Imagine that
much open content circulating, and spreading the notion of openness
...
- d.