On 8/25/07, James Duncan Davidson <james(a)duncandavidson.com> wrote:
2) I'd really appreciate consideration of changing
the policy of not
attributing third party photographs where they are displayed. There are many
reasons for this, but primary is that it's an accepted practice to credit
photographs with the photograph itself.
Nyet. Plenty of books put the credit at the end. How many books have
the credit for the cover art on the cover?
As well, the Creative Commons
attribution restriction does state that the attribution be given in a manner
reasonable to the medium and the means.
The medium is wikis the means is mediawiki. Click through is the
reasonable manner in this case.
By crediting in a manner that is
accepted and practiced in the photographic industry,
We are not part of the photographic industry. More relevant examples
would be Encarta and Britannica online. Or just general websites.
it helps in a small way
to let photographers know if the CC-license their material, it'll be used in
a way that respects their wishes.
We have no way to know what the photographer's wishes are.
Placing that data one click away is not
obvious to users and doesn't feel "right" from the perspective of a
Allowing blatent violations of :
does not feel right to a wikipedian.
As well as the spaming issue is becomes problematical in cases like
this where there are three seperate authors to consider:
3) EXIF metadata should be preserved, even on resized
images. Thumbnails can
be recreated, so junking those isn't an issue. But stripping unrecoverable
information, especially that which may contain author and license
information, is a problem when the images are borrowed and used downstream.
I wish I had a good way to strip just thumbnails, but I don't currently know
of one. Flickr has the same practice as well, and it's annoying....
This would require someone to rewrite the code. In understand that
mediawiki uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageMagick