Liam Wyatt wrote:
The attribution information alongside the "Sunbaker" photo is copied directly from the gallery's website, which is also linked from the image. Furthermore, the filename is the same as the Gallery's record number. Attention to this detail is something that they greatly appreciate. Furthermore, displaying such information with the object is often a condition of its donation to the institution. In short, all the information that we would often see as superfluous - such as, "Type C photograph, gift of the John Doe foundation, 1975" - they see as absolutely essential to the attribution. We have no reason not to follow their practice as it makes no difference to us. Our insistence that "we don't have to, it's PD" only makes us look silly and them less likely to want to work with us. Meeting their requirements would be a good thing to do.
I could see adding an {{information incomplete}} (do we have one already?) to images that meet our minimum requirements to stay on commons, but are lacking details - often images are uploaded from some other site, people not realizing that there is a definitive source with more information.
Another thing that I think people are ambivalent about is making explicit categories of "files from institution XYZ", because it might seem like preparing the contents of an overzealous lawyer's C&D letter. But I think we should make a habit of it anyway, link back to institution's article(s), etc - it looks more like we're welcoming participation rather than surreptiously sneaking in some images and covering our tracks.
Stan