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