Hello all,
http://www.openstockphotography.org/ Anyone seen this? This site seems to do NOTHING but mirror Wikimedia Commons! (plus add fancy gadgets and drop the technical-license speak)
I found it by accident during a vanity search when it claimed these two photos were mine: http://www.openstockphotography.org/user/Pfctdayelise (apparently pictures on your userpage must be BY you...)
anyway click on the coloured graph and try out the 'find similar-coloured pictures' - now that's pretty cool!
the 'popular searches' are quite amusing, because 99% of them must have 0 results.
their search also seems quite shit in general. really weird stuff.
mostly I take this as a sign that Commons is suffering because of the limitations of the current MW implementation, which has no fancy gadgets for images and no easy handling of them. Goddamit, it is frustrating to have all this fantastic content and feel that no one knows about it because it's too hard to access. GRRRRRRRRR. This site should not be able to exist because WE should be able to do the fancy stuff. some of it at least.
as it happens, I found some other photos actually by me being used in various guises: http://www.tibetan-museum-society.org/java/www.php?sub=Architecture&i=6&... attribution: yes link: no mention of license: no restrictive site terms of use: yes
http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/3-ways-to-make-tai-chi-form-practice-... attribution: no? (mouseover text??) link: no mention of license: no restrictive site terms of use: yes (well a giant (C))
http://www.weltum.de/weltum/galerien/galerie.php?gall_id=155&gallbild_id... attribution: yes link: no mention of license: YES! linked, even we have a winner.
http://www.tobias-daniel.de/uebersee.html (China) attribution: yes link: yes (to de.wp image page, close enough) mention of license: yes, and linked
http://www.kefk.org/portal/webtravel/china/fenster.yuyuan-gaerten.shanghai (maybe a german speaker can tell me something about this site?) attribution: yes link: yes mention of license: yes
wikipedia content appears in a crazy number of places.
anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 3/16/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.openstockphotography.org/ Anyone seen this? This site seems to do NOTHING but mirror Wikimedia Commons! (plus add fancy gadgets and drop the technical-license speak)
They are live loading the content (i.e. they are just a proxy not a true mirror).
anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?
Yes.
El Viernes 16 Marzo 2007 16:46, Brianna Laugher escribió:
anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
I did once. I contacted the webmaster (it was a large site, using a lot of images) and he agreed to put the links, atributtion and license on each photograph.
Most of the time this happens because they are not aware of copyright law/licensing schemes, as most of our copyvios are.
Besides that, I am happy when people find useful my images :-)
Brianna Laugher wrote:
mostly I take this as a sign that Commons is suffering because of the limitations of the current MW implementation, which has no fancy gadgets for images and no easy handling of them. Goddamit, it is frustrating to have all this fantastic content and feel that no one knows about it because it's too hard to access. GRRRRRRRRR. This site should not be able to exist because WE should be able to do the fancy stuff. some of it at least.
I go back and forth on that - if we can't even agree on categories vs galleries vs something else, maybe it's just as well that it's not too visible! :-)
anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?
Yup, I've been asked for permission (apparently people don't quite believe the GFDL) for use in various books, although I haven't actually *seen* any of these books yet... My favorite usage is by the WWF, where they used my caribou-and-pipeline photo (snapped out the window of a moving bus!) to illustrate a news article about pipeline leakage, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/arctic/news/i... .
Stan
Yup, I've been asked for permission (apparently people don't quite believe the GFDL)
firstly there is the issue that i don't think you can included a gfdl image in a non gfdl book (or at least if you can its not too clear)
secondly there is the fact its nice to ask even if you don't have to and it reduces the risks of cases where people released thier images without realising what they were doing and get angry and/or sending legal threats.
peter green wrote:
Yup, I've been asked for permission (apparently people don't quite believe the GFDL)
firstly there is the issue that i don't think you can included a gfdl image in a non gfdl book (or at least if you can its not too clear)
Sure you can, just need to include license in fine print somewhere, or call it a fair use. A couple of the interchanges have been curious, in that "the GFDL allows free usage" is not enough, they want to hear "I give permission" specifically. But I'm sure if one has a hundred photographers to contact, that it's just more efficient to get the magic words than to pore over the wording of freaky copyleft licenses. :-)
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?
Yup, I've been asked for permission (apparently people don't quite believe the GFDL) for use in various books, although I haven't actually *seen* any of these books yet...
Same thing with me with pictures taken in the Louvre and released into the PD. A lot of people want to know if the Louvre's authorization is also required. One of them works for a project called "Timeline" funded by the Ministry of Education in Quebec (http://www.recitus.qc.ca/gallery/main.php). As far as I can tell, it's a repository for "free" pictures aimed for school kids; pictures' licenses seem to be respected. There doesn't seem to be a lot of traffic there, though.
I also got requests for a written permission note from researchers who wished to use a picture to illustrate an article. Apparently a lot of publishers require it now.
On 3/16/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.kefk.org/portal/webtravel/china/fenster.yuyuan-gaerten.shanghai (maybe a german speaker can tell me something about this site?)
The "Kefk Network" (first time I've heard of it, actually) apparently is a network of news and hierarchically organized articles, focusing on tech (like slashdot) and related politics and social stuff, but also some "classic" cultural things like photography, video, and classical singing(!).
They claim their structure to be superior to wikis (using wikipedia as an example) through "semantic features" (didn't check for these) and hierarchy-based article structure (claimed to be superior to our category system). They claim to be around since the 1990.
They emphasize FOSS and community aspects, so they apparently want to be friendly competition. They finance themselves through ads/affiliate programs with Amazon and others.
The name Kefk stems from C. J. Cherryhs Alliance/ Union Universe-cycle.
de.wikipedia links to a few of their articles.
More than you wanted to know, probably ;-)
Magnus
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Hello all,
http://www.openstockphotography.org/ Anyone seen this? This site seems to do NOTHING but mirror Wikimedia Commons! (plus add fancy gadgets and drop the technical-license speak)
I found it by accident during a vanity search when it claimed these two photos were mine: http://www.openstockphotography.org/user/Pfctdayelise (apparently pictures on your userpage must be BY you...)
They are predating our content. Not even knowing how it works (eg licenses). "All images listed at Open Stock Photography come from Wikimedia Commons and as such "can be used by anyone, for any purpose[1]"" but they include {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} :P
On the bottom of each page © Open Stock Photography. All rights reserved.
anyway click on the coloured graph and try out the 'find similar-coloured pictures' - now that's pretty cool!
Yes, it's nice. Their tools (resize, crop) are links to external sites, so fair easy to add them to Commons.
the 'popular searches' are quite amusing, because 99% of them must have 0 results.
Seems the typical "internet crap". Would be interesting to know what does people search on commons.
their search also seems quite shit in general. really weird stuff.
mostly I take this as a sign that Commons is suffering because of the limitations of the current MW implementation, which has no fancy gadgets for images and no easy handling of them. Goddamit, it is frustrating to have all this fantastic content and feel that no one knows about it because it's too hard to access. GRRRRRRRRR. This site should not be able to exist because WE should be able to do the fancy stuff. some of it at least.
We should make a list of that features. Then we can get things like mayflower. -On browser image edit (adding a link) -Color search -<Add your requested feature here>
More out and abouts I found from Google:
News article http://article.wn.com/view/2007/03/14/Indias_Reliance_says_in_talks_with_Car... Improperly attributed use of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carrefour_at_Faa%27a_French_Polynesi...
The BBC religion website mentions us as one of their image sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/copyright.shtml , although "Old and public-domain images and media" is not exactly the full story...
Ubuntu desktops: http://art.ubuntu.com/main.php?g2_itemId=592 (although 'Wikipedia Commons'... argh...almost!)
I also ran across a number of blog posts about the POTD competition. I didn't realise what a great opportunity that competition would be to boost our rep a bit. Now I look forward with enthusiasm to 2007's. :)
cheers Brianna
On 3/24/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Ubuntu desktops: http://art.ubuntu.com/main.php?g2_itemId=592 (although 'Wikipedia Commons'... argh...almost!)
I suspect thats a battle that we're not going to win. ;) Perhaps we should change our name to match perceptions?
On 25/03/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/24/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Ubuntu desktops: http://art.ubuntu.com/main.php?g2_itemId=592 (although 'Wikipedia Commons'... argh...almost!)
I suspect thats a battle that we're not going to win. ;) Perhaps we should change our name to match perceptions?
I agree. And also 'Wikipedia Books', 'Wikipedia Source Library', 'Wikipedia News', 'Wikipedia Dictionary' and of course all managed by the 'Wikipedia Foundation'.
:)
--~~~~
Quoting Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com: <snip>
The BBC religion website mentions us as one of their image sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/copyright.shtml , although "Old and public-domain images and media" is not exactly the full story...
<snip>
Things *are* changing. They've taken stuff direct from flickr too. But no mention of CC licences:(.
Will
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.