http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/
I note that free-content is not quite mentioned. I am somewhat pleased that many photographers' sense of entitlement *is* mentioned.
(Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image. Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)
- d.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:
(Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image. Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)
Looking at a typical image I've uplaoded to Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:43040-CastleCary-01.jpg I cannot see how the layout can be improved on for the elements a resuer needs: Picture Description (including source) License
I acutally think this is easier to find the information on, particualrly re licensing, than on Flickr. I have no experience of commercial photo archives, so I don't know how they operate.
What about the current layout do journalists not understand/not like?
On 29/12/06, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:
(Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image. Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)
What about the current layout do journalists not understand/not like?
Finding the author/uploader or even being able to work out which bit of the interface is the username. Working out that clicking on that will take them to the uploader's user page. If the uploader has a userpage on Commons at all. Etc.
- d.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:
On 29/12/06, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:
(Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image. Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)
What about the current layout do journalists not understand/not like?
Finding the author/uploader or even being able to work out which bit of the interface is the username. Working out that clicking on that will take them to the uploader's user page. If the uploader has a userpage on Commons at all. Etc.
Well the {{information}} template that is the encouraged standard has a prominent field for Author. In that all of my images that I upload are shown as: Author - Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)
With my username linking to my Commons user page. Looking at the newly uplaoded files this appears to be better than average. Taking two as examples: Image:OldPegasusBridge.jpg - This is a file that has been copied from en.wp and altough it uses the {{information}} template it has little information in it. I was the one who added the link to the user page on en of the author as I happened to recognise it (I also noticed it belonged in another category).
The other is Image:Calzolari, Icilio - Piazza della Scala.gif This is a PD-old file of a square in Milan, taken ca.1880-1890. It doesn't use the {{information}} template, but does have most of the information. The author is Icilio Calzolari, which you find out through following the link which redirects to a category with a description in Italian. It appears that this person does not have an article on en.wp or it.wp
I am not certain that a redesign of the page is needed, but perhaps mandatory use of the {{information}} template - possibly with an auto-generated link to the userpage of teh uploader if this is possible.
Is it technically possible to include a blank {{information}} template on the image description page for new uploads? Or maybe redesign the upload page to have several input fields corresponding to the template rather than one single free-form box as now? Would this require a hack to MediaWiki?
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/
Heh, a more articulate version of the complaints I heard in the late 1990s from software engineers at compiler companies, when GCC started putting them out of business. Today, compiler companies are an obscure bit of computing history.
Stan
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I note that free-content is not quite mentioned. I am somewhat pleased that many photographers' sense of entitlement *is* mentioned.
In fact, the entire article is about sense-of-entitlement.
-Matt
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/
Seems to lack a unified argument. First complains about people ignoring copyright and then complains about people not ignoring but buying the rights cheaply.
Indeed the existence of large search able databases would appear to be a greater problem for his business model than the copyright apathetic (true anti-copyright are in my experience pretty uncommon).
It also appears to stick exlusively to US law which I would argue is something of an error
On 1/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to lack a unified argument. First complains about people ignoring copyright and then complains about people not ignoring but buying the rights cheaply.
For the most part folks on Dpreview were not impressed:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=214491...
The author freely intermixed sever distinct phenomenon.
[snip]
It also appears to stick exlusively to US law which I would argue is something of an error
More like sticking exclusively to his misconceptions of copyright, such as the idea that it exists to enable him to make a living in his choice of professions. :)
On 1/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I note that free-content is not quite mentioned. I am somewhat pleased that many photographers' sense of entitlement *is* mentioned.
[snip]
Sure, although it makes me wonder why the By and By-Sa 2.5 revision CC licenses are so popular, since they don't demand attribution to the photographer at all so long as the work has been submitted by someone to a site whos terms of service designate someone else to receive attribution...