An author has contacted me to use some of my photographs in a book (a big, serious, scholarly, several-volume thing). He contacted me, and several other users, after seeing images on Commons. Consequences:
1) Commons does get some visibility, and provides images to serious work. Cheer up, people !
2) The author is enquiring how I wish to be credited. What do you people think would be a concise yet effective way to mention Wikimedia Commons in such cases ?
Cheers ! -- Rama
Just to remind you: if you own the copyright on the photographs you are in no way required to mention Wikimedia Commons or the license of your photographs, because they are non-exclusive. You can re-release your photographs under any license you want (including commercial non-distributable licenses). Of course, if you want to mention Commons / the license, that's really cool.
I don't know how long the credit may be, but maybe something like this: "Photographs on pages X, X, X by Rama Rama. Released under License X. Distributed by Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org"
-- Hay / Husky
On 10/24/07, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
An author has contacted me to use some of my photographs in a book (a big, serious, scholarly, several-volume thing). He contacted me, and several other users, after seeing images on Commons. Consequences:
- Commons does get some visibility, and provides images to serious
work. Cheer up, people !
- The author is enquiring how I wish to be credited. What do you
people think would be a concise yet effective way to mention Wikimedia Commons in such cases ?
Cheers ! -- Rama
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 10/24/07, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
An author has contacted me to use some of my photographs in a book (a big, serious, scholarly, several-volume thing). He contacted me, and several other users, after seeing images on Commons. Consequences:
- Commons does get some visibility, and provides images to serious
work. Cheer up, people !
Yes! I have been contacted about two images as well.
- The author is enquiring how I wish to be credited. What do you
people think would be a concise yet effective way to mention Wikimedia Commons in such cases ?
An additional, but related issue: While the ones asking for permission were aware of free licenses, their publisher insisted on a written permission (even if it's just an email, which is ridiculous).
Maybe we should set up a page ([[Commons:Permission and credits]]?) that 1. Gives "blanket permission" for free licenses (like "By uploading files under a free license, the author gives permission for everyone to use them under certain conditions:"; IANAL) 2. Gives an example of an image credit
Magnus
This is a great point! What, if any, accepted standards are there for providing adequate credit in a commons licensed work? What would you like to see? Name of contributor, obviously, but URL as well? Email address or other contact info? Site attribution? Copyright info? Just brainstorming here...
Dave
Magnus Manske wrote:
On 10/24/07, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
An author has contacted me to use some of my photographs in a book (a big, serious, scholarly, several-volume thing). He contacted me, and several other users, after seeing images on Commons. Consequences:
- Commons does get some visibility, and provides images to serious
work. Cheer up, people !
Yes! I have been contacted about two images as well.
- The author is enquiring how I wish to be credited. What do you
people think would be a concise yet effective way to mention Wikimedia Commons in such cases ?
An additional, but related issue: While the ones asking for permission were aware of free licenses, their publisher insisted on a written permission (even if it's just an email, which is ridiculous).
Maybe we should set up a page ([[Commons:Permission and credits]]?) that
- Gives "blanket permission" for free licenses (like "By uploading
files under a free license, the author gives permission for everyone to use them under certain conditions:"; IANAL) 2. Gives an example of an image credit
Magnus
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
The author mentioned that he'd be comfortable with the CC-by licence, but requests explicit autorisation in the case of the CC-by-sa licence. I reckon that this is because it's not clear whether the whole book would be considered to be a derivative work of the image or not (I think that it's obviously not the case, but it's only my opinion and others think otherwise).
For the credit line, it depends on where credits are given. On a "photographic credits" page, it's easy because lots of space is available. Immediately under a photograph, the credit line should be concise (which is why CC-by-sa works much better than the GFDL in this case). Hence my question: the thing should be informative, advertise Commons efficiently, yet be non-intrusive and concise. Something like "(c) Foobar, Cc-by-sa, Wikimedia Commons" "Photograph Foobar (Wikimedia Commons), Cc-by-sa" "Photo Foobar, pub. Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa" ...
Wednesday, 24 October 2007, Magnus Manske wrote:
An additional, but related issue: While the ones asking for permission were aware of free licenses, their publisher insisted on a written permission (even if it's just an email, which is ridiculous).
Maybe we should set up a page ([[Commons:Permission and credits]]?) that 1. Gives "blanket permission" for free licenses (like "By uploading files under a free license, the author gives permission for everyone to use them under certain conditions:"; IANAL) 2. Gives an example of an image credit
It's probably wise for others wanting to use our works, particularly in a commercial project, to get an additional assertion that the uploader does indeed have the right to license the work. People who aren't familiar with Commons might not be able to tell an image with dubious legal information from a credible one.
On 24/10/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe we should set up a page ([[Commons:Permission and credits]]?) that
- Gives "blanket permission" for free licenses (like "By uploading
files under a free license, the author gives permission for everyone to use them under certain conditions:"; IANAL) 2. Gives an example of an image credit
[[Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia]] does 1. For 2., we might add example credits in each case.
- d.
We seem to have a problem with licences like the GFDL or the CC-by-sa, for which potential users seem to be uncertain what constitutes derivative work. Our [[Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia]] says
"You must make your version available under CC-BY-SA." and "Any derivative works must stay under the GFDL. When using a photo placed under the GFDL licence as part of a larger work, the larger work must also be released under GFDL for usage to be within the license terms."
This seems to be a problem for people who want to use an image in a book and cannot release the entirety of the book under the GFDL or the CC-by-sa.
On 10/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/10/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe we should set up a page ([[Commons:Permission and credits]]?) that
- Gives "blanket permission" for free licenses (like "By uploading
files under a free license, the author gives permission for everyone to use them under certain conditions:"; IANAL) 2. Gives an example of an image credit
[[Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia]] does 1. For 2., we might add example credits in each case.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 25/10/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
We seem to have a problem with licences like the GFDL or the CC-by-sa, for which potential users seem to be uncertain what constitutes derivative work. Our [[Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia]] says "You must make your version available under CC-BY-SA." and "Any derivative works must stay under the GFDL. When using a photo placed under the GFDL licence as part of a larger work, the larger work must also be released under GFDL for usage to be within the license terms." This seems to be a problem for people who want to use an image in a book and cannot release the entirety of the book under the GFDL or the CC-by-sa.
I asked the FSF specifically about what constitutes "the larger work", and (as noted in the FAQ) they said ask a lawyer if in doubt. We really can't give any better advice than that.
- d.
On 25/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/10/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
We seem to have a problem with licences like the GFDL or the CC-by-sa, for which potential users seem to be uncertain what constitutes derivative work. Our [[Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia]] says "You must make your version available under CC-BY-SA." and "Any derivative works must stay under the GFDL. When using a photo placed under the GFDL licence as part of a larger work, the larger work must also be released under GFDL for usage to be within the license terms." This seems to be a problem for people who want to use an image in a book and cannot release the entirety of the book under the GFDL or the CC-by-sa.
I asked the FSF specifically about what constitutes "the larger work", and (as noted in the FAQ) they said ask a lawyer if in doubt. We really can't give any better advice than that.
We need some lawsuits as precedents, because until it goes to court it just seems to be one lawyer's opinion against another's. So any volunteers? ;)
cheers Brianna
On 25/10/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
We need some lawsuits as precedents, because until it goes to court it just seems to be one lawyer's opinion against another's. So any volunteers? ;)
cheers Brianna
Not a good idea. Apart from anything else the most obvious targets would be the various wikimedia projects and the FSF.
On 27/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/10/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
We need some lawsuits as precedents, because until it goes to court it just seems to be one lawyer's opinion against another's. So any volunteers? ;)
cheers Brianna
Not a good idea. Apart from anything else the most obvious targets would be the various wikimedia projects and the FSF.
1) I wasn't serious, and 2) I don't see how. Book/Webpage uses CC-BY-SA or GFDL image from Commons. Commons author sues book/webpage author for (in their eyes) breaking the license by not releasing the book/webpage under the same license. Then we would know a legal interpretation.
Of course, if it was the "wrong" interpretation, we'd be a bit screwed and have to do a hella lotta cleanup real quick. (Wikinews could only use CC-BY or PD images. The rest could only use GFDL or CC-BY or PD images, so I imagine there would be an incredible dual-licensing drive.) But at least we would know for sure.
Well, given that, I'm rather glad we don't know after all. ;)
cheers Brianna
Today I say that one of my photographs had been published in the French edition of "Scientific American" ("Pour la Science" in French), without the licence (nor my knowledge, for that matter).
I'll end up wondering if our page on how to use the images is understandable... -- Rama
On 29/10/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Today I say that one of my photographs had been published in the French edition of "Scientific American" ("Pour la Science" in French), without the licence (nor my knowledge, for that matter).
I'll end up wondering if our page on how to use the images is understandable... -- Rama
Understandable? yes respected? ah not so much.
On 30/10/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Today I say that one of my photographs had been published in the French edition of "Scientific American" ("Pour la Science" in French), without the licence (nor my knowledge, for that matter).
I'll end up wondering if our page on how to use the images is understandable...
Fair use?
Brianna
On 29/10/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/10/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Today I say that one of my photographs had been published in the French edition of "Scientific American" ("Pour la Science" in French), without the licence (nor my knowledge, for that matter). I'll end up wondering if our page on how to use the images is understandable...
Fair use?
Used under the "Because we can" rule?
I presume you've contacted them to add a note to the website and a suitable acknowledgement next print issue ...
- d.
Rama, you may wish to start by changing either your first or last names. Maybe both.
sincerely
Wendell Tomlin, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rama Rama" ramaneko@gmail.com To: Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:27 AM Subject: [Commons-l] Credits in books
An author has contacted me to use some of my photographs in a book (a big, serious, scholarly, several-volume thing). He contacted me, and several other users, after seeing images on Commons. Consequences:
- Commons does get some visibility, and provides images to serious
work. Cheer up, people !
- The author is enquiring how I wish to be credited. What do you
people think would be a concise yet effective way to mention Wikimedia Commons in such cases ?
Cheers ! -- Rama
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
An author has contacted me to use some of my photographs in a book (a big, serious, scholarly, several-volume thing). He contacted me, and several other users, after seeing images on Commons. Consequences:
I've been contected myself a while ago (possibly the same project) and for the reasons you stated I requested my Credit to be "Daniel Schwen, Wikimedia Commons"
In most newspapers and magazines the format is usually:
'FORMAT: PHOTOGRAPHER / AGENCY'
E.g.: 'Photo: Peter Photographer / Reuters'
For Commons photos we might use the format:
'FORMAT: PHOTOGRAPHER / Wikimedia Commons / LICENSE'
E.g. 'Photo: Rama Rama / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY'
-- Hay / Husky
On 10/24/07, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
An author has contacted me to use some of my photographs in a book (a big, serious, scholarly, several-volume thing). He contacted me, and several other users, after seeing images on Commons. Consequences:
I've been contected myself a while ago (possibly the same project) and for the reasons you stated I requested my Credit to be "Daniel Schwen, Wikimedia Commons"
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l