http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Meet_our_photographers
Anyone adding themselves to this? (No, I haven't myself as yet ...)
I ask because I have use right now for some examples of photographers who contribute professional-quality work under GFDL *and sell it as well* to those who don't want to simply use it under GFDL. (Because GFDL is easy to obey in books and on the web, but damn near impossible in magazines or pamphlets.) I have some photographers I want to convince that putting stuff on Commons is good advertising for their talents.
- d.
Hello,
You need to have at least 10 FPs to be listed here. But for a professional photographer that should not be a big deal.
Bryan
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Meet_our_photographers
Anyone adding themselves to this? (No, I haven't myself as yet ...)
I ask because I have use right now for some examples of photographers who contribute professional-quality work under GFDL *and sell it as well* to those who don't want to simply use it under GFDL. (Because GFDL is easy to obey in books and on the web, but damn near impossible in magazines or pamphlets.) I have some photographers I want to convince that putting stuff on Commons is good advertising for their talents.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 28/05/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
You need to have at least 10 FPs to be listed here. But for a professional photographer that should not be a big deal.
So far there's 0 participants.
- d.
There are around 10 people who qualify. I've emailed most of them. So far no one has written about themselves to put up an entry. As soon as they do, they're welcome to be listed there.
Brianna
On 28/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
You need to have at least 10 FPs to be listed here. But for a professional photographer that should not be a big deal.
So far there's 0 participants.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 5/28/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
There are around 10 people who qualify. I've emailed most of them. So far no one has written about themselves to put up an entry. As soon as they do, they're welcome to be listed there.
It looks to me like the requirement is much too high to be listed. The page doesn't title itself as 'Our very very very very best photographers', after all.
Furthermore, the page itself doesn't mention inclusion criteria AT ALL; only the talk page does. That makes it rather misleading.
-Matt
On 30/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
There are around 10 people who qualify. I've emailed most of them. So far no one has written about themselves to put up an entry. As soon as they do, they're welcome to be listed there.
It looks to me like the requirement is much too high to be listed. The page doesn't title itself as 'Our very very very very best photographers', after all.
Furthermore, the page itself doesn't mention inclusion criteria AT ALL; only the talk page does. That makes it rather misleading.
It's unusual, for a wiki page, but this page doesn't really have a wiki audience. Not sure how it's misleading.
What do you think is a reasonable critierion? How many people could be comfortably listed on such a page? A dozen or so strikes me as about right. After that, who's going to pay attention?
cheers, Brianna
On 30/05/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
It's unusual, for a wiki page, but this page doesn't really have a wiki audience. Not sure how it's misleading. What do you think is a reasonable critierion? How many people could be comfortably listed on such a page? A dozen or so strikes me as about right. After that, who's going to pay attention?
It sounds like you should just write the page and then get the subjects' permission - they're evidently not going to do so themselves.
- d.
On 5/29/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
It's unusual, for a wiki page, but this page doesn't really have a wiki audience. Not sure how it's misleading.
It's misleading in that it doesn't say anything along the lines of 'Meet our best photographers' or '... selection of our best photographers', or something along these lines.
Also, if nothing about the criteria or indeed the page's purpose are stated on the page, anyone who considers themselves a photographer and doesn't read the talk page carefully will add themselves.
What do you think is a reasonable critierion? How many people could be comfortably listed on such a page? A dozen or so strikes me as about right. After that, who's going to pay attention?
A dozen, maybe 20, or so? Whatever criteria can select a good, representative number. I'd say less than eight looks bad, though. Right now it seems to have one.
-Matt
On 30/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
It's unusual, for a wiki page, but this page doesn't really have a wiki audience. Not sure how it's misleading.
It's misleading in that it doesn't say anything along the lines of 'Meet our best photographers' or '... selection of our best photographers', or something along these lines.
It says 'This page showcases a selection of the highly skilled photographers...' (I just now inserted 'a selection of'). Do you think this is clear enough?
Also, if nothing about the criteria or indeed the page's purpose are stated on the page, anyone who considers themselves a photographer and doesn't read the talk page carefully will add themselves.
I added a notice to the top of the talk page I had intended to do this once a criterion had been set. Since it seems set, for now at least, I added the notice.
MatthewMaggs thought to add a notice to the page itself, but IMO it looks unprofessional (like a press release in mid draft). Maybe I will be overruled on this point?
What do you think is a reasonable critierion? How many people could be comfortably listed on such a page? A dozen or so strikes me as about right. After that, who's going to pay attention?
A dozen, maybe 20, or so? Whatever criteria can select a good, representative number. I'd say less than eight looks bad, though. Right now it seems to have one.
As I said, about 10 people *qualify* (and several others within striking distance). We're waiting for people to write profiles.
There's no rush, is there? (notwithstanding David's original post, which is perhaps now a lapsed opportunity)
cheers Brianna
On 30/05/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
There's no rush, is there? (notwithstanding David's original post, which is perhaps now a lapsed opportunity)
Yeah, I was after something else entirely: examples of people who get sales from their GFDL uploads.
- d.
Yeah, I was after something else entirely: examples of people who get sales from their GFDL uploads.
Roland Zumbühl is certainly one of these photographers. He is not on the list but uploaded over 1000 high quality pics. He sells the pictures in high resolution too.
see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picswiss_project
Regards
Robin
2007/6/10, Robin Schwab contact@robinschwab.ch:
Yeah, I was after something else entirely: examples of people who get sales from their GFDL uploads.
Roland Zumbühl is certainly one of these photographers. He is not on the list but uploaded over 1000 high quality pics. He sells the pictures in high resolution too.
see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picswiss_project
Maybe they are high-quality, but in the first place they are low-res :(
AJF/WarX
Artur Fijałkowski schrieb:
2007/6/10, Robin Schwab contact@robinschwab.ch:
Yeah, I was after something else entirely: examples of people who get sales from their GFDL uploads.
Roland Zumbühl is certainly one of these photographers. He is not on the list but uploaded over 1000 high quality pics. He sells the pictures in high resolution too.
see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picswiss_project
Maybe they are high-quality, but in the first place they are low-res :(
Well that's to sell high res pics. For Wikipedia articles 300x450px do just fine.
2007/6/10, Robin Schwab contact@robinschwab.ch:
Well that's to sell high res pics. For Wikipedia articles 300x450px do just fine.
No! As far as we want to be repository of images size is very important! People want to use Commons as source of images for many different applications and in most of them high resolution is better then low (or even low is unusable).
Welcome to the Wikimedia Commons a database of 1,544,303 freely reusable media files to which anyone can contribute
As long as we do not want to change it to:
Welcome to the Wikipedia Commons a database of 1,544,303 freely reusable media files which are usable only on screen display
we SHOULD demand high-res images.
AJF/WarX
On 6/10/07, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
2007/6/10, Robin Schwab contact@robinschwab.ch:
Well that's to sell high res pics. For Wikipedia articles 300x450px do just fine.
No! As far as we want to be repository of images size is very important! People want to use Commons as source of images for many different applications and in most of them high resolution is better then low (or even low is unusable).
Welcome to the Wikimedia Commons a database of 1,544,303 freely reusable media files to which anyone can contributeAs long as we do not want to change it to:
Welcome to the Wikipedia Commons a database of 1,544,303 freely reusable media files which are usable only on screen displaywe SHOULD demand high-res images.
AJF/WarX
Note that Commons is not just a "stick the image here so we can use it on an article" source, it's a free media repository to be used both on articles, in userspace, for projects, and in many different conditions. When an image is used on an article people still click the thumbnail to see the full-size version; if we only have small ones it is annoying for people who want to see a high-resolution version or use the images on school projects and in other conditions.
Another very important point is that images often need editing or can be improved for better use on articles; if they are low-res it is much harder to edit them and quality is often lost. A high-res image of an owl you can crop, lighten, darken, and make into various different images of eyes, feathers, beak, ears, wings, etc. A low-res image is... just an image of an owl and can't be used for anything else.
The statement that "people see the low-res GFDL and will pay me for a full version" is a good point, but the fact that a few high-res images show of a person's work and get them noticed is neglected. I've had requests from people for images relatiing to ones I have taken that they've seen and/or used; I opted to license them as GFDL as well but I could have requested payment had I wished to. Having free images used on places like wikipedia articles is a good way to get yourself noticed and known, and having full-res versions uploaded so people can see the quality in detail is a definite plus. As well, of course, there is the fact that it is towards a good cause; these images of good quality are used in school projects, presentations, and other instances where no payment would be recieved anyway.
On 6/10/07, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
2007/6/10, Robin Schwab contact@robinschwab.ch:
Well that's to sell high res pics. For Wikipedia articles 300x450px do just fine.
No! As far as we want to be repository of images size is very important! People want to use Commons as source of images for many different applications and in most of them high resolution is better then low (or even low is unusable).
Welcome to the Wikimedia Commons a database of 1,544,303 freely reusable media files to which anyone can contributeAs long as we do not want to change it to:
Welcome to the Wikipedia Commons a database of 1,544,303 freely reusable media files which are usable only on screen display
But it's not Welcome to the Wikimedia Commons a database of 1,544,303 freely reusable media files which have to be hi-res (>4Megapixel) either
we SHOULD demand high-res images.
We should WANT hi-res images. We should PREFER hi-res images.
DEMANDING them in a volunteer project is, well... problematic. Let's settle for taking web-grade stuff as well, if that's what's offered.
Magnus
Magnus
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
We should WANT hi-res images. We should PREFER hi-res images.
DEMANDING them in a volunteer project is, well... problematic. Let's settle for taking web-grade stuff as well, if that's what's offered.
Magnus
Problem is that the software doesn't work too well for high res images. Eg:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:P%26A_betweenChichesterandArundel.pn...
On 6/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
We should WANT hi-res images. We should PREFER hi-res images.
DEMANDING them in a volunteer project is, well... problematic. Let's settle for taking web-grade stuff as well, if that's what's offered.
Magnus
Problem is that the software doesn't work too well for high res images. Eg:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:P%26A_betweenChichesterandArundel.pn...
Maybe it's the "&" in the filename tha causes trouble?
Magnus
No, it's a thing with very large PNGs. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Very_large_blank_maps_of_the_worl....
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
We should WANT hi-res images. We should PREFER hi-res images.
DEMANDING them in a volunteer project is, well... problematic. Let's settle for taking web-grade stuff as well, if that's what's offered.
Magnus
Problem is that the software doesn't work too well for high res images.
Eg:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:P%26A_betweenChichesterandArundel.pn...
Maybe it's the "&" in the filename tha causes trouble?
Magnus
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe it's the "&" in the filename tha causes trouble?
Magnus
No see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:P%26A_betweenChichesterandArundelred...
I'm pretty sure the problem is due the the width of the image
Magnus Manske schrieb:
we SHOULD demand high-res images.
We should WANT hi-res images. We should PREFER hi-res images.
I perfectly agree.
DEMANDING them in a volunteer project is, well... problematic. Let's settle for taking web-grade stuff as well, if that's what's offered.
I agree too. The thread was asking for pro photographers who sell their images on commons. I proposed one that uses Wikimedia Commons as a marketing platform. We get very good pictures for articles instead.
If you are a photographer that earns his living with photography why would you upload high res pics? The fact that you get those pictures /after/ paying makes shure the photographer gets his money.
Regards
Robin
On 5/30/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
It says 'This page showcases a selection of the highly skilled photographers...' (I just now inserted 'a selection of'). Do you think this is clear enough?
Certainly addresses the bulk of it., because it makes it clearer that not being on this list doesn't mean you're not one of our highly-skilled photographers. Egos and all that ...
I added a notice to the top of the talk page I had intended to do this once a criterion had been set. Since it seems set, for now at least, I added the notice.
Again good.
MatthewMaggs thought to add a notice to the page itself, but IMO it looks unprofessional (like a press release in mid draft). Maybe I will be overruled on this point?
Perhaps a HTML comment near the top so that it doesn't appear to viewers but might be obvious to an editor? I don't like doing this in general but this might be an appropriate place.
As I said, about 10 people *qualify* (and several others within striking distance). We're waiting for people to write profiles.
There's no rush, is there? (notwithstanding David's original post, which is perhaps now a lapsed opportunity)
No rush, certainly. I do have a little concern about setting counts of Featured Pictures up to be the only thing we care about. FP can be a bit capricious about what it values at times. Not sure if I can think of a better way to decide off-hand, though.
-Matt
Bryan Tong Minh a écrit :
Hello,
You need to have at least 10 FPs to be listed here. But for a professional photographer that should not be a big deal.
Bryan
This rule alone prevents almost everybody to get into this list. Unsurprisingly the list is empty...
Yann
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I ask because I have use right now for some examples of photographers who contribute professional-quality work under GFDL *and sell it as well* to those who don't want to simply use it under GFDL. (Because GFDL is easy to obey in books and on the web, but damn near impossible in magazines or pamphlets.) I have some photographers I want to convince that putting stuff on Commons is good advertising for their talents.
Given our licencing policies and what we know about the likely future of the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License I would suggest that what you are doing may be accidentally misleading.
On 28/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I ask because I have use right now for some examples of photographers who contribute professional-quality work under GFDL *and sell it as well* to those who don't want to simply use it under GFDL. (Because GFDL is easy to obey in books and on the web, but damn near impossible in magazines or pamphlets.) I have some photographers I want to convince that putting stuff on Commons is good advertising for their talents.
Given our licencing policies and what we know about the likely future of the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License I would suggest that what you are doing may be accidentally misleading.
Um, what do "we" know about this? Apart from it being more or less a great big special case for Wikipedia.
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Um, what do "we" know about this? Apart from it being more or less a great big special case for Wikipedia.
- d.
I suspect that keeping Debian happy may also be a factor (the wikimedia special case would have been GNU Wiki License but that doesn't appear to be happening).
Well obviously we know about:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html
Which in theory drops invariant sections (it doesn't it just knocks out the most obvious ones). It also drops the requirement to include the full lisence in all cases which makes it rather more publisher friendly.
On 28/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Well obviously we know about: http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html
GPL v3 has nothing whatsoever to do with the GFDL.
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Well obviously we know about: http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html
GPL v3 has nothing whatsoever to do with the GFDL.
- d.
Not actually true (some ideas are being Incorporated or at least people are thinking about doing so). But in any case I didn't link to a copy of GPL v3. I linked to a copy of "SFDLv1: First discussion draft"
Comments invited here:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gsfdl-draft-1.html#1849:
(from our POV " E. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Work." needs modifying since it creates problems with image watermarks.)
There is talk of a future GPL being suitable for things other than programs but not the GPL 3.0