All right. Here's a very specific example of what I want to do. There's a species of bird called the Horned Grebe or the [[Slavonian Grebe]].
Our current image of it, [[Image:Slav.JPG]], is a low resolution scan of a drawing with no licensing information. It is currently tagged as "unverified" with the suggestion that it "may be usable under fair use".
Now, here are three recent photographs of the same bird species:
http://www.aves.is/birds/loons/grebe_horned.php
The first one nicely illustrates the distinctive colours of the Slav Grebe's head. The bird is in focus and the resolution is reasonable. It's not featured material but it's a pretty decent picture.
I can upload this image with the following license:
"© 2005 Jakob Sigurðsson. Anyone can use this image for encyclopedia articles and other educational purposes as long as it is attributed to me."
This is not a completely free license but I'd argue that it's good enough for >90% of our downstream users - most of which would want to use the image in the context of encyclopedia articles or other educational materials.
Now, I regret that I was unable to obtain this image under a GFDL-compatible license. When a (reasonably good) picture of the bird under such a license comes along I'll be happy to use it as a replacement. I'll take it myself if I get the chance.
But, you say, using a not-quite-free image in the meantime scratches the itch and discourages people from trying to obtain a free one. Now, I've never completely bought this argument to begin with since a "fair use" image gives me a worse itch than no image at all. But in this case I'm talking about *replacing an image*, one which which has *no licensing information*.
So, if anyone else thinks that this suggested replacement would be a good move then please tell me. If no-one says anything I will assume that the consensus is that I should not add images with this license under any circumstances. Then I will not attempt to obtain images under such a license in the future and end my efforts when the contacts refuse to license under the GFDL (as they are wont to do).
That would be a somewhat frustrating conclusion for me but I won't stomp off in anger or anything like that so please tell me what you think.
Regards, Haukur
Dear colleagues,
One of my primary interests on Wikipedia is to increase and improve coverage of matters related to Iceland, my native country. Recently I've become interested in the fauna of this barren land - which consists mostly of birds.
I came upon a webpage by a countryman of mine which has a number of good bird pictures in high resolution. I thought it would be nice to include some of them in Wikipedia since some of the species are currently not illustrated and many only have a low resolution picture.
The web page in question is here:
http://www.simnet.is/jakobs/birds/birds.html
I contacted the photographer and asked him if he was willing to license the pictures under the GFDL or CC-BY so they could be used on Wikipedia. He took the matter under consideration and told me that he felt those licenses were too broad, but he was willing to license the pictures for use on Wikipedia.
I told him that Wikipedia doesn't currently accept exclusive licenses and added a squirt of ideology. As a last resort I asked him if he'd be willing to license his pictures with the following notice:
"© 2005 Jakob Sigurðsson. Anyone can use this image for encyclopedia articles and other educational purposes as long as it is attributed to me."
He agreed.
Is this "free enough" for Wikipedia or will any images I upload with such a notice be deleted?
Regards, Haukur