On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Sam Korn<smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Michael
Peel<email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
On 12 Jun 2009, at 11:13, Sam Korn wrote:
Right. I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author.
But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia
article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that
would be different for images.
Images are generally the work of one, or a few people, whereas
Wikipedia articles are the work of many.
In the case of the images that I've taken myself and uploaded to
Commons (CC-BY-SA license), pretty much the only thing I'm after for
myself is attribution. I believe that's a standard stance amongst
photographers that aren't also after money as a matter of routine.
I'm not sure whether I'd go through all the trouble of uploading
images to Commons/Wikipedia were that not the case.
TBH, I think giving a list of usernames/authors of Wikipedia articles
when they're reused would be best, but due to the number of authors
that's more often than not impractical.
And for the (not insignificant number of) cases where there is more than one
contributor to an image? E.g. where an image has been touched up by another
user?
It's not uncommon to credit more than one user. Look at the NASA
telescope picture credit lines for examples. In practice, though,
newspapers (with limited print space) may put an abbreviated version,
or just "NASA". In books, where the practice is more usual to put a
dedicated page of credits at the end of the book, the full credit is
more likely. I believe I *have* seen full credit given for Wikipedia
images and the user in question, in print books, but may be
misremembering.
Carcharoth