http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
- d.
It is quite a dilemma.....
FT2
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/7/19 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
- d.
Except we do have fairly good pics of David Beckham and Allison Janney. Our Barry Bonds pics are better than described.
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie. But hopefully it will encourage more people to contribute photos.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:29 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/19 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
- d.
Except we do have fairly good pics of David Beckham and Allison Janney. Our Barry Bonds pics are better than described.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Now on the front page of Slashdot.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/0044240/Why-the-Photos-On-Wikipedia-...
It's important to learn from this episode: Wikipedians nearly burned through this opportunity. See the Jerry Avenaim/Mark Harmon FPC debate (especially the collapsed part).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Mark_Harm...
Although the nomination was nearly speedily closed, I noticed the photographer was an active Wikipedian and wrote to him for a higher resolution version. After he supplied it some reviewers wanted to move the goalposts beyond the official stated criteria. It didn't look like they recognized the significance of having a leading Hollywood portrait photographer among our volunteers.
Was talking to Noam Cohen last week in the aftermath of the NPG threat and told him about Jerry. Showed him Jerry's featured picture and Commons gallery, and Noam loved it. Here's hoping that inspires more celebrities to release their portraits under copyleft license, and inspires more professional photographers to donate material to Wikipedia.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:24 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie. But hopefully it will encourage more people to contribute photos.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:29 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/19 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
- d.
Except we do have fairly good pics of David Beckham and Allison Janney. Our Barry Bonds pics are better than described.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Cunctator wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie.
Was it? It rang perfectly true to me.
Our de-facto policy is that we utterly prefer having no photo at all to having an improperly licensed one, and we utterly reject any of the opportunities that fair-use law would easily grant us. Corollary 1: most living celebrities will have amateur snapshots. Corollary 2: most dead celebrities will have no photo at all.
The premise that the only photos on Wikipedia are absolutely awful. E.g. exaggerating how bad the photos of Janney, Bonds, and Beckham are.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie.
Was it? It rang perfectly true to me.
Our de-facto policy is that we utterly prefer having no photo at all to having an improperly licensed one, and we utterly reject any of the opportunities that fair-use law would easily grant us. Corollary 1: most living celebrities will have amateur snapshots. Corollary 2: most dead celebrities will have no photo at all.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
The bit I found most fascinating was the professional photographer explaining how Wikipedia can help his career, but can also reduce his income (from resale of his pictures).
"He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online visibility [...] but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the lifeblood of my career,” he said, noting that photographers may get paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their money from resales of the image."
Earlier in the article, his contributions to Wikipedia (Commons) were described:
"Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia"
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
I should disclose here that although I am not a professional photographer, I do work in the photography industry, and I'm aware of some of the ins and outs of how photographers (and others) earn money from their services, skills, and the end products of photographs and images.
It usually comes down to access and opportunities, in this case to celebrities, in the case of the NPG, to a collection of public domain artworks. For news photographers, it is being in the right place at the right time. For nature and landscape photographers, it is funding trips to far-flung landscapes or having the patience and skill to find, photograph and identify an animal or plant. And there are lots if niche photographers as well, that specialise in certain areas, which may require specialised and expensive equipment.
Carcharoth
Many professional photographers have older work whose commercial value is almost nil. In fashion photography, for instance, the commercial lifespan of a photograph is extremely short.
Here's a featured picture of that type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gotsiy3edit2.jpg
These types of shots normally go into a photographer's portfolio as proof of their skills. Yet often they still have encyclopedic value and the photographer may have more to gain by relicensing them under cc-by-sa with a source link to their own website.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
The bit I found most fascinating was the professional photographer explaining how Wikipedia can help his career, but can also reduce his income (from resale of his pictures).
"He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online visibility [...] but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the lifeblood of my career,” he said, noting that photographers may get paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their money from resales of the image."
Earlier in the article, his contributions to Wikipedia (Commons) were described:
"Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia"
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
I should disclose here that although I am not a professional photographer, I do work in the photography industry, and I'm aware of some of the ins and outs of how photographers (and others) earn money from their services, skills, and the end products of photographs and images.
It usually comes down to access and opportunities, in this case to celebrities, in the case of the NPG, to a collection of public domain artworks. For news photographers, it is being in the right place at the right time. For nature and landscape photographers, it is funding trips to far-flung landscapes or having the patience and skill to find, photograph and identify an animal or plant. And there are lots if niche photographers as well, that specialise in certain areas, which may require specialised and expensive equipment.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataliya_Gotsiy
Is that the photograph that our article claims caused her career to down downhill? That claim need citing or removing. It might also explain why that photograph isn't in her article.
But going back on-topic, yes, this is another way for photographers to increase their profile while still maintaining a revenue stream from recent photography. The biggest hurdle to the "reputation" gain from Commons and Wikipedia is the lack of credit in articles for photographs (you normally have to click through to the image page to get the photographer credit, unless the photographer is famous). There have been cases (I won't name names) of photographers putting their name in the filenames, but there should be other ways to address the "credit" issue.
But that debate has been done to death before.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Many professional photographers have older work whose commercial value is almost nil. In fashion photography, for instance, the commercial lifespan of a photograph is extremely short.
Here's a featured picture of that type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gotsiy3edit2.jpg
These types of shots normally go into a photographer's portfolio as proof of their skills. Yet often they still have encyclopedic value and the photographer may have more to gain by relicensing them under cc-by-sa with a source link to their own website.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
The bit I found most fascinating was the professional photographer explaining how Wikipedia can help his career, but can also reduce his income (from resale of his pictures).
"He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online visibility [...] but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the lifeblood of my career,” he said, noting that photographers may get paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their money from resales of the image."
Earlier in the article, his contributions to Wikipedia (Commons) were described:
"Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia"
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
I should disclose here that although I am not a professional photographer, I do work in the photography industry, and I'm aware of some of the ins and outs of how photographers (and others) earn money from their services, skills, and the end products of photographs and images.
It usually comes down to access and opportunities, in this case to celebrities, in the case of the NPG, to a collection of public domain artworks. For news photographers, it is being in the right place at the right time. For nature and landscape photographers, it is funding trips to far-flung landscapes or having the patience and skill to find, photograph and identify an animal or plant. And there are lots if niche photographers as well, that specialise in certain areas, which may require specialised and expensive equipment.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Our habitual response of sending people to OTRS actually isn't the most advantageous for these people. It does them more good to license CC-by-sa with a link back to their website with any personality rights permission given there. If they're smart about it they adapt their website design so that the pages that hold the license statement are structured as entry points for visitors.
One of the best arguments we have for celebrities and photographers to choose copyleft is that, in return for the content they contribute, we can provide them with a legitimate alternative to linkspam. They want to be seen; that's what their careers are about.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataliya_Gotsiy
Is that the photograph that our article claims caused her career to down downhill? That claim need citing or removing. It might also explain why that photograph isn't in her article.
But going back on-topic, yes, this is another way for photographers to increase their profile while still maintaining a revenue stream from recent photography. The biggest hurdle to the "reputation" gain from Commons and Wikipedia is the lack of credit in articles for photographs (you normally have to click through to the image page to get the photographer credit, unless the photographer is famous). There have been cases (I won't name names) of photographers putting their name in the filenames, but there should be other ways to address the "credit" issue.
But that debate has been done to death before.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Many professional photographers have older work whose commercial value is almost nil. In fashion photography, for instance, the commercial
lifespan
of a photograph is extremely short.
Here's a featured picture of that type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gotsiy3edit2.jpg
These types of shots normally go into a photographer's portfolio as proof
of
their skills. Yet often they still have encyclopedic value and the photographer may have more to gain by relicensing them under cc-by-sa
with a
source link to their own website.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
The bit I found most fascinating was the professional photographer explaining how Wikipedia can help his career, but can also reduce his income (from resale of his pictures).
"He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online visibility [...] but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the lifeblood of my career,” he said, noting that photographers may get paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their money from resales of the image."
Earlier in the article, his contributions to Wikipedia (Commons) were described:
"Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia"
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
I should disclose here that although I am not a professional photographer, I do work in the photography industry, and I'm aware of some of the ins and outs of how photographers (and others) earn money from their services, skills, and the end products of photographs and images.
It usually comes down to access and opportunities, in this case to celebrities, in the case of the NPG, to a collection of public domain artworks. For news photographers, it is being in the right place at the right time. For nature and landscape photographers, it is funding trips to far-flung landscapes or having the patience and skill to find, photograph and identify an animal or plant. And there are lots if niche photographers as well, that specialise in certain areas, which may require specialised and expensive equipment.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
get the photographer credit, unless the photographer is famous). There have been cases (I won't name names) of photographers putting their name in the filenames, but there should be other ways to address the
I do that. I don't know what effect it has, but I really do think that photos should be credited more visibly than they are.
Steve
Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions?
Like: Your client XYZ has an article on Wikipedia [accessed N times in the last month, if that data is available], but no/bad photo. We'd be happy to display a picture of your choice if you can release one under a free license, e.g., cc-by-sa.
I'm sure many agents would at least try to pry a decent picture from the hands of a photographer for this.
Magnus
Yes, that's how we got the featured picture of Michele Merkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg
Would you like to follow up on that idea?
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.comwrote:
Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions?
Like: Your client XYZ has an article on Wikipedia [accessed N times in the last month, if that data is available], but no/bad photo. We'd be happy to display a picture of your choice if you can release one under a free license, e.g., cc-by-sa.
I'm sure many agents would at least try to pry a decent picture from the hands of a photographer for this.
Magnus
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I could try to automatically generate some lists with people missing pictures (actors, politicians etc). People with "bad" images could be listed manually.
Don't know how to best get agent emails. Maybe use press contact addresses?
Someone with a wikimedia email could then mail out standard "suggestions".
Magnus
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's how we got the featured picture of Michele Merkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg
Would you like to follow up on that idea?
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.comwrote:
Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions?
Like: Your client XYZ has an article on Wikipedia [accessed N times in the last month, if that data is available], but no/bad photo. We'd be happy to display a picture of your choice if you can release one under a free license, e.g., cc-by-sa.
I'm sure many agents would at least try to pry a decent picture from the hands of a photographer for this.
Magnus
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I think that's what Videmus Omnia was doing. He used to have a subpage in userspace to explain it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Michele_M... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Videmus_Omnia/Free_Images&...
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.comwrote:
I could try to automatically generate some lists with people missing pictures (actors, politicians etc). People with "bad" images could be listed manually.
Don't know how to best get agent emails. Maybe use press contact addresses?
Someone with a wikimedia email could then mail out standard "suggestions".
Magnus
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's how we got the featured picture of Michele Merkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg
Would you like to follow up on that idea?
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.comwrote:
Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions?
Like: Your client XYZ has an article on Wikipedia [accessed N times in the last month, if that data is available], but no/bad photo. We'd be happy to display a picture of your choice if you can release one under a free license, e.g., cc-by-sa.
I'm sure many agents would at least try to pry a decent picture from the hands of a photographer for this.
Magnus
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Here's an example of what we could be showing the professional photographer community about how they can do well by doing good.
The WP article is getting 30,000 page views per month: http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Sound%20card
Plus another 12,000 views at two other articles: http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Sound_Blaster http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Sound_Blaster_Live!
Which yielded nearly 2000 direct page views for the image at en:wiki: http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/File%3ASblive!.jpg
And more views from other languages; the image is used in 35 pages on 25 projects: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Sblive!.jpg&w=_...
And the fact is it's an older model of sound card nearly 10 years out of date. Yet it's being used as the lead image at the high level "Sound card" article. Obviously Wikipedia would be more informative with a newer professionally shot sound card photograph at lead position.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I think that's what Videmus Omnia was doing. He used to have a subpage in userspace to explain it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Michele_M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Videmus_Omnia/Free_Images&...
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Magnus Manske < magnusmanske@googlemail.com> wrote:
I could try to automatically generate some lists with people missing pictures (actors, politicians etc). People with "bad" images could be listed manually.
Don't know how to best get agent emails. Maybe use press contact addresses?
Someone with a wikimedia email could then mail out standard "suggestions".
Magnus
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's how we got the featured picture of Michele Merkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg
Would you like to follow up on that idea?
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.comwrote:
Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions?
Like: Your client XYZ has an article on Wikipedia [accessed N times in the last month, if that data is available], but no/bad photo. We'd be happy to display a picture of your choice if you can release one under a free license, e.g., cc-by-sa.
I'm sure many agents would at least try to pry a decent picture from the hands of a photographer for this.
Magnus
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions?
Agents sometimes send photos via OTRS, and are usually ok with licensing them freely. I don't think we have ever been very pro-active about it though in an organized way. (Individuals are, I've done it before for a few people that most wouldn't call "celebs" with positive results) :)
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law the National Portrait Gallery's isn't.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law the National Portrait Gallery's isn't.
Not copyright. Revenue stream. Freedom. Not beer money.
Something being in the public domain doesn't mean you can't make money out of it. The question is whether you are restricting access by others to the originals. If the NPG gave people the option of either:
a) Buying our high-resolution images to fund our digitisation program and our general cultural mission (because the government says we have to generate some of our own funding).
Or:
b) Allowing access for professional scanners and photographers to obtain scans to release under a free license.
What would the response be?
This strikes at the heart of why some people do react as if people are stealing something from the NPG. In effect the NPG are restricting access (and in a sense 'stealing' the public domain), and in another sense, people are 'stealing' by piggybacking on the efforts of the NPG who digitised the images. Ethics, here, not copyright.
The NPG almost certainly wouldn't agree to (b), but if they did, what would the case be then? "Oh, we can't afford to pay for people to come and scan the pictures, so we will just use the ones you've produced instead." Or would Commons and the WMF organise a parallel scanning effort that would duplicate what had already been done? Seems a waste of time and resources, doesn't it? But when someone says "there is a photograph here of something on public display, can we use it?", and the answer is "no, the photograph is copyrighted, go and take your own photograph", we see the same duplication of effort and resources.
Carcharoth
Geni is right; professional photographers who own an uncontroversial copyright over an image are completely within their rights to relicense and upload a low resolution version. That's what the Bundesarchiv did with 100,000 images last December.
It doesn't really facilitate those negotiations, either with photographers or with cooperative institutions, to sidestep discussion about the cooperative alternatives and refocus on one legal threat. This is our opportunity to build upon Noam's article and create new synergistic relationships; let's make the most of it.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law the National Portrait Gallery's isn't.
Not copyright. Revenue stream. Freedom. Not beer money.
Something being in the public domain doesn't mean you can't make money out of it. The question is whether you are restricting access by others to the originals. If the NPG gave people the option of either:
a) Buying our high-resolution images to fund our digitisation program and our general cultural mission (because the government says we have to generate some of our own funding).
Or:
b) Allowing access for professional scanners and photographers to obtain scans to release under a free license.
What would the response be?
This strikes at the heart of why some people do react as if people are stealing something from the NPG. In effect the NPG are restricting access (and in a sense 'stealing' the public domain), and in another sense, people are 'stealing' by piggybacking on the efforts of the NPG who digitised the images. Ethics, here, not copyright.
The NPG almost certainly wouldn't agree to (b), but if they did, what would the case be then? "Oh, we can't afford to pay for people to come and scan the pictures, so we will just use the ones you've produced instead." Or would Commons and the WMF organise a parallel scanning effort that would duplicate what had already been done? Seems a waste of time and resources, doesn't it? But when someone says "there is a photograph here of something on public display, can we use it?", and the answer is "no, the photograph is copyrighted, go and take your own photograph", we see the same duplication of effort and resources.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there.
Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can happen with sports stars and others. Does the presence of an arguably less relevant free picture (of them when they are old) dissuade people from attempting to get a free picture that may be more relevant to the article (from when they were young)?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Geni is right; professional photographers who own an uncontroversial copyright over an image are completely within their rights to relicense and upload a low resolution version. That's what the Bundesarchiv did with 100,000 images last December.
It doesn't really facilitate those negotiations, either with photographers or with cooperative institutions, to sidestep discussion about the cooperative alternatives and refocus on one legal threat. This is our opportunity to build upon Noam's article and create new synergistic relationships; let's make the most of it.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law the National Portrait Gallery's isn't.
Not copyright. Revenue stream. Freedom. Not beer money.
Something being in the public domain doesn't mean you can't make money out of it. The question is whether you are restricting access by others to the originals. If the NPG gave people the option of either:
a) Buying our high-resolution images to fund our digitisation program and our general cultural mission (because the government says we have to generate some of our own funding).
Or:
b) Allowing access for professional scanners and photographers to obtain scans to release under a free license.
What would the response be?
This strikes at the heart of why some people do react as if people are stealing something from the NPG. In effect the NPG are restricting access (and in a sense 'stealing' the public domain), and in another sense, people are 'stealing' by piggybacking on the efforts of the NPG who digitised the images. Ethics, here, not copyright.
The NPG almost certainly wouldn't agree to (b), but if they did, what would the case be then? "Oh, we can't afford to pay for people to come and scan the pictures, so we will just use the ones you've produced instead." Or would Commons and the WMF organise a parallel scanning effort that would duplicate what had already been done? Seems a waste of time and resources, doesn't it? But when someone says "there is a photograph here of something on public display, can we use it?", and the answer is "no, the photograph is copyrighted, go and take your own photograph", we see the same duplication of effort and resources.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Usually I prefer the carrot to the stick and take a very long view. For instance, baseball player Babe Ruth had a career that crossed the PD-1923 threshold under US law, and most of the more famous part of that career happened after 1923. Right now our featured picture of him is a restored publicity photo from 1920.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Babe_Ruth2.jpg
This was featured in March and hasn't run on the main page yet. When it does I intend to note the traffic statistics for main page views for that day. One of the most powerful arguments we have to gain access to more material under free license is to come to the people who control those rights and show them how it benefits them.
As the examples collect this becomes very persuasive. This May, for instance, ten of the images I restored from Library of Congress archives ran as Picture of the Day; the main page received a total of over 58 million page views while they were up. The New York Times has a circulation of 23 million a month, so each image that gets featured is receiving the equivalent of front page attention on NYTimes every day for a solid week.
Copyright owners sit up and pay attention when they hear that.
They ought to be lining up for this opportunity. So far most of them don't know it exists. We're working on building tangible examples and momentum. The great thing is, institutional donors are proving willing to share large numbers of images in return for a handful of showcase restorations. After the NPG threat came out the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam agreed to donate 100,000 images to Commons. Negotiations had been underway for a while but the timing was serendipitous. We're negotiating further cooperation with them and with other institutions that we hope to be able to announce soon.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there.
Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can happen with sports stars and others. Does the presence of an arguably less relevant free picture (of them when they are old) dissuade people from attempting to get a free picture that may be more relevant to the article (from when they were young)?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Geni is right; professional photographers who own an uncontroversial copyright over an image are completely within their rights to relicense
and
upload a low resolution version. That's what the Bundesarchiv did with 100,000 images last December.
It doesn't really facilitate those negotiations, either with
photographers
or with cooperative institutions, to sidestep discussion about the cooperative alternatives and refocus on one legal threat. This is our opportunity to build upon Noam's article and create new synergistic relationships; let's make the most of it.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered
OK
here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue
stream
is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law the National Portrait Gallery's isn't.
Not copyright. Revenue stream. Freedom. Not beer money.
Something being in the public domain doesn't mean you can't make money out of it. The question is whether you are restricting access by others to the originals. If the NPG gave people the option of either:
a) Buying our high-resolution images to fund our digitisation program and our general cultural mission (because the government says we have to generate some of our own funding).
Or:
b) Allowing access for professional scanners and photographers to obtain scans to release under a free license.
What would the response be?
This strikes at the heart of why some people do react as if people are stealing something from the NPG. In effect the NPG are restricting access (and in a sense 'stealing' the public domain), and in another sense, people are 'stealing' by piggybacking on the efforts of the NPG who digitised the images. Ethics, here, not copyright.
The NPG almost certainly wouldn't agree to (b), but if they did, what would the case be then? "Oh, we can't afford to pay for people to come and scan the pictures, so we will just use the ones you've produced instead." Or would Commons and the WMF organise a parallel scanning effort that would duplicate what had already been done? Seems a waste of time and resources, doesn't it? But when someone says "there is a photograph here of something on public display, can we use it?", and the answer is "no, the photograph is copyrighted, go and take your own photograph", we see the same duplication of effort and resources.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How many people click through to the image itself? That is where the credit is, and the link onwards to the source. Would it help if the source (if it was an institution, rather than an individual photographer) was automagically credited in the articles, not just on the image page? Or would that be the thin end of a wedge and be seen as overt advertising? There are some photographer names that will never be suitable to be treated this way, but if doing this for reputable organisations made it more likely they would donate images, is it worth looking at it again?
I also saw a reference somewhere to how having shortcuts dedicated to an institutions photographs can avoid nofollow. Something like [[:xy:image name.jpg]]? Is that acceptable or not?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Usually I prefer the carrot to the stick and take a very long view. For instance, baseball player Babe Ruth had a career that crossed the PD-1923 threshold under US law, and most of the more famous part of that career happened after 1923. Right now our featured picture of him is a restored publicity photo from 1920.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Babe_Ruth2.jpg
This was featured in March and hasn't run on the main page yet. When it does I intend to note the traffic statistics for main page views for that day. One of the most powerful arguments we have to gain access to more material under free license is to come to the people who control those rights and show them how it benefits them.
As the examples collect this becomes very persuasive. This May, for instance, ten of the images I restored from Library of Congress archives ran as Picture of the Day; the main page received a total of over 58 million page views while they were up. The New York Times has a circulation of 23 million a month, so each image that gets featured is receiving the equivalent of front page attention on NYTimes every day for a solid week.
Copyright owners sit up and pay attention when they hear that.
They ought to be lining up for this opportunity. So far most of them don't know it exists. We're working on building tangible examples and momentum. The great thing is, institutional donors are proving willing to share large numbers of images in return for a handful of showcase restorations. After the NPG threat came out the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam agreed to donate 100,000 images to Commons. Negotiations had been underway for a while but the timing was serendipitous. We're negotiating further cooperation with them and with other institutions that we hope to be able to announce soon.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there.
Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can happen with sports stars and others. Does the presence of an arguably less relevant free picture (of them when they are old) dissuade people from attempting to get a free picture that may be more relevant to the article (from when they were young)?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Geni is right; professional photographers who own an uncontroversial copyright over an image are completely within their rights to relicense
and
upload a low resolution version. That's what the Bundesarchiv did with 100,000 images last December.
It doesn't really facilitate those negotiations, either with
photographers
or with cooperative institutions, to sidestep discussion about the cooperative alternatives and refocus on one legal threat. This is our opportunity to build upon Noam's article and create new synergistic relationships; let's make the most of it.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered
OK
here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue
stream
is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law the National Portrait Gallery's isn't.
Not copyright. Revenue stream. Freedom. Not beer money.
Something being in the public domain doesn't mean you can't make money out of it. The question is whether you are restricting access by others to the originals. If the NPG gave people the option of either:
a) Buying our high-resolution images to fund our digitisation program and our general cultural mission (because the government says we have to generate some of our own funding).
Or:
b) Allowing access for professional scanners and photographers to obtain scans to release under a free license.
What would the response be?
This strikes at the heart of why some people do react as if people are stealing something from the NPG. In effect the NPG are restricting access (and in a sense 'stealing' the public domain), and in another sense, people are 'stealing' by piggybacking on the efforts of the NPG who digitised the images. Ethics, here, not copyright.
The NPG almost certainly wouldn't agree to (b), but if they did, what would the case be then? "Oh, we can't afford to pay for people to come and scan the pictures, so we will just use the ones you've produced instead." Or would Commons and the WMF organise a parallel scanning effort that would duplicate what had already been done? Seems a waste of time and resources, doesn't it? But when someone says "there is a photograph here of something on public display, can we use it?", and the answer is "no, the photograph is copyrighted, go and take your own photograph", we see the same duplication of effort and resources.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Click-throughs are much lower, often on the level of 15,000-30,000 during main page time. Yet remember these are also generating a steady stream of attention on the articles themselves. The one amateur photo of a sound card is receiving 2,000 direct page views at en:wiki plus an unknown number at two dozen other language editions of Wikipedia. Multiply that kind of attention across a few hundred articles and one year: this has the potential to become a major source of web traffic to the donating institution.
Bundesarchiv has retained full copyright over high resolution copies of the images they uploaded (the copyright in these instances is uncontroversial). Without any actual advertising, readers have been using the source link from the image hosting page to go to the Bundesarchiv site and purchase high resolution files. Their sales of high resolution images have increased significantly since the donation.
Whether and how to give additional credit is a question I'd rather not address personally. Whatever the community decides I'll honor; the salient point is that even with what we do right now it's a net benefit to institutions that are smart about it. We need to communicate to them where the advantages are, since this is new territory and a radical departure from how they're used to operating.
Indirectly this helps our position with regard to NPG, because a significant part of NPG's argument is that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we develop a cooperative relationship with another cultural institution we prove that part of NPG's argument empirically wrong. The more this happens, the more likely NPG is to look silly; the net effect could soften their approach. Now is an excellent time to build those relationships because the current situation is drawing attention to the media side of Wikipedia.
Rather than assault the brick wall we walk around it: work with the institutions whose copyrights are either uncontroversial, or who don't try to assert claims over public domain material. As they benefit, Wikipedia benefits, and ultimately the others may abandon their claims and get in line to cooperate with us.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
How many people click through to the image itself? That is where the credit is, and the link onwards to the source. Would it help if the source (if it was an institution, rather than an individual photographer) was automagically credited in the articles, not just on the image page? Or would that be the thin end of a wedge and be seen as overt advertising? There are some photographer names that will never be suitable to be treated this way, but if doing this for reputable organisations made it more likely they would donate images, is it worth looking at it again?
I also saw a reference somewhere to how having shortcuts dedicated to an institutions photographs can avoid nofollow. Something like [[:xy:image name.jpg]]? Is that acceptable or not?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Usually I prefer the carrot to the stick and take a very long view. For instance, baseball player Babe Ruth had a career that crossed the PD-1923 threshold under US law, and most of the more famous part of that career happened after 1923. Right now our featured picture of him is a restored publicity photo from 1920.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Babe_Ruth2.jpg
This was featured in March and hasn't run on the main page yet. When it does I intend to note the traffic statistics for main page views for that day. One of the most powerful arguments we have to gain access to more material under free license is to come to the people who control those rights and show them how it benefits them.
As the examples collect this becomes very persuasive. This May, for instance, ten of the images I restored from Library of Congress archives
ran
as Picture of the Day; the main page received a total of over 58 million page views while they were up. The New York Times has a circulation of
23
million a month, so each image that gets featured is receiving the equivalent of front page attention on NYTimes every day for a solid week.
Copyright owners sit up and pay attention when they hear that.
They ought to be lining up for this opportunity. So far most of them
don't
know it exists. We're working on building tangible examples and
momentum.
The great thing is, institutional donors are proving willing to share
large
numbers of images in return for a handful of showcase restorations.
After
the NPG threat came out the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam agreed to donate 100,000 images to Commons. Negotiations had been underway for a while
but
the timing was serendipitous. We're negotiating further cooperation with them and with other institutions that we hope to be able to announce
soon.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Carcharoth <
carcharothwp@googlemail.com>wrote:
You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there.
Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can happen with sports stars and others. Does the presence of an arguably less relevant free picture (of them when they are old) dissuade people from attempting to get a free picture that may be more relevant to the article (from when they were young)?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com
wrote:
Geni is right; professional photographers who own an uncontroversial copyright over an image are completely within their rights to
relicense
and
upload a low resolution version. That's what the Bundesarchiv did
with
100,000 images last December.
It doesn't really facilitate those negotiations, either with
photographers
or with cooperative institutions, to sidestep discussion about the cooperative alternatives and refocus on one legal threat. This is our opportunity to build upon Noam's article and create new synergistic relationships; let's make the most of it.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth <
carcharothwp@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com: > It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is
considered
OK
> here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a
professional
> photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery > (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue
stream
> is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs. > Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law
the
National Portrait Gallery's isn't.
Not copyright. Revenue stream. Freedom. Not beer money.
Something being in the public domain doesn't mean you can't make
money
out of it. The question is whether you are restricting access by others to the originals. If the NPG gave people the option of either:
a) Buying our high-resolution images to fund our digitisation program and our general cultural mission (because the government says we have to generate some of our own funding).
Or:
b) Allowing access for professional scanners and photographers to obtain scans to release under a free license.
What would the response be?
This strikes at the heart of why some people do react as if people
are
stealing something from the NPG. In effect the NPG are restricting access (and in a sense 'stealing' the public domain), and in another sense, people are 'stealing' by piggybacking on the efforts of the
NPG
who digitised the images. Ethics, here, not copyright.
The NPG almost certainly wouldn't agree to (b), but if they did, what would the case be then? "Oh, we can't afford to pay for people to
come
and scan the pictures, so we will just use the ones you've produced instead." Or would Commons and the WMF organise a parallel scanning effort that would duplicate what had already been done? Seems a waste of time and resources, doesn't it? But when someone says "there is a photograph here of something on public display, can we use it?", and the answer is "no, the photograph is copyrighted, go and take your
own
photograph", we see the same duplication of effort and resources.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Click-throughs are much lower, often on the level of 15,000-30,000 during main page time. Yet remember these are also generating a steady stream of attention on the articles themselves. The one amateur photo of a sound card is receiving 2,000 direct page views at en:wiki plus an unknown number at two dozen other language editions of Wikipedia. Multiply that kind of attention across a few hundred articles and one year: this has the potential to become a major source of web traffic to the donating institution.
Bundesarchiv has retained full copyright over high resolution copies of the images they uploaded (the copyright in these instances is uncontroversial). Without any actual advertising, readers have been using the source link from the image hosting page to go to the Bundesarchiv site and purchase high resolution files. Their sales of high resolution images have increased significantly since the donation.
Whether and how to give additional credit is a question I'd rather not address personally. Whatever the community decides I'll honor; the salient point is that even with what we do right now it's a net benefit to institutions that are smart about it. We need to communicate to them where the advantages are, since this is new territory and a radical departure from how they're used to operating.
Indirectly this helps our position with regard to NPG, because a significant part of NPG's argument is that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we develop a cooperative relationship with another cultural institution we prove that part of NPG's argument empirically wrong. The more this happens, the more likely NPG is to look silly; the net effect could soften their approach. Now is an excellent time to build those relationships because the current situation is drawing attention to the media side of Wikipedia.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
How many people click through to the image itself? That is where the credit is, and the link onwards to the source. Would it help if the source (if it was an institution, rather than an individual photographer) was automagically credited in the articles, not just on the image page? Or would that be the thin end of a wedge and be seen as overt advertising? There are some photographer names that will never be suitable to be treated this way, but if doing this for reputable organisations made it more likely they would donate images, is it worth looking at it again?
I also saw a reference somewhere to how having shortcuts dedicated to an institutions photographs can avoid nofollow. Something like [[:xy:image name.jpg]]? Is that acceptable or not?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Usually I prefer the carrot to the stick and take a very long view. For instance, baseball player Babe Ruth had a career that crossed the PD-1923 threshold under US law, and most of the more famous part of that career happened after 1923. Right now our featured picture of him is a restored publicity photo from 1920.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Babe_Ruth2.jpg
This was featured in March and hasn't run on the main page yet. When it does I intend to note the traffic statistics for main page views for that day. One of the most powerful arguments we have to gain access to more material under free license is to come to the people who control those rights and show them how it benefits them.
As the examples collect this becomes very persuasive. This May, for instance, ten of the images I restored from Library of Congress archives
ran
as Picture of the Day; the main page received a total of over 58 million page views while they were up. The New York Times has a circulation of
23
million a month, so each image that gets featured is receiving the equivalent of front page attention on NYTimes every day for a solid week.
Copyright owners sit up and pay attention when they hear that.
They ought to be lining up for this opportunity. So far most of them
don't
know it exists. We're working on building tangible examples and
momentum.
The great thing is, institutional donors are proving willing to share
large
numbers of images in return for a handful of showcase restorations.
After
the NPG threat came out the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam agreed to donate 100,000 images to Commons. Negotiations had been underway for a while
but
the timing was serendipitous. We're negotiating further cooperation with them and with other institutions that we hope to be able to announce
soon.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Carcharoth <
carcharothwp@googlemail.com>wrote:
You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there.
Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can happen with sports stars and others. Does the presence of an arguably less relevant free picture (of them when they are old) dissuade people from attempting to get a free picture that may be more relevant to the article (from when they were young)?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com
wrote:
Geni is right; professional photographers who own an uncontroversial copyright over an image are completely within their rights to
relicense
and
upload a low resolution version. That's what the Bundesarchiv did
with
100,000 images last December.
It doesn't really facilitate those negotiations, either with
photographers
or with cooperative institutions, to sidestep discussion about the cooperative alternatives and refocus on one legal threat. This is our opportunity to build upon Noam's article and create new synergistic relationships; let's make the most of it.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth <
carcharothwp@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com: > It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is
considered
OK
> here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a
professional
> photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery > (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue
stream
> is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs. > Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law
the
National Portrait Gallery's isn't.
Not copyright. Revenue stream. Freedom. Not beer money.
Something being in the public domain doesn't mean you can't make
money
out of it. The question is whether you are restricting access by others to the originals. If the NPG gave people the option of either:
a) Buying our high-resolution images to fund our digitisation program and our general cultural mission (because the government says we have to generate some of our own funding).
Or:
b) Allowing access for professional scanners and photographers to obtain scans to release under a free license.
What would the response be?
This strikes at the heart of why some people do react as if people
are
stealing something from the NPG. In effect the NPG are restricting access (and in a sense 'stealing' the public domain), and in another sense, people are 'stealing' by piggybacking on the efforts of the
NPG
who digitised the images. Ethics, here, not copyright.
The NPG almost certainly wouldn't agree to (b), but if they did, what would the case be then? "Oh, we can't afford to pay for people to
come
and scan the pictures, so we will just use the ones you've produced instead." Or would Commons and the WMF organise a parallel scanning effort that would duplicate what had already been done? Seems a waste of time and resources, doesn't it? But when someone says "there is a photograph here of something on public display, can we use it?", and the answer is "no, the photograph is copyrighted, go and take your
own
photograph", we see the same duplication of effort and resources.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/07/2009, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Indirectly this helps our position with regard to NPG, because a significant part of NPG's argument is that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we develop a cooperative relationship with another cultural institution we prove that part of NPG's argument empirically wrong. The more this happens, the more likely NPG is to look silly; the net effect could soften their approach. Now is an excellent time to build those relationships because the current situation is drawing attention to the media side of Wikipedia.
I think there is another side of this though; whether NPG are silly or not, the uploader ran an automated program to systematically rip their site of high resolution images.
That's certainly pretty unfriendly; it's pretty clear that the NPG didn't want people to use their website's resources for that purpose.
When you extract from a server an entire set of information that they don't want you to have that's essentially 'hacking', it's clear to me that in a pretty real sense the uploader hacked into their website.
In other words, this isn't necessarily simply about copyright.
-Durova
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 13:57, Ian Woollardian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/07/2009, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Indirectly this helps our position with regard to NPG, because a significant part of NPG's argument is that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we develop a cooperative relationship with another cultural institution we prove that part of NPG's argument empirically wrong. The more this happens, the more likely NPG is to look silly; the net effect could soften their approach. Now is an excellent time to build those relationships because the current situation is drawing attention to the media side of Wikipedia.
I think there is another side of this though; whether NPG are silly or not, the uploader ran an automated program to systematically rip their site of high resolution images.
That's certainly pretty unfriendly; it's pretty clear that the NPG didn't want people to use their website's resources for that purpose.
When you extract from a server an entire set of information that they don't want you to have that's essentially 'hacking', it's clear to me that in a pretty real sense the uploader hacked into their website.
It's hacking in the out-of-the-box-thinking sense Stallman uses. It isn't cracking (ie what most people mean when they say hacking - defeating computer security systems. Whether or not it's the intended use that data was publically available, and, assuming there was nothing in the site's terms of use against this sort of thing, there's nothing wrong with it.
In other words, this isn't necessarily simply about copyright.
-Durova
-- -Ian Woollard
"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Click-throughs are much lower, often on the level of 15,000-30,000 during main page time. Yet remember these are also generating a steady stream of attention on the articles themselves. The one amateur photo of a sound card is receiving 2,000 direct page views at en:wiki plus an unknown number at two dozen other language editions of Wikipedia. Multiply that kind of attention across a few hundred articles and one year: this has the potential to become a major source of web traffic to the donating institution.
Bundesarchiv has retained full copyright over high resolution copies of the images they uploaded (the copyright in these instances is uncontroversial). Without any actual advertising, readers have been using the source link from the image hosting page to go to the Bundesarchiv site and purchase high resolution files. Their sales of high resolution images have increased significantly since the donation.
Whether and how to give additional credit is a question I'd rather not address personally. Whatever the community decides I'll honor; the salient point is that even with what we do right now it's a net benefit to institutions that are smart about it. We need to communicate to them where the advantages are, since this is new territory and a radical departure from how they're used to operating.
Indirectly this helps our position with regard to NPG, because a significant part of NPG's argument is that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we develop a cooperative relationship with another cultural institution we prove that part of NPG's argument empirically wrong. The more this happens, the more likely NPG is to look silly; the net effect could soften their approach. Now is an excellent time to build those relationships because the current situation is drawing attention to the media side of Wikipedia.
Rather than assault the brick wall we walk around it: work with the institutions whose copyrights are either uncontroversial, or who don't try to assert claims over public domain material. As they benefit, Wikipedia benefits, and ultimately the others may abandon their claims and get in line to cooperate with us.
-Durova
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there.
Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can happen with sports stars and others. Does the presence of an arguably less relevant free picture (of them when they are old) dissuade people from attempting to get a free picture that may be more relevant to the article (from when they were young)?
Carcharoth
Taking the age of the average wikipedian into account the general solution involves their parents and grandparents photos and a scanner.
But realistically whatever we do we are likely to an effective image dark age of things between about 1923 and 2005. But then we have similar issues with photos of things outside the western world and popular holiday destinations.
You might be surprised. The biggest obstacle is that most of the people who own copyrights simply don't understand wikis and free culture. They're used to thinking in terms of reproduction permission, which presupposes an older type of static publication. That can change; what we need to do is communicate while we have the public's attention.
Fortunately many copyrights have almost zero commercial value. When individuals hold those copyrights they often regard it as flattering that a site such as Wikipedia could use them. Think of it in terms of someone whose aunt was an Olympic bronze medalist decades ago: photographs of her would be treasured within the family, but elsewhere she's just a name on a long list of athletes.
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't comprehend. We need to stop being defeatist and get serious about commuincating on a broader scale that yes, these things are possible. The solutions are simple, but they require a paradigm shift.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there.
Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can happen with sports stars and others. Does the presence of an arguably less relevant free picture (of them when they are old) dissuade people from attempting to get a free picture that may be more relevant to the article (from when they were young)?
Carcharoth
Taking the age of the average wikipedian into account the general solution involves their parents and grandparents photos and a scanner.
But realistically whatever we do we are likely to an effective image dark age of things between about 1923 and 2005. But then we have similar issues with photos of things outside the western world and popular holiday destinations.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Durova wrote:
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't comprehend. We need to stop being defeatist and get serious about commuincating on a broader scale that yes, these things are possible.
Or we could do the unthinkable and change our policies to better mesh with the way nine out of ten people actually think.
(Or, yeah, I know, pigs could fly. But still.)
Policy changes are usually slow and difficult. Right now we have the public's attention. Wikipedians, collectively, have a habit of responding to real world attention with onsite process and discussion. That can be useful up to a point, but it fails to appreciate two factors:
1. There are windows of opportunity for following up on these opportunities, before the public's fickle attention turns elsewhere. 2. Most of the public neither reads nor understands WP namespace.
What we can do right now is communicate: reach a broader audience in the mainstream venues they do read and educate them about copyleft. Present a coherent summary of WP's license structure and step by step practical instructions for copyright owners to donate material so that we can use it.
Don't write that as an essay on Wikipedia; write it as an article for a photography trade magazine.
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Durova wrote:
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't comprehend. We need to stop being defeatist and get serious about commuincating on a broader scale that yes, these things are possible.
Or we could do the unthinkable and change our policies to better mesh with the way nine out of ten people actually think.
(Or, yeah, I know, pigs could fly. But still.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Don't write that as an essay on Wikipedia; write it as an article for a photography trade magazine.
Exactly. Might be worth seeing if anyone on Commons has contacts in these areas.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
You might be surprised. The biggest obstacle is that most of the people who own copyrights simply don't understand wikis and free culture. They're used to thinking in terms of reproduction permission, which presupposes an older type of static publication. That can change; what we need to do is communicate while we have the public's attention.
Fortunately many copyrights have almost zero commercial value. When individuals hold those copyrights they often regard it as flattering that a site such as Wikipedia could use them. Think of it in terms of someone whose aunt was an Olympic bronze medalist decades ago: photographs of her would be treasured within the family, but elsewhere she's just a name on a long list of athletes.
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't comprehend. We need to stop being defeatist and get serious about commuincating on a broader scale that yes, these things are possible. The solutions are simple, but they require a paradigm shift.
Some time ago, I had started implementing a way for people to mail pictures in. These would then end in a staging area on the toolserver, and wiki(p|m)edians could then ask back for more information (e.g. description), or push them through to Commons. The mails would be stored on the toolserver as a papertrail.
However, I was told that this would interfere with/duplicate effort of OTRS, so I stopped.
Magnus
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
You might be surprised. The biggest obstacle is that most of the people who own copyrights simply don't understand wikis and free culture. They're used to thinking in terms of reproduction permission, which presupposes an older type of static publication. That can change; what we need to do is communicate while we have the public's attention.
Fortunately many copyrights have almost zero commercial value. When individuals hold those copyrights they often regard it as flattering that a site such as Wikipedia could use them. Think of it in terms of someone whose aunt was an Olympic bronze medalist decades ago: photographs of her would be treasured within the family, but elsewhere she's just a name on a long list of athletes.
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't comprehend. We need to stop being defeatist and get serious about commuincating on a broader scale that yes, these things are possible. The solutions are simple, but they require a paradigm shift.
Some time ago, I had started implementing a way for people to mail pictures in. These would then end in a staging area on the toolserver, and wiki(p|m)edians could then ask back for more information (e.g. description), or push them through to Commons. The mails would be stored on the toolserver as a papertrail.
However, I was told that this would interfere with/duplicate effort of OTRS, so I stopped.
Any way to measure how effective the OTRS method is versus other methods? And which route is more effective in getting people engaged and actually submitting pictures? There is a need to cross the t's and dot the i's, so OTRS might still be needed to handle the paperwork, but the entry level needs to be lower to avoid discouraging people.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
You might be surprised. The biggest obstacle is that most of the people who own copyrights simply don't understand wikis and free culture. They're used to thinking in terms of reproduction permission, which presupposes an older type of static publication. That can change; what we need to do is communicate while we have the public's attention.
Fortunately many copyrights have almost zero commercial value. When individuals hold those copyrights they often regard it as flattering that a site such as Wikipedia could use them. Think of it in terms of someone whose aunt was an Olympic bronze medalist decades ago: photographs of her would be treasured within the family, but elsewhere she's just a name on a long list of athletes.
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't comprehend. We need to stop being defeatist and get serious about commuincating on a broader scale that yes, these things are possible. The solutions are simple, but they require a paradigm shift.
Some time ago, I had started implementing a way for people to mail pictures in. These would then end in a staging area on the toolserver, and wiki(p|m)edians could then ask back for more information (e.g. description), or push them through to Commons. The mails would be stored on the toolserver as a papertrail.
However, I was told that this would interfere with/duplicate effort of OTRS, so I stopped.
Any way to measure how effective the OTRS method is versus other methods? And which route is more effective in getting people engaged and actually submitting pictures? There is a need to cross the t's and dot the i's, so OTRS might still be needed to handle the paperwork, but the entry level needs to be lower to avoid discouraging people.
Questions: * If I were to mail an image to OTRS, stating what it is, when and where it was taken, stating the author, and the license, would it go through to Commons? * How long would this take? * If 500 people were to mail in 2 pictures each day like this, would the system cope?
If the answers are "yes, quickly, yes", why not put up a prominent page with OTRS email on it, and spam^W inform some photography wikis/forums/mailing lists?
Magnus
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
- If I were to mail an image to OTRS, stating what it is, when and
where it was taken, stating the author, and the license, would it go through to Commons?
You should wait for an answer from people who know more about this, but my initial response would be "depends on the license". Most people fail when they try and work out which license they want to submit a picture under. Clear explanations of the licenses and descriptions of common situations, or the advice to e-mail and *ask* about which license should be chosen, would be better than people picking the wrong one and getting chewed up and spat out by the system.
You would also likely need more than just "author". You would need to prove that you were the author, or had permission from the author (in many cases, they will want permission from the author, unless the author is dead or something). You will also need to show that the author holds the copyright, and not someone else.
The rest of the stuff is standard.
How long would this take?
Time to go through? Dunno. You could try and find out.
If 500 people were to mail in 2 pictures each day like this, would the system cope?
Would the system cope? Dunno. Best not to test this one! :-)
Hopefully OTRS and Commons have some stats on this.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You would also likely need more than just "author". You would need to prove that you were the author, or had permission from the author (in many cases, they will want permission from the author, unless the author is dead or something). You will also need to show that the author holds the copyright, and not someone else.
Currently a user can upload a photograph themselves to the Commons, claim they are the author, and no proof is needed.
We only question further if there is cause for suspicion.
I don't recommend that we ask for any more than a definitive statement that, yes, they are the author and hold the copyright. How does, after all, someone prove that a photograph is theirs? Few cameras stamp their images with a serial number or digital signature proving which device took it, after all.
-Matt
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Matthew Brownmorven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You would also likely need more than just "author". You would need to prove that you were the author, or had permission from the author (in many cases, they will want permission from the author, unless the author is dead or something). You will also need to show that the author holds the copyright, and not someone else.
Currently a user can upload a photograph themselves to the Commons, claim they are the author, and no proof is needed.
We only question further if there is cause for suspicion.
I don't recommend that we ask for any more than a definitive statement that, yes, they are the author and hold the copyright. How does, after all, someone prove that a photograph is theirs? Few cameras stamp their images with a serial number or digital signature proving which device took it, after all.
Yes, you are right. So how did we get to OTRS instead of directing people to the Upload button? I'm confused now. I'm sure there was a reason for using OTRS instead of telling people to Upload. I think the reason in this case was to establish provenance. To ensure that this photo of a 1930s Olympic medallist from the photo album of a descendant is in fact from that person, and not nicked from a website.
Or if people upload a photo of an obscure person with Wikipedia article and say "photo from my family album", is that an acceptable source on Commons? Can the photo be verified in any way?
Carcharoth
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Or if people upload a photo of an obscure person with Wikipedia article and say "photo from my family album", is that an acceptable source on Commons? Can the photo be verified in any way?
We generally believe someone if they state they own the copyright and are the creator.
I'm not sure if there's any real way, in the end, of verifying the true authorship or provenance of a photo.
-Matt
2009/7/21 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Yes, you are right. So how did we get to OTRS instead of directing people to the Upload button? I'm confused now. I'm sure there was a reason for using OTRS instead of telling people to Upload. I think the
I believe one of the main issues is that a lot of people are more comfortable with emailing in a photograph, and us doing the administrative tasks, than with the whole hassle of creating an account, uploading it, figuring out the commons/wikipedia divide, learning the syntax to put it in an article...
2009/7/21 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/7/21 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Yes, you are right. So how did we get to OTRS instead of directing people to the Upload button? I'm confused now. I'm sure there was a reason for using OTRS instead of telling people to Upload. I think the
I believe one of the main issues is that a lot of people are more comfortable with emailing in a photograph, and us doing the administrative tasks, than with the whole hassle of creating an account, uploading it, figuring out the commons/wikipedia divide, learning the syntax to put it in an article...
Yeah. Some people are happy to contribute things but aren't terribly interested in getting involved in the community, etc.
e.g. a friend got a picture of a [[hoopoe]] in the middle of its sunbasking behaviour. I asked for the pic for Wikimedia, worked out the license and the credit line, uploaded them and added the pic to the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoopoe#Behaviour http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sbuchner_20090712_hoopoe4.jpg
(There's a suggested credit line for the CC by-sa, though I did point out that sites reusing the image would often just print her name and technically be in compliance - but asking nicely for the links doesn't hurt and will often get them.)
- d.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/21 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/7/21 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Yes, you are right. So how did we get to OTRS instead of directing people to the Upload button? I'm confused now. I'm sure there was a reason for using OTRS instead of telling people to Upload. I think the
I believe one of the main issues is that a lot of people are more comfortable with emailing in a photograph, and us doing the administrative tasks, than with the whole hassle of creating an account, uploading it, figuring out the commons/wikipedia divide, learning the syntax to put it in an article...
Yeah. Some people are happy to contribute things but aren't terribly interested in getting involved in the community, etc.
e.g. a friend got a picture of a [[hoopoe]] in the middle of its sunbasking behaviour. I asked for the pic for Wikimedia, worked out the license and the credit line, uploaded them and added the pic to the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoopoe#Behaviour http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sbuchner_20090712_hoopoe4.jpg
(There's a suggested credit line for the CC by-sa, though I did point out that sites reusing the image would often just print her name and technically be in compliance - but asking nicely for the links doesn't hurt and will often get them.)
I've created a mockup "mail in your pictures" text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/Image_submission
Would that be sufficient for OTRS? (It should be IMHO; it's what we get when people upload directly, plus email address!)
Magnus
2009/7/21 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
I've created a mockup "mail in your pictures" text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/Image_submission
Would that be sufficient for OTRS? (It should be IMHO; it's what we get when people upload directly, plus email address!)
It might be helpful if we ask what article(s) they're thinking of!
This is pretty self evident for "this is a picture of me / my grandmother / some guy in the pub" when they have an article, but we do get some less obvious pictures sometimes - I remember someone who sent in pictures of a Russian war memorial and asked if we could put them on the page about the battle in question.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/7/21 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
I've created a mockup "mail in your pictures" text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/Image_submission
Would that be sufficient for OTRS? (It should be IMHO; it's what we get when people upload directly, plus email address!)
It might be helpful if we ask what article(s) they're thinking of!
This is pretty self evident for "this is a picture of me / my grandmother / some guy in the pub" when they have an article, but we do get some less obvious pictures sometimes - I remember someone who sent in pictures of a Russian war memorial and asked if we could put them on the page about the battle in question.
Thanks, I've added this. Anyone, feel free to optimize the text by editing :-)
Magnus
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I've created a mockup "mail in your pictures" text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/Image_submission
Would that be sufficient for OTRS? (It should be IMHO; it's what we get when people upload directly, plus email address!)
We have this page now, which is under the contact us path:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission
Yours is more explicit than the photo submissions one existing, although it's more geared to images of yourself, or PR agents.
I don't usually work in the photo submissions queue, but checking right now it's not that backlogged, (days, not months), but Andrew's data will probably be awesome. :)
Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Matthew Brownmorven@gmail.com wrote:
Currently a user can upload a photograph themselves to the Commons, claim they are the author, and no proof is needed.
Yes, you are right. So how did we get to OTRS instead of directing people to the Upload button?
I'm no expert on this, but the impression I get is that mechanical upload does not handle, and manual OTRS intervention is needed for, situations like:
* "I am the uploader but not the author, but the author told me I could."
* "I, the author, hereby grant Wikipedia permission to use this copyrighted image under these specific circumstances."
2009/7/21 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Hopefully OTRS and Commons have some stats on this.
*cough*
I'm currently compiling some OTRS stats, but we haven't looked at the permissions or photo-submission queues yet. I'll see if I can get some run up - something like average time between them emailing us and the photo going up on enwiki/commons would be a good start.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
The article I've followed that used to have a bad image is Ian Thorpe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Thorpe
Our main image of Thorpe used to be this (awful) one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ian_Thorpe_on_a_plane_cropped.jpg
That was cropped from this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ian_Thorpe_on_a_plane.jpg
Which is currently further down the article.
The other two images we have in the Thorpe article are the main one (much better quality):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ian_Thorpe_with_a_smile.jpg
Which is a crop of this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geoff_Raby_%26_Ian_Thorpe.jpg
Not sure how the licensing works there.
The other image is a non-free one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ian_Thorpe_dq.jpg
That shows him as a swimmer, what he is famous for, and shows him in the process of disqualification by overbalancing. There was a time when those arguing for *absolutely* minimal free use would have argued against that (they may still do, I don't know). But in this case, the article being a featured article gives some assurance that this has been considered in several discussions.
I also think that it is the drive to improve an article and bring it to featured standards that sometimes gives people the extra oomph to go and find that free picture that might be out there, rather than not bother looking.
I had assumed the main image was a promo one under a free license, but it seems not.
Carcharoth