Just out of interest, what is "doing it right" in this context. Is a link to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Houses_of_Parliament.jpg plus an extended text along the lines of, say, the bottom of http://www.answers.com/topic/bahrain-football-club required?
I've seen (source:Wikipedia) quoted a few times on media pictures now.
----- "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, 4 June, 2009 21:55:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
2009/6/4 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232 However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)" If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
Usually if someone (preferably the creator) contacts them suggesting how to do it right, places are keen to get it right. Asking nicely and reasonably is effective in practice.
- 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
2009/6/4 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
Just out of interest, what is "doing it right" in this context. Is a link to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Houses_of_Parliament.jpg plus an extended text along the lines of, say, the bottom of http://www.answers.com/topic/bahrain-football-club required?
The answer is "fuck knows", or "there's no way to reuse a GFDL work from Wikimedia practically without *someone* claiming your usage isn't compliant." The latter being an assessment from empirical observation. And a large part of why we're moving to CC by-sa.
- d.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Just out of interest, what is "doing it right" in this context. Is a link to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Houses_of_Parliament.jpg plus an extended text along the lines of, say, the bottom of http://www.answers.com/topic/bahrain-football-club required?
I think a link to the image description page would be better than to the image itself -- the description page gives the author, license, description, etc. and a smaller version of the image.
I've seen (source:Wikipedia) quoted a few times on media pictures now.
Well, that's the media. :-) They're used to being able to just say random things like "source: Reuters" that make no sense whatsoever. ;-)
----- "Casey Brown" cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Casey Brown" cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com
Well, that's the media. :-) They're used to being able to just say random things like "source: Reuters" that make no sense whatsoever. ;-)
Yeah - but the difference there is that they're actually paying Reuters for it and using it with their permission!
Andrew
Andrew Turvey wrote:
-- "Casey Brown" wrote:
Well, that's the media. :-) They're used to being able to just say random things like "source: Reuters" that make no sense whatsoever. ;-)
Yeah - but the difference there is that they're actually paying Reuters for it and using it with their permission!
Sure there is that difference, but it is not *the* difference. How is the statement "random" or how does it make "no sense". It states where they got it from. Howe they got it or under what terms is completely irrelevant.
Ec
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Casey Browncbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
I've seen (source:Wikipedia) quoted a few times on media pictures now.
Well, that's the media. :-) They're used to being able to just say random things like "source: Reuters" that make no sense whatsoever.
That's true. But even print sources *should* give a full credit line if asked to do so.
That should ideally include the name of the photographer, and that it is GFDL content. Technically, I'm not sure if Wikipedia even needs to be mentioned (we are just the middleman), but I'm sure there is some clause somewhere that requires it.
Carcharoth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Well, I mean, what difference does it make? I guess it probably should have a link, but, honestly, with the number of Wikipedia images being reused these days, I don't think it would be worth it to attempt to track them all down... - --Unionhawk
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Casey Browncbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
I've seen (source:Wikipedia) quoted a few times on media pictures now.
Well, that's the media. :-) They're used to being able to just say random things like "source: Reuters" that make no sense whatsoever.
That's true. But even print sources *should* give a full credit line if asked to do so.
That should ideally include the name of the photographer, and that it is GFDL content. Technically, I'm not sure if Wikipedia even needs to be mentioned (we are just the middleman), but I'm sure there is some clause somewhere that requires it.
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
----- "Unionhawk" unionhawk.sitemod@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I mean, what difference does it make? I guess it probably should have a link, but, honestly, with the number of Wikipedia images being reused these days, I don't think it would be worth it to attempt to track them all down...
- --Unionhawk
Good challenge! I'd offer the following thoughts:
1) Advertising
If everyone using Wikimedia content acknowledged that fact, it would be good advertising for us. It creates good will - people might come and see what other images we have and might donate some images or money themselves.
2) Contributors
People who contribute free content don't get much from it and presumably don't really expect to. The one thing they are entitled to is attribution - a core part of our license. If they knew they were going to be attributed on Wikimedia and across the internet, they might be keen to contribute more. I've spoken to a number of freelance news photographers on flickr asking them to release their stuff for WP - knowing they will get wide recognition for their images may increase the success rates on those requests!
I wouldn't be surprised if using free images becomes widespread among print media - I mean why not? The main concern is copyright, so if we can give them an easy "how to" I'm sure they'd jump at the chance.
Andrew
"Andrew Turvey" andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote in message news:5465232.561244846011734.JavaMail.SYSTEM@ATSL_Laptop...
----- "Unionhawk" unionhawk.sitemod@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I mean, what difference does it make? I guess it probably should have a link, but, honestly, with the number of Wikipedia images being reused these days, I don't think it would be worth it to attempt to track them all down...
- --Unionhawk
Good challenge! I'd offer the following thoughts:
- Advertising
If everyone using Wikimedia content acknowledged that fact, it would be good advertising for us. It creates good will - people might come and see what other images we have and might donate some images or money themselves.
- Contributors
People who contribute free content don't get much from it and presumably don't really expect to. The one thing they are entitled to is attribution - a core part of our license. If they knew they were going to be attributed on Wikimedia and across the internet, they might be keen to contribute more. I've spoken to a number of freelance news photographers on flickr asking them to release their stuff for WP - knowing they will get wide recognition for their images may increase the success rates on those requests!
I wouldn't be surprised if using free images becomes widespread among print media - I mean why not? The main concern is copyright, so if we can give them an easy "how to" I'm sure they'd jump at the chance.
I am remembering a time back in 1998, when I wrote a nasty song about an American president, and I wanted radio stations to play it, especially in D.C. I found one. I forget the name of it. The DJ recorded it over the phone: two minutes on my account. Beats me if he aired it. It was easy to figure out how to contact media centres on yahoo, back then. Maybe it still is, if you get that http://howto.wikia.com figured out.
Subject: One Line Manual for Preferred Wikipedia Graphic Citations Text: Link To Wikipedia User who made your work more credible or more understandable.