The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real
world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that
it will not be accepted a solution.
2009/2/3 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>
On 2 Feb 2009, at 07:11, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
- When I TELL you that something spoils a
picture for me, you
this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not
license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want
picture just as it would be when I have it printed at my local
Is this full stop, or meant in a specific way? Obviously, having the
license, author list, etc. printed on top of the image is
unacceptable. However, I've seen posters with a small white space at
the bottom where the author name and copyright is given. I've also
seen posters where the information is put on the back of the page.
Would those options be acceptable?
I have made a number of images available on the Wikimedia Commons
under a CC-BY-SA license. I'm quite happy for people to print them
off, so long as my name remains attached to them (i.e. I'm
attributed, as per the license). It's easy to do this in an
unobtrusive manner. I've so far been unable to find out whether the
WMFR poster printing setup includes attribution or not; does anyone
know the answer to this?
PS: To date, I'm aware of one of my images being printed out in
poster form. In this case, I wasn't attributed - but in this specific
case I don't mind because they sent me a copy of the print (there was
a delivery mistake, and they got two copies). That was fine by me,
but it would have been even nicer if I was attributed....
foundation-l mailing list