On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:01, Sam Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
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.
Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse -
too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo
printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or
more meaningless usernames too.
You're overlooking the large range (with a high skew) of the number
of authors on images and are instead focussing on the extremal value.
For my pictures, I am currently the single author on all of them
(although that may not be the case in the future). They are released
under a license that requires attribution. If you don't like that,
use another picture.
Where larger numbers of authors for images are concerned, you're
arguing your viewpoint, not the legal situation. Unless you can argue
fair use, then you're bound by the licenses that the images were
released under originally. If those licenses say that the author must
be attributed, then you must attribute the author. You can't
whitewash over that.
Two final points. Note that all of my images (and edits) are done
under my real name; not everyone's username is meaningless. Also,
Wikimedia (inc. or exc. Commons) is not Wikipedia.
Mike
