On 11/21/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
What are the odds of getting interested Wikipedians in to take the pictures instead? Contractors cost money, getting pictures taken for free in exchange for free licensing seems like a better deal for ESA. Lest one is concerned about amateur-quality work, I suspect that if ESA were to publicly announce inside access for ten photographers, unpaid but credited by name, they would have more than enough applications to be able to accept only the best.
Right, I am not soooo sure that the ESA (or any other organisation, NASA included, for that matter) will let any random Wikipedian hop on the next satellite to take pictures of <insert name of planet here>. I'd love too, but hey, I don't think this is going to happen any time soon.
I believe you will also understand the importance of monitoring what pictures get in and out concerning satellites, space shuttles and other highly technological objects.
I also think WP could do more to cynically play on European chauvinism than it has so far. 1/2 :-) A public statement by Jimbo, saying something like "we will not accept unfree ESA images in WP, and while we don't want WP to present a US-only view of space exploration, it's up to the Europeans to fix this", would likely get reported widely, and hopefully put some pressure on ESA to change what is at best a sloppy practice.
Let us not jump to conclusions too fast here. :-) What you call "European chauvinism" I will rather call "lack of means", "lack of human ressources to write the right contracts with the n number of national laws involved in the launching of this or that satellite and the building of this or that camera" etc. There are reasons for the ESA and other organisations not being able to release their pictures under a free license and they go far beyond a manichean "good people who release in the public domain what they produce with public money" vs "bad people who want to keep stuff for themselves". I don't think "pressure" as you put it, is the way to go.
Let me also try to maybe tone down the questions that David was trying to get through here and give a different angle.
The question is not that the ESA or these other organisations *do not* want to release their pictures for a wider use. As a matter of fact, it is the ESA who came to us (Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia France) and asked us for advice on how to go about this, and how they could make their pictures (more) freely available. However, they have some conditions.
Some of our licenses (the one I use, for example) also add conditions (CC-BY-SA - share alike is a pretty drastic condition, when you think about it).
One of their condition is that those images can't be used for political propaganda, for example.
Now let me try and shift the debate a little here. Let us consider that the ESA, or whatever other organisation, comes up with a licence of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in our free sense) *except* for political propaganda. Would that in any way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about this.
To bounce on something David said, there is much work to do in the evangelisation of those organisations, and a lot to explain about the pros and the cons of "free material". Most of their objections need to be understood in the light of what these organisations can do (with the restrictions that apply to them) and what they want to do. My take is that what they "want to do" can easily be changed, by patient, pedagogic and comprehensive explanations. What they "can do" is then another story altogether.
What I understand David was trying to say here is that maybe there is a mid-term agreement that can be reached, somewhere along the path. Are the Organisation X images worth us being just a tad less free (no political use of the images), are they not? It's a difficult question, but one that is worth debating.
One thing I am certain of is that saying "Organisation X must change their ways" is definitely not the right answer. I'd much rather have a stance that goes "How can we make organisation X change their way for everyone's best interest?"
Delphine
On 11/21/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Some of our licenses (the one I use, for example) also add conditions (CC-BY-SA - share alike is a pretty drastic condition, when you think about it).
I think its important to carefully consider the difference between "use" limitations and "redistribution" limitations. They are different things.
One of their condition is that those images can't be used for political propaganda, for example.
How would this materially differ from a restriction that the work could not be used by the military or by anyone who builds weapons?
Or a restriction that the work couldn't be used by religious institutions? ...or a restriction that it couldn't be used to advocate democracy?
To the extent that political propaganda, military machinery, religion, or democracy are all legal and accepted parts of our societies we can conclude that they are all valid pursuits of man.
(here I wrote a long essay on our duty to the public as part of our mission of facilitating the sharing of knowledge, but I removed it because it was too far offtopic and would be better covered separately at a later time)
[snip]
of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in our free sense) *except* for political propaganda.
Is it really the case that a narrow prohibition on political propaganda is *all* they would want?
I ask this because often we have run into people who have said they would only release under -ND because they had a concern that downstream users might modify the work and misrepresent them.
I can sympathize with this concern but I offer that the CC-By (and -SA) licenses contain a clause which allows the author to, as his option and at any time, demand any downstream user *not* provide attribution if he doesn't want to be associated with them or their work.. and that the author could reasonably make the request in advance. I also offer that almost every country has both fraud and defamation laws which provide better protection than copyright can, and that in cases of obviously evil use a court could declare a release under a free license to be an unconscionable agreement and nullify it...
... so I offer these things, only to find out that many people who have claimed to be concerned about harm to their reputation are actually concerned about things far broader and more difficult.
Would that in any way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about this.
I think we need to be even more specific before we can really discuss it. This is an area where the details matter a lot.
The idea of discriminating based on use strikes me as terribly bad from a number of different angles.
Exactly what are they trying to prevent? It's very important..
For example, lets imagine that their only concern is that a politician will take credit for their work in their political advertisement. If this is really the case, then there situation is not so different from an author of Free Content who really doesn't want a commercial redistributor hiding the fact that the work was given freely to the public. ... Both can be solved through similar means: A more aggressive attribution or license notice requirement.
Would I support a license with a more aggressive attribution or license notice requirement? I already do... Although I get a lot of flack on our projects by releasing my images under the GFDL-1.2 except by exception.
So if thats really their point, I think we could find an easy solution through means which differ from a direct exclusion of certain natures of use.
Now, lets imaging another possibility: Lets imagine that they don't want their images used in political ads because they are concerned about criticism. Perhaps the politician might show photographs of gold-plated hammers and point out overspending.
Would I support a license which enabled this sort of prohibition? *Not* *on* *your* *life*.
If thats really what they wanted, however, they probably wouldn't settle on an agreement that would only limit politicians... it would seem logical to try to limit us as well.
[snip]
is that what they "want to do" can easily be changed, by patient, pedagogic and comprehensive explanations. What they "can do" is then another story altogether.
While I agree with the concept of "can do" and "want to do", and have personally advocated a soft interpretation of "replicable" and "non-replicable" as the basis for fair use decisions on enwiki... We need to keep in mind that in this case 'can do' and 'want to do' only differ by how high we're calling... One man's "can't" is his bosses "don't want". So the difference is quantitative (how much work to change the policy) more than qualitative.
What I understand David was trying to say here is that maybe there is a mid-term agreement that can be reached, somewhere along the path. Are the Organisation X images worth us being just a tad less free (no political use of the images), are they not? It's a difficult question, but one that is worth debating.
If restriction X is okay, we should go with it.. and open it to everyone.. After all, it's okay. If the restriction is not okay, taking it will cause harm... it will remove our leverage. We have leverage today, and it's only growing.
One thing I am certain of is that saying "Organisation X must change their ways" is definitely not the right answer. I'd much rather have a stance that goes "How can we make organisation X change their way for everyone's best interest?"
Lets try filling in the variable:
"ESA must change their ways..." I don't agree. They can keep their images private. Thats their business and their choice. We will cover their articles with what free images we can get, and they will look silly compared to NASA.
"Wikimedia must change their ways..." Again I don't agree. We shouldn't change our ways simply because someone else has a differing agenda.
:)
Delphine Ménard wrote:
Let us not jump to conclusions too fast here. :-) What you call "European chauvinism" I will rather call "lack of means", "lack of human ressources to write the right contracts with the n number of national laws involved in the launching of this or that satellite and the building of this or that camera" etc. There are reasons for the ESA and other organisations not being able to release their pictures under a free license and they go far beyond a manichean "good people who release in the public domain what they produce with public money" vs "bad people who want to keep stuff for themselves". I don't think "pressure" as you put it, is the way to go.
Let me also try to maybe tone down the questions that David was trying to get through here and give a different angle.
The question is not that the ESA or these other organisations *do not* want to release their pictures for a wider use. As a matter of fact, it is the ESA who came to us (Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia France) and asked us for advice on how to go about this, and how they could make their pictures (more) freely available. However, they have some conditions.
Some of our licenses (the one I use, for example) also add conditions (CC-BY-SA - share alike is a pretty drastic condition, when you think about it).
One of their condition is that those images can't be used for political propaganda, for example.
Now let me try and shift the debate a little here. Let us consider that the ESA, or whatever other organisation, comes up with a licence of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in our free sense) *except* for political propaganda. Would that in any way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about this.
Delphine
I don't know how completely to answer this, except to note how NASA images have been used in the past, and frankly for considerable benefit for just about everybody who uses them. The famous "Earthrise" photo that was taken during the Apollo 8 flight in particular has been used explicitly for political purposes. (see [[w:Earthrise]]). I don't think that these political purposes to which the photo has been used have been shown as an endorsement by NASA of those political groups that use those photos... indeed it is exactly the opposite. Because NASA has been explicitly apolitical in the use of this and other photos, it has been used by a very wide range of groups from the boy scouts, religious groups, environmental activists, political campaigns, space advocacy lobbies, science fiction conventions, and astronomical observatories. Political restrictions would make it available to almost none of these groups and would have a huge impact on its distribution.
Another very good example of how some creative useage of "public domain" photos is in the form of the also quite famous [[w:Image:Buzz salutes the U.S. Flag.jpg]] that was later used by none other than MTV for promotions of their television channel. It has also been used in other contexts as well, where the U.S. flag has been photoshopped to other images. Clearly this is a case where having public domain content can be used creatively in manners that having copyright restrictions would not normally allow such use. Especially if you are manipulating images for artistic purposes, it is essential to have some content that is in the public domain to avoid having significant licensing problems and relying on "fair use" as a very poor substitute.
It should be of note that the only image that NASA has a real problem with people using is the official logos of NASA, especially if such usage implies endorsement.
How this relates to the ESA, I am not entirely sure. One huge problem the ESA faces is that they have a committee of many nations to help decide policy on this issue, each of which has their own unique cultural background. In contrast, the USA has had a long tradition of putting all government publications into the public domain, so it was a no-brainer when NASA decided to do the same with the space pictures. It wasn't even breaking tradition to do so.
I do hope that the WMF encourages the widespread use of GFDL-compatable images and multi-media content, more than just simply for compatability with Wikipedia. It also allows ordinary people to have access to rich media archives that would otherwise be locked up, or encourage widespread "IP pirarcy".
It should be of note that those who choose to produce quality artistic content (both text as well as multi-media content) under copyright and propritary licensing arrangements are actually helped by having a large quantity of public domain and free content available. It forces those of us who do so to prove that what we are making is of the highest quality and does something original and unique. In the long run, public domain and free content will make a much richer artistic environment.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org