Gregory Maxwell stated for the record:
On 6/27/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org>
wrote:
As long as copyright warriors are willing to apply
common sense the
other way -- it is patently obvious that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear1.jpg and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear2.jpg were taken by a Naval
officer during the performance of his duty, and I would have little
patience if someone were to argue that they ''might'' not be.
Notice I said that if there is doubt we should contact.
It's not always obvious, just sometimes. For government sourced
images we should always be able to make a contact... Perhaps for your
example we couldn't get that specific image confirmed but I'd bet if
we asked we could get some other useful ones.
Very good.
I find the
standard "any possible doubt" to be much too paranoid. The
standard for convicting someone of premeditated murder is lower than
that. If we held ourselves to that standard, we would be an image-free
Web site -- ''no'' image's provenance is ''utterly
impossible'' for
someone to doubt.
It's a reasonable target, if we can choose between an image with
substantial doubt and one with little doubt (by a wikipedian) we
should choose the wikipedian image. If there is doubt we should also
make an attempt to contact the source.
I'm undoubtedly being overly literal, but that's exactly what the trolls
and other vandals will be.
The wikimedia projects already have a sizable and
growing base of
photographers, illustrators, and musicians. It is completely
reasonable to believe that we can meet our own media needs, excluding
specific historical works that we wish to comment on.
Are you actually saying that it is "completely reasonable" for a
Wikipedian to photograph the wreck of USS ''Thresher''? For a
Wikipedian to take a clear picture of a B-2 Spirit in flight? For a
Wikipedian to take snapshots of the construction of the International
Space Station? There are several myriad subjects beyond "specific
historical works that we wish to comment on" for which the public domain
is the only source of images.
There are cases, but there are a minority. View images at random, ...
we have a great many number of images that anyone can take. The
majority of the exceptions are ones which are clearly free, fair use,
or could be easily settled with an email.
I did not advocate forbidding external images entirely but rather
making a strong position that images made by wikipedians are preferred
where we have a choice, and setting some better guidelines for
confirming content that isn't cut and dry.
As long as we avoid copyright paranoia and absolute prohibitions, I
concur. I work around the military and do my best to take advantage of
my opportunities to photograph things most of the public never sees.
--
Sean Barrett | When I become evil overlord, if I'm
sean(a)epoptic.com | looking all around for my elusive enemy,
| I will occasionally look *up* as well.