Hoi, It is a good thing that Wikipedia is Free content right .. Free Software is this stuff that these developer dudes spend their time on. Not something for you then... It is a good thing that our developers are quite pragmatic.. they help us make the Internet suck less .. It still sucks, but thanks to them it sucks nicely. Thanks, GerardM
J.L.W.S. The Special One schreef:
Sometimes, getting a "free" photograph may be difficult, dangerous, or even illegal. For example, getting a "free" photograph of some living celebrities may entail Wikipedians becoming the paparazzi.
If I were a celebrity, I would not release my photo under a free license. If I were a professional photographer or artist, I would not release my work under a free license either.
Why? Imagine Fiona Xie releasing her photo under a free license to let Wikipedia use it, and a nasty vandal creating a derivative work by enlarging the size of her boobs, and publishing the derivative photo. If I were a professional photographer or artist, and I released my work under a free license, I wouldn't be able to earn a living.
Wikipedia is over-emphasising freedom, compromising quality in the process. While I believe in freedom, I believe quality is more important. The main reason why I don't support free software is that I find it too ideological, and not pragmatic.
On 2/9/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Kat Walsh said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Importa...
" There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. "
I do agree that there are various kinds of important situations that, in order to be properly discussed in an educational fashion, need a photograph (or at least, omitting one reduces significantly the interest of the article).
To me, these include, among others:
- recent works of art
- military operations and hardware
- spacecraft
(this list is non exhaustive, I'm just taking examples).
In all the cases in the above list, we can include written descriptions (this is what people used to do before it was easy to reprint pictures). However, having images is profitable. Also, in all those cases, there is little hope that we should get "free" photographs, simply because of we will not obtain an authorization from the artist or because our photographers will not be allowed to photograph inside the museum, or inside a war theater, or a spacecraft.
The usual answer (at least on these mailing-list) on such cases is that we should delete the pictures, and it's the fault of the artist or the organizations that could have authorized some free pictures if we don't have pictures in the article about their activities. In a sense, that makes sense: we're effectively devoting some free space to describe what they do, so they should be graceful and give us a photograph.
Now, it seems (but I may be mistaken, and this is why I'm asking for precisions) that we may carve an exemption for "significant modern artworks".
I suspect that the adjective "significant" was added so as to exclude all the album covers and other "pop culture" artwork, and that what is meant is that we should have, say, photographs of Picasso's Guernica and similar works.
To me, this is troubling. An article discussing a painting on Wikipedia is, in effect, free advertisement for a number of people:
- the museum owning the painting, because it attracts visitors
- the artist's family, in countries with a _droit de suite_ (this is a
clause in EU law that says that under some circumstances and within a limited period of time, the artist or its heirs obtain a little share of the resale price of the works of the artist). These people can authorize free pictures.
Thus, I'm puzzled: it seems that we're doing a favor to museums and the heirs of various "modern artists", and supporting the speculation that declares that certain works are more "significant" than others, without any support from the people whose work we promote.
As an example, I remember processing some emails on behalf of the Foundation: some artist wanted us to carry pictures of his work, but at the same time didn't want to give a free license. In short, he wanted us to give them free promotion without giving something back. (I'm unsure whether this artist would be considered "significant", but he apparently considered himself to be so.)
I would thus be glad if we could have some clarification about the extent of this exemption for fair use, and why we seem to give 'carte blanche' for "significant modern art".