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".
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".
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
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.
Honestly trying not to write a flame, or be overly dismissive of your views, I still would suggest that your beliefs in this regard are not consistent with the dominant ethos on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. You truly may be more comfortable working on a different sort of project.
It's also true that the ethos of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is quite different from the ethos of capitalism and much of the (at least western) world. It is clear that, in many ways, Wikipedia is about changing a part of the dominant ethos.
For me, the quality of Wikipedia is directly related to the freeness of it. If John Q. Celeb does not want to have any free photograph of him on Wikipedia, then I'd much rather not have any photo of him. Even if he wins 10 Academy Awards. (Of course, if he wins 10 Academy Awards, chances are there's some free photo of him somewhere). We want to change the ethos such that John Q. Celeb *wants* to release a free image. Certainly part of celebrity is being made fun of.
-Rich
Be creative. Celebrities are people too, and they love Wikipedia. Have you tried asking them for a free image?
On 2/9/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
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.
Honestly trying not to write a flame, or be overly dismissive of your views, I still would suggest that your beliefs in this regard are not consistent with the dominant ethos on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. You truly may be more comfortable working on a different sort of project.
It's also true that the ethos of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is quite different from the ethos of capitalism and much of the (at least western) world. It is clear that, in many ways, Wikipedia is about changing a part of the dominant ethos.
For me, the quality of Wikipedia is directly related to the freeness of it. If John Q. Celeb does not want to have any free photograph of him on Wikipedia, then I'd much rather not have any photo of him. Even if he wins 10 Academy Awards. (Of course, if he wins 10 Academy Awards, chances are there's some free photo of him somewhere). We want to change the ethos such that John Q. Celeb *wants* to release a free image. Certainly part of celebrity is being made fun of.
-Rich
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Brad Patrick wrote:
Be creative. Celebrities are people too, and they love Wikipedia. Have you tried asking them for a free image?
Right. It's very possible that, with the continuing growth of Wikipedia, any up-and-coming celebrity would be eager to have a free image shown.
Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust, with "No free image available" written in bold letters.
Essentially, try to create a situation in which not having a free image available for Wikipedia is seen as a detriment to one's career.
-Rich
On 09/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust, with "No free image available" written in bold letters.
PERFECT!
- d.
2007/2/9, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 09/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust, with "No free image available" written in bold letters.
Remember that even if I (or anyone else) agree for distribution of photos of myself it doesn't mean that I resign from protection of my image. Eg. PD photo of me cannot be used in advertisement of condoms without my permission although it's PD ;)
AJF/WarX
On 10/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Be creative. Celebrities are people too, and they love Wikipedia. Have you tried asking them for a free image?
Right. It's very possible that, with the continuing growth of Wikipedia, any up-and-coming celebrity would be eager to have a free image shown.
Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust, with "No free image available" written in bold letters.
That's a fantastic idea that I can't believe we haven't done already. Hopefully it might also reduce the dodgy copyrighted images that get uploaded for image-free biographies, too.
Go forth! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_man_%28en%29.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_woman_%28en%29.svg
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
This discussion has forgotten about one of the traditional media that work very well with computer based systems: drawing. A public figure can try to prevent himself from being photographed except under terms he dictates, but he can not (at least in the US) prevent an artist from drawing or painting him based on whatever images are available, in any way the artist may please, fair or unfair, characteristic or satyrical, and publishing it as desired--as long as it is not an actual reproduction of the original.
Similarly for technical subjects. If i should see an object, I can draw it from memory. If it should be described to me, I can draw it based on the description. I can't use it to pass off a copy as the original, but otherwise the image is my own property , and if i should want to put it into the public domain, the subject or owner has no recourse. Among the publications making effective use of this technique is the New Yorker. Many nonfiction books are therefore illustrated by drawings, and so can parts of WP.
This does not hold for every possible circumstance--there remains a right of private figures to privacy. In Europe, there are I believe some further restrictions. Governments can seek to prohibit verbal or visual descriptions of whatever they may choose. There is obscenity in drawing as well as in photographs--as cartoons make obvious.
But there is a very wide range here, at WP so far makes use of very little of it.-DGG
On 2/9/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Be creative. Celebrities are people too, and they love Wikipedia. Have you tried asking them for a free image?
Right. It's very possible that, with the continuing growth of Wikipedia, any up-and-coming celebrity would be eager to have a free image shown.
Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust, with "No free image available" written in bold letters.
That's a fantastic idea that I can't believe we haven't done already. Hopefully it might also reduce the dodgy copyrighted images that get uploaded for image-free biographies, too.
Go forth! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_man_%28en%29.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_woman_%28en%29.svg
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
David Goodman wrote:
This discussion has forgotten about one of the traditional media that work very well with computer based systems: drawing. A public figure can try to prevent himself from being photographed except under terms he dictates, but he can not (at least in the US) prevent an artist from drawing or painting him based on whatever images are available, in any way the artist may please, fair or unfair, characteristic or satyrical, and publishing it as desired--as long as it is not an actual reproduction of the original.
This worked a treat on our article for the author Jim Butcher. I posted a request for an image on his fan forum and the favourite image turned out to be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg
Surely any author with even a modest fan-base can manage this ;-)
HTH HAND
Sorry, just had to delete the copyright on the drawing. It's a CC-by-sa 2.5license; the whole point of this discussion. It was rather ironic to slap a (c) notice on the drawing which is supposed to demonstrate the "right" way to do it.
On 2/12/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
This discussion has forgotten about one of the traditional media that work very well with computer based systems: drawing. A public figure can try to prevent himself from being photographed except under terms he dictates, but he can not (at least in the US) prevent an artist from drawing or painting him based on whatever images are available, in any way the artist may please, fair or unfair, characteristic or satyrical, and publishing it as desired--as long as it is not an actual reproduction of the original.
This worked a treat on our article for the author Jim Butcher. I posted a request for an image on his fan forum and the favourite image turned out to be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg
Surely any author with even a modest fan-base can manage this ;-)
HTH HAND
Phil
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-Wikipedia-l--precisions-about-the-recent-WMF-%22fair-... Sent from the Wikipedia General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Brad Patrick wrote:
On 2/12/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
This worked a treat on our article for the author Jim Butcher. I posted a request for an image on his fan forum and the favourite image turned out to be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg
Sorry, just had to delete the copyright on the drawing. It's a CC-by-sa 2.5license; the whole point of this discussion. It was rather ironic to slap a (c) notice on the drawing which is supposed to demonstrate the "right" way to do it.
Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on.
So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?
TIA HAND
On 12/02/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
On 2/12/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
This worked a treat on our article for the author Jim Butcher. I posted a request for an image on his fan forum and the favourite image turned out to be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg
Sorry, just had to delete the copyright on the drawing. It's a CC-by-sa 2.5license; the whole point of this discussion. It was rather ironic to slap a (c) notice on the drawing which is supposed to demonstrate the "right" way to do it.
Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on.
So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?
Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't give bylines or the like to articles, and actively discourages signing your work - should images really be given special treatment in this regard?
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 12/02/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on.
So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?
Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't give bylines or the like to articles, and actively discourages signing your work - should images really be given special treatment in this regard?
I have mixed opinions on this. I generally agree with the general "no ownership" policy of the material we include, but I can forsee all sorts of long-term difficulties in distinguishing between copyvios and legitimate usages. when those usages have gone through several downstream generations.
Ec
Phil Boswell wrote:
Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on.
So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?
TIA HAND
If the (c) was on the article... what happened with "Image:JimButcher sepia.jpg" of 23:28, 8 October 2006? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&... shows three uploads but only the last two on [[Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg]])
On 12/02/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Phil Boswell wrote:
Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on.
So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?
TIA HAND
If the (c) was on the article... what happened with "Image:JimButcher sepia.jpg" of 23:28, 8 October 2006? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&... shows three uploads but only the last two on [[Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg]])
The earliest iteration, on the 8th, forgot to include any note on licensing and was speedied. It was reuploaded on the 10th with correct details.
Platonides wrote:
Phil Boswell wrote:
Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on. So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?
If the (c) was on the article... what happened with "Image:JimButcher sepia.jpg" of 23:28, 8 October 2006? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&... shows three uploads but only the last two on [[Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg]])
The first attempt used an incorrect licence and was speedied as an "I3". If you like I can take a look to see whether there was any sort of dialogue with the uploader but I don't have the time right now. Given that it ended up OK, at least they weren't put off for ever...
HTH HAND
Brianna Laugher wrote:
That's a fantastic idea that I can't believe we haven't done already. Hopefully it might also reduce the dodgy copyrighted images that get uploaded for image-free biographies, too.
Go forth! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_man_%28en%29.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_woman_%28en%29.svg
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
We had some of this kind on other languages: [[Image:Falta.svg]]
Brianna Laugher a écrit :
That's a fantastic idea that I can't believe we haven't done already. Hopefully it might also reduce the dodgy copyrighted images that get uploaded for image-free biographies, too.
This had been discussed on the Wikipedia in French, about for instance building and works of art with no free photographs (I was the one proposing it, if I remember correctly). I had been told that this was a bit "aggressive". Maybe the times are a-changing?
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
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.
If you put a free license on some of your photos and 145889 people downloaded and shared it, you would have 145889 people knowing about you, and knowing that you make great photos -> they may hire you.
Note that: a) We're not saying you should publich *all* your work. If you have 20 photos of John Doe, you can publish one low-quality and sell the other 19.
b) People copying your photos will get even less profit, as they will have to acknowledge you were the author (i assume at least a Attribution License).
c) If your work is bad. There's very little licenses can do to make you earn more money.
On 09/02/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the copyright or not.
And malicious vandals usually don't give a damn about the legal status of the work they're chopping around...
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.
There are a few professional and semi-professional photographers who have released work under a free license - have a look at Towpilot's work on Commons, where what he's doing is releasing a load of freelance photos he made of Hollywood stars on promotional tours in the 70s/80s. The market he took these for no longer exists - he can't really flog them to Scandinavian entertainment magazines twenty years on! - and they're of no real economic value to him now; sure, he might be able to sell one or two for a biography or a retrospective, but who would hunt him down to find them?
It's also advertising - you're releasing photos, there is the promise of more to come, of other (better?) images you still have on the market. They're attributed, so your name continues with them; an interested reuser can always contact you.
And, pragmatically, a lot of reusers don't want to deal with open licenses or the like - they want what they understand, which is a clear license for a specific use from the copyright holder, for which they are willing to pay. There are a few people who make a small but comfortable amount from people finding their freely-licensed images on Commons and then paying to use them...
Andrew Gray a écrit :
Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the copyright or not.
Actually, it is.
Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use more effectively than through trademark law solely.
Some European government agencies do the same: they copyright their photos and make them available under "unfree" licenses because they fear that free licenses may hinder their ability to prevent people from using them in inappropriate ways (read here: advertisements that appear to make them endorse stuff).
*** Before dismissing these fears as unfounded, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does exactly that. ***
The US government enacted legislation that expressly punishes using government symbols without proper organization; but this legislation happens to be outside copyright law. Apparently, some European agencies don't enjoy that kind of protection, thus their attachment to copyright.
David Monniaux wrote:
Andrew Gray a écrit :
Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the copyright or not.
Actually, it is.
Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use more effectively than through trademark law solely.
Some European government agencies do the same: they copyright their photos and make them available under "unfree" licenses because they fear that free licenses may hinder their ability to prevent people from using them in inappropriate ways (read here: advertisements that appear to make them endorse stuff).
*** Before dismissing these fears as unfounded, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does exactly that. ***
The US government enacted legislation that expressly punishes using government symbols without proper organization; but this legislation happens to be outside copyright law. Apparently, some European agencies don't enjoy that kind of protection, thus their attachment to copyright.
I think you'll find that Andrew was using "your image" to mean "your visage" or "your likeness", or "your face". Not "your electronically stored graphic".
-Rich
On 10/02/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Andrew Gray a écrit :
Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the copyright or not.
Actually, it is.
Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use more effectively than through trademark law solely.
Sorry, by "your image" here I meant "the photograph of you" (ie, the image in question). Images which aren't a photographic representation of a person don't tend to be covered by these protections, hence the workarounds...
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 10/02/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Andrew Gray a écrit :
Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the copyright or not.
Actually, it is.
Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use more effectively than through trademark law solely.
Sorry, by "your image" here I meant "the photograph of you" (ie, the image in question). Images which aren't a photographic representation of a person don't tend to be covered by these protections, hence the workarounds...
Though even there it's not clear that the workarounds are necessary or beneficial. Sun recently freely licensed the copyright on their Java mascot ("Duke"), and is controlling use exclusively through the trademark that they retain on it. Mozilla, meanwhile, has been famously tightfisted with their Firefox logo, and it has led to a great deal of rancor within the open-source/free-software community, arguably outweighing any benefit they've gained from that control.
-Mark
Delirium schreef:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 10/02/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Andrew Gray a écrit :
Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the copyright or not.
Actually, it is.
Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use more effectively than through trademark law solely.
Sorry, by "your image" here I meant "the photograph of you" (ie, the image in question). Images which aren't a photographic representation of a person don't tend to be covered by these protections, hence the workarounds...
Though even there it's not clear that the workarounds are necessary or beneficial. Sun recently freely licensed the copyright on their Java mascot ("Duke"), and is controlling use exclusively through the trademark that they retain on it. Mozilla, meanwhile, has been famously tightfisted with their Firefox logo, and it has led to a great deal of rancor within the open-source/free-software community, arguably outweighing any benefit they've gained from that control.
-Mark
Hoi, There are two sides to the coin. You assume that Mozilla lost out. Maybe so, but Debian lost most of its credibility in the eyes of many others. The sheer stupidity of it all is one of the impediments that works against the uptake of Linux on the desktop. Including my desktop.
Thanks, GerardM
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".
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org