Since it is not coming throuh on foundation-l I put it here.
I personally have pictures of many Thai moviestars, comedians and singers (I perform as a comedian almost everyday myself and meet them, live in tv-shows and when I play in movies), and it would be easy for me to make pictures on request (especially of all Thai comedians) as I know where to find many of them. But what makes me hesitating from uploading to commons is a couple of things ....
1) Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in English virtually non existing. (of most I wouldn't even be able to give their names, I know they are on tv regularly though) 2) I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get maimed. 3) I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
I also have pictures of Indian moviestars: Dharmendra Deol, Bobby Deol , Sunny Deol, Shilpa Shetty and a lot of others with whom I played in the movie Apne. But the above reason keeps me from uploading to commons. I feel that many people have pictures of stars but they hesitate to upload them for some of the same reasons.
Waerth
2007/2/27, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net:
Since it is not coming throuh on foundation-l I put it here.
I personally have pictures of many Thai moviestars, comedians and singers (I perform as a comedian almost everyday myself and meet them, live in tv-shows and when I play in movies), and it would be easy for me to make pictures on request (especially of all Thai comedians) as I know where to find many of them. But what makes me hesitating from uploading to commons is a couple of things ....
- Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in English virtually non existing. (of most I wouldn't even be able to give their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
It;s not a problem at all ;)
2) I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get maimed.
Don't undestand you ;)
3) I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
So as we say in Poland 'go-on-tree'. If you don't want to share with us what you have in good quality, don't do it at all!
AJF/WarX
Walter van Kalken wrote:
- Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in English virtually non existing.
Well, write Name Surname, Thai tv star. Just a couple of words to state they're notable
(of most I wouldn't even be able to give their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
Hopefully you won't upload something like [[Image:The fat guy from Thai tv.jpg]], otherwise it would be very hard to search for them and making a use of them
- I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get maimed.
That doesn't seem to happen often. Some people don't realise that colors on CRT and LCD monitors don't look the same, sometimes there is a real improvement. And of course you can always discuss.
- I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
Would YOU be able to earn money from copyright on your pictures? If you release them under a free license, no one will really make money by selling your picture, since it's available for free. Of course, a commercial application would be to include the picture on a book about the person; you may earn reputation as a photographer if someone sees the photo author: WVK so in the end commons could be a good way for photographers looking to self-promote themselves.
Marco (Cruccone)
And if you release the photos under the GFDL rather than a Creative Commons license it's highly unlikely there would be any commercial usage as the GFDL would have to be attached (to the newspaper, book or photo) and it's a long document. Newspapers and books (the two more likely uses of your pictures) would probably rather pay you to use the picture as they're not going to include the GFDL in their publication. We have a few professional photographers on commons that do this to protect their living and still let us use their pictures under the copyleft GFDL. In fact, in the case of the person who this long thread is about, he is a professional photographer who released the image under the GFDL so he can get some sort of compensation if somebody wants to use it commercially.
-Yonatan
On 2/27/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
- Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in English virtually non existing.
Well, write Name Surname, Thai tv star. Just a couple of words to state they're notable
(of most I wouldn't even be able to give their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
Hopefully you won't upload something like [[Image:The fat guy from Thai tv.jpg]], otherwise it would be very hard to search for them and making a use of them
- I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get maimed.
That doesn't seem to happen often. Some people don't realise that colors on CRT and LCD monitors don't look the same, sometimes there is a real improvement. And of course you can always discuss.
- I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
Would YOU be able to earn money from copyright on your pictures? If you release them under a free license, no one will really make money by selling your picture, since it's available for free. Of course, a commercial application would be to include the picture on a book about the person; you may earn reputation as a photographer if someone sees the photo author: WVK so in the end commons could be a good way for photographers looking to self-promote themselves.
Marco (Cruccone)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Also, I haven't seen too many photos being deleted for having "no use on any existing or future Wikimedia project" and the worst case is your image(s) get nominated for deletion and you comment and the discussion results in a keep.
-Yonatan
On 2/27/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
And if you release the photos under the GFDL rather than a Creative Commons license it's highly unlikely there would be any commercial usage as the GFDL would have to be attached (to the newspaper, book or photo) and it's a long document. Newspapers and books (the two more likely uses of your pictures) would probably rather pay you to use the picture as they're not going to include the GFDL in their publication. We have a few professional photographers on commons that do this to protect their living and still let us use their pictures under the copyleft GFDL. In fact, in the case of the person who this long thread is about, he is a professional photographer who released the image under the GFDL so he can get some sort of compensation if somebody wants to use it commercially.
-Yonatan
On 2/27/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
- Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in English virtually non existing.
Well, write Name Surname, Thai tv star. Just a couple of words to state they're notable
(of most I wouldn't even be able to give their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
Hopefully you won't upload something like [[Image:The fat guy from Thai tv.jpg]], otherwise it would be very hard to search for them and making a use of them
- I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get maimed.
That doesn't seem to happen often. Some people don't realise that colors on CRT and LCD monitors don't look the same, sometimes there is a real improvement. And of course you can always discuss.
- I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
Would YOU be able to earn money from copyright on your pictures? If you release them under a free license, no one will really make money by selling your picture, since it's available for free. Of course, a commercial application would be to include the picture on a book about the person; you may earn reputation as a photographer if someone sees the photo author: WVK so in the end commons could be a good way for photographers looking to self-promote themselves.
Marco (Cruccone)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 27/02/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I haven't seen too many photos being deleted for having "no use on any existing or future Wikimedia project" and the worst case is your image(s) get nominated for deletion and you comment and the discussion results in a keep.
I can sign up to this. If anyone tries to delete a freely-licensed picture of anyone we are plausibly maybe perhaps likely to have an article on eventually, then let me know and I'll come vote against it with common sense ;-)
If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL + CC-BY-NC-SA (on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a double licensing would be allowed on commons :) Marco
Yonatan Horan wrote:
And if you release the photos under the GFDL rather than a Creative Commons license it's highly unlikely there would be any commercial usage as the GFDL would have to be attached (to the newspaper, book or photo) and it's a long document. Newspapers and books (the two more likely uses of your pictures) would probably rather pay you to use the picture as they're not going to include the GFDL in their publication. We have a few professional photographers on commons that do this to protect their living and still let us use their pictures under the copyleft GFDL. In fact, in the case of the person who this long thread is about, he is a professional photographer who released the image under the GFDL so he can get some sort of compensation if somebody wants to use it commercially.
-Yonatan
On 27/02/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL + CC-BY-NC-SA (on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a double licensing would be allowed on commons :)
If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/02/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL + CC-BY-NC-SA (on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a double licensing would be allowed on commons :)
If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...
It believe it should be OK - we only care that a picture has *a* free license, we're not trying to control all possible licenses for it. But beware, the non-free CCs have templates that put them in "delete me" categories, so you might want an alternate template or just boilerplate text, so triggerhappy admins :-) don't blast the image before noticing its dual license.
It *is* a clever idea to use GFDL to discourage casual commercial use...
Stan
Hi everyone!
This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious.. how common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL and CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses. You could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not come across!
I'm also looking for examples of people/companies using dual CC licenses, such as a CC-BY-NC-SA and some other kind of CC license (maybe a sampling license).
Thanks!
On 2/27/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/02/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL +
CC-BY-NC-SA
(on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a double licensing would be allowed on commons :)
If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...
It believe it should be OK - we only care that a picture has *a* free license, we're not trying to control all possible licenses for it. But beware, the non-free CCs have templates that put them in "delete me" categories, so you might want an alternate template or just boilerplate text, so triggerhappy admins :-) don't blast the image before noticing its dual license.
It *is* a clever idea to use GFDL to discourage casual commercial use...
Stan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 27/02/07, sigmaman sigmaman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone!
This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious.. how common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL and CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses. You could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not come across!
Well, you couldn't limit commercial uses any more than they were limited simply by GFDL licensing. Remember that CC-NC plus GFDL doesn't give you a combination of the both, just a choice. (in other words, you end up with easier use for noncommercial, or commercial only-if-they-use-GFDL, not some kind of GFDL-NC)
I understand the choice issue regarding this type of dual license. Basically, what I was trying to say is that you limit the commercial interoperability with other CC licenses.
Thank you for helping me clear it up! ;-)
Sigmaman
On 2/27/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/02/07, sigmaman sigmaman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone!
This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious.. how common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL
and
CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses. You could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not come across!
Well, you couldn't limit commercial uses any more than they were limited simply by GFDL licensing. Remember that CC-NC plus GFDL doesn't give you a combination of the both, just a choice. (in other words, you end up with easier use for noncommercial, or commercial only-if-they-use-GFDL, not some kind of GFDL-NC)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Just curious, what makes the GFDL different from CC's Sharealike license, in general terms? Is the GDFL more restrictive? If you could point me to some sort of resource, I'd be happy to research myself, but I haven't been able to locate a lof about the GFDL, except for some elements relating to printing manuals, and, of course, Wikipedia.
Thanks, Sigmaman
On 2/27/07, sigmaman sigmaman@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the choice issue regarding this type of dual license. Basically, what I was trying to say is that you limit the commercial interoperability with other CC licenses.
Thank you for helping me clear it up! ;-)
Sigmaman
On 2/27/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/02/07, sigmaman sigmaman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone!
This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious..
how
common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL
and
CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses.
You
could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not
come
across!
Well, you couldn't limit commercial uses any more than they were limited simply by GFDL licensing. Remember that CC-NC plus GFDL doesn't give you a combination of the both, just a choice. (in other words, you end up with easier use for noncommercial, or commercial only-if-they-use-GFDL, not some kind of GFDL-NC)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2007/2/28, sigmaman sigmaman@gmail.com:
Just curious, what makes the GFDL different from CC's Sharealike license, in general terms? Is the GDFL more restrictive? If you could point me to some sort of resource, I'd be happy to research myself, but I haven't been able to locate a lof about the GFDL, except for some elements relating to printing manuals, and, of course, Wikipedia.
If you copy something under CC-SA, you need to include a statement that it is under that license. If you copy something under the GFDL you need to include the full text of the license.
Gotcha. Thank you.
On 2/28/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/2/28, sigmaman sigmaman@gmail.com:
Just curious, what makes the GFDL different from CC's Sharealike
license,
in general terms? Is the GDFL more restrictive? If you could point me to
some
sort of resource, I'd be happy to research myself, but I haven't been
able
to locate a lof about the GFDL, except for some elements relating to printing manuals, and, of course, Wikipedia.
If you copy something under CC-SA, you need to include a statement that it is under that license. If you copy something under the GFDL you need to include the full text of the license.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 27/02/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...
It believe it should be OK - we only care that a picture has *a* free license, we're not trying to control all possible licenses for it. But beware, the non-free CCs have templates that put them in "delete me" categories, so you might want an alternate template or just boilerplate text, so triggerhappy admins :-) don't blast the image before noticing its dual license.
Some kind of free-text option might solve this.
{{GFDL and|the Completely Free Use By Anyone With Red Hair license}}
It would mean our categorisation system wouldn't identify the other licenses, but one could argue that's a feature not a bug!
It *is* a clever idea to use GFDL to discourage casual commercial use...
Practically speaking, the GFDL makes single pieces of work free for any major multi-component reuse (where you'd be reprinting the GFDL once, covering all the pieces of work in it combined); but in many ways makes them not-free for reuse of them singly, simply because of the hassle invovled in complying with the GFDL for one individual image...
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org