On Wednesday 30 October 2002 10:35 am, wikipedia-l-request@wikipedia.org wrote:
Sounds good. I'm leaving South Korea, but I have an ameteur photographer friend staying behind, and she just bought a scanner. She's agreed to release many of her pictures under the GFDL.
Stephen
Correct me if am I wrong somebody but I do believe that an image copyright holder has the right to keep a restrictive copyright on a full resolution image AND also spin off lower resolution versions under other less restrictive licenses.
So for example I could take a digital photo at 1600 x 1200 pixels which is automatically under a restrictive license and then create a downsized, cropped, and web-friendly version at 250 x 200 and release the smaller version under the GFDL or even into the public domain.
If this is in fact true then we should tell Wikipedia photographers that they can keep a restrictive license on their high resolution originals if they want.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Correct me if am I wrong somebody but I do believe that an image copyright holder has the right to keep a restrictive copyright on a full resolution image AND also spin off lower resolution versions under other less restrictive licenses.
You're correct, the full resolution graphic and the lower resolution graphics have seperate copyrights.
However in our case it would be better if we had the full resolution graphics available as if a graphic ever needs to be resized to fit the article better it is far better to change the size and then reduce the resolution of a graphic than doing it the other way round.
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Correct me if am I wrong somebody but I do believe that an image copyright holder has the right to keep a restrictive copyright on a full resolution image AND also spin off lower resolution versions under other less restrictive licenses.
You're correct, the full resolution graphic and the lower resolution graphics have seperate copyrights.
However in our case it would be better if we had the full resolution graphics available as if a graphic ever needs to be resized to fit the article better it is far better to change the size and then reduce the resolution of a graphic than doing it the other way round.
Having the full resolution graphics for material (other than original material from our contributors) would involve grater risks of copyright violation than reduced resolution images. Even assuming that there is unlimited storage space for these images, we have no practical use for most of the full resolution images anyway. Why not store them at the maximum resolution that we may reasonably require?
Storing reduced resolution images means that we have already addressed the substantiality factor for fair use. Anyone that copies from us cannot make his images any more substantial than us.
Eclecticology
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Correct me if am I wrong somebody but I do believe that an image copyright holder has the right to keep a restrictive copyright on a full resolution image AND also spin off lower resolution versions under other less restrictive licenses.
You're correct, the full resolution graphic and the lower resolution graphics have seperate copyrights.
However in our case it would be better if we had the full resolution graphics available as if a graphic ever needs to be resized to fit the article better it is far better to change the size and then reduce the resolution of a graphic than doing it the other way round.
Having the full resolution graphics for material (other than original material from our contributors) would involve grater risks of copyright violation than reduced resolution images. Even assuming that there is unlimited storage space for these images, we have no practical use for most of the full resolution images anyway. Why not store them at the maximum resolution that we may reasonably require?
Storing reduced resolution images means that we have already addressed the substantiality factor for fair use. Anyone that copies from us cannot make his images any more substantial than us.
It seems very silly to store 1000 pixel images just because somebody MIGHT want to print them out or resize them one day... Before I upload my pics I reduce them to a useful screen display size - 200 or 300 pixels across depending on how much detail is in the image. If there is some kind of detail that I want people to be able to see in 'closeup' I'll also upload a fullsized version, but most of the time that's just not necessary. It's just inviting somebody to steal my work and make it their own!
--- Karen AKA Kajikit kaji@labyrinth.net.au wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:
violation than reduced resolution images. Even
assuming that there is
unlimited storage space for these images, we have
no practical use for
most of the full resolution images anyway. Why
not store them at the
maximum resolution that we may reasonably require?
It seems very silly to store 1000 pixel images just because somebody MIGHT want to print them out or resize them one day... Before I upload my pics I reduce them to a useful screen display size - 200 or 300 pixels across depending on how much detail is in the image. If there is some kind of detail that I want people to be able to see in 'closeup' I'll also upload a fullsized version, but most of the time that's just not necessary. It's just inviting somebody to steal my work and make it their own!
When we write a text, we "try" to write it "full resolution" and we know it is inviting somebody to steal our work and make it their own also. What is the difference ?
I am probably one of these "silly" persons who like to have a fully detailed text, as well as a full resolution image available. Of course, the full resolution image should not be directly displayed on the screen (now at least, I hope connection time will improve worldwide:-)), but I believe, making it available could be a *real bonus* in many cases (technical pictures...).
An encyclopedia such as wikipedia is amha, not only done for the purpose of being consulted quietly at home, on a dsl, between peanuts and beer. It could also to be of use for educational purposes, in underdeveloped countries, or at least in all these places where only one computer is available for a full group of people, such as in most european schools. In the latter cases, parts of the encyclopedia will be *printed*, and a 72 dpi is not likely to give something very pretty.
In any case, a printed page of wikipedia, with a 72dpi image, will not be of the quality of a paper encyclopedia.
Another part of education, for those who are specialists in one field, is to prepare "talks" that they give in local clubs, local communities (about minerals, fungi, stamps, next planned trip, whatever). During these "shows" are displayed slides, pictures, photos...that one have to find somewhere...usually on the net. And the two big issues one met are : one need the images to be 1)free of use and 2)of quality enough to be printed.
We can provide the "free of use", why not the "quality" for all purpose ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
On 30-10-2002, Daniel Mayer wrote thusly :
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 10:35 am, wikipedia-l-request@wikipedia.org wrote:
Sounds good. I'm leaving South Korea, but I have an ameteur photographer friend staying behind, and she just bought a scanner. She's agreed to release many of her pictures under the GFDL.
Correct me if am I wrong somebody but I do believe that an image copyright holder has the right to keep a restrictive copyright on a full resolution image AND also spin off lower resolution versions under other less restrictive licenses. So for example I could take a digital photo at 1600 x 1200 pixels which is automatically under a restrictive license and then create a downsized, cropped, and web-friendly version at 250 x 200 and release the smaller version under the GFDL or even into the public domain.
So is Wikipedia only destinied to be in the web medium ? Eventually "The Great Wikipedia Encyclopedia in xxx volumes" might appear in print someday. Then we will need hi-res photos.
If this is in fact true then we should tell Wikipedia photographers that they can keep a restrictive license on their high resolution originals if they want.
Regards, Kpjas.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org