"Gregory Maxwell" wrote:
On 5/15/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.
It's publicly available. They can ask if they are unsure or doesn't trust on wikis. What's the problem?
There is no problem, really. The point I was making is that we don't want to make it any *less* accessable because it can be shown that the people who want and need the information already have some difficulity finding it. It's not exactly obvious that the image is clickable at all. In any case, we can not hide the attribution information.
We're not hiding it.The link is right there, on the top. But it's not supposed to be what user wanted when he clicked, so it's not <strong><blink>.
On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of the image. Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
We have a good system for images but we also wanna images for other things! Would be better a JS popup saying "What did you want? a) See the article b) See the image" ??
You're making an argument that makes sense on the main page and possibly portals here, but not articles. And a JS popup?? I hope you're joking.
I think your double ?? are as explaining as mine :D
As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and
potentially the portals. Do you agree?
I disagree. It's only going to be used there but it could be used anywhere. We must be aware of that.
A feature that lets people hide the attribution page and as a result violate our image licensing obligations can not be accepted, we must be aware of that.
It's not hiding. You could also say that if i use a redirect on page A to A (city), i'm violating © because A has a history so A should say "See history for a list of those who contributed to A (city) on this name. Now if what you wanted is the article goto [[A (city)]]." I don't see anywhere that "our image licensing obligations" say that "images must be linked to a page where its license is described". Our obligations are to provide accurate license information.
We need to know all the expected use cases so that we can produce a solution which preserves our obligations, avoids causing attribution problems elsewhere, and meets our needs. So please detail where you can see 'linkable images' being used outside of the main page.
It shouldn't be used, but that's a policy issue. Newbie Smith creates and account and starts tricking with wiki-code. Or i could have my signature with a thumbnail of my face so whe it's clicked they go to my user page.
We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
Is really people going to care? They often say "uploaded from english wikipedia X" and X is an article!! Having one or two steps won't be a difference for them. They're used to right-click and catch. Those who care will find it easy :)
I'm not following you. If we fail to provide attribution in a clear, consistent, and accessable manner then we have no right to distribute the image at all.
Well, that it doesn't really matter at all. There're dumbs everywhere. I think most of the problem is created by ourselves.
Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'. :) What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
That's not the system. I was talking about a link *to the real image page*. It's like articles when disambiguation is on "title (disambiguation)". It makes no sense showing "image by John", when John only added a transparent background of an image uploaded by Mike. And it doesn't make sens showing "image by Mike" because he uploaded it from X wikipedia. An on that wikipedia it was uploaded from Susan, who got it from the NASA webpage an so it's on the public domain :D
Our current system covers the situation you've proposed just fine. The problem of lacking concise machine readable attribution is only a problem for the proposal that makes the image look like a redirect. We already have perfectly good attribution for other purposes: the image page.
I know. I'm saying that the text should only point to that image page.
The reason I tried to split out the 'main/portal' page cases is because another possible solution would be to create an image tag flag which allowed you to specify a link target for the image but placed a small 'image credits' link right below the image which takes you to the image page.
We could achieve something like that by using an image caption, but captions are realestate intensive.
I'm somewhat concerned that by doing so we would make image attribution on the main/portal pages more accessable than on the rest of the site.
We could more explicity say that on those links below that nobody cares of. Did you notice that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights doesn't even say that the image © for a specific image can be know by going to its image page, and that you arrivve there if you click on it? Well, we can change it now so we don't need to add the second part ;)