On 5/15/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Agree.
As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and potentially the portals. Do you agree?
Also, stubs, flag icons (for languages and so on), and icons in general I suppose. For example, [[WP:GA]] - but that may be included in "portals". Occasionally in an article it may be useful. See [[Château de Chambord]] - you could make an argument that the portraits down the left hand side would be useful as links to [[François I]] and so forth.
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.
Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. We could watermark the author's name on the image if it was that important. We could state it under the image (Photo credit: JoeSmith). Practicality and common sense has to come into it somewhere.
Following on Magnus' idea, we could also recopy the image to the top of this redirected page, and if you click on *that* image, you would get the normal image page.
There are people who argue that our current behavior is insufficient and whom want an inline byline. But providing one runs the risk of just creating a greater mess (article authors don't get inline bylines, multiple editor images, and the requirements to provide historical data on GFDLed images). Hiding it further is just not going to fly.
Well, there are people that argue that linking to other subjects through images would be really handy, more so than the attribution issues. How compelling are each sides' arguments? What are the arguments? Do they stand up?
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.
It would be handy if we do at any stage want to do some kind of inline attribution. We have no means to do that currently.
Many? Well.. certainly not a majority. I would assume that ones with multiple editors are almost as common as ones with multiple copyright holders ... which would put us back in the same boat of having a long list of copyright holders.
Dunno. Does the uploader of an image get any credit for having found it? Does someone who takes an image created by another WIkipedian, loads it into Picasa and presses "I'm feeling lucky" get any credit?
Steve