[Foundation-l] UMP Convention

[geni]

On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, well, there is that! However Getty does it is good enough for
> people to pay real money for, fwiw.
>

most of the users will likely have learned to use the system. Most of
our current users will not wish to do that.

>
> I'd like it myself, but then I tend to make my photos PD or
> copyleft-self (GFDL+cc-by-sa-any). People who would quite like to see
> "(c) Me Memememe Meeee - reusable under cc-by-sa" will licence their
> work accordingly.
>
> (Personally I consider the GFDL a pretend-open licence for print use
> of images; it's technically free content, but the compliance
> requirements are onerous.)
>

Of course. The problem is that a lot of uploads at the moment are GFDL
because that is the licence people think they are most familiar with.
Mind you perhaps the GFDL wiki lisence will be better (I see that
creative commons has one)


> My point is that I think it would be worth it so people see more open
> content out in the world.
>

And I agree but I look more to new uses. How can we use free content
in ways that content has never been used before.

That said newspapers and other traditional media give us a way to
reach out to an audience that doesn't really know about us but has the
power vastly improve the extent of our content. In some ways the
combined IP of AP and getty is nothing to that held by out parents and
grandparents.

-- 
geni