[Foundation-l] Clickable images

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As we have seperate pages with the image where we have all the 
information we need to attribute these pictures already. When there is a 
need to have direct attribution from the picture itself, we could go the 
extra distance by allowing for right and left clicking. With right 
clicking bringing extra information like attribution information.

If there is a need for a solution, think towards the solution in stead 
of thinking why it cannot be done. By the way if anything your argument 
is an argument against images that can not be freely displayed and copied.

Thanks,
    GerardM


effe iets anders wrote:
> Sounds nice, but afaik almost every licence used demands to give
> attribution. I think it is not very likely that we can alter the
> image-policy in such a way that we don't need to give attribution for
> every image (we are not even able to get all free images, as en: is
> still allowing fair use, so all PD-like is something we can easily
> forget imho)
> So we *have* to think about clickable images, however I agree it would
> be nice if we wouldn't have to because of all PD.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2006/9/9, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>   
>> Hoi,
>> There are two things to consider;
>> * Pictures in our projects should be Free. This means that the pictures
>> should be usable in any context.
>> * Because many of our projects are not Free for simple re-use, there is
>> a need to do stupid contortions by always show the license.
>>
>> It is imho better to sort out the underlying problem than to prevent
>> things that improve usability. I think is really bad that it is now
>> suggested not to have clickable images.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>>
>> Guillaume Paumier wrote:
>>     
>>> On 9/9/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in
>>>> the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the
>>>> discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how
>>>> we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we
>>>> can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when
>>>> we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new
>>>> uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what
>>>> is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it
>>>> is also used broader I guess.
>>>> It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link
>>>> the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in
>>>> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts
>>>> about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
>>>>
>>>> Lodewijk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Actually, it seems your example about motorways isn't an image but a
>>> formatted text ;)
>>>
>>> Anyway, you're right to say we should make things clear. My opinion is:
>>> clickable images should be avoided. The general policy is the
>>> license-information should be available by simply clicking the image.
>>> First-time visitors are a bit surprised by this, but if we start mixing
>>> clickable and non-clickable images (that means respectively images pointing
>>> to an article/portal and images pointing to their description page), the
>>> situation will soon become a huge mess. Otherwise, people don't know where
>>> they're going to land when clicking an image.
>>>
>>> In a nutshell: avoid clickable images.
>>>
>>> g.