[Foundation-l] 1.6 Billion USD to spare? How about liberation of some pictures

[White Cat]

Wikipedia should not be used for advertising like that. I would discourage
that. If every image had such a caption it would be problematic and
impractical. The reader can click on the photo if he or she seeks credit
information. Majority of our readers care not of the credit info.

     - White Cat

On Jan 23, 2008 2:18 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/01/2008, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you want to make a name seems like commons is the best place to
> advertise
> > your work if you ask me. Freely license at least some of your work (for
> > example low resolution versions), and you can sell the others (high
> > resolution version). This is an avenue we can take. Of course I would
> prefer
> > high-quality high-resolution versions but we don't always get what we
> > prefer.
>
>
> Oh yeah. This came up on commons-l today - Rama Rama noted that
> photographers like credit in captions, even if we're within the letter
> of the licence by noting it only on the image page itself.
>
> I like to add informative captions on en:wp to be *useful to the
> reader* - and that often includes the photographer's name. Date, place
> and photographer is the basic useful information about a photo, and in
> the case of a professional photographer it may well be of reader
> interest. If I take a pic I don't expect anyone to care that I took
> it, but if it's a CC-by-sa celebrity shot by Alan Light they may well
> be interested to know that.
>
> We can't *promise* that - it's up to the project - but we can
> encourage it as a useful thing for the reader as well as the polite
> thing to do for the photographer.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>