[Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

[K. Peachey]

Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The NY Times has an article investigating why, unlike the articles on
Wikipedia which in theory are improved, fact checked, footnoted, and
generally enhanced over time, the photos that go with Wikipedia
articles are so bad[1] and in many cases there is no photo at all for
even well known public figures. Few high-quality photographs,
particularly of celebrities, make it onto on Wikipedia because
Wikipedia runs only pictures with the most permissive Creative Commons
license[2], which allows anyone to use an image, for commercial
purposes or not, as long as the photographer is credited.
'Representatives or publicists will contact us' horrified at the
photographs on the site, says Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia
Foundation. 'They will say: "I have this image. I want you to use this
image." But it is not as simple as uploading a picture that is
e-mailed to us.' Recent photographs on Wikipedia are almost
exclusively the work of amateurs who don't mind giving away their
work. 'Amateur may be too kind a word; their photos tend to be the
work of fans who happen to have a camera,' opines the Times's author.
Ultimately the issue for professional photographers who might want to
donate their work is copyright. 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia
rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If
they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow
photographers to maintain the copyright.'"

[1]. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_use_policy
[3]. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/0044240/Why-the-Photos-On-Wikipedia-Are-So-Bad