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

[Peter Gervai]

> 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.'"

Apart from the clueless phrasing (which may or may not be due to the
news reporter instead of Mr. Avenaim) what he doesn't seem to
understand is that the pictures are what they are BECAUSE HE does not
want to release EVEN ONE of his photographs to make it better.

Basically he says "I do not like the look of it but I do not offer my
work but you have to change your rules instead". And I'd basically say
"it is as bad as it is because YOU have the means but not the will to
enrichen public content", and I may have added that "calling those
people names who offer their resources, time and money to make
Wikipedia better while you don't is hypocrisy".

But I guess they aren't really care.

As a sidenote I always wonder what amount of money would a
professional photographer lose to release only one quality photo for a
topic. He must be credited, so his name would be still famous if the
picture ever would find its way into the mainstream media; and I it
doesn't s/he didn't lose money but the community wins. Usually I do
not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time while there's
usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by making it
public.

But maybe I'm wrong and people get heaps of cash for these pictures,
and every bit counts.

Peter