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

[wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/7/21  <wiki-lists at phizz.demon.co.uk>:
> 
>> If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that
>> is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising
>> non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share
>> cropping with Google Ads, using the images to tart up an otherwise
>> tawdry commercial web site, are involved in online selling, are a
>> commercial advertising or publishing house, then kiss my arse.
>> The NC license serves very well.
> 
> 
> Certainly. I don't release every pic I take under a free license ...
> hardly any of them, actually.
> 
> For Wikimedia purposes, though, one has to really let it free.
> 


I only ever release under an NC license, so the wildlife photos, 
architectural, historical, and medieval art images appear on academic 
and educational sites, sites like nowpublic, and others, but will never 
be on wikipedia due to the commercial use licensing policy.


> Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
> leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
> made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it
> isn't enough to convince them ... it goes so much against everything
> they think they know about the world.
> 

And in turn there are those of us that will not give anything to these 
media companies. I'll see a company like News International rot in hell 
first.