[WikiEN-l] Attributing "attribution required" free images

[Andrew Gray]

On 29/10/2007, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Personally I am of viewpoint #2, and feel that we are short-changing
> photographers who generously release
> their work for virtually no recompense. I feel that if we are not
> willing to attribute the photo properly, by putting the owner's name
> at the same level
> as the photo, then we should bar the use of these kinds of images.

The obvious counterpoint -

We don't byline articles, and whilst most of those are definitely
collaborative works, a decent fraction (10%? 20%?) are undeniably the
work of a single author with some minor amendment by others. So why
should a photographer - a contributor of one single element of the
whole - get special treatment over the contributor of what is the most
significant element by far?

----

That is a deliberately brusque statement of the position, but I think
it's a very important thing to remember. Our cumulative work has no
prominent attribution; all authors are recorded and attributed (albeit
rather inefficiently), but you have to deliberately check to see who
they are. We aggressively clamp down on people trying to sign their
work, because we feel it's Not The Way It's Done.

The way I see it, both #1 and #2 are legitimate ways of doing things
and both comply with the terms of the license as well as being
generally in line with how the world as a whole does these things.
Newspapers almost always byline photographs because there's no
practical other way to do it; in books, however, it's quite common to
find a page at the back somewhere with all the photograph credits.

I think the fact that we *ourselves* make a point of being discreet
about attribution makes it more reasonable for us to go with #1 - as a
photographer, I would feel short-changed if the authors were
prominently credited but I wasn't, whilst I wouldn't feel offended at
being relegated to the small print on p.350 if the authors themselves
were in the small print on p.348.

Does that latter distinction make sense?

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk