[WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Matthew Brown<morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Carcharoth<carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> You would also likely need more than just "author". You would need to
>> prove that you were the author, or had permission from the author (in
>> many cases, they will want permission from the author, unless the
>> author is dead or something). You will also need to show that the
>> author holds the copyright, and not someone else.
>
> Currently a user can upload a photograph themselves to the Commons,
> claim they are the author, and no proof is needed.
>
> We only question further if there is cause for suspicion.
>
> I don't recommend that we ask for any more than a definitive statement
> that, yes, they are the author and hold the copyright.   How does,
> after all, someone prove that a photograph is theirs?  Few cameras
> stamp their images with a serial number or digital signature proving
> which device took it, after all.

Yes, you are right. So how did we get to OTRS instead of directing
people to the Upload button? I'm confused now. I'm sure there was a
reason for using OTRS instead of telling people to Upload. I think the
reason in this case was to establish provenance. To ensure that this
photo of a 1930s Olympic medallist from the photo album of a
descendant is in fact from that person, and not nicked from a website.

Or if people upload a photo of an obscure person with Wikipedia
article and say "photo from my family album", is that an acceptable
source on Commons? Can the photo be verified in any way?

Carcharoth