[WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance

[Carcharoth]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Sam Korn<smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Michael Peel<email at mikepeel.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Jun 2009, at 11:13, Sam Korn wrote:
>>>
>>> Right.  I certainly agree that it would be better to name the author.
>>>
>>> But when articles are reused, they generally link to the Wikipedia
>>> article without giving a list of usernames; I don't see why that
>>> would be different for images.
>>
>> Images are generally the work of one, or a few people, whereas
>> Wikipedia articles are the work of many.
>>
>> In the case of the images that I've taken myself and uploaded to
>> Commons (CC-BY-SA license), pretty much the only thing I'm after for
>> myself is attribution. I believe that's a standard stance amongst
>> photographers that aren't also after money as a matter of routine.
>> I'm not sure whether I'd go through all the trouble of uploading
>> images to Commons/Wikipedia were that not the case.
>>
>> TBH, I think giving a list of usernames/authors of Wikipedia articles
>> when they're reused would be best, but due to the number of authors
>> that's more often than not impractical.
>
> And for the (not insignificant number of) cases where there is more than one
> contributor to an image?  E.g. where an image has been touched up by another
> user?

It's not uncommon to credit more than one user. Look at the NASA
telescope picture credit lines for examples. In practice, though,
newspapers (with limited print space) may put an abbreviated version,
or just "NASA". In books, where the practice is more usual to put a
dedicated page of credits at the end of the book, the full credit is
more likely. I believe I *have* seen full credit given for Wikipedia
images and the user in question, in print books, but may be
misremembering.

Carcharoth