[Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster

[Michael Peel]

On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:01, Sam Johnston wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance  
>> between cheap
>> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on  
>> the back is
>> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is  
>> that it is
>> nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the  
>> real
>> world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect  
>> will be that
>> it will not be accepted a solution.
>
> Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse -
> too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
>
> I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo
> printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or
> more meaningless usernames too.

You're overlooking the large range (with a high skew) of the number  
of authors on images and are instead focussing on the extremal value.  
For my pictures, I am currently the single author on all of them  
(although that may not be the case in the future). They are released  
under a license that requires attribution. If you don't like that,  
use another picture.

Where larger numbers of authors for images are concerned, you're  
arguing your viewpoint, not the legal situation. Unless you can argue  
fair use, then you're bound by the licenses that the images were  
released under originally. If those licenses say that the author must  
be attributed, then you must attribute the author. You can't  
whitewash over that.

Two final points. Note that all of my images (and edits) are done  
under my real name; not everyone's username is meaningless. Also,  
Wikimedia (inc. or exc. Commons) is not Wikipedia.

Mike