[Wikipedia-l] US government images.

[Sean Barrett]

Gregory Maxwell stated for the record:

> I propose we establish a policy that PD confirmation must be sought
> for all images obtained from US government websites.
> 
> Only material actually produced by US federal government employees in
> the course of their work is automatically PD. Often government
> websites also contain commercial stock photography and other contract
> works which we have no right to use.   US Federal government websites
> are among the most responsive on the internet, so obtaining such
> permission should not be an issue.
> 
> There is usually an opportunity to apply common sense: If it looks
> like stock photography it probably is, and we should ask. Very few
> government agencies actually produce their own publication grade
> images. However, there are a number of well meaning wikipedians who
> have very wishful ideas of what we can use... If we ask them to apply
> common sense we get Alanis Morrissette's Ironic uploaded.

As long as copyright warriors are willing to apply common sense the 
other way -- it is patently obvious that 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear1.jpg and 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssn22vBear2.jpg were taken by a Naval 
officer during the performance of his duty, and I would have little 
patience if someone were to argue that they ''might'' not be.

> I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I think the best
> course of action would be for use to make a strong statement that we
> *always* prefer works made by wikimedia project participants. If we
> must choose between a work with free licensing and one made by a
> wikipedian we should always replace the free work with the wikipedians
> work unless the outside work is clearly better.  If there is any
> possible doubt in the copyright the work should be replaced by a work
> from one of our users.  We should avoid making outside works featured
> images.

I find the standard "any possible doubt" to be much too paranoid.  The 
standard for convicting someone of premeditated murder is lower than 
that.  If we held ourselves to that standard, we would be an image-free 
Web site -- ''no'' image's provenance is ''utterly impossible'' for 
someone to doubt.

> The wikimedia projects already have a sizable and growing base of
> photographers, illustrators, and musicians. It is completely
> reasonable to believe that we can meet our own media needs, excluding
> specific historical works that we wish to comment on.

Are you actually saying that it is "completely reasonable" for a 
Wikipedian to photograph the wreck of USS ''Thresher''?  For a 
Wikipedian to take a clear picture of a B-2 Spirit in flight?  For a 
Wikipedian to take snapshots of the construction of the International 
Space Station?  There are several myriad subjects beyond "specific 
historical works that we wish to comment on" for which the public domain 
is the only source of images.

--
  Sean Barrett     | When I become evil overlord, if I'm
  sean at epoptic.com | looking all around for my elusive enemy,
                   | I will occasionally look up as well.