Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Thanks for sharing that, fred. It is interesting indeed! Are you going to be in nyc by any chance this wknd? samuel klein. s...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266 On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, Fred Benenson fred.benen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi There, Im a long time lurker on this list but work for Creative Commons and am a semi-pro photog in my spare time. I just wrote a post about the reality of pro photography on Wikipedia: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16017 Figured you all would find it interesting! Best, Fred ~ ~ ~ thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog work / http://creativecommons.org sights / http://flickr.com/fcb sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis status / http://twitter.com/mecredis On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: That's a great idea. Having a prominent link to recently uploaded images (I'm thinki... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Yes here now. On Saturday, July 25, 2009, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for sharing that, fred. It is interesting indeed! Are you going to be in nyc by any chance this wknd? samuel klein. �...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266 On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, Fred Benenson fred.benen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi There, Im a long time lurker on this list but work for Creative Commons and am a semi-pro photog in my spare time. I just wrote a post about the reality of pro photography on Wikipedia: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16017 Figured you all would find it interesting! Best, Fred ~ ~ ~ thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog work / http://creativecommons.org sights / http://flickr.com/fcb sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis status / http://twitter.com/mecredis On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: That's a great idea. Having a prominent link to recently uploaded images (I'm thinki... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- ~ ~ ~ thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog work / http://creativecommons.org sights / http://flickr.com/fcb sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis status / http://twitter.com/mecredis ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Hoi, I was at the Tropenmuseum the other day .. they said that this commercial notion is old hat.. Sharing collections, engaging the public is what ensures the future of museums. So I am hopeful that the Tropenmuseum is right and will prove to be so. The thing is they do not need to be right everywhere and at this moment.. I expect that this notion will grow as the benefits of sharing and engaging become clear. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk: If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share cropping with Google Ads, using the images to tart up an otherwise tawdry commercial web site, are involved in online selling, are a commercial advertising or publishing house, then kiss my arse. The NC license serves very well. Certainly. I don't release every pic I take under a free license ... hardly any of them, actually. For Wikimedia purposes, though, one has to really let it free. I only ever release under an NC license, so the wildlife photos, architectural, historical, and medieval art images appear on academic and educational sites, sites like nowpublic, and others, but will never be on wikipedia due to the commercial use licensing policy. Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it isn't enough to convince them ... it goes so much against everything they think they know about the world. And in turn there are those of us that will not give anything to these media companies. I'll see a company like News International rot in hell first. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Peter Gervai wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 21:05, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Peter Gervai wrote: Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by making it public. This may come as a shock to you but its not about money. When I take photographs it is in my free time, and outside of the commercial system. If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share cropping with Google Ads, using the images to tart up an otherwise tawdry commercial web site, are involved in online selling, are a commercial advertising or publishing house, then kiss my arse. The NC license serves very well. That's nonsense, to put it mildly. What you say is basically two things: 1) You do not release your work because you do not want other people to gain on them even that it does not mean any loss for you at all. 2) You do not release your work because you want to prevent certain uses you do not like. As of #1, it is often called envy. You cannot make money from them so nobody else should. Of course you have the right to be envious of others, but then editing WP must be pointless for you, since people may GET RICH (no, really) by your work. I can _sell_ your work for a million bucks on DVD. Anyone could. So, as you phrased: this may be come as a shock for you. This reasoning doesn't really fit to what we're doing here. You seem confused. It has nothing to do with making money. It is all about keeping them free of commercialism. #2 is even more logical, since by publishing anything online means your work could be used on porn sites, war crim sites, whatever you please, including ad-ridden pages. Your NC license wouldn't change a thing for those people who don't care about it. If you want to control your content WP is the NIGHTMARE for you, since anything could be used almost anywhere, really, legally. I can create copy of WP with an ad for every even line, plus the full sideborders, and it'd be legal and okay. And so it would even if you didn't use a free license. Facts cannot be copyrighted only the specific expression can (maybe). The CC license that is applied to each page is useless, because the facts cannot be copyrighted anyone that alters, transforms, or builds upon the facts presented can do so anyway without any regard to the license. The license only applies to verbatim copying of the pages. Which, other that Adsense scrapping has limited commercial potential, its not as if someone is going to print and sell 100 bound copies of the article on NURBS. Additionally, one should point out that as the articles are crowd sourced, if you didn't license the verbatim copies under a free license, anyone that wanted to reuse them would have to clear the rights with all the article editors. IOW the verbatim copies can only be reused because they are under a CC-BY license. The free license is actually a necessity of reuse not virtue. Its only the images and other multimedia files, because they can be reused divorced from the articles, that have any commercial potential. The celebrity bio can be got almost anywhere, probably from the celebs own website, or ghosted autobiography. The high resolution photos on the other hand, can be turned into posters, used to illustrate a gossip page, provided as a computer wallpaper to draw fans to a website, ... Put simply its the images that bring in the crowds. So I think people never releasing anything free and sticking to NC lincenses aren't logical, thinking people. I can accept that there are people who make photos for a living, and they do not want to release all work, full resolution due to monetary reasons. But those people who made 50 photos of a person and reject to release any one of them freely just because whatever, well, these people aren't considered thinking enough by my not so humble self. If I take photos of a person there will be some that are quite useless because their expression or posture wasn't quite right, and there will be a whole bunch where any one of which would suffice. Same with a professional photographer who isn't not going to release any of those extras because each one is simply an alternative for that used. (As a sidenote, a NC image can be used in really dirty pages if there's no commercial gain, like nazi propaganda pages, hate pages, etc. There are other long list of reasons why NC is of no use in the long run. Use full copyright and keep the picture rights. If you're lucky the images may be locked 200+ years after your hopefully late death.) The CC-BY license allows that too, so your point is? ___ foundation-l mailing list
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 17:43, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hold up! This is User:Jerry Avenaim, and he has contributed some of his low-resolution photographs, and even a higher-resolution one of Mark Marmon that is a Featured Picture on en-wiki. Thanks for the info, for I was able to actually check the discussion on the Hale Berry deletion page; so Jerry seems to be a good fellow because he actually considered the effect of the license and uploaded smaller pictures instead of removing them all. (Still some pictures he uploaded are below the usable size, like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phil_1.jpg which is 250 × 342 pixels, and not good for anything including illustrating an article apart from having a thumbnail. Most of his picture seems to be just perfect for use, around the 1-2 Mpixel range which is a good compromise to make them available for real use while preventing them to be used in real printed media, which I guess provide Jerry a living.) So it seems just what I have guessed: the reporter misinterpreting someone. Still if not, then Jerry isn't right, since IMHO 1-2 Mpx images aren't bad [instead of having no image at all], and he contributed to that pool. (If he'd believe these are bad then he's uploading bad mages, which is, erm... I won't repeat myself.) And in my opinion uploading a reduced resolution image, like 1-5 Megapixels is completely good and acceptable for our mission. These are already quite useful resolutions, while they still aren't fit for mainstream media. (Of course if people aren't worried about loss of profit, should it ever could have been existing, then the original, maximal resolution is preferred.) -- byte-byte, grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote: Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: it to Commons, or make it insufficiently; 2) why they do not make it ot the articles. I tried to make the point in the recent thread on the purpose of Commons, but somehow it did not draw enough attention. Realistically, if somebody uploaded a good picture (not necessarily of a person, it could also be a landscape, a PD piece of art or smth else), and if this somebody is an active editor of only one Wikipedia, this picture has very little chance to make it to other Wikipedia articles, except may be for the ones which are created after the file has been uploaded. There are tools such as http://toolserver.org/~magnus/fist.phphttp://toolserver.org/%7Emagnus/fist.phpthat address this, perhaps they could be more advertised. That's a great idea. Having a prominent link to recently uploaded images (I'm thinking of something like [[Special:NewFiles]] that shows more than 50 entries on a page with rc-style metadata, combined from the local wiki + commons) next to recent changes on wikipedia would make quite a difference -- we currently have an extra barrier to entry for people who want to get involved with media. Is this sort of change being considered by the usability project? SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: And in my opinion uploading a reduced resolution image, like 1-5 Megapixels is completely good and acceptable for our mission. These are already quite useful resolutions, while they still aren't fit for mainstream media. (Of course if people aren't worried about loss of profit, should it ever could have been existing, then the original, maximal resolution is preferred.) Agreed. There is a lot of mileage to be gained by approaching major archives and clearinghouses and asking for wholesale free licensing of short identifying clips of audio, Mpx images, and low-res video. They would get classification, usage data, supplementary information and recognition; and would be losing almost none of their existing revenue streams. Plus they would be contributing to our shared culture, which the founders of some of these organizations do care about. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Peter Gervaigrin...@gmail.com wrote: So it seems just what I have guessed: the reporter misinterpreting someone. The slashdot summary includes the choice quotes that are a bit out of context, but in the original article it starts off the section with Avenaim by noting his contributions. -Sage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Hoi. True but not in the context of the WMF. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk Peter Gervai wrote: Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by making it public. This may come as a shock to you but its not about money. When I take photographs it is in my free time, and outside of the commercial system. If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share cropping with Google Ads, using the images to tart up an otherwise tawdry commercial web site, are involved in online selling, are a commercial advertising or publishing house, then kiss my arse. The NC license serves very well. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk: If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share cropping with Google Ads, using the images to tart up an otherwise tawdry commercial web site, are involved in online selling, are a commercial advertising or publishing house, then kiss my arse. The NC license serves very well. Certainly. I don't release every pic I take under a free license ... hardly any of them, actually. For Wikimedia purposes, though, one has to really let it free. Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it isn't enough to convince them ... it goes so much against everything they think they know about the world. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk: If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share cropping with Google Ads, using the images to tart up an otherwise tawdry commercial web site, are involved in online selling, are a commercial advertising or publishing house, then kiss my arse. The NC license serves very well. Certainly. I don't release every pic I take under a free license ... hardly any of them, actually. For Wikimedia purposes, though, one has to really let it free. I only ever release under an NC license, so the wildlife photos, architectural, historical, and medieval art images appear on academic and educational sites, sites like nowpublic, and others, but will never be on wikipedia due to the commercial use licensing policy. Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it isn't enough to convince them ... it goes so much against everything they think they know about the world. And in turn there are those of us that will not give anything to these media companies. I'll see a company like News International rot in hell first. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it isn't enough to convince them ... it goes so much against everything they think they know about the world. And in turn there are those of us that will not give anything to these media companies. I'll see a company like News International rot in hell first. I think that the theory that underlies this view is that the media companies' dominance in the market is best loosened by putting one's own head against a stone wall and using it to beat the wall severely. By contrast, a properly viral licence will constrain the commercial publisher with the requirement that any use by him will also render his new context for that photograph just as available for free use as the photograph itself. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: ...a properly viral licence will constrain the commercial publisher with the requirement that any use by him will also render his new context for that photograph just as available for free use as the photograph itself. But our nominally viral licenses don't do that. We've come to accept that using CC-SA images as illustrations does not extend copyleft requirements to the accompanying text. -Sage Ross (User:Ragesoss) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Ray Saintonge wrote: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it isn't enough to convince them ... it goes so much against everything they think they know about the world. And in turn there are those of us that will not give anything to these media companies. I'll see a company like News International rot in hell first. a properly viral licence will constrain the commercial publisher with the requirement that any use by him will also render his new context for that photograph just as available for free use as the photograph itself. No it does not. The viral (SA) part of the CC license only applies to derivatives. It does not apply to collections, it does not apply if used to illustrate an article or advertising flier, ... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Ray Saintonge wrote: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it isn't enough to convince them ... it goes so much against everything they think they know about the world. And in turn there are those of us that will not give anything to these media companies. I'll see a company like News International rot in hell first. a properly viral licence will constrain the commercial publisher with the requirement that any use by him will also render his new context for that photograph just as available for free use as the photograph itself. No it does not. The viral (SA) part of the CC license only applies to derivatives. It does not apply to collections, it does not apply if used to illustrate an article or advertising flier, ... It does not apply to collections of truly independent pieces. Whether SA applies when you merge an image into an article, or vice versa, is less than clear. At some point the merger of multiple works into an interdependent whole should logically and legally be considered a derivative work rather than merely a collection of separate and independent works (quoting the license definition of a collection). Where the line between collection and derivative lies however tends to be a fuzzy concept not well defined by existing licenses. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 21:05, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Peter Gervai wrote: Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by making it public. This may come as a shock to you but its not about money. When I take photographs it is in my free time, and outside of the commercial system. If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share cropping with Google Ads, using the images to tart up an otherwise tawdry commercial web site, are involved in online selling, are a commercial advertising or publishing house, then kiss my arse. The NC license serves very well. That's nonsense, to put it mildly. What you say is basically two things: 1) You do not release your work because you do not want other people to gain on them even that it does not mean any loss for you at all. 2) You do not release your work because you want to prevent certain uses you do not like. As of #1, it is often called envy. You cannot make money from them so nobody else should. Of course you have the right to be envious of others, but then editing WP must be pointless for you, since people may GET RICH (no, really) by your work. I can _sell_ your work for a million bucks on DVD. Anyone could. So, as you phrased: this may be come as a shock for you. This reasoning doesn't really fit to what we're doing here. #2 is even more logical, since by publishing anything online means your work could be used on porn sites, war crim sites, whatever you please, including ad-ridden pages. Your NC license wouldn't change a thing for those people who don't care about it. If you want to control your content WP is the NIGHTMARE for you, since anything could be used almost anywhere, really, legally. I can create copy of WP with an ad for every even line, plus the full sideborders, and it'd be legal and okay. So I think people never releasing anything free and sticking to NC lincenses aren't logical, thinking people. I can accept that there are people who make photos for a living, and they do not want to release all work, full resolution due to monetary reasons. But those people who made 50 photos of a person and reject to release any one of them freely just because whatever, well, these people aren't considered thinking enough by my not so humble self. (As a sidenote, a NC image can be used in really dirty pages if there's no commercial gain, like nazi propaganda pages, hate pages, etc. There are other long list of reasons why NC is of no use in the long run. Use full copyright and keep the picture rights. If you're lucky the images may be locked 200+ years after your hopefully late death.) And I release most of my better photos freely, not that anyone would be interested in them. ;-) -- byte-byte, grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
2009/7/20 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad --- Recent photographs on Wikipedia are almost exclusively the work of amateurs who don't mind giving away their work. 'Amateur may be too kind a word; their photos tend to be the work of fans who happen to have a camera,' opines the Times's author. Ultimately the issue for professional photographers who might want to donate their work is copyright. 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.' [1]. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_use_policy [3]. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/0044240/Why-the-Photos-On-Wikipedia-Are-So-Bad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l And if we truly wanted to elevate the text on the site, we should allow *writers* to maintain the copyright? This is, I am sorry to say, sloppy thinking. The images have been improved greatly, but that is not as visible as on the text side - one minute there is no picture, the next one there is a bad one, and the next minute there is a better one, and soon somebody comes along and uploads a truly great one. It takes a little bit more time, because it's a bit harder to contribute a picture than it is to contribute with proofreading or fact checking - you actually have to meet the person you want to portrait or go to the geographical area you want to show. But improvement is certainly on the way - and I am confident that this trend will improve as a) more amateurs have a chance to meet celebrities (statistically, even blind chicken find their food...), b) Commons becomes better known, and c) chapters can learn from each other how to get museums and archives to donate their pictures. Best wishes, -- Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för svenskspråkiga Wikipedia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad ... 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.' We should definitely take advice from a professional photographer who doesn't understand what a licence is. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Hello, I think the writer should have looked on Commons longer and he would have find beautifull images. We work on Wikimedia with a lot of people doing the best the can, and the message read above is disrespectfull to our volunteers. Nobody start with perfect photo's, even the best photographer starts with bad pictures and grows slowly to perfect pictures. So yes we have pictures that are not so good, but the people that made that photo will grow grow grow and make a perfect picture in a few years. Commons is good in stimulating people to grow, you start with a fan picture than you want a QI and after that you want a FP. Huib Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Hello, I think the writer should have looked on Commons longer and he would have find beautifull images. We work on Wikimedia with a lot of people doing the best the can, and the message read above is disrespectfull to our volunteers. Nobody start with perfect photo's, even the best photographer starts with bad pictures and grows slowly to perfect pictures. So yes we have pictures that are not so good, but the people that made that photo will grow grow grow and make a perfect picture in a few years. Commons is good in stimulating people to grow, you start with a fan picture than you want a QI and after that you want a FP. Huib Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
2009/7/20 Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com: 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.' We should definitely take advice from a professional photographer who doesn't understand what a licence is. He does - he's a Wikimedia contributor! I'd suggest a quote got over-compressed there. The Slashdot coverage appears surprisingly clueful - i.e., that reusability and a proper free license comes first. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Bainstephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad ... 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.' We should definitely take advice from a professional photographer who doesn't understand what a licence is. I think that when we're dealing with celebrities, it is both in our and their interest to have a good photo on Wikipedia or Commons. They look very happy to pay a good photographer to get a good photo of them, why can't they pay a bit more so that the photographer releases some photos under a free license? Is the lobby of photographers really so powerful? At the moment the only alternative celebs have is hoping no random Wikipedian takes a photo of them and once they're dead a nice copyrighted photo can be uploaded on the projects that allow fairuse... I don't think many celebs really want this ;) Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Ultimately the issue for professional photographers who might want to donate their work is copyright. 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.' Apart from the clueless phrasing (which may or may not be due to the news reporter instead of Mr. Avenaim) what he doesn't seem to understand is that the pictures are what they are BECAUSE HE does not want to release EVEN ONE of his photographs to make it better. Basically he says I do not like the look of it but I do not offer my work but you have to change your rules instead. And I'd basically say it is as bad as it is because YOU have the means but not the will to enrichen public content, and I may have added that calling those people names who offer their resources, time and money to make Wikipedia better while you don't is hypocrisy. But I guess they aren't really care. As a sidenote I always wonder what amount of money would a professional photographer lose to release only one quality photo for a topic. He must be credited, so his name would be still famous if the picture ever would find its way into the mainstream media; and I it doesn't s/he didn't lose money but the community wins. Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by making it public. But maybe I'm wrong and people get heaps of cash for these pictures, and every bit counts. Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
I think there ate two issues here, not one, even though all the replies concentrate on just one issue: 1) why (good quality) pictues do not make it to Commons, or make it insufficiently; 2) why they do not make it ot the articles. I tried to make the point in the recent thread on the purpose of Commons, but somehow it did not draw enough attention. Realistically, if somebody uploaded a good picture (not necessarily of a person, it could also be a landscape, a PD piece of art or smth else), and if this somebody is an active editor of only one Wikipedia, this picture has very little chance to make it to other Wikipedia articles, except may be for the ones which are created after the file has been uploaded. I believe that this problem is a meta issue and can be solved (i) either by the Commons itself actively promoting newly uploaded files or (ii) by writing a bot updating all Wikipedias on newly uploaded files (for instance, if the article exists and does not contain any illustrations). Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: it to Commons, or make it insufficiently; 2) why they do not make it ot the articles. I tried to make the point in the recent thread on the purpose of Commons, but somehow it did not draw enough attention. Realistically, if somebody uploaded a good picture (not necessarily of a person, it could also be a landscape, a PD piece of art or smth else), and if this somebody is an active editor of only one Wikipedia, this picture has very little chance to make it to other Wikipedia articles, except may be for the ones which are created after the file has been uploaded. There are tools such as http://toolserver.org/~magnus/fist.php that address this, perhaps they could be more advertised. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Peter Gervaigrin...@gmail.com wrote: Ultimately the issue for professional photographers who might want to donate their work is copyright. 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.' Apart from the clueless phrasing (which may or may not be due to the news reporter instead of Mr. Avenaim) what he doesn't seem to understand is that the pictures are what they are BECAUSE HE does not want to release EVEN ONE of his photographs to make it better. Basically he says I do not like the look of it but I do not offer my work but you have to change your rules instead. And I'd basically say it is as bad as it is because YOU have the means but not the will to enrichen public content, and I may have added that calling those people names who offer their resources, time and money to make Wikipedia better while you don't is hypocrisy. Hold up! This is User:Jerry Avenaim, and he has contributed some of his low-resolution photographs, and even a higher-resolution one of Mark Marmon that is a Featured Picture on en-wiki. -Sage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
