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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
