That is not a small thing. That is an enormous thing. We show people some unfree image while propagating free stuff. Hypocrisy? We are speaking about thousands of people seeing it.

It is good that the stuff was removed, but from my point of view that another image with link to an external site rather than to Commons is still a very bad thing. It reminds me those games where ads are ways better than the game itself.

Commons must contain the images used to help funding projects one of which is Commons.

Another disturbing point indeed is WMF hiding on all these wikis like donatewiki, votewiki <>and similar where it freely violates its own licensing policy and where they are safe from the community.

It looks like WMF has some pleasure from spitting on some of the values which define it and which are very important for us. For me to look on these particular mentioned wikis, to see a bad abuse there and to be able to do nothing is very humiliating.

I just cannot imagine such things to be mistakes. If it after all is a mistake then it's systematical one and something with the organization is wrong. Wrong things are those which need fixes.


On 03.12.2015 23:49, Rob wrote:
I doubt the selection of a single image occupied that much staff time
and discussion.  No process is perfect. This is a small thing, that
was quickly fixed.  I doubt a lot of money was wasted here.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <> wrote:
"On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell <> wrote:
We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside
designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and
can then share) or freely licensed images.
Someone needed to approve purchasing the stock photograph.  They are
not free...?  Was it WMF or Trilogy?
Even if it was Trilogy, WMF sanity check processes are also not
working.  Surely someone at WMF is responsible for QA of the images
used in fundraising? shows this stock
photograph was uploaded to many times, and worked
on by WMF staff members.
- SPatton (WMF)
- SPatton (WMF) - SPatton (WMF) - SPatton (WMF) - SPatton (WMF)
- SPatton (WMF) (marked as CC-BY-SA; is that legal with the Getty
Image?) -
RStearns (Trilogy) -
RStearns (Trilogy) -
BHouse (Trilogy) -
RStearns (Trilogy) - Jseddon (WMF) - Jseddon (WMF) - Jseddon (WMF) -
Jseddon (WMF) -
Jseddon (WMF) -
Jseddon (WMF) -
Jseddon (WMF)
- Jseddon (WMF)
- Jseddon (WMF) -
BHouse (Trilogy)

Jseddon uploaded several alternative coffee cup photographs to (no metadata, but they look like his own work...,
and not too shabby) . How did a stock photograph become selected over
other options, and ownership/copyright was never raised during those
selection discussions?

That is a lot of donor money wasted by someone somehow deciding to use
a Getty image as part of a multimillion dollor fundraising drive for
an organisation supporting "It is like a library or a public park. It
is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think,
to learn, to share our knowledge with others."

I do hope your contract with the external design company allows you to
reclaim the wasted donor money caused by their violation of the
contract regarding image selection.

"We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We
fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others."

We pulled that banner yesterday
Thank you.

and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
Why not use the Coffee SVG I found (very easily I must say)?

We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
This artwork will be added to Commons.
IMO they should be uploaded to Commons first, with full metadata, and
create a workflow added around begging the Commons community to
prioritise checking these images quickly so they can be used in the
fundraiser.  That was how it was done before ,
when was used for these uploads, and that wiki
had a significant volunteer community assisting in maintenance.

Uploads to should either be limited to people
competent in copyright and responsible for that aspect, or at the very
least the upload forms should require that metadata is filled in, and
someone at WMF checks new additions regularly.

John Vandenberg

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to