advantageous for these people. It does them more good to license CC-by-sa
given there. If they're smart about it they adapt their website design so
provide them with a legitimate alternative to linkspam. They want to be
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataliya_Gotsiy>
> Is that the photograph that our article claims caused her career to
> down downhill? That claim need citing or removing. It might also
> explain why that photograph isn't in her article.
>
> But going back on-topic, yes, this is another way for photographers to
> increase their profile while still maintaining a revenue stream from
> recent photography. The biggest hurdle to the "reputation" gain from
> Commons and Wikipedia is the lack of credit in articles for
> photographs (you normally have to click through to the image page to
> get the photographer credit, unless the photographer is famous). There
> have been cases (I won't name names) of photographers putting their
> name in the filenames, but there should be other ways to address the
> "credit" issue.
>
> But that debate has been done to death before.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Durova<
[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Many professional photographers have older work whose commercial value is
> > almost nil. In fashion photography, for instance, the commercial
> lifespan
> > of a photograph is extremely short.
> >
> > Here's a featured picture of that type:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gotsiy3edit2.jpg> >
> > These types of shots normally go into a photographer's portfolio as proof
> of
> > their skills. Yet often they still have encyclopedic value and the
> > photographer may have more to gain by relicensing them under cc-by-sa
> with a
> > source link to their own website.
> >
> > -Durova
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Carcharoth <
[hidden email]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerard<
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html> >> >
> >> > One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up
> >> > your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have
> >> > the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
> >>
> >> The bit I found most fascinating was the professional photographer
> >> explaining how Wikipedia can help his career, but can also reduce his
> >> income (from resale of his pictures).
> >>
> >> "He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online
> >> visibility [...] but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the
> >> lifeblood of my career,” he said, noting that photographers may get
> >> paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their
> >> money from resales of the image."
> >>
> >> Earlier in the article, his contributions to Wikipedia (Commons) were
> >> described:
> >>
> >> "Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has
> >> contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia"
> >>
> >> It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK
> >> here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional
> >> photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery
> >> (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream
> >> is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs.
> >>
> >> I should disclose here that although I am not a professional
> >> photographer, I do work in the photography industry, and I'm aware of
> >> some of the ins and outs of how photographers (and others) earn money
> >> from their services, skills, and the end products of photographs and
> >> images.
> >>
> >> It usually comes down to access and opportunities, in this case to
> >> celebrities, in the case of the NPG, to a collection of public domain
> >> artworks. For news photographers, it is being in the right place at
> >> the right time. For nature and landscape photographers, it is funding
> >> trips to far-flung landscapes or having the patience and skill to
> >> find, photograph and identify an animal or plant. And there are lots
> >> if niche photographers as well, that specialise in certain areas,
> >> which may require specialised and expensive equipment.
> >>
> >> Carcharoth
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>
[hidden email]
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
http://durova.blogspot.com/> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> >
[hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
>
[hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
Locked
