Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Walter van Kalken
Since it is not coming throuh on foundation-l I put it here.

I personally have pictures of many Thai moviestars, comedians and
singers (I perform as a comedian almost everyday myself and meet them,
live in tv-shows and when I play in movies), and it would be easy for me
to make pictures on request (especially of all Thai comedians) as I know
where to find many of them. But what makes me hesitating from uploading
to commons is a couple of things ....

1) Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other
communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in
English virtually non existing. (of most I wouldn't even be able to give
their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
2) I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get
maimed.
3) I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)

I also have pictures of Indian moviestars: Dharmendra Deol, Bobby Deol ,
Sunny Deol, Shilpa Shetty and a lot of others with whom I played in the
movie Apne. But the above reason keeps me from uploading to commons. I
feel that many people have pictures of stars but they hesitate to upload
them for some of the same reasons.

Waerth

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Artur Fijałkowski
2007/2/27, Walter van Kalken <[hidden email]>:

>
> Since it is not coming throuh on foundation-l I put it here.
>
> I personally have pictures of many Thai moviestars, comedians and
> singers (I perform as a comedian almost everyday myself and meet them,
> live in tv-shows and when I play in movies), and it would be easy for me
> to make pictures on request (especially of all Thai comedians) as I know
> where to find many of them. But what makes me hesitating from uploading
> to commons is a couple of things ....
>
> 1) Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
> from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other
> communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in
> English virtually non existing. (of most I wouldn't even be able to give
> their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)


It;s not a problem at all ;)

2) I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
> on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get
> maimed.


Don't undestand you ;)

3) I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
> could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
>


So as we say in Poland 'go-on-tree'.
If you don't want to share with us what you have in good quality, don't do
it at all!

AJF/WarX
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Marco Chiesa
In reply to this post by Walter van Kalken
Walter van Kalken wrote:

>1) Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
>from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other
>communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in
>English virtually non existing.
>
Well, write Name Surname, Thai tv star. Just a couple of words to state
they're notable

>(of most I wouldn't even be able to give
>their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
>  
>
Hopefully you won't upload something like [[Image:The fat guy from Thai
tv.jpg]], otherwise it would be very hard to search for them and making
a use of them

>2) I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
>on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get
>maimed.
>  
>
That doesn't seem to happen often. Some people don't realise that colors
on CRT and LCD monitors don't look the same, sometimes there is a real
improvement. And of course you can always discuss.

>3) I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
>could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
>  
>
Would YOU be able to earn money from copyright on your pictures? If you
release them under a free license, no one will really make money by
selling your picture, since it's available for free. Of course, a
commercial application would be to include the picture on a book about
the person; you may earn reputation as a photographer if someone sees
the photo author: WVK so in the end commons could be a good way for
photographers looking to self-promote themselves.

Marco (Cruccone)



_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Yonatan Horan
And if you release the photos under the GFDL rather than a Creative Commons
license it's highly unlikely there would be any commercial usage as the GFDL
would have to be attached (to the newspaper, book or photo) and it's a long
document. Newspapers and books (the two more likely uses of your pictures)
would probably rather pay you to use the picture as they're not going to
include the GFDL in their publication. We have a few professional
photographers on commons that do this to protect their living and still let
us use their pictures under the copyleft GFDL. In fact, in the case of the
person who this long thread is about, he is a professional photographer who
released the image under the GFDL so he can get some sort of compensation if
somebody wants to use it commercially.

-Yonatan

On 2/27/07, Marco Chiesa <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
> >1) Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
> >from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other
> >communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in
> >English virtually non existing.
> >
> Well, write Name Surname, Thai tv star. Just a couple of words to state
> they're notable
>
> >(of most I wouldn't even be able to give
> >their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
> >
> >
> Hopefully you won't upload something like [[Image:The fat guy from Thai
> tv.jpg]], otherwise it would be very hard to search for them and making
> a use of them
>
> >2) I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
> >on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get
> >maimed.
> >
> >
> That doesn't seem to happen often. Some people don't realise that colors
> on CRT and LCD monitors don't look the same, sometimes there is a real
> improvement. And of course you can always discuss.
>
> >3) I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
> >could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
> >
> >
> Would YOU be able to earn money from copyright on your pictures? If you
> release them under a free license, no one will really make money by
> selling your picture, since it's available for free. Of course, a
> commercial application would be to include the picture on a book about
> the person; you may earn reputation as a photographer if someone sees
> the photo author: WVK so in the end commons could be a good way for
> photographers looking to self-promote themselves.
>
> Marco (Cruccone)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Yonatan Horan
Also, I haven't seen too many photos being deleted for having "no use on any
existing or future Wikimedia project" and the worst case is your image(s)
get nominated for deletion and you comment and the discussion results in a
keep.

-Yonatan

On 2/27/07, Yonatan Horan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> And if you release the photos under the GFDL rather than a Creative
> Commons license it's highly unlikely there would be any commercial usage as
> the GFDL would have to be attached (to the newspaper, book or photo) and
> it's a long document. Newspapers and books (the two more likely uses of your
> pictures) would probably rather pay you to use the picture as they're not
> going to include the GFDL in their publication. We have a few professional
> photographers on commons that do this to protect their living and still let
> us use their pictures under the copyleft GFDL. In fact, in the case of the
> person who this long thread is about, he is a professional photographer who
> released the image under the GFDL so he can get some sort of compensation if
> somebody wants to use it commercially.
>
> -Yonatan
>
> On 2/27/07, Marco Chiesa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Walter van Kalken wrote:
> >
> > >1) Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
> > >from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other
> > >communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in
> > >English virtually non existing.
> > >
> > Well, write Name Surname, Thai tv star. Just a couple of words to state
> > they're notable
> >
> > >(of most I wouldn't even be able to give
> > >their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
> > >
> > >
> > Hopefully you won't upload something like [[Image:The fat guy from Thai
> > tv.jpg]], otherwise it would be very hard to search for them and making
> > a use of them
> >
> > >2) I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
> > >on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get
> > >maimed.
> > >
> > >
> > That doesn't seem to happen often. Some people don't realise that colors
> > on CRT and LCD monitors don't look the same, sometimes there is a real
> > improvement. And of course you can always discuss.
> >
> > >3) I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
> > >could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)
> > >
> > >
> > Would YOU be able to earn money from copyright on your pictures? If you
> > release them under a free license, no one will really make money by
> > selling your picture, since it's available for free. Of course, a
> > commercial application would be to include the picture on a book about
> > the person; you may earn reputation as a photographer if someone sees
> > the photo author: WVK so in the end commons could be a good way for
> > photographers looking to self-promote themselves.
> >
> > Marco (Cruccone)
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Marco Chiesa
In reply to this post by Yonatan Horan
If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL + CC-BY-NC-SA
(on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a
double licensing would be allowed on commons :)
Marco

Yonatan Horan wrote:

>And if you release the photos under the GFDL rather than a Creative Commons
>license it's highly unlikely there would be any commercial usage as the GFDL
>would have to be attached (to the newspaper, book or photo) and it's a long
>document. Newspapers and books (the two more likely uses of your pictures)
>would probably rather pay you to use the picture as they're not going to
>include the GFDL in their publication. We have a few professional
>photographers on commons that do this to protect their living and still let
>us use their pictures under the copyleft GFDL. In fact, in the case of the
>person who this long thread is about, he is a professional photographer who
>released the image under the GFDL so he can get some sort of compensation if
>somebody wants to use it commercially.
>
>-Yonatan
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

David Gerard-2
On 27/02/07, Marco Chiesa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL + CC-BY-NC-SA
> (on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a
> double licensing would be allowed on commons :)


If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload
of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Stan Shebs-2
David Gerard wrote:

> On 27/02/07, Marco Chiesa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL + CC-BY-NC-SA
>> (on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a
>> double licensing would be allowed on commons :)
>>    
>
>
> If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload
> of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...
>  
It believe it should be OK - we only care that a picture has *a* free
license, we're not trying to control all possible licenses for it. But
beware, the non-free CCs have templates that put them in "delete me"
categories, so you might want an alternate template or just boilerplate
text, so triggerhappy admins :-) don't blast the image before noticing
its dual license.

It *is* a clever idea to use GFDL to discourage casual commercial use...

Stan


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

sigmaman
Hi everyone!

This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious.. how
common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL and
CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses. You
could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving
Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not come
across!

I'm also looking for examples of people/companies using dual CC licenses,
such as a CC-BY-NC-SA and some other kind of CC license (maybe a sampling
license).

Thanks!

On 2/27/07, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 27/02/07, Marco Chiesa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If I remember I even saw a picture doubly licensed as GFDL +
> CC-BY-NC-SA
> >> (on en.wiki), which I recognised as pure genius. I wonder if such a
> >> double licensing would be allowed on commons :)
> >>
> >
> >
> > If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload
> > of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...
> >
> It believe it should be OK - we only care that a picture has *a* free
> license, we're not trying to control all possible licenses for it. But
> beware, the non-free CCs have templates that put them in "delete me"
> categories, so you might want an alternate template or just boilerplate
> text, so triggerhappy admins :-) don't blast the image before noticing
> its dual license.
>
> It *is* a clever idea to use GFDL to discourage casual commercial use...
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Yonatan Horan
On 27/02/07, Yonatan Horan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also, I haven't seen too many photos being deleted for having "no use on any
> existing or future Wikimedia project" and the worst case is your image(s)
> get nominated for deletion and you comment and the discussion results in a
> keep.

I can sign up to this. If anyone tries to delete a freely-licensed
picture of anyone we are plausibly maybe perhaps likely to have an
article on eventually, then let me know and I'll come vote against it
with common sense ;-)

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by sigmaman
On 27/02/07, sigmaman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious.. how
> common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL and
> CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses. You
> could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving
> Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not come
> across!

Well, you couldn't limit commercial uses any more than they were
limited simply by GFDL licensing. Remember that CC-NC plus GFDL
doesn't give you a combination of the both, just a choice. (in other
words, you end up with easier use for noncommercial, or commercial
only-if-they-use-GFDL, not some kind of GFDL-NC)

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs-2
On 27/02/07, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > If it is, then I may have a decent chance of getting a Metric Shitload
> > of good video content for us under dual GFDL and CC-by-nc-nd ...
> >
> It believe it should be OK - we only care that a picture has *a* free
> license, we're not trying to control all possible licenses for it. But
> beware, the non-free CCs have templates that put them in "delete me"
> categories, so you might want an alternate template or just boilerplate
> text, so triggerhappy admins :-) don't blast the image before noticing
> its dual license.

Some kind of free-text option might solve this.

{{GFDL and|the Completely Free Use By Anyone With Red Hair license}}

It would mean our categorisation system wouldn't identify the other
licenses, but one could argue that's a feature not a bug!

> It *is* a clever idea to use GFDL to discourage casual commercial use...

Practically speaking, the GFDL makes single pieces of work free for
any major multi-component reuse (where you'd be reprinting the GFDL
once, covering all the pieces of work in it combined); but in many
ways makes them not-free for reuse of them singly, simply because of
the hassle invovled in complying with the GFDL for one individual
image...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

sigmaman
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
I understand the choice issue regarding this type of dual license.
Basically, what I was trying to say is that you limit the commercial
interoperability with other CC licenses.

Thank you for helping me clear it up! ;-)

Sigmaman

On 2/27/07, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 27/02/07, sigmaman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious.. how
> > common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL
> and
> > CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses. You
> > could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving
> > Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not come
> > across!
>
> Well, you couldn't limit commercial uses any more than they were
> limited simply by GFDL licensing. Remember that CC-NC plus GFDL
> doesn't give you a combination of the both, just a choice. (in other
> words, you end up with easier use for noncommercial, or commercial
> only-if-they-use-GFDL, not some kind of GFDL-NC)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

sigmaman
Just curious, what makes the GFDL different from CC's Sharealike license, in
general terms? Is the GDFL more restrictive? If you could point me to some
sort of resource, I'd be happy to research myself, but I haven't been able
to locate a lof about the GFDL, except for some elements relating to
printing manuals, and, of course, Wikipedia.

Thanks,
Sigmaman

On 2/27/07, sigmaman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I understand the choice issue regarding this type of dual license.
> Basically, what I was trying to say is that you limit the commercial
> interoperability with other CC licenses.
>
> Thank you for helping me clear it up! ;-)
>
> Sigmaman
>
> On 2/27/07, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 27/02/07, sigmaman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi everyone!
> > >
> > > This is the first time I have responded to a thread. I am curious..
> > how
> > > common is dual licensing using the GDFL + (CC) license? Using the GFDL
> > and
> > > CC-BY-NC-SA seems to be kind of a neat idea, for at least some uses.
> > You
> > > could severly limit commercial uses with such a combo, while serving
> > > Wikipedia needs and demands. It's just a neat idea that I have not
> > come
> > > across!
> >
> > Well, you couldn't limit commercial uses any more than they were
> > limited simply by GFDL licensing. Remember that CC-NC plus GFDL
> > doesn't give you a combination of the both, just a choice. (in other
> > words, you end up with easier use for noncommercial, or commercial
> > only-if-they-use-GFDL, not some kind of GFDL-NC)
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   [hidden email]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Andre Engels
2007/2/28, sigmaman <[hidden email]>:
>
> Just curious, what makes the GFDL different from CC's Sharealike license,
> in
> general terms? Is the GDFL more restrictive? If you could point me to some
> sort of resource, I'd be happy to research myself, but I haven't been able
> to locate a lof about the GFDL, except for some elements relating to
> printing manuals, and, of course, Wikipedia.
>

If you copy something under CC-SA, you need to include a statement that it
is under that license. If you copy something under the GFDL you need to
include the full text of the license.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

sigmaman
Gotcha. Thank you.

On 2/28/07, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2007/2/28, sigmaman <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Just curious, what makes the GFDL different from CC's Sharealike
> license,
> > in
> > general terms? Is the GDFL more restrictive? If you could point me to
> some
> > sort of resource, I'd be happy to research myself, but I haven't been
> able
> > to locate a lof about the GFDL, except for some elements relating to
> > printing manuals, and, of course, Wikipedia.
> >
>
> If you copy something under CC-SA, you need to include a statement that it
> is under that license. If you copy something under the GFDL you need to
> include the full text of the license.
>
> --
> Andre Engels, [hidden email]
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l