[Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Ray Saintonge
[hidden email] 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Sage Ross
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

wiki-lists
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> [hidden email] 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Robert Rohde
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> [hidden email] 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Peter Gervai-5
In reply to this post by wiki-lists
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 21:05, <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by wiki-lists
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 <[hidden email]>

> David Gerard wrote:
> > 2009/7/21  <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

wiki-lists
In reply to this post by Peter Gervai-5
Peter Gervai wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 21:05, <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by metasj
> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

You mean say on en.wp having a link to Commons' new images?

Cheers
Yaroslav


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

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Fred Benenson-2
Hi There,
  I"m 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 <[hidden email]>wrote:

> > 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
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> You mean say on en.wp having a link to Commons' new images?
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Everton Zanella Alvarenga-2
In reply to this post by Yaroslav M. Blanter
The Reality of Professional Photography on Wikipedia, by Fred Benenson

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16017


--
http://blogdotom.wordpress.com/sobre

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

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Everton Zanella Alvarenga-2
In reply to this post by Fred Benenson-2
2009/7/23 Fred Benenson <[hidden email]>:
> Hi There,
>  I"m 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
>

Ops, sorry! I didn't receive this email before sending Fred's post.

[]'s,

Tom

--
http://blogdotom.wordpress.com/sobre

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

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

metasj
In reply to this post by Fred Benenson-2
Thanks for sharing that, fred.  It is interesting indeed!  Are you going to
be in nyc by any chance this wknd?

samuel klein.  [hidden email].  +1 617 529 4266

On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, "Fred Benenson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi There,
 I"m 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 <[hidden email]
>wrote:

> > That's a great idea. Having a prominent link to "recently uploaded > >
images" > > (I'm thinki...
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

Fred Benenson-2
Yes here now.

On Saturday, July 25, 2009, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for sharing that, fred.  It is interesting indeed!  Are you going to
> be in nyc by any chance this wknd?
>
> samuel klein.  [hidden email].  +1 617 529 4266
>
> On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, "Fred Benenson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi There,
>  I"m 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 <[hidden email]
>>wrote:
>
>> > That's a great idea. Having a prominent link to "recently uploaded > >
> images" > > (I'm thinki...
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12