tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post7994612098421815489..comments2023-06-13T08:29:39.914+00:00Comments on MAKING A MARK: National Portrait Gallery images: Flickr vs Wikipedia?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-46228387642732911422009-07-29T19:54:27.635+00:002009-07-29T19:54:27.635+00:00Martin - I've had a quick read and I'll co...Martin - I've had a quick read and I'll come back later if I have more comments<br /><br />The main one I had was that I wasn't proposing that it should be made any eaiser to produce an educational book. That's a commercial proposition and of course the publishers must pay the commercial rate for any such images. <br /><br />I was referring to students wanting images for projects and reports for their studies. It would be great if they could be bigger - but they certainly don't need to be 300 dpi to get a "good enough" image for a document of that sort.<br /><br />In relation to the commercial aspect of usage I was referring to a document which is kept on wikipedia by a member to indicate why Wikipedia wouldn't agree to what the NPG was suggesting. It's been referenced by several others commenting on this matter.<br /><br />I simply don't understand why images can't appear on wikpiedia in the same way as images appear on Flickr - with very clear and explicit statements and links as to copyright and usage. There's a number of images on Flickr where all copyright is reserved.<br /><br />It seems to me art galleries and museums are naturally going to prefer the Flickr way of doing things. <br /><br />I think there's a very good chance Wikipedia may have shot itself in the foot with this one.Making A Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509483023337008890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-90851270810663081782009-07-29T19:18:37.684+00:002009-07-29T19:18:37.684+00:00The comparison with Flickr is very interesting. Bu...The comparison with Flickr is very interesting. But many wrong facts in this article:<br /><br />First: Printing an educational book, maybe a history book, is hard with low resolution images. As laws differ from country to country printing an educational book and give it away for a small amount to cover the printing costs is commercial reuse in some countries. So with your restrictions you are not able to produce an educational book with free content and distribute it cost-effective. Giving a photocopy to school children for 5 cents is commercial use? Maybe. Also websites are commercial in many cases they don’t even know that they are commercial (Google adds). Low quality in many cases serves the purpose but is not always sufficiently good.<br /><br />Second: The whole thing is based on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag. The images are not included on Wikipedia for commercial purposes or something like this, they are included because they are considered public domain by Wikimedia and their users. The uploading user is only interested in quality, he therefore tried to get the largest size possible of this public domain reproductions from the web – not because of any commercial interests.<br /><br />Third: You mention the English Wikipedia take down notice. That site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Copyright, does effectively say how to contact Wikimedia to remove copyright violation from the English language Wikipedia project. <br />For image copyright you should rather check:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and the ~40 language links on the left side. This page is for one particular Wikipedia project in English and of course based on US law, the interwikis are for the local Wikipedias based on US law and their local laws – in general for all projects the country of origin and the US law applies. The shared file project Commons has http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing which is for all yet described countries. Saying that Wikimedia ignores other countries law and bases only on US law and saying this on the basis of a take down information page of one of 700 Wikimedia projects is wrong, you should rely on the copyright information of the project where the image was uploaded – and that’s Wikimedia Commons, the shared file repository of all projects (note: most projects don’t accept local uploads and use only Commons). Commons judges 2D reproductions as not creative work and accepts 2D reproductions of paintings that are public domain in the country of origin and the US.<br /><br />Fourth: Wikipedia has NOT(!!) decided that any and all images on its website must be free and available for commercial use - ie with no copyright notice attached.<br />Content on Wikipedia must be freely licensed or part of the public domain. Free includes commercial reuse, correct. Licensed content is NOT free of copyright, attributing the copyright holder IS required, otherwise the license terms are not fulfilled and the reuse is a copyright violation! Also text of Wikipedia is licensed by the authors of the text. Reusing text from Wikipedia requires a notice naming the authors and the license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported as it is a share-alike license. But correct, for public domain content attribution is not required in the US or UK (not so in some other countries). Images from the NPG are though sourced to the NPG, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Portrait_Gallery,_London.<br /><br />Kind regards from Germany, <br />MartinUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823412091482422009noreply@blogger.com