Comments on: Getting more free images.

By: Stephen Ewen

Stephen Ewen — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:36:18 +0000

Er, bitterness? How about stating the obvious? Otherwise please show me all the celebrities who 1) are unaware of the existence of Wikipedia; 2) are unaware that they have an article there about them, and 3) the ones who have rushed to donate a commercial- and derivable-allowable photo of themselves. Surely you have read all the many posts on WP that asks this same question!

By: David Gerard » Blog Archive » Citizendium, the non-free encyclopedia.

David Gerard » Blog Archive » Citizendium, the non-free encyclopedia. — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:51:18 +0000

[...] the first world that this approach will. Even those Citizendium contributors apparently driven by bitterness toward Wikipedia would surely have some reluctance to concede most of the world’s population for short-term [...]

By: Stephen Ewen

Stephen Ewen — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:51:21 +0000

When free is not free but obtained through blackmail, eh David?

If you look at the reasons why celebraties would refuse to release commercial- and derivitive-allowable high quality photos of themselves, coupled with the reputation of Wikipedia despite its Google-fueled ranking, you’ll see why Wikipedia will continue to have the crappy celebrety photos for a long time to come.

By: llywrch

llywrch — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:09:39 +0000

Even better, replace “entertainers” with any specific target group. The pitch is that the person or corporation trades an image or two in return for free (as in beer) distribution to thousands of people around the world. And if they worry that this image will be used to defame them (I dunno, say, a picture of a CEO playing footsie in an airport restroom with Larry Craig), the solution is “don’t be evil”. After all, people *are* going to create such images, copyright or no.

Geoff

By: David Gerard

David Gerard — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:42:57 +0000

Yeah, I know how they’d like things done, and I also know that BY-NC-ND is their idea of radical openness. (There are people who do nothing all day but copyright clearances; in that context, it is radical.) That’s why I’d like to present it as “if you do this thing that helps us, it’s a win for you. Top 10 website, here’s how to get on it! w00t!”

In my experience, it takes about five minutes’ gentle explanation to someone in a media company – even a fairly low-level peon – to get across the idea that we really mean it about letting go of control. Invariably it explodes their heads. I then have to point out again that we’re a top 10 website, it works for us and they approached us so we’re clearly doing something right.

Teaching media corporations something beyond a toddler’s ideas on ownership (“if I thought about it ever, it’s mine”) will, I suspect, come down to a combination of gentle, patient explanation and gentle, patient application of a cattleprod. “Don’t do that then.”

By: Sam Kelly

Sam Kelly — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:09:53 +0000

Not publishing it as, or from, Wiki?edia would most likely be a good idea – let someone else make the suggestion and then you can set the rules for it. Might also help avoid the impression of encouraging people/corporations to take ownership of articles about them.

There isn’t a company in the world that doesn’t have a long history of giving away crap for free, and NC-ND-SA basically translates as “Here, have some of our flyers, give them away to all your friends, xerox more when you run out”.

By: Gabriel Pollard

Gabriel Pollard — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:51:01 +0000

Their Wikipedia page would probably be the most effective way to get it out there – even if there currently was a free image being used. We can always do with some more.