Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-31/Photography

I think we should expand into NC images. This would allow use to use all the images at Radiopedia and would draw greater contributors. We would allow us to provide a greater service for the general public. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Commercial applications of Wiki-content are, in the grand scheme of things, a very small part of the Wikimedia mission in any case. Allowing NC would, as mentioned, make Commons a more attractive venue, as well as allowing us to import many, many so-licensed images on Flickr and elsewhere that would otherwise be aiding our articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. A lot of public institutions seem to be opening up to CC for their collections, but only under a non-commercial license. I recently took dozens of photos at one such institution, but I can't use any here unless I can make a case under fair use, as they only allow NC licensing of photos of their collection. And I did try approaching the institution, but they were unwilling to relax their licensing requirements. Similarly they release images of their own on flickr, many of which would be great, but once again only for NC.
 * That said, I gather there is no chance of the rules changing, at least based on my reading of the last debate, due to incompatibilities with the current GFDL. So it is probably impossible - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only will it not be changed, but it should not be. Wikimedia projects are free content projects, and free content means freedom to use for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without royalty or permission required and without restriction on derivative works (at most, attribution and sharing alike may be a requirement). If that doesn't work for someone, they are welcome to go somewhere that allows nonfree work, such as Flickr. What they cannot do is pretend it's free while it really is not, and hosting "no commercial use" works on Wikimedia would be doing just that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Vehemently disagree (with earlier sentiments). Non-commercial is fundamentally incompatible with our free content mission. Discrimination against any particular field of endeavor is not compatible with free content.  If it's not free for anyone to use anywhere for any purpose, then it's not free.  Gigs (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your points, and I have no problems releasing the majority of my photos under full CC. That said, it's a matter of priorities: we would have better quality content if we allowed some NC works, at the cost of containing material which isn't free. If ensuring that all content is free is important enough to override the quality concerns, as it appears it does, then so be it. But that's the call that is being made. It's a valid approach, and I happily acknowledge that it won't (and perhaps shouldn't) be changed, but I also acknowledge that it comes at a cost. - Bilby (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See commons:Commons:Licensing/Justifications for why restricting commercial use is a bad, bad idea. Dcoetzee 02:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A big round of applause should go to Ragesoss for this excellent article. Well-written, engaging, and extremely interesting. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I second that. One of the (hell, the) best descriptions of how to make the process work; I shall no doubt be linking to it often, if not communicating it in other forms (with attribution!). Many thanks. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 08:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Well done, Ragesoss. 129.120.86.27 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the March 2009 discussion about the (failed) proposal by Muhammad, Fir0002 and Diliff to allow prohibition of commercial reusage: Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_62.

Exploiting the unfree nature of the GFDL (which was a major reason for the 2009 license migration to CC-BY-SA) by licensing images GFDL 1.2 only is highly controversial in Wikimedia projects. For example, the German Wikipedia rejected 1.2 only uploads in a 90-22 vote in 2008.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HaeB. I wasn't aware of either of those things you linked.  I set out to write this about the financial side, with the license issue as just incidental.  But looking over it now, with the comments mostly focused on the license issue, I realize I probably should have given more voice to other viewpoints.--ragesoss (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In this link, Mike Godwin states Wikipedia can't legally host NC images, although I'm not sure if the licence migration has changed any of that. My 2 cents: Allowing NC images will help further Wikimedia's goal of providing the best content to everyone in the world. That should be our primary focus. 129.120.86.27 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Allowing contributors to upload works only available under non-free licenses to Wikimedia projects would be a fundamental mistake. Wikipedia etc. are not about providing content, they're about providing FREE content, with everything that entails. Those that are not willing to license their works under an appropriate copyleft license are not required to contribute. -- Schneelocke (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the legal etc. issues, I get the impression that not using non-commercial images doesn't substantially deprive us of images. Only a small proportion of the images on sites like Flickr are free for Wikipedia, but this still makes a ton of photos, more than we can scour through. There also are public domain photos, such as those of the US government. &mdash;innotata 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've contributed over 1,000 images and what I'm experiencing is the lack of respect from Commons gnomes for that contribution especially when it comes to attribution in that a vocal group on Commons is driving a shift from a personalise license templates that explains in clear and simple language the exact attritbution requiremnts. To get specific photographs for the featured article Banksia cuneata I made two trips over 600km each time, for the article Outback it was an 800km round trip and there are many more occassions where Ive driven 200-300kms. Not all my photowalks for WP have been of great distance some are quite close like for the FP Banksia telmatiaea which cost me a pair boots after one was lost while crossing a flooded drainage ditch. To get photographs anything within 500km of Perth is possible but it does involve considerable cost, but when Commons cant be trusted to respect attribution how can we expect the wider community to respect licensing. As a professional photographer and a long term contributor to Wikipedia I'd like to see a return to being able to upload images to Wikipedia because there is greater licensing diversification and the community that uses the photographs understands what it takes to get them and values that contribution. Gnangarra 01:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)