Slashdot Mirror
Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Reservoir Hill writes "The NY Times has an article investigating why, unlike the articles on Wikipedia which in theory are improved, fact checked, footnoted, and generally enhanced over time, the photos that go with Wikipedia articles are so bad and in many cases there is no photo at all for even well known public figures. Few high-quality photographs, particularly of celebrities, make it onto on Wikipedia because Wikipedia runs only pictures with the most permissive Creative Commons license, which allows anyone to use an image, for commercial purposes or not, as long as the photographer is credited. 'Representatives or publicists will contact us' horrified at the photographs on the site, says Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation. 'They will say: "I have this image. I want you to use this image." But it is not as simple as uploading a picture that is e-mailed to us.' Recent photographs on Wikipedia are almost exclusively the work of amateurs who don't mind giving away their work. 'Amateur may be too kind a word; their photos tend to be the work of fans who happen to have a camera,' opines the Times's author. Ultimately the issue for professional photographers who might want to donate their work is copyright. 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.'"
I love free use and all that. I'm also a photographer - not one who makes a living off it, but a moderately serious amateur who makes a little money now and then.
In my real job, I work somewhere where a permit is required for "commercial" photography or filming. I can take all the pictures I want for personal use, of course, and I can put pictures on my personal web page (or for that matter my work one), but unless I pony up the bucks for a permit (hundreds of dollars) I can't profit in any way, nor (and here's the clincher) can I give the photos for free to someone else who profits in any way from them.
There is a Creative Commons license (actually, lots of them) for things like this - the -nc- (non-commercial) ones. Unfortunately, last time I looked at Wikipedia, they insisted on a license allowing all uses, including commercial uses.
So as an amateur who doesn't want or need to make money off pictures of where I work, to upload a picture of my workplace (unsurprisingly, I have plenty, many of them quite good) I would have to shell out hundreds of dollars for a permit, then allow anyone and everyone do do whatever they want with my picture, including making money off it. So not only am I basically releasing it to the public domain, I'm paying out of pocket for the right to let other people make money off it.
If Wikipedia has changed their terms and are allowing cc-*-nc-* licensing, then I'll be very happy to stand corrected. If they still require licensing of all uses including commercial ones then I'm sorry, but I simply can't play that game.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
(Please note, stating my Conflict of Interest up front: I am currently a Wikipedia Administrator, one of the 2,500 or so)
I do agree that photos are not a good spot for Wikipedia. And we're currently in a spot where our pictures are simultaneously decried as not good enough (this topic) and too good (http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/17/085244/New-Developments-In-NPGWikipedia-Lawsuit-Threat , the museum in question says that low res versions would be ok, but high res infringes on their copyright (note, the items in question are in the public domain in the US, but the laws regarding reproductions of items are a bit wonky in the UK)
We are a free encyclopedia. The people who use the encyclopedia have a right to reuse the material on Wikipedia in any way possible. Therefore, we cannot present any material that doesn't meet the requirements, because outside the two categories (things permissible under the GFDL/CC-BY-SA licensing terms, and limited fair-use exemptions, usually when no other picture is possible, such as photos of a person who is no longer living).
One could quite possibly argue that if we did not restrict items to these categories, then on other versions of Wikipedia, or otherwise legal use of Wikipedia (for example, reusing the article elsewhere), Wikipedia would be contributing to copyright infringement, or even considering the terms the rest of the website is under, encouraging copyright infringement.
Do I (speaking more as a user of the encyclopedia, rather than an administrator) want professional looking photographs and information on Wikipedia? Yes, Of course. I would LOVE for a lot of professional photographers to be able to release their work. But it's their decision. If they don't want to donate the phots under the suitable license, then, unfortunately, we cannot use them.
And I should say that there are categories where Wikipedia shines. Several governments including the German goverment (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F06%2F1654246&from=rss) have released hundreds of thousands of historical to current day photographs to be used on Wikipedia by the site's terms.
I know a user on Wikipedia (who I am proud to call a friend), who makes it their mission to restore old, faded pictures and photographs. They have close to 300 featured picture credits to their name. There's a whole category at the Wikipedia Commons (a sister project to Wikipedia) that makes it their goal to restore these photos and historical documents. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Potential_restorations).
So it's an ever-improving process. We can only take what we are GIVEN, but everyday we're given more and more to work with.
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
The author of that article needs to get pulled up by his editor for bad research and reporting.
Who the hell said that licensing something under Creative Commons means that you are giving up your copyright? Does he even understand what Copyright is all about? And what a license is?
It's this kind of article that scares the willies out readers, who are led to believe that licensing under the GPL or CC means that you lose the right to be identified as the author of the work. What rubbish!
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
"'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.'"
The problem is that Wikipedia does not end at Wikipedia. Even if they themselves are given copyright permissions I imagine they consider it a problem if the endusers that copy the images from Wikipedia for other purposes get in trouble.
The critics apparently want Wikipedia to pursue the maximum image quality they can get for readers of the site, but they don't stop to consider that there's a lot more people do with the stuff on wikipedia than just view it on the wikipedia.org domain.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Mr Avenaim also just doesn't understand how copyright works. Of course he retains copyright; he merely grants a license to the version of the picture he uploads.
There is nothing stopping him from uploading a reduced resolution image; he can then continue use the full resolution version in whatever way he wants, including licensing it to people who want something suitable for print purposes for insane sums of money, if he chooses.
But surely the photographers DO maintain the copyright, they just license the image freely. If they have a problem with 'freedom', they should just say that instead. "We photographers don't like freedom". There, I restated the problem, clearly.
If some celeb has a problem with their picture, they can just pay for one to be CCd. Don't tell me in a world of millions of photographers, they're all asshats?
In over 10 years in the web design industry, working closely with probably 20+ commercial photographers, I have yet to find one that doesn't insist on retaining control of the rights to reproduce the photos they take for you. They want to charge you for taking the photo, then they want to charge you again if you want to use the photo in a different way to how you used it the first time.
Then you better be sure to stay off Wikipedia, Mr. Avenaim.
Too Late. It even looks like he has uploaded his own portrait to Wikimedia Commons under a CC license.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Reply to undo wrong mod, sorry
Elen sìla lùmenn' omentielvo
I would happily grant Wiki a free license to use the photo but no, they want a complete surrender of copyright or they don't want the picture, so they don't get the picture :-(
You might consider this to be splitting semantic hairs, but actually you would retain copyright. You would just offer the image under a license which allows free distribution.
But you summed it up. Wikipedia's aim is to create a freely distributable encyclopedia. They don't want any material that they can't distribute freely.
You're not contributing because you don't share Wikipedia's aims.
we can get plenty of good pics off facebook etc. for free.
You know that you don't have implicit permission to redistribute a photo just because it's on Facebook, right?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
No, because that's not free content.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
When you buy a product you pay a small percentage of the price for the producers advertising budget.
That budget is spent partly on google-ads
That is how you pay your Google tax.
I have a bunch of high quality images that I've taken and am happy to donate. However, when I tried to upload them I was prevented due to not having updated a sufficient number of articles. Until you've updated the text on something like 10 articles you can't upload any images. I simply haven't found that many articles I felt I could make a useful contribution to yet. It seems like an odd restriction to me. Unless you can prove you can write readable text, you can't upload pictures.
I recently tried to post our logo on a wikipedia article. It was hell. First I posted the image, thinking that would be the end of it. I got a post on my page saying that I didn't put a license on it. Fine. So I went and picked a permissive license. They they said I didn't have permission to do that. So I posted my yahoo-inc (internal employees only) email address asking them what do they want me to do to prove it. No response. The image was deleted.
Second try, I post a bigger version of the image. . This time I don't say that I work for yahoo, but that this is a valid non-free use of the image. I leave the citation the same way as it was before. Alas, this worked and everyone left me alone!
So, if you are trying to post your own logo, just say it is an acceptable non-free use.
This experience was not very fun, but I really wanted to get our logo up there so that a search will show the logo in the Wikipedia SearchMonkey result. Hard to demo a product when a search for the name doesn't show a good use of the product.
Taking photos isn't bio-engineering and their is a lot of competition.
Yes, there's a lot. But my experience was that most were members of the same professional associations, and wouldn't consider licensing under any terms other than the standard form t&cs supplied by those associations.
You're kidding, right? Let me rephrase your question to something with less tortured double-negatives:
No, that's not the same thing at all. The question was not "why is allowing images under Creative Commons good," but "why is rejecting images that are not under Creative Commons bad?" I think the reason is that it's convenient for people to know that they can go ahead and copy anything they want from Wikipedia and do what they want with it, without needing to check the license agreement, so it's simpler all around.
If you haven't seen it, there are quite a few websites mirroring Wikipedia. It is part of the mission to make the knowledge available, even if Wikipedia goes down (I mean the organisation).
They want the knowledge out, not just on their servers.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Exactly. I am a professional photographer (Paid and published in several magazines) and some of my images I hold that ball and chain. but unlike others that do what I do, I gladly relinquish that. Wedding photos for example, pay me an extra $100.00 and I'll give you the full size digitals and a letter releasing reproduction rights to the couple. I get a crapload of work because I am the only photographer in this state that does this. I also get a lot of events because of that. A typical 3 day event my team will shoot nearly 30,000 photos with at least 15,000 of them good enough to give to the event organizers. Having a full reproduction release in hand on that pool size of photographs kicks the crap out of the prima-donnas that want a fee per image.
The problem is that Wikipedia also does not really want professional images there. I submitted several of the great shots of Travis Tritt I took last year when I was on stage with him as photographer for one event, with a release terms they requested and they said no thank you. What they want is full release of OWNERSHIP not copyright. I refused to release ownership of the image, but gave them and everyone else pretty much whatever they want to do with it license. That was not good enough.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If you are a shitty photographer, a $60,000 DSLR with a $290,000 lens will still give you shitty photos.
A good photograhper can take an amazing photo with a $199.99 Cheapie canon pocket point and shoot.
it's not the gear, it's not magical. If you suck, lots of new high end gear just makes you suck more.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The world is filled with control freaks, it seems.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Having once made my living as a photographer, I'm severely disinclined to wade fully into this discussion. I can see both sides and I get really irritated at the way both sides, both through innocent ignorance and wilfull intent, so frequently misunderstand each other.
About this one point, though, I'd like to say something. Good photographers are manic about making sure that every single piece of work they produce is as close to perfect as possible. You, the general public, my potential future clients, may only see one picture I've taken in your whole life. In that case, it had better be perfect if I'm going to stand any chance of getting any of your future business. That one photo is my representative to the world. The same thing is true of every photo I release.
Thus, releasing anything that's substandard is self-defeating. Losing control of subsequent re-use, too, is self-defeating if it allows someone to put my work into some crappy collage or print it incompetently. (That last one really drives traditional wedding photographers crazy.)
So no top-echelon photographer of the sort who is normally contracted to shoot celebrity portraits is ever going to say "Well, this photo is junk that I can't sell - so I'll just let it be published where millions of people will see it and come to associate my name with crappy work." It just ain't gonna happen.
There's an old saying among photographers about how to properly assemble a portfolio. Divide your work into 4 piles. Pile 1 is the stuff that's not good enough. Pile 2 is the stuff that's almost good enough and you might put it in your portfolio if you have a particular hole you need to fill. Pile 3 is good enough to include in your portfolio. Pile 4 is those few, rare photos among the "good enough" that are something transcendant, that make you draw a sharp breath and say a little "Wow!" to yourself every time you see them. Then:
Throw away piles 1, 2 and 3.
Start over, repeating the process with pile 4. Continue periodically for 10 years. If you're lucky, you may actually have a good portfolio at the end of that process.
Now, nobody actually does this. The practical consideration of stopping and selling a few photos so you can eat gets in the way. But the mindset is there. Releasing suboptimal work, no matter what public good it may do on the pages of Wikipedia, just goes against the grain of any good photographer.
If all images on Wikipedia are required to have the same licence (CC Attribution) then you already know what the licence is on the photograph, and can easily comply with it. If you remove the certainty of what the licence of the photographs is, then you create a situation where each individual photograph requires seperate investigation of licence.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Hmm, let's work this out from the photographer's perspective. I go out to a studio, with all my gear and assistants, and do a model shoot of a celebrity. It's a whole days work, with hair and makeup changes, wardrobe, setting of lights before people get there, and tearing stuff down when they all leave. Maybe I'm lucky and have a stocked stage someplace, or maybe I want to shoot them on location somewhere. End of the day, I expect to get paid for this work. And what I expect to get paid depends on what the celebrity and their company want to do with the picture. Most of the time, they want exclusive control of the image, and I charge them for that. That means, I can not turn around and re-license the picture to Wiki under the CC, as the contract we have forbids it. That's the publicists problem, not mine. If the publicist wants the picture under the CC, I am going to charge more for it.
Counter-intuitive, I know, but hear me out. By my licensing the picture under the CC, I would be giving the publicist, and the rest of the world, more rights than a normal photo contract provides, provided the photo shoot wasn't done as work for hire (15x base cost, minimum since I can never use those pics in a portfolio). Because I would lose future rights on the photo, for now and forever, I would charge accordingly. It's not greed, it's pragmatism. You say that a photographer retains their copyright, but if the picture is out there under the CC who needs to license it from the photographer under anything more restrictive? Since that is lost future potential revenue, it's going to cost more, period.
I know this opinion won't fly well with the /. crowd. All data and stuff should be free unless it's the work I do for the company on their time and then I should be paid like a king for it. Funny that photographers think the same way about the pictures they take on someone else's time.
Independent professional photographers have a mindset that they are being paid for the end use. If you want a portrait of your wife to hang on the wall, they want to sell you a portrait of your wife to hang on the wall, and they will charge a fee based on the size and the framing and other add-ons. If you want a portrait of someone to include in your employer's annual report, they want you to pay for that, based on the size and the quantity, even though the actual production won't be done by them. If you want a stock photo of two adults holding hands while walking down a path by a lake, they traditionally wanted you to pay for size, type of use, and quantity, though now there's so much royalty-free stock that's out there that this model is starting to wane.
But in real life that started to change a long time ago. Most commercial photographers working low-end to average corporate gigs (product photography and PR) are willing to sell all rights (possibly holding back a nonexclusive license to use their own work in portfolios and the like) in exchange for a reasonably generous day rate. Magazine and news photographers are generally employees operating on a work-for-hire basis. The low end wedding and portrait photographers charge a shooting fee only; the media is their deliverable and it comes with all rights. That leaves the higher end portrait and corporate photographers as the last bastion of the old, royalty-based model.
The whole point of Wikipedia is to be freely redistributable. A Wikipedia that contains sufficient material licensed on a "Wikipedia only" basis, as many photographers would like, does not serve this goal any more than binary-only drivers and code (or source licensed for non-commercial use only) serve GNU/Linux. A major misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia is that the Wikipedia's mission is to have a popular web site. It's not; it's to create free content, and this goal is not something that Wikipedians are willing to negotiate away in exchange for pretty pictures. It is the undefined nature of the possible end uses for the content that professional photographers don't like.
One celebrity image was posted by the photographer under a CC permissive licence and got a notice slapped on it
*snip*
They just don't want pictures .....
I don't see the problem. The personality rights warning doesn't mean that they don't want the image (it doesn't lead to deletion of the image), it just warns re-users that they probably can't do everything they want with this image. Many countries have laws that limit what you can do with images of other people without their explicit permission. For example, if there's a photo of Harrison Ford under a free license, it would be no problem to use it in encyclopedia articles, news stories, etc.. But a company can't use it to advertise their products without the permission of Mr. Ford.
The Angels have the Phone Box
As a former photographer, I'll take a stab at that. I'll use wedding photography in most of my examples because that's the only time most people ever hire a photographer.
They can get a rich benefactor. This isn't as crazy as it sounds. Customized porn, for example, can bring in a bundle. (And, no, I guess my first example doesn't have anything to do with weddings.)
They can employ a modified rights management strategy. Lots of wedding photographers are drifting this way. They charge more for their work and then sell substantial or all rights to the happy couple. Full-res digital files are sold for a premium. Full rights are sold for a premium. They also make money off of web services, providing a web site to display the photos and make it easy for anyone to order prints for a nominal but mildly profitable cost. Some photographers even abandon all rights after a set period, usually a year.
They can toss all idea of control. Some wedding photographers have begun seeking out digital-ready couples who want to handle all their own post-production work. In those cases, the photographer charges a reasonable rate for a days work and, at the end of the festivities, burns a DVD with all the pics and hands it to the couple or their rep. This sort of "shoot, burn, and run" business model is definitely low-rent and is metaphorically spat on by traditional wedding photographers, but it's profitable for folks who view the job with as much romance as a plumber views lead pipe. It also makes "better-than-your-shutterbug-uncle" wedding photography available to lots of people who couldn't otherwise afford it.
They can cling to the old model. There will always be high-end jobs to be done for rich clients who don't want to get their hands dirty. These are the people who will pay $500 per 8x10 print for an album with 100 prints in it, then turn around and pay $800-$3000 for additional, single prints to hang on the wall or give to family. These are the people who expect to sit down in a studio business office where they're served champagne, make nice talk, write a check, and not have to think about it again.
They can sell prints. Lots of people make money in the fine-art print business. By doing so, they can retain all the traditional rights because their target audience would never conceive of pulling a 20x24 print out of the frame to get it scanned so they can email it to friends or pirate it to a commercial buyer.
They can shoot for stock. This is nowhere near the money-maker it once was but for a talented and prolific shooter, it can make money.
They can ridiculously specialize. Some businesses have photo needs so specialized that there's no secondary market for the work. Thus, it doesn't matter if the photographer retains rights or not because he will definitely be charging significant money up front.
They can graduate beyond weddings and portraits to commercial work that pays big. Few will succeed, but for some it's worth a shot.
They can negotiate rights with the buyer. Whether it's your wedding, portrait, your dog's portait, or whatever, nearly everyone is open to the concept of buying rights that stipulate the buyer can use the photos for any non-commercial purpose with attribution. This allows the photographer to maintain control enough to make money (sell the photos if their subject ever becomes famous, show them in a portfolio, etc.) while allowing the buyer to do virtually everything they can conceive with the photos without interference (give to friends, publish in the newspaper, put on their web site, etc.)
This list is poorly organized because I typed it stream-of-consciousness style in just a few minutes. Given a few days to mull it over, I could probably get a good start on writing a book on the subject. The bottom line is that, yes, the world is changing and it's getting to be harder for photographers. But the talented, hardworking, adaptable ones will always be able to make a living.
I am one of those professional photographers who has submitted some images to Wikipedia. I did so with attribution required. Shortly after I submitted my images, they were deleted and then resubmitted without any restrictions ... remember, anybody can edit anything! Many of my images, such as those of Taylor Swift are spread all over the internet and most have no attribution. I can't afford to get nothing for my work ... my cameras, computers, printers, everything has to be paid for as well as my mortgage and health insurance. Rather than fight it over and over I simply stopped submitting images. The only ones I submit now have big logos on them ... and many of those are then edited to remove the logos.
Nothing clever