747438 From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 824 posts, RR: 6 Posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3919 times:
I've just received the following E mail and would ask for some guidance please.
[QUOTE]Hello, I edit on Wikipedia under the username "Cloudbound". Would you be willing to allow for your photo of the British Airways Airbus A319 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Airbus-A319-131/2094443/&sid=1481dd72e85d5c5325309f2923e764de) to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia?
If you are willing, would you mind creating the declaration below and return it to me.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name here) am] OR [(copyright holder's name) is] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [SPECIFY THE WORK HERE - describe the work to be released in detail, attach the work to the email, or give the URL of the work if online]
I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]
[SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)]
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3875 times:
While it is only right to appreciate the conditions of the licence and how it applies to your work, it is worth keeping in mind that Wikipedia can only exist due to free contributions of time and material by thousands (maybe millions) of people.
I'm no advocate of giving away pictures, but as a big user of Wikipedia, I would see this as a trade. Before automatically saying no, consider
1 - you don't have to supply a hi-res image
2 - if someone else does use it on a website, you must be credited for it
3 - do you really think you will lose a sale by allowing the pic to be used by Wikipedia?
dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 64 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3810 times:
I think Colin has it right and as the images are simply linked to here and all they get is a low res image. though I have never made any sort of agreement along the lines of those asked for to Phil. If you are bothered by hits, you also get those by people visiting Wiki.
Just the other day I had a look at the links to my images (in Photographers corner) and found that there are masses, mostly without permission, but that is all they are, links and the top one is a link to Wiki with 2000 hits(ish) from that source alone.
I don't think Wiki is a threat to sales either - that one of mine actually sold because they had found it on Wiki !
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
I think, although it looks intimdating, the original request was correctly done - often you just get a request to add to Wikipedia. What you need to know is that ANY image added to Wikipedia has the conditions in the original post applied to it automatically.
So kudos to the original requestor for making those conditions clear!
acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
Quoting 747438 (Reply 2): Yes I did, a few times. But thought I may have been missing something.
Sorry Phil, I think it came over a bit rude, it wasn't my intention at all, I was just shocked about the extent of the requested license.
Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 6): I think Colin has it right and as the images are simply linked to here and all they get is a low res image
My dear friend, that's not what the text in the license says! (if that would be the case, I wouldn't have any problem at all). One thing is helping out Wiki with showing one of your pictures, another very different is giving EVERYBODY the license to use it "in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs".
Quoting ckw (Reply 7): I think, although it looks intimdating, the original request was correctly done
Fully agree here, not shooting the messenger but the message !
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3689 times:
Quoting acontador (Reply 8): My dear friend, that's not what the text in the license says! (if that would be the case, I wouldn't have any problem at all). One thing is helping out Wiki with showing one of your pictures, another very different is giving EVERYBODY the license to use it "in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs".
Basically the licence applies to whatever you choose to give them - nothing more. If you give them a thumbnail, then that's all that is affected. Yes, someone may make use of your low res image for commercial purposes, but I think that is unlikely!
It is true there is nothing to ensure the low-res is linked to your photo on A.net (or wherever), but there is nothing to stop you making that a condition of use. The agreement with Wikipedia does not affect your rights to use/sell the image as you choose, only that the version of the image you choose to supply may be used elsewhere.
Well Colin, that's a matter of personal taste and opinion, I just cannot imagine any one wanting to loose control over an image in such a way as presented in the original license request, and for free, be it for a full-size version or just a thumbnail.
As I said, if the license would be something along the lines of "...giving the right to Wikipedia to display the picture on their website with no time limitation, but all rights to remain with the original photographer...", I wouldn't object to it at all. But that is far away from anybody having the right to use it as they see fit, including commercial use.
In any case, nobody is forced to accept it, and it's commendable that they even ask for it and not just steal the image...
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!