Fix a standard, images will arrive?

[Nereo Preto]

A former student of mine is an almost-professional photographer.
She has a great "park" of cameras and lenses and takes many naturalistic pictures (landscapes, macros, etc.).

I understand from her that she would not contribute because she hopes to get some living out of her works. And, she doesn't like to see her work modified by others.

BUT, how large a picture we need after all? say, 600 X 800 px? Such a picture would be useless in a publication (it prints ca. 5 X 7 cm at 300 dpi, little more than a stamp).

I suggest that we might fix a standard for pictures uploaded by professionals (or almost so). We say them:
(1) to upload images (photographs) that are not big enough to be useful if published, e.g., 600 X 800 px or something less;
(2) images will be not modified (or, in alternative, modified images will contain a reference to the unmodified uploaded version).

Maybe, once this is accepted as a "bon-ton rule", and this fact is publicized, some good photographers (or good takes of average photographers, for that matter) may accept to upload what we need.

We have a real name policy, which is good: photographers who might like to be know will be happy to participate I suppose, and will provide additional links to us (e.g., from their amateur or professional home pages. I am thinking of links like "see my pictures for CZ).

I believe it might work. Comments?

[Versuri]

A former student of mine is an almost-professional photographer.
She has a great "park" of cameras and lenses and takes many naturalistic pictures (landscapes, macros, etc.).

I understand from her that she would not contribute because she hopes to get some living out of her works. And, she doesn't like to see her work modified by others.

Most photographers think like her. I believe that the best way is CZ accept images under CC-BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/) and fair use within CZ with permission of the author.

[Nat Krause]

NPreto, anyone is already welcome to upload images at 600 X 800 px or lower resolution. You make a good point that this is a reasonable way to maintain some commercial viability for an image. As for restricting derivatives, there is a Creative Commons license that covers this: the "CC(-by-sa)-nd" license. However, I'm not sure how large of a concern that is for most people. Bear in mind that the most common licenses on Wikipedia (the GFDL and CC-by-sa) already explicitly require that the author of the work be credited in all cases.

Most photographers think like her. I believe that the best way is CZ accept images under CC-BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/) and fair use within CZ with permission of the author.

If we and various other sources are making these images available for free, that will restrict the author's ability to make money selling them, regardless of whether they are under a noncommercial license. I'm not sure what fair use has to do with this.

[Versuri]

If we and various other sources are making these images available for free, that will restrict the author's ability to make money selling them, regardless of whether they are under a noncommercial license.
 

The author can make money, the license is for others not for the author. If anyone wants to make a commercial use of the picture,  he can do that with the permission of the author since he pays for it.

I'm not sure what fair use has to do with this.

The author gives permission to CZ  use his/her picture as "fair use" within CZ and nobody is allowed to profit from this (I am not sure about it).

[Nat Krause]

The author can make money, the license is for others not for the author. If anyone wants to make a commercial use of the picture,  he can do that with the permission of the author since he pays for it.

Sure, but my point is that the author has already made the pictures available for free on the internet, so it would be more difficult to convince anyone to pay for them. I will agree that "no derivatives" license would create more commercial opportunities, because the author could still sell the right to make derivatives.

The author gives permission to CZ  use his/her picture as "fair use" within CZ and nobody is allowed to profit from this (I am not sure about it).

According to Wikipedia, "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review." So, this implies that there is no such thing as "fair use with permission".

[Versuri]

Sure, but my point is that the author has already made the pictures available for free on the internet, so it would be more difficult to convince anyone to pay for them. I will agree that "no derivatives" license would create more commercial opportunities, because the author could still sell the right to make derivatives.

I don´t agree. The author made available for non-commercial use and it is not available for magazines, papers, tabloids and anything that have ads. Who needs a commercial use will pay for that.

According to Wikipedia, "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review." So, this implies that there is no such thing as "fair use with permission".

There is "fair use with permission". Take a look at this site:
http://publishing.wsu.edu/copyright/getting_permission/index.html

[Brian Dean Abramson]

Sure, but my point is that the author has already made the pictures available for free on the internet, so it would be more difficult to convince anyone to pay for them. I will agree that "no derivatives" license would create more commercial opportunities, because the author could still sell the right to make derivatives.

I don´t agree. The author made available for non-commercial use and it is not available for magazines, papers, tabloids and anything that have ads. Who needs a commercial use will pay for that.

According to Wikipedia, "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review." So, this implies that there is no such thing as "fair use with permission".

There is "fair use with permission". Take a look at this site:
http://publishing.wsu.edu/copyright/getting_permission/index.html

Actually, the linked article is basically saying that you either must establish fair use or get permission. As an intellectual property attorney, I can assure you that there is no such thing as "fair use permission." If you have permission, it's not fair use. If it's fair use, you don't need permission.

Cheers!
-Brian

[Russell Potter]

Please see my comments at another thread: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,903.msg6761.html#msg6761

Brian is quite correct here (this shows how much CZ will, sooner or later, need sound legal advice in this area!).

My understanding had been that CZ at present doesn't allow images under broad claims of 'fair use,' but only when images are public domain, or when permission is documented, or when an attempt to obtain permission shows a reasonable effort which has not met with a reply.

We should also be careful of the aspects of property law under which museums and archives claim an interest in images derived from items they own.  Just because *copyright* has expired doesn't necessarily mea that there are no other rights in an image.  The Bridgeman case, though used by Wikipedia to support relatively accurate scans of old material (such as manuscripts) is not, I believe, necessarily binding in all jurisdictions .... yet.

[Stephen Ewen]

A former student of mine is an almost-professional photographer.
She has a great "park" of cameras and lenses and takes many naturalistic pictures (landscapes, macros, etc.).

I understand from her that she would not contribute because she hopes to get some living out of her works. And, she doesn't like to see her work modified by others.

BUT, how large a picture we need after all? say, 600 X 800 px? Such a picture would be useless in a publication (it prints ca. 5 X 7 cm at 300 dpi, little more than a stamp).

I suggest that we might fix a standard for pictures uploaded by professionals (or almost so). We say them:
(1) to upload images (photographs) that are not big enough to be useful if published, e.g., 600 X 800 px or something less;
(2) images will be not modified (or, in alternative, modified images will contain a reference to the unmodified uploaded version).

Maybe, once this is accepted as a "bon-ton rule", and this fact is publicized, some good photographers (or good takes of average photographers, for that matter) may accept to upload what we need.

We have a real name policy, which is good: photographers who might like to be know will be happy to participate I suppose, and will provide additional links to us (e.g., from their amateur or professional home pages. I am thinking of links like "see my pictures for CZ).

I believe it might work. Comments?

The idea of creating media policies that make CZ as attractive as possible for such photographers is something very keen on my mind.  I've actually gone around and listened to these folks to find out what would maximize the attraction of CZ so they would contribute some of their best.  Two things come up over and over and over again: (1) credit lines within image boxes within articles; and, (2) allowance for Creative Commons-non-commerical-no derivas.  Pixel size is less important.