I Wish I Could Contribute To Wikipedia
I get lots of requests to use my photography. Some of these are commercial use requests, to which I respond with questions to determine an appropriate license fee. Others are non-commercial in nature and I try to help out those whose use seems appropriate to me. And, every once in a while, I’ll get a request from somebody over at Wikipedia wanting to use a photograph.
Let me say this up front and loudly. It bums me out me to deny requests to use my photographs on Wikipedia. I wish I could respond positively to these requests. I think Wikipedia is one of the great success stories of the Web and I use the site all the time. There are actually several of my older photographs on Wikipedia, such as on John Battelle’s page, and I wish there could be more.
So why aren't there? Why do I not respond positively to Wikipedia's requests? The answer in a nutshell is one of attribution. Wikipedia is most closely aligned with the GNU and Copyleft models of licensing which don't include attribution. When they do use photographs under a license that requires attribution, that attribution is buried a click away. The result is that, to the lay person unaware of licensing niceties, it's non-obvious that there is attribution for a photograph or that there is any requirement attached. In my experience, this leads to quite a bit of misuse. In fact, the photo of John Battelle from his Wikipedia page was misused in just this way by CNET earlier this year.
In response to my query about how this happened, CNET response said that a "newly hired staff member had found the photo on Wikipedia and, not fully up-to-speed on all the licensing niceties, thought it a reasonable image to pick up." This has happened time and time again. And, it’s not at all unexpected. After all, the photographs on Wikipedia appear unattributed and thus therefore free for the taking without the need to attribute. We all expect photographs that require attribution to have that attribution near the photograph. For example, take a look at any New York Times article and you’ll see attribution given for the photography used right there alongside the image. Dig through Encarta and you'll see the same thing.
Now, is it Wikipedia’s fault for this happening? Strictly speaking, no. They do give attribution, buried as it is, and they do so in a manner in which they interpret is allowable. People using photographs should be more sensitive to licensing details. The fact of the matter, however, is that they aren’t. And while Wikipedia isn’t culpable, they aren’t helping matters either. If they used the model that is used for attribution almost universally everywhere else, I think it would help everyone out. But that’s just my point of view.
If Wikipedia ever shifts policy on how they attribute photographs—as unlikely as such a policy shift would be—then I’ll reconsider my stand. I would still have a bit of an issue with their dislike of non-commercial use licenses which I would prefer to use for this sort of thing. On a limited case-by-case basis, however, I would most likely decide that licensing a specific image in a manner that complies with Wikipedia’s policies would be a win-win for all parties involved. But, given the differences in world-views involved, as you can see by reading the comments to this post, that’s probably not going to happen.
So why am I writing this post today? As you might guess, I got a request from a Wikipedia editor this week to use a photo of Meg Whitman. I denied it. I wish I could have given permission, however, and was bummed that I couldn’t. Like I said, I have immense respect for Wikipedia and what they have accomplished.
Related Posts:
17 Comments
Can you just put a watermark on the bottom of the image, "© James Duncan Davidson"?
Reply to this comment
I've denied a couple Wikipedia requests for the same reason. A simple photo credit would be so easy to add right under the picture...
Reply to this comment
Wikipedia is a non-profit project with the stated goal of freely distributing educational works. If knowing that you're contributing to the largest encyclopedia in history isn't reward enough, then frankly I don't know what could possibly satisfy you.
People who write the articles, spending countless hours writing and preserving the content for these photos to illustrate, get no named credit whatsoever. If we can deal with that, then surely photographers can deal with having named photo attribution (with link of your choice) that is *one click* away.
We disallow non-commercial licenses because we want *anyone* to use and distribute our work for the benefit of the public. If you don't want your work distributed by anyone and everyone interested, then I would suggest you not contribute.
Reply to this comment
Steven, I'm already following your advice and not contributing. I'm just making it clear here why I don't. As to your statement "frankly I don't know what could possibly satisfy you", well, you might want to read what I wrote again because I quite clearly stated what would.
Having had this conversation many times at this point, I know the Wikipedia position on the matter. However, what I don't see is much acknowledgement in the Wikipedia community that there is a misuse issue with photographs from Wikipedia.
For the record, the photographs of mine that currently appear on Wikipedia were not submitted by myself. They were placed there by others under terms of the CC-BY license. It's one thing for direct contributors to Wikipedia to forfeit attribution. It's another to interpret the attribution intent of others.
Reply to this comment
Phil, I did indeed flake on mentioning the ability to rotate the display 90º. It's pretty cool, tho I don't tend to use it myself. Now, if I were doing mostly portrait orientation stuff, I probably would :)
Reply to this comment
A CC Attribution license requires attribution to the license and the author, but the license itself doesn't specify exactly where or how. If you require a credit right next to the photo, then I would suggest you say so explicitly at each photo's Flickr page (if you don't already). Otherwise others can only assume that you are okay with however we feel is the best attribution method. That is not misuse. It is adherence to Creative Commons licensing.
Wikipedia appreciates photographers choosing to use copyleft licenses. We certainly don't want to use photos against your wishes, and I'd be happy to remove any photos of yours if you want (I'm an administrator).
Reply to this comment
Steven, I too think you're missing the point ever so slightly.
There's an assumption that if it's on Wikipedia, it's fair game to be stolen and used elsewhere. That may not be fair, but that's the general perception.
Wikipedia could probably cut down on that assumption/perception by attributing the photo to the photographer next to the image.
I have the feeling JDD would be happy to let Wikipedia use some of his photographs if two conditions could be met:
1) He retains his copyright, but grants Wikipedia authorization to use it, free of charge and in perpetuity.
2) He's credited with a "copyright" line very close to the image itself so that others who might be interested in using the photo at least know where to look.
People donating time to edit/write articles comes up a bit short in comparison. Photography - whether it's nature photography or conference photography or anything else - is a saleable skill. Editing a Wikipedia article isn't exactly "saleable" in and of itself. They're not quite the same.
And even if Wikipedia didn't want to accept a license to a copyrighted image, and would or will only accept CC licenses or items truly in the public domain, it's still awfully shameful to hide the attribution so far away from the image itself. I don't sell my images and could easily be persuaded to put an image under a loose CC license, but I doubt I will because I'd get such a teeny amount of credit - "one click away" - that there's simply not enough to be gained.
Reply to this comment
Erik, you don't seem to understand what a copyleft license means. Creative Commons and the GFDL means that photos can be reused and redistributed with attribution. Any photo on Wikipedia *can* be reused anywhere, for any purpose. That's why we choose the licenses we do. If other people fail to add the proper attribution, it's not our fault. To say that Wikipedia is responsible for the failure of others to adhere to the license is pure nonsense.
Reply to this comment
Steven, I do make it clear on my Flickr pages the licensing details for my images and have moved away from using CC licenses for the time being because of this. I've actually had a conversation with my legal advisor about this so that I can find the best way to proceed in using CC licensing again with the goal of using CC-BY-NC on a global basis for my photography. That hasn't happened yet, but it's a goal.
The kind of thing we're talking about here has its analogy in the software licensing world. I worked for a while in the Apache Software Foundation, whose license includes attribution. Wikipedia is better characterized as following the GNU copyleft model. To those policy wonks, they are important differences. To outsiders, not so much.
Really, the point with this post wasn't to try to get anybody to change their position, but more to explain what the issues were to people who don't see the fine points. I'm going to make a few edits/additions to try to make this clear.
As to your offer to remove my photos from Wikipedia, that's gracious of you. I'd appreciate that.
Reply to this comment
OH NOES THEY BE STEALIN MAH PHOTOZ!!1!
I find the assertion that photographers are more deserving of attribution than writers bizarre.
Since you say that you "still have a bit of an issue with their dislike of non-commercial use licenses which I would prefer to use for this sort of thing" I must conclude that you are talking about a different "this sort of thing" than "The Free Encyclopedia" as it, by definition, gives everyone the freedom to sell printed copies (of the text, at least). Wikipedia will be better off without your non-commercial images, as it will increase the chances of someone uploading unencumbered replacements.
Reply to this comment
Finite, I never said that photographers should be more deserving of attribution than writers. To tell the truth, I'd like to see clear attribution of writers on Wikipedia. But, that's not how Wikipedia is set up. You can rest assured that there are some who find the lack of attribution in Wikipedia bizzare.
We can agree to disagree. As I've said in other comments, this piece isn't aimed to attack Wikipedia or its contributors. It's to explain my position to those who ask why I'm not a contributor to Wikipedia. There's little need for condescension.
Reply to this comment
I guess it's not burning you up enough for you to actually GIVE your photos away then.
When I write words on Wikipedia, I give them away for free. I don't see why your graphics should be any different.
You bought your camera, and spent years learning how to use it, and the produce of your works reflect this, and in the same vein, I've spent years and years learning technologies and languages that I can equally contribute the products of.
Give something away if you want to give it away.
Reply to this comment
As I see it, there's just no way to view Wikipedia as anything other than a totally free entity in which copyrights do not exist, regardless of what is stated on the site itself. In this regard, I think it's basically incompatible with someone whose livelihood comes from photography. On the other hand, I could see maybe occasionally donating a picture completely free of restrictions. In other words, consider helping Wikipedia from time to time, but do it with no strings attached.
Reply to this comment
James,
I agree with you that "indirect attribution" is inadequate.
There seems to be a tone of hostility in a number of the comments to this post. You did nothing to warrant it.
But I'm also curious: Why can't you just tattoo "©© James Duncan Davidson" on the bottom edge of photos to get around the problem?
Namasté
Reply to this comment
Joel (and Carl at the top of the comment stack), I've been watermarking my photos on the bottom for a while now. I suspect, however, that wouldn't work for the Wikipedia folks tho. I imagine that they'd crop it off if you gave the photo with no strings attached.
As to the tone of the comments, thanks... :)
Reply to this comment
Mark, you're absolutely right. They go beyond wanting to ignore copyright, however, and into a realm where moral rights (one of which is the right of attribution) are ignorable. I guess that’s where my own personal line is.
Reply to this comment
Wikipedia has so many beautiful and outstanding images, someone has worked hard to create them, and deserve credit...
At least till Wiki guys don't tidy up the templates, we can utilise the attribution parameter as in
{{cc-by-2.5|Attribution}}
{{cc-by-sa-2.5|Attribution}}
with attribution as specified by the Attribution parameter.
Also, I have personally moved the Licensing box above the Summary Box to make it more catchy
See, if someone genuinely wanted to credit, I've made it very easy. If they were a freeloader from the start, my efforts were never for them
(Related post: http://gopal1035.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-free-lunches-credit-that-image-or.html)
Have fun...
Regards,
Gopal Aggarwal
Reply to this comment
I found this thread for a search, I'm considering putting some of my photos on wikipedia and wanted more information on the licensing.
I'm a professional photographer so my images and what happens are very important to me.
I agree pretty much exactly with James on this issue, including his subtle point (that wikipedeans seem to be missing). that without a clear credit next to the photo most people will assume it's okay to take the photo and do what they want with it un-credited.
I know technically wikipedia aren't liable for subsequent misuse, but saying they have no responsibility is like breaking a window with a football and claiming the ball broke it not you.
There _is_ a difference between writing and photography (I've done both) which is acknowledged by society generally and which should be reflected in wikipedia. Most people know it's wrong to take the text of an article in its entirety and reproduce it without stating the source, but they don't think it's wrong to take a photo unless it's clearly credited.
It may be true that as Gopal says, "Wikipedia has so many beautiful and outstanding images..." but it also has a lot of terrible ones. By insisting on not properly crediting photos or allowing the photographer to specify they are only used on Wikipedia, you're saying you're happy with rubbish, as long as it's free.
Reply to this comment
Leave a comment