Proposal talk:Reassess the Bundesarchiv deal
«More than 6 months after the agreement has been signed, you don't see any mention of free licenses or public domain on the Bundesarchiv's website (most likely because the agreement doesn't contain a single word about this).» Are you suggesting that the Bundesarchive has never realeased his content under CC-BY-SA (I can't think how they could do that without mentioning it). Nemo 06:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, have a look at the Library of Congress' website. On this picture's description page you can find a line with "RIGHTS INFORMATION: No known restrictions on publication". Now compare with what Bundesarchiv does on its website.
- On Bild 146-941 on their website
- they don't tell the reader that the picture is in the public domain because it was made by a United States federal employee. This is very different from what the Library of Congress does. When a picture is in the Public Domain, the Library of Congress tags the picture with "no known restriction".
- they don't tell the reader that a bigger picture is available for free on File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-941, Essen, zerstörte Krupp-Werke, Luftaufnahme.jpg.
- The agreement between Wikimedia and Bundesarchiv could have included a clause like "Bundesarchiv shall add a deep hyperlink to the Wikimedia Commons description page on every image description page on its own website, for the pictures concerned by the present deal". Obviously this sort of clause is absent from the agreement.
- Another example : Bild 183-R67100 on their website : they don't tell the reader that the photographer died more than 70 years ago.
- On the Library of Congress website, this picture would be tagged with "no known restriction"
- On the Library of Congress website, the picture would not be vandalized by an awful watermark (this is considered a copyright infringement in France, and the Bundesarchiv could face liabilities for vandalizing a French artist's work)
- they don't tell the reader that a bigger picture is available for free without the awful watermark at File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R67100, Louis Blanc, franz. Politiker.jpg
- So there are a few bad practices on their website that need reform. Signing a deal with Wikimedia should be an incentive for partners to reform their bad practices and adopt good practices.
- Teofilo 08:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- See also this report, analysing various good and less good practices on the internet (Melanie Schlosser, "Unless Otherwise Indicated: A Survey of Copyright Statements on Digital Library Collections", College and Research Libraries", v.70(4), p. 371-385 (July 2009).) Teofilo 06:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested I added a prototype Template:Search box to the commons:Category:Rheinbefliegung 1953 mentioned in this proposal. I also added a note to commons:Category talk:Rheinbefliegung 1953 in case anyone has more information on these images. -84user 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hoi, by accident I came across this proposal. Given that it is hidden away and given that it is not practical.. Why would this opinion be considered. What is vital is that the images are properly annotated, that the provenance is clear. Given the cost of storing data, it is no longer a problem maintaining large collections.
One of the considerations is that there are over 260 wikipedias and they all need their own illustrations.. It will take some time to have too many pictures for any subject. Also our current pictures are dominantly Western. We NEED more pictures about countries like Indonesia and Suriname in order to deal with this bias. Finally the Tropenmuseum does have its fair share of historians but who says that all the pictures are historic ? Thanks, GerardM 11:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
If you had researched the Tropenmuseum project, you would know that the Indonesian chapter has been involved from the start. GerardM 11:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)