Op 11 jan. 2016, om 17:51 heeft David Haskiya
<david.haskiya(a)europeana.eu> het volgende geschreven:
Hi,
From my point of view: certainly. Commons already has loads of images sourced from e.g.
Flickr (and many GLAMs don't run their own servers but put media in commercial
providers servers).
As long as the media objects have the correct file formats and licenses/rights status I
don't see why it would matter that they're fetched from a server run by a
commercial company.
Cheers,
David
________________________________________
From: Glamtools [glamtools-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of Hans Muller
[j.m.muller(a)hccnet.nl]
Sent: 11 January 2016 17:45
To: Conversations revolving around the development of GLAM Digital Tools
Subject: [Glamtools] Can commercial GLAM companiy domains be whitelisted for GWT?
Dear all,
In the Netherlands and elsewhere GLAMs pay companies like
picturae.com to
produce images of their collections, resulting in thousands of .tifs
etcetera.
Up to now, as far as i know these company websites have not been
whitelisted for uploads to Commons. It could be practical if GLAMs which
want to donate images, can do so directly from such a company's domain. (A
GLAM asked me whether to ask a scanning company to allow this from their
company side.)
As i don't (yet) have a specific URL as a test, i can't at this point ask
whitelisting on Phabricator. So i would like to test the waters here. If
whitelisting of a company is a "no-no", it makes no sense aa company to
allow this anyway. GLAMs (and I) must use other more indirect upload
inroads.
* What's your view?
Thanks, hans muller
_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools