[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] contents under education/information licenses

Wed Nov 22 05:10:17 UTC 2006

David Monniaux wrote:

> The big problem is that, as things are now, if A uses photos from B in 
> an advertisement, it is generally interpreted as B endorsing A.

If they really wanted to release an image, they could find a way.  
They have solved more complicated problems than this, things that 
really are rocket science.  Therefore, if they don't release any 
images, this must be interpreted as a lack of will.  And so be it.  
We cannot force them.  All we can do is to leave their articles 
without proper illustrations.

Let me tell an odd story from Sweden: The website of the Swedish 
parliament provides portrait photos of all 349 members.  These 
photos are free for any use, and are now at Commons, e.g. 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gunilla_Carlsson.jpg
But the website of the Swedish government provides portrait photos 
that are free for any use *until* the next election in 2010, after 
which the full copyright returns to the photographer!  So the 
government didn't buy the photos of themselves, they just rented 
them for four years, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2000
Again, if they really wanted they could of course get photos 
without this strange time limit.  It's a simple contract with the 
photographer.  It's not rocket science.

-- 
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se