User talk:Falc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Perplexed

Hi, Judson.

Aside from imposing the founders' philosophies about "Information" being free (which seems rather generous a position to take with someone else's research or art,) why is it that Wikipedia "must" have so broad a license on pictures to accept a license for this venue?

THANKS!

--JT 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free content. It is a philosophical decision that we have made. I can explain it, but I don't know if it would convince you. It isn't just something that jimbo decided from above though, it is something that we all agree with, otherwise we wouldn't work on it. I have to say also, it's not a position people take with other people's work. It's something that every content creator needs to decide for themselves. Many people don't want to license their work under free licenses, and that's fine! That sort of licensing structure isn't for everyone, or everything. Other people are willing to do it though, and want their work to be as available as possible. If that doesn't describe your wishes, don't think people are chastising you, be thankful the images got removed before they were copied all over the internet :) - cohesion 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Still doesn't begin to explain why you and yours (since you profess this belief/philosophy) will ONLY accept permission to use it here if an artist or copyright holder grants its use EVERYWHERE, commercial and non-commercial, as well. I'm left at a total loss as to why you (or anyone else) would even want to try to impose such a contribution upon others. Isn't it their right to choose who they want to gift? Or when you give a guy a buck because you're feeling like it, does that mean that you must give EVERYONE a dollar?

It's very simple. If you don't want to give the same privileges to everyone, you simply don't contribute. And of course, knowledge isn't property like cash; it doesn't change hands, it just keeps on giving. ;) --Kjoonlee 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If we were talking Knowledge, I'd certainly agree. Obviously I do agree, or wouldnt' contribute here. But we're not. We're talking about creative and intellectual endeavors. A photo has a cost and a value, and putting it up for free at a commercial level pretty much means that it has NO value to a publisher anymore. A limited license to Wiki would preserve my other rights and value, while giving the world that view. If WIkipedia were for-profit, I wouldn't even CONSIDER contributing for free. So why would YOU guys want to go giving that image to people who would sell it as part of their Product on a commercial level? I find some of you awefully generous with other people's property. You pay for music, or do you insist on the artist "donating" that, too?

No, I think you are confusing cost and value. Anything can be free of cost, but may have enormous potential value. You are free to sell your contributions to Wikipedia to others at a higher price. --Kjoonlee 05:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And of course, some musicians do indeed donate music to the public. http://creativecommons.org/audio/ http://www.archive.org/details/etree --Kjoonlee 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is poisoned. Reusers are NOT free to "sell it as part of their Product on a commercial level". They want to have full copyright of their products and would not accept the share-alike clause. (See also below.) --Petri Krohn 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"No", I'm not confusing the two at all. Something like $20,000 was spent on the expedition, and I gave up two months of my life living and sweating in a 4th-world hell to be there and get the pictures. They cost something, and they have value. In fact, these are the ONLY close-up pictures of these falcons that exist at this time. So they have both cost and value. You're correct, I still have the prerogive of denying the world the view, rather than letting Wiki. shove their philosophical bent down my throat and imposing it upon my hard-earned property.

As to musicians, yes, some do. I have some of my tunes up that way. But that is my CHOICE, not something imposed upon me. Imagine what they would say if you told them "If you let me have this, you can't sell it or put it on a commercial album." That's effectively what happens, because a publisher doesn't want images which are already free to the world.

I could probably find one picture which was inferior, but why should people get a poor quality look at these beautiful birds just because Wiki. is being stubborn about MY property (instead of taking the gift graciously and gratefully?) --JT 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You could be gracious generous and upload the picture after you sell it. --Kjoonlee 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SIGH... I suppose I could.. and I might. But in the meantime, the world goes without it because you guys are trying to impose that perspective on my property... and I've yet to see any of you address any of the points I've raised. Nevermind. Enough said. You think my stuff should be free, and I don't agree. But I'll bear it in mind when I'm by your house next and feel like raiding your refrigerator and taking your car, since you think "knowledge" should be free. After all, the Knowledge to take that picture and the Knowledge to make a car both cost the same nothing, right? --JT 05:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you drop by my house in Second Life (if and when I get one) I'll be glad to. :) --Kjoonlee 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNU FDL does not give EVERYONE permission to use your work as they please

(In response to your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions)

Using a license like CC-by-sa or GNU FDL does not deprive you from using the image commercially at a later point. The share-alike clause makes it unusable for most commercial publisers. The GNU FDL license is a strong copyright poison, using a Wikipedia derived image in a printed book would make the whole book free content. This is something no publishers wants. The images will still maintain part of their commercial value. (You wanted to publish them on Wikipedia anyway, so you can not expect the full commercial value.) In short, you are not making them public domain --Petri Krohn 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It seems that you see the world as divided between free or "non-commercial" as in free beer and commercial. We at wikipedia see the world as divided between free as in freedom and non-free or "commercial". The differense is not great, but the new distinction was the great mental leap (by Richard Stallman) that enabled the free software and open source movements. Both free and non-free coexist, and the free does not prevent the non-free from making money from their copyright. --Petri Krohn 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Petri, thanks for your comments. It wasn't so much that I "wanted" to publish them on Wikipedia, as I very much appreciate the lack of quality pictures of the birds. Before I went there and took those pictures, there were no close-ups, and distant shots are terribly misleading. But I am not willing to give free rein to the world on them in order to gain the "privilege" of sharing them with Wikipedia's non-commercial project/endeavor. It's Wikipedia's insistance on telling me who ELSE I must grant license to (in order for them to accept my gift) which leaves us at odds. Frankly, I find it a bit cheeky.

As to our difference of perspective, while I may agree that it would be good for information to be "free" I do not think that everything falls into that category. A song, a photo, a painting, a piece of fiction, these are not Information in that sense. Consider this: At one point, most everything that is now common knowledge was the result of painstaking research, genius or other force/effort. Newton, Galileo, Vivaldi, Pasteur, Curie, etc., these people all made significant contributions to the world... but they also had expenses and efforts. Today their works are Public Domain, but even Michelangelo got paid SOMEthing. The Star Trek universe you envision will only work when that same society which would benefit from Free "knowledge" also funds my expeditions to Africa, etc.

Do you see the distinction between Information (i.e. the world is round, and water freezes at 32 degrees F) and Intellectual Property (i.e. Simon & Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water", a Picasso painting, or a novel someone writes)? For the former to be Free costs no one, while the latter being Free would deprive the copyright holder of their due. Accordingly, that the RNF is found in specific areas of W. Africa, and a further description of those places and the times of year, etc., may be knowledge that one is willing to share (though it costs money to gain that knowledge,) but a painting of a RNF would not be expected to be Free. To impose the free license against the true willingness and likemindedness of the individual is to initiate force/compulsion towards someone who was trying to do something ghilanthropic, IMO.

I will look into the CC by SA terms, but it was stated to me that, in a nutshell, I would have to give up copyright in order to share it here, essentially share it with everyone everywhere (even if they were to put it into a book and sell copies) and that's not something I'm willing to do. But you can cite my book when it comes out.:)

I do appreciate your input and thoughts. I still don't quite see why it's NECESSARy to the functionality/existence of Wikipedia that it be there for others to "borrow" at will, though. If Wikipedia chooses to give away license to ITS content, that's Wiki.'s prerogative, but need not mean that my prerogative is removed from me.

I leave you to it... --JT 06:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)