When you think of a political party, you probably don’t think of cocktails and buffalo wings. But that’s the kind of political party I found myself at on election night (May 20). As I chatted up a candidate for Treasurer of Oregon, I spotted a few other notable politicians, whose Wikipedia articles lack even a basic photo. So I grabbed my point-and-shoot camera, and asked if I could snap their pictures.
Each politician I approached graciously agreed, and Wikipedia’s coverage of Oregon politics became just a little more complete.
Putting an image on Wikipedia can be one of the more frustrating tasks on the encyclopedia that (supposedly) anyone can edit. The upload system is a little clunky, but moreover, the legal and procedural technicalities can confound even the most eager and dedicated contributor.
So, at the end of this blog post is a simple and little-known procedure that allows anyone with an email account to submit a photo of themselves, or of someone they represent.
But first — why is it such a pain in the butt to upload a picture? It’s easy on sites like Flickr and Myspace, so what’s the deal with Wikipedia? Are Wikipedians a bunch of elitists, or sadists, who put up procedural hurdles just to watch the newbies squirm?
Maybe. But there’s more to it than that.
The Wikipedia community, which makes the rules about such things, holds a couple principles in very high regard: (1) compliance with copyright law, and (2) building a resource of images whose use is not restricted by copyright, for future uses.
Copyright law in the U.S. allows “fair use” of copyright-protected images in many cases. This is how a lot of images wind up in newspapers and on other web sites; the publisher makes an educated guess as to whether a certain use will qualify as “fair use,” and whether the copyright owner is even likely to try to enforce their rights. But with a highly collaborative project like Wikipedia, opinions on what might qualify as “fair use” multiply faster than any sober observer can match them up against the technicalities of the law.
As a result, Wikipedians have made the decision that “fair use” images are discouraged, in favor of images that are not protected by restrictive copyright protections. This includes old photos, whose copyright has expired; works of the U.S. Federal government agencies, whose works are automatically in the public domain (unlike state or local government); and images whose owners have explicitly released some of their ownership rights.
In the case of biographical articles of living persons, fair use images are not just discouraged, but actually prohibited. The reasoning is that, at least in theory, it’s possible to take a photo of pretty much any living person, and release the photo under a permissive license (unlike, say, a historic event).
All of these considerations mean that the upload system has to be somewhat complex — the complexity is inherent in the whole copyright issue. (Discussion about how to address this situation is ongoing, as I touched on in this blog post a couple months ago.)
But until the system is perfected, there’s is an easier option for biographies. And even though you didn’t give me a plate of buffalo wings, I’ll let you in on the secret:
If you, or someone you represent, is the subject of an unillustrated article, and you’re willing to release a photo under a permissive license, all you have to do is submit it by email, and it’ll get taken care of. The exact instructions are here; but basically, all you have to do is assert that you own it, and that you release it under a certain license, and then hit the “send” button.
May 27, 2008 at 3:41 am
No mention of the Commons? Do you not want any other languages’ Wikipedias to have photos of Oregon?
May 27, 2008 at 8:45 am
Padraic, that’s a good point. I was trying to keep this post fairly short, so there are a number of details I left out.
For those of you who don’t know what we’re talking about, Commons is a companion site to Wikipedia, that hosts free images. It’s actually where most of the images on Wikipedia live, making them available to Wikipedias in all different languages, as well as projects like Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc.
However, I believe that photos submitted by this method are put on Commons. The email address is for wikimedia.org, not en.wikipedia.org. (I may be wrong about this, but that’s my understanding.)
And even if they’re not, we’re pretty good about moving stuff over from Wikipedia to Commons after the fact. Sometimes it takes a while, but we usually get around to it!
May 27, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Interesting article.
May 27, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Interesting i was try a first time in france where i’m from
I will put this this post to my to read
+++ Thanks
feel free to check some of my picture
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ethocom/sets/72157604424337523/
May 28, 2008 at 11:02 am
They are not automatically put on Commons — a human will probably do it. All you’re doing is saving someone else’s time. I’d love to see English Wikipedia follow the trend of banning local photo uploads…
May 30, 2008 at 10:48 am
Please note that only the copyright holder can make such a release. Simply owning a copy of the photo (print or digital) is not the same as being the copyright holder. Even if it’s a photo of the subject of the article in question that was taken on his/her own camera, unless it was taken with a self-timer or remote control, the copyright still held by the photographer. With a few limited exceptions, copyright can only be transferred via written statement or inheritance.
May 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Padraic: The English Wikipedia is very unlikely to ban local uploads due to the complex and arcane requirements of “fair use”. The bottom line is that since the Wikimedia servers are in the U.S., and fair use images originate in the U.S., they can’t be put on servers which might be outside the U.S. (Never mind how ludicrous that no one but lawyers care where a server is—this is not about sense, but law.)
May 31, 2008 at 1:29 am
Padraic, I don’t really understand your concern. There are some tasks that are done well by people, others that are done well by automated processes; and of course, there’s lots of overlap.
Getting new contributors up to speed is, I think, one of the things most suited to human help. If this particular system relies on some human intervention, what’s the harm? I think that’s a point in its favor. The guy who set up and maintains the system, Raul654, thanked me for mentioning it here, and seemed pleased that it was regarded as useful; clearly he thinks that his time spent on the system is time well spent.
I’d say, anything that helps people make that first step of contributing to the project is a benefit. After the first step, people can learn more at whatever pace is comfortable for them.
May 31, 2008 at 1:29 am
Howcheng: yes, very true, and thanks for clarifying that.
March 15, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I am a writer female. Many photos of mine are used by others to associate my translated works in different languages or artistic meetings. I can not access over these photos. In the other side i like to…
There is a tendency to advertise ugly photos and I am almost beautiful…
I think authors must have access over their photos because this is the most latent right.
I can not control my photos without a source relation with internet provider…