4 ms·

Photographers Are on Mission to Fix Wikipedia's Famously Bad Celebrity Portraits

33 points by m463 2y ago

lxgr 2y ago
I've always wondered: Do celebrities and public figures (or at least their agents) not have any intrinsic motivation to maybe provide better photos themselves?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Are they allowed to, or would Wikipedia lawyers strike it for "original research" or something? From what I've seen and heard they don't even allow people to correct their own birth date unless they get some third party newspaper to print it first.
  - jmm5 2y ago
    Yes, and they even let you email them in to make it easier.
  - Freak_NL 2y ago
    They wouldn't even have to touch Wikipedia. Just upload a permissively licensed photo to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons inclusion policy literally states: > Is it likely to be useful to a Wikimedia Foundation project? For example, can you point to a Wikipedia article that would benefit from this file's inclusion? So just slap it on there, and let the Wikipedians handle it from there.
  - gruez 2y ago
    The "original research" rule only applies to facts. Take a look at a few photos on wikipedia and you'll find many (most?) of them are uploaded there by the creator, not copied from another publication.
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    Photographs and other original media are an exemption to the original research policy because otherwise it'd be impossible to get images in articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research... > Because of copyright laws in several countries, there may be relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy.
- Freak_NL 2y ago
  The celebrity quoted in the article seemed eager to have his picture taken for the express purpose of getting it on Wikipedia, so you'd think that some of their agents would have gotten the message by now. Pay a photographer, release the photo under some CC licence, slap it on Wikimedia Commons, and leave a message on the talk-page (“Hey, this recent photo looks better, can we use that?”), and done. Weird how that doesn't seem to happen that often, despite many celebrities apparently really wanting it.
  - cratermoon 2y ago
    > Pay a photographer, release the photo under some CC licence The person who buys a photographer's work doesn't get to change the license. Unless you pay a photographer a great deal of money to transfer the rights, the license is what the photographer (or photo agency) says it is.
    - theamk 2y ago
      So you choose a different photographer which _does_ offer the license you want? Unless there is a photographers' union that forces specific licenses, surely there will some some photographers out there who would be OK with CC license?
      - cratermoon 2y ago
        Yeah, if you go far enough down the list you'll eventually find one. Will the photographer be any better than some rando Wikipedian? Hard to say.
      - alistairSH 2y ago
        Yeah, you can find one. That’s not what the OP suggested (or at least didn’t explain it well). Rights and licensing in photography is just as complicated as other mediums. Up to primates owning selfies they took with somebody else’s camera. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
    - 2y ago
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  It’s way more impactful to manage the words on the page, since those are a source for other Internet actors like search engines and AI. It’s also way easier to hide the fingerprints of text changes, so there are PR agencies that specialize in that. Wikipedia is not a source for images, though, it’s a client. And it’s harder to hide fingerprints since you have to disclose ownership of the copyright in order to issue Wikipedia a license to use the image.
- jasonjayr 2y ago
  The photographer owns the copyright, and would want to be paid to release the rights in a wikipedia-apropriate way. Most of the amateur celebrity photography on wikipedia are happy to donate their images to the cause. As much fun as it is to idolize and eleveate celebrities, they are just employees in another business, they'd have to arrange some way for a photographer (or themselves) to take a better picture and then CC license it.
  - jetrink 2y ago
    > they'd have to arrange some way for a photographer (or themselves) to take a better picture and then CC license it. That sounds like something a publicist could easily do if it were a priority. Actors and publicists have no trouble managing their IMDB pages and IMDB even charges for the ability to contribute.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    Yes, but doesn't that still seem like a no-brainer from a marketing/public relations perspective?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    You say this as if it would be impossible for a celeb to find a photog that would be willing to release said copyright. Most photogs just want to be paid for their service. They understand what taking a portrait for said purpose of releasing rights to a CC license would mean. If they, for whatever reason, decide no, then the celeb can move to the next photog on the list that is a mile and a half long, and that's just the photogs within a 50 mile radius of wherever they are currently standing
    - ghaff 2y ago
      It's a work for hire that creators of all sorts do all the time. Contracts may well be involved but most creators are happy to take the money and mostly release the rights for the work they did in exchange for a paycheck--as are most people on this board.
      - 2y ago
throawayonthe 2y ago
https://www.wikiportraits.org/ https://www.wikiportraits.org/
throw949494i 2y ago
[flagged]
- RandomBacon 2y ago
  I think unaltered and releastic pictures are better, but if they're known for being an actor, then I imagine they want to share their actor persona. Some actors want to have a normal life away from the camera, so I can see why they wouldn't want "normal" pictures out there. However, I wouldn't go so far as telling Wikipedia what to promote whether or not I agree with it. Although, I do agree though that unrealistic and sexualized "standards" lead to bad consequences.
glitchc 2y ago
Realistic (read candid/unplanned) photographs are best. I would hate to see Wiki portraits replaced with the front covers of Time and Vogue.
- the__alchemist 2y ago
  Concur. Photographers are universally unwilling to not use heavy post-processing.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    Very serious hobby photographer here. Not all of us follow this tedious tendency. Of course it depends on the photographic niche but even in mine, which is a mix of social, street and fine art/abstract photography, I avoid as much as possible anything except a bit of cropping and minor contrast adjustments with the most basic digital tools. Specifically, I detest massive post processing of photos, since it seems dishonest and a cheap way to cover for a lack of willingness to learn composing better shots. And don't even get me started on the utter dreck of so-called photographers using AI tools like Adobe's Firefly crap (good tools, but crap in the context of this specific rant) to "seamlessly and realistically" move or erase objects in photos. If you're going that far with manipulating your photos, why bother taking them in the first place?
- everdrive 2y ago
  Agreed, this move seems like wasted effort at best.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Definitely not as a general rule. Many of the Wikipedia photos in question are celebrities mid-sentence, speaking at some fan convention, taken from a bad angle and digitally zoomed in. There's a middle ground between that and a professional set card.
stego-tech 2y ago
I love that this is a project. Heck, I’d sign up myself for the Boston/New England beat if I had more confidence in my portraiture skills. Never really considered the only thing holding back better portraits on Wikipedia was the need for a photographer willing to sacrifice the revenue on one shot for a greater cause.
- giarc 2y ago
  "greater cause" when referring to better pictures of rich, famous celebrities??
  - stego-tech 2y ago
    Greater cause in the general sense of contributing to the world's largest repository of free information, and waiving rights to profit off of your work so others can benefit from it. And yes, frustratingly this includes celebrities. These are people of outsized impact and/or import in society, and they need to be identifiable so that they can be held accountable.
    - giarc 2y ago
      I agree with your assessment of greater cause and free information, but in this case, the issue appears that the photos are not the most flattering. Look at the examples at the top of the article. Leo is simply looking down and not at the camera. I guess you could argue the Scott Baio is a picture that should be upgraded, but as mentioned in thread, his PR people could easily correct that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
6stringmerc 2y ago
Anybody else remember “celebrities” going legal against IMDB for listing their year of birth? Just remember this is a vanity project, not a drive to enhance documentation accuracy.
piokoch 2y ago
Amazing that anyone is willing to make an effort and subscribe to some random media portal with 80% content generated by chat GPT and alikes, just to read an article about replacing photo of the man, whose girlfriend has the same age since 30 years, with a different photo of the same guy.
ninetyninenine 2y ago
Just use ai.

33 points by m463 2y ago

lxgr 2y ago

I've always wondered: Do celebrities and public figures (or at least their agents) not have any intrinsic motivation to maybe provide better photos themselves?

lupusreal 2y ago
Are they allowed to, or would Wikipedia lawyers strike it for "original research" or something? From what I've seen and heard they don't even allow people to correct their own birth date unless they get some third party newspaper to print it first.
- jmm5 2y ago
  Yes, and they even let you email them in to make it easier.
- Freak_NL 2y ago
  They wouldn't even have to touch Wikipedia. Just upload a permissively licensed photo to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons inclusion policy literally states: > Is it likely to be useful to a Wikimedia Foundation project? For example, can you point to a Wikipedia article that would benefit from this file's inclusion? So just slap it on there, and let the Wikipedians handle it from there.
- gruez 2y ago
  The "original research" rule only applies to facts. Take a look at a few photos on wikipedia and you'll find many (most?) of them are uploaded there by the creator, not copied from another publication.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  Photographs and other original media are an exemption to the original research policy because otherwise it'd be impossible to get images in articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research... > Because of copyright laws in several countries, there may be relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy.
Freak_NL 2y ago
The celebrity quoted in the article seemed eager to have his picture taken for the express purpose of getting it on Wikipedia, so you'd think that some of their agents would have gotten the message by now. Pay a photographer, release the photo under some CC licence, slap it on Wikimedia Commons, and leave a message on the talk-page (“Hey, this recent photo looks better, can we use that?”), and done. Weird how that doesn't seem to happen that often, despite many celebrities apparently really wanting it.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  > Pay a photographer, release the photo under some CC licence The person who buys a photographer's work doesn't get to change the license. Unless you pay a photographer a great deal of money to transfer the rights, the license is what the photographer (or photo agency) says it is.
  - theamk 2y ago
    So you choose a different photographer which _does_ offer the license you want? Unless there is a photographers' union that forces specific licenses, surely there will some some photographers out there who would be OK with CC license?
    - cratermoon 2y ago
      Yeah, if you go far enough down the list you'll eventually find one. Will the photographer be any better than some rando Wikipedian? Hard to say.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      Yeah, you can find one. That’s not what the OP suggested (or at least didn’t explain it well). Rights and licensing in photography is just as complicated as other mediums. Up to primates owning selfies they took with somebody else’s camera. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
  - 2y ago
snowwrestler 2y ago
It’s way more impactful to manage the words on the page, since those are a source for other Internet actors like search engines and AI. It’s also way easier to hide the fingerprints of text changes, so there are PR agencies that specialize in that. Wikipedia is not a source for images, though, it’s a client. And it’s harder to hide fingerprints since you have to disclose ownership of the copyright in order to issue Wikipedia a license to use the image.
jasonjayr 2y ago
The photographer owns the copyright, and would want to be paid to release the rights in a wikipedia-apropriate way. Most of the amateur celebrity photography on wikipedia are happy to donate their images to the cause. As much fun as it is to idolize and eleveate celebrities, they are just employees in another business, they'd have to arrange some way for a photographer (or themselves) to take a better picture and then CC license it.
- jetrink 2y ago
  > they'd have to arrange some way for a photographer (or themselves) to take a better picture and then CC license it. That sounds like something a publicist could easily do if it were a priority. Actors and publicists have no trouble managing their IMDB pages and IMDB even charges for the ability to contribute.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Yes, but doesn't that still seem like a no-brainer from a marketing/public relations perspective?
- dylan604 2y ago
  You say this as if it would be impossible for a celeb to find a photog that would be willing to release said copyright. Most photogs just want to be paid for their service. They understand what taking a portrait for said purpose of releasing rights to a CC license would mean. If they, for whatever reason, decide no, then the celeb can move to the next photog on the list that is a mile and a half long, and that's just the photogs within a 50 mile radius of wherever they are currently standing
  - ghaff 2y ago
    It's a work for hire that creators of all sorts do all the time. Contracts may well be involved but most creators are happy to take the money and mostly release the rights for the work they did in exchange for a paycheck--as are most people on this board.
    - 2y ago

throawayonthe 2y ago

https://www.wikiportraits.org/ https://www.wikiportraits.org/

throw949494i 2y ago

[flagged]

RandomBacon 2y ago
I think unaltered and releastic pictures are better, but if they're known for being an actor, then I imagine they want to share their actor persona. Some actors want to have a normal life away from the camera, so I can see why they wouldn't want "normal" pictures out there. However, I wouldn't go so far as telling Wikipedia what to promote whether or not I agree with it. Although, I do agree though that unrealistic and sexualized "standards" lead to bad consequences.

glitchc 2y ago

Realistic (read candid/unplanned) photographs are best. I would hate to see Wiki portraits replaced with the front covers of Time and Vogue.

the__alchemist 2y ago
Concur. Photographers are universally unwilling to not use heavy post-processing.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  Very serious hobby photographer here. Not all of us follow this tedious tendency. Of course it depends on the photographic niche but even in mine, which is a mix of social, street and fine art/abstract photography, I avoid as much as possible anything except a bit of cropping and minor contrast adjustments with the most basic digital tools. Specifically, I detest massive post processing of photos, since it seems dishonest and a cheap way to cover for a lack of willingness to learn composing better shots. And don't even get me started on the utter dreck of so-called photographers using AI tools like Adobe's Firefly crap (good tools, but crap in the context of this specific rant) to "seamlessly and realistically" move or erase objects in photos. If you're going that far with manipulating your photos, why bother taking them in the first place?
everdrive 2y ago
Agreed, this move seems like wasted effort at best.
lxgr 2y ago
Definitely not as a general rule. Many of the Wikipedia photos in question are celebrities mid-sentence, speaking at some fan convention, taken from a bad angle and digitally zoomed in. There's a middle ground between that and a professional set card.

stego-tech 2y ago

I love that this is a project. Heck, I’d sign up myself for the Boston/New England beat if I had more confidence in my portraiture skills. Never really considered the only thing holding back better portraits on Wikipedia was the need for a photographer willing to sacrifice the revenue on one shot for a greater cause.

giarc 2y ago
"greater cause" when referring to better pictures of rich, famous celebrities??
- stego-tech 2y ago
  Greater cause in the general sense of contributing to the world's largest repository of free information, and waiving rights to profit off of your work so others can benefit from it. And yes, frustratingly this includes celebrities. These are people of outsized impact and/or import in society, and they need to be identifiable so that they can be held accountable.
  - giarc 2y ago
    I agree with your assessment of greater cause and free information, but in this case, the issue appears that the photos are not the most flattering. Look at the examples at the top of the article. Leo is simply looking down and not at the camera. I guess you could argue the Scott Baio is a picture that should be upgraded, but as mentioned in thread, his PR people could easily correct that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

6stringmerc 2y ago

Anybody else remember “celebrities” going legal against IMDB for listing their year of birth? Just remember this is a vanity project, not a drive to enhance documentation accuracy.

piokoch 2y ago

Amazing that anyone is willing to make an effort and subscribe to some random media portal with 80% content generated by chat GPT and alikes, just to read an article about replacing photo of the man, whose girlfriend has the same age since 30 years, with a different photo of the same guy.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

Just use ai.