4 ms·

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?

by lxgr 2y ago

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images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy.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

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?

by 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