Old too complicated list of attribution templatesEdit

Link pointing to the Flickr pages Edit

It took me two painful hours to browse the images in Camerapedia's Flickr pool and add a link back to the corresponding page in each place where we were making a direct hardlink.

From now on, any image that does not have a link pointing to a page in Camerapedia's Flickr pool is suspect, and needs to be commented out if the source cannot be found easily.

--Rebollo fr 13:17, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

大変お疲れ様でした!白髪 20:16, 10 June 2006 (EDT) PS is there more work to be done? (Not that I can even start on it for 48 hours or so.) More importantly, how did you find the links to images hosted elsewhere, and is there more work to be done there? (I looked in "Special pages" for "Pages with images" or similar, but didn't find anything.) -- Hoary 22:15, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

I ran a link checking software on the whole site. You learnt me the existence of these tools some weeks ago, and I thought they could be used for such an usage. If the software is reasonably well conceived, it allows you to search for a regular expression in the links. I tried with "jpg" and easily found the links to anything other than Flickr.
There were two images directly linking to a commercial site, and one to a site where it is stated that the image was taken from a commercial site (!) These three were immediately deleted. There are two pages (Riley and GAF) where I am confident enough that the contributor and the author of the website are the same. I left them in place, but I will investigate and ask them if they can put the images in Flickr.
Now there are still some images that are in Flickr, but not in Camerapedia's pool. The same tool I used will point me to all the pages with a Flickr hosted image, but won't do the difference between the legit ones and the others. It won't be too long to check however. --Rebollo fr 05:50, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Excellent work, Sir! -- Hoary 10:02, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Update: the Riley page is OK and I have received a private mail to confirm it. The GAF page is certainly not OK because the images have the eBay watermark, so I removed them. I will contact the site owner.
The Fujipet, Polaroid 600/600 SE and Yashica Electro GX pages are probably OK in the sense that the owner of the images is certainly Cameron. There are problems remaining because the Fujipet image appears in Flickr with "© all rights reserved" in the user page of some of Cameron's pseudos. Also I am not sure if the signature in the Yashica Electro GX is required by the Creative Commons licence, or if it needs to be removed. I am trying to contact him.
If you find other images with no link, please tell me. --Rebollo fr 10:14, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Creative Commons and GFDL aren't the same . . . and other problemsEdit

We read: You must assume that any image is copyright in such a way as not to allow this unless it is accompanied by a clear statement contradicting this, e.g. that it is copyleft under a "Creative Commons" license.

Fine. But that wouldn't imply that a CC-licensed image could be used.

Let's suppose that I found an explicitly CC-licensed image, which I'll call X.jpeg, on a non-Flickr web page that I'll call X.html. But writing [] raises numerous problems. Now let's suppose that I copy it to C'pedia's part of Flickr. Uh, I don't think so -- Flickr has its own conditions. Now suppose that C'pedia is suddenly given millions by some philanthropist: could it now be hosted here? No it couldn't, because this site is GFDL and CC is not GFDL.

I don't pretend to understand the issues that are raised by incorporating images hosted by other sites, and am a bit too tired right now to attempt to think it through. However, I suspect that the only thing to allow are links to the Flickr area (as long as Flickr permits this) -- and the admission of photos to that may need its own policing (groan) -- and links to sites that editors here credibly claim are their own. These editors had better be willing to have these photos appear elsewhere, because the main page of this site says "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" and it would be hard to claim that an image appearing within the page is not "content". -- Hoary 05:17, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Is it possible to upload a public domain image to Flickr's CP pool? Flickr's guidelines are not very clear. --Rebollo fr 05:53, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
You can do anything you like with something that's in the public domain; therefore, yes. -- Hoary 06:43, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
Even if that means adding the public domain image to your own pictures? Flickr requires me to upload pictures that I took myself. In a broad meaning: pictures on which I have rights, so public domain is OK, Creative Commons is OK too if I mention the author and do the other things required by the licence. In a restricted meaning: pictures that I took myself bar none, so nothing else than what came out of my camera when I pressed the button myself. --Rebollo fr 06:50, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
Community content is available under GFDL unless otherwise noted.