| |
|
  |
 Shankbone retires his camera |
|
|
| Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
For some reason, Shankbone is offended by this article in the NY Times disparaging the celebrity photos in Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Evidently, according to a note on his talkpage and his blog (which I won't link to), Shankbone was offended that the Foundation didn't mention him when the NYTimes reporter called them to ask for a comment. The NYTimes is correct, most of the celebrity photos in Wikipedia are lousy. Some participants, like Raul654 have tried to correct the situation by inviting celebrity publicists to submit better photos, but they have usually not responded. I'm not sure why Shankbone should be so upset about it. Has he really taken that many pictures of celebrities? Did he really expect the Foundation members to have his name at instant recall when asked about it? I uploaded this picture of drying persimmons (the picture is of an old dwelling on my in-laws farm), but I don't think I would be upset if the NYTimes said that all of the persimmon pictures in Wikipedia are terrible. Does Shankbone have good reason to be offended? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 21st July 2009, 12:16am)  Shankbone has generated his share of horrid photos of celebrities. As thumbnails some might be okay, but judge for yourself the quality of the full resolution images. A sampling of them are in his user space here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Sh...ne/EntertainersSome of those pictures are excellent, some are so-so, and some are lousy. I would say that on the whole they support the NYTimes' reporting which is that, in general, Wikipedia's celebrity shots aren't as good as the probably should be for an "encyclopedia". Shankbone's pictures all appear to be candid shots in some social setting, perhaps at the reception line for some awards show or premier or something. So some of them come out good, but many of them look amateurish. This is not necessarily Shankbone's fault, he is a victim of the situation. I think the NYTimes is saying, why not have professional-looking portraits of each of them since they are public figures? This post has been edited by Cla68: |
|
|
|
|
|
| toddy |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined:
Member No.: 7,990
|
QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 21st July 2009, 2:36am)
Allowing CC-BY-ND photos would probably be helpful. The insistence on allowing derivative works doesn't really make sense in terms of photographs.
I think it does make sense in many ways; licensed as "no-derivatives" would bar alteration of the photo in any way, so (as far as I understand it, I'm not a lawyer) you couldn't even crop out crap/offensive/irrelevant parts of a photo, or change the brightness - you either use the photo as-is or not at all. There are always the "vanity" photographs of some-guy-with-celebrity or that person who plasters their name at the bottom. The commercial use stipulation on the other hand, is utterly stupid. And I don't buy Wales' "if an entrepreneur in India wants to print textbooks and sell them for £1..." justification one bit. This post has been edited by toddy: |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Looks as if I need to point something else out:
Real "encyclopedias" don't have BLPs of all these assorted actors, singers, athletes
and other semi-famous tabloid fodder. So they don't need photos of them.
Look in a dead-tree directory of famous people, like Who's Who. Very few photos.
And they expect people to PAY to have them run a photo. IMDB wants the rights
to any photos posted for a bio--period. No rights, no photo.
If WP simply removed those BLPs, multiple problems are solved at once!Example: Ayumi Hamasaki. One of the most famous pop singers in Japan. Do you see a pic of her on her IMDB page? Or Namie Amuro? IMDB listing, no photo.Or Hitomi? Same deal. Or Hikaru Utada? Same. (Bad WP photo, too.) They don't have photos on IMDB, because they're almost unknown outside Japan, and the Japanese don't use IMDB anyway. But WPers who are Japanomaniacs, especially the anime freaks, know who these singers are--because they're famous in Japan, and have had songs or vocal parts on animes. So, they get extra-special treatment on WP, and not anywhere else in English-language online media, except on anime fansites and J-pop fansites...... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Nerd |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined:
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945
|
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 21st July 2009, 1:45am) QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 20th July 2009, 8:16pm) Shankbone has generated his share of horrid photos of celebrities. As thumbnails some might be okay, but judge for yourself the quality of the full resolution images. A sampling of them are in his user space here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Sh...ne/EntertainersSome are pretty good, but others are just horrible. For example, the image of Christopher Walken. I would have never published that. Just horrible. It looks like he has a red halo. And he had an awful haircut there too. QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 21st July 2009, 1:50am) His response to the Times coverage suggests his ego is running far ahead of his talent, and that is never a good thing. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Yes. If he wanted credit or recognition, he should have published the photos on his own site. Otherwise, people will take his work for granted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
