User talk:Bernd.Brincken

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commercial use of Commons Images[edit]

You said,

"I never understand anyway why WP only wants to present pictures that can be used commercially, but that's a different story."

Here's my reasoning -- as a repository for images for WMF projects, Commons has a certain value. But it's broad value and recognition comes from its use as a repository for images for all purposes. In my own case, three different off-WMF users have used my images taken from Commons, all for commercial use.

As another example, Business Week -- a major US weekly magazine, circulation around one million -- needed images of fifty USA cities to illustrate a web-article. Most, maybe all, came from Commons.

I think that Commons is much richer because those of us who provide images like the thought that they may see wide use, use that requires the commercial tag. And that's what has made it

"a database of 7,960,466 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute."

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for your comment - before replying, shouldn't we find a place where others can join the discussion? I asked the same question already here: Commons_talk:Licensing#Why_must_pictures_be_commercially_usable? - At least I'd move this discussion over there, ok? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
So why not have "a database of 7,960,466 freely usable plus 2,465,664 non-commercially usable media files to which anyone can contribute"? The latter sounds like the favourable option to me. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bengasi_court_tribune_0833.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Bengasi_court_tribune_0833.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bernd.Brincken
commons.wikimedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-17
39071
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:K4WO4N44QH4TYAH7QU3GY5V2KVFPHSSC
<urn:uuid:90376de3-6860-48e7-a258-6203c674b6eb>
2021-04-15T16:48:52Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:4VHID3RFSGDFQPHXRWSHRPVNSLRKNH4Z
<urn:uuid:9a1267ff-3ad2-42aa-b211-ac319fb0ebb5>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bernd.Brincken
response
<urn:uuid:c4b9e12d-d9b1-490a-acb3-9c8882983f16>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-17
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-91.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/