User talk:Mathias Schindler (WMDE)/Getty Embedding

Hi Mathias, Thanks for this. A small comment: In the summary section the last two sentences are unclear to me. Not sure if it is a translation error, but the repetition of contrast/conversely doesn't flow well (it ends up being a "U-turn"), and the suggestion that Getty would use CC licencing in that sentence feels a bit odd (maybe you could say, that "Had Getty chosen to use CC licences, the service would be ...", or similar). --Bence (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'll have to ask a native speaker to make sure the original meaning is not distorted. The two points are: If a picture is under a free CC license, getty would be able to use them, too. And secondly, they (and every other rightsholder) can release their own images under a free CC license). -- Mathias Schindler (WMDE) (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audience?[edit]

@Mathias Schindler (WMDE): Who is the audience for this? That might help me understand better how to read/comment on this. If it is for the general public, then this may be a good opportunity to discuss freedom/openness more directly in the opening statement; if it is for Wikimedians curious about using these images in Wikimedia, then a different approach may be appropriate; if it is for the media, yet another approach may be called for. It is hard for me to tell from the current text who you are aiming at. Thanks! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LuisV (WMF):. The primary audience would be people visiting our blog, who by themselves are an audience not fitting in one of the categories you mentioned. I agree there is no way to fully satisfy the informational needs of all the different (and only slightly overlapping) audiences. -- Mathias Schindler (WMDE) (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So not perfectly defined, but still better than I had before. :) I will consider some revisions. Thanks. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Tech: I would put this section at the end, or consider merging it with the other sections or eliminating altogether. To understand the core point (that this is not truly free) does not require knowing anything about iframes :) (This information *could* strengthen the point that the images might go away at some point, but that connection is not currently made.) The point about privacy should probably be made in a separate section - it is one of the most important parts, but does not get its own section heading.
Why? :) The first paragraph should summarize what WMDE thinks about the issue. e.g., "We want to remind the community and the world that just because something is available at no cost does not mean it is open - there may still be many problems other than the cost." Or something like that. I might rewrite the entire introduction as something like:

Since March 2014, Getty Images has allowed users to embed certain pictures from its image library on their websites, free of charge, for certain uses. Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. welcomes Getty to the world of no-cost images, but reminds the public that there is a difference between open content (like Wikipedia) and no-cost options with many weaknesses and shortcomings.

And then I'd put the "we welcome any feedback..." parts at the end of the document.

Rights of use -> "Limited rights of use"
"A lack of sustainability" -> maybe "Relying on Getty's goodwill"?
Throughout: I might make the contrast with open content in each section; e.g., in "lack of sustainability", end with "In contrast, true open content does not have this problem" and explain why.

Hope these comments are useful. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are very useful and I agree with the suggestions. -- Mathias Schindler (WMDE) (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]