Reply to post:

EU squashes bogus copyright scare as red-faced Guardian slaps down Wiki's Wales

ratfox Silver badge

Wikipedia could be enriched greatly if it licensed images. It's a publisher that sits on a cash pile of tens of millions of dollars, raising almost $20m in its December fund-raising drive alone. That could pay a lot of photographers, and license a lot of images.

Seriously? The issue is that Wikipedia only uses pictures in the public domain, and refuses to license pictures under copyright? Are you suggesting they should do that to support the UK creative industry out of charity?

I don't see that there's any reason to pay for something when almost the same is available for free. The fact that Wikipedia has in fact money to pay is irrelevant. There are other encyclopedia whose articles are written by paid writers, and that presumably contain licensed pictures. Everybody is free to use (and pay for) them.

But if you ask anyone in commercial photography what ails the UK creative industry, Wikipedia soon comes up in conversation

[citation needed]. How is it that Wikipedia is responsible for the fact that everybody now carries a camera in their pockets, and that millions of amateurs are happy to have their pictures show up for free in Google Images? That I remember, Getty has complained about Google, not Wikipedia.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020