Opinion Wikipedia’s image problem

Photographs are a glaring flaw in the Wikipedia model. Unlike the articles on the site,which in theory are improved,fact checked,footnoted and generally enhanced over time,photographs are static works created by individuals. A bad article can become a better article. A bad photograph simply stays bad.

Wikipedians have tried to make up for this defect by organising outings where contributors take high-quality photographs of buildings or objects. Likewise it has tried to gain permission from large collections to use material.

Last winter the German Federal Archives released 100,000 low-resolution digital copies under a license so they could appear on Wikipedia. Recently a Wikipedia user,Derrick Coetzee,downloaded more than 3,000 high-resolution photographs from the British National Portrait Gallery — to serve as head shots for historical figures like Charlotte Brontë or Charles Darwin.

The gallery threatened legal action,saying that while the painted portraits may be old and thus beyond copyright protection,the photographs are new and therefore copyrighted work. The gallery is demanding a response by from Coetzee,who is being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Any gallery of hideous Wikipedia photographs would include the former NBA star George Gervin,who is standing stiffly in a suit in a shot that is cropped longer and thinner than would be typical even for a basketball player. As in Gervin’s case,the government is a prime source for public domain photographs. Obama,for example,looks composed and serious in the official portrait.

Recent photographs on Wikipedia almost exclusively are the work of amateurs who don’t mind giving away their work. Amateur may be too kind a word; their photos tend to be the work of fans who happen to have a camera. The opera singer Natalie Dessay is shown looking the wrong way at an autograph signing; the Coen brothers are seen from middle distance at Cannes,with Ethan covering his mouth,perhaps because he has just coughed.

Then there are the photographs taken from the stands,with the subject barely a fleck. A few celebrities have had the foresight to provide their own freely licensed photographs. And considering the money that stars spend to maintain their image,it is surprising that more have not invested in high-quality,freely licensed photographs. Perhaps they don’t recognise how popular Wikipedia is. In June,for example,Berry’s article had more than 180,000 page views.

Also,it can be difficult to persuade a talent photographer to go along because one free photograph can drive out all the others,said Jerry Avenaim,a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia.

In an interview Avenaim still sounded torn about the idea of contributing his work. He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his visibility as reflected in search-engine results and traffic,but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the lifeblood of my career,” he said,noting that photographers may get paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their money from resales of the image. And even a low-resolution photograph that is available free becomes the default photograph online and means there is no need to pay for another one of his shots.

That,ultimately,is the issue for photographers who might want to donate their work to Wikipedia,but not the entire Internet. “To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,” Avenaim said. “If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site,they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.”

The New York Times