Open lordyavin opened 9 years ago
scd
commented
9 years ago Have you read this article on oembed?
http://www.thecrag.com/article/EmbedingImages
Have you tried just putting in a url image from wikimedia. I am actually not sure if it will work or not. There are a number of sites we automatically process, but maybe this is not one. I just did a quick search to see if they offer oembed to their photos and did not come up with anything
lordyavin
commented
9 years ago Thanks for the hint. I remember thst I read it in the past but the described feature is not what I meant. If clicking on upload photo or add Topo it should be possible to link pictures where I don't own the copyright. Additionally the copyright and license information may be passed to the form.
---- Simon Dale schrieb ----
Have you read this article on oembed?
http://www.thecrag.com/article/EmbedingImages
Have you tried just putting in a url image from wikimedia. I am actually not sure if it will work or not. There are a number of sites we automatically process, but maybe this is not one. I just did a quick search to see if they offer oembed to their photos and did not come up with anything
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
scd
commented
9 years ago Are you suggesting that we still upload the image but include additional copyright statement. Topos and photos can be uploaded under specific copyrights, but you have to have your account assigned to a publisher and the copyright set up.
Let's divide conquer: Topos and Photos.
Topos need to be stored on the site. Typically topos need to have their photo taken for the specific purpose. Do you see many examples where photos on this resource could usefully be used as topos.
Photos don't need to be stored on the site. Really they are a massive headache because they take up so much space, however it is the fastest growing content on site, and what is a climbing site without photos anyway. We really need to do more with photos, as I think they are a totally underdone asset for theCrag.
Some sites have geo searches for their photos. We have toyed with the idea of linking to the geo search for these sites for photos of crags.
I am in two minds about using other sites photos on our site other than embedding. I would prioritise this behind some other ideas with photos. Once we improve the photo features I think this side of the site will grow very fast.
brendanheywood
commented
9 years ago Attribution is effectively just the 'photographer' field, but there is no way to easily add an attribution source, ie a url, nor a way to specify the source license (or at least a quick drop down of the ones we know are compatible with us). Both of these we'd need to sort first and which seem like high value.
Deeper integration specifically with wikimedia seems a lot lower value, it would save a few seconds of cut and pasting of meta data. Integration with something like flickr / google pics would probably be higher value if we did want to stream line that step. If there was a standard way of passing license metadata around as part of oembed that would be perfect but no such luck.
lordyavin
commented
9 years ago I don't care where the photo is stored. As an admin I would try to reduce my storage needs by linking to existing sources. In my scenario that would be https://commons.wikimedia.org. But as a user I really don't care. At the end linked photos should be treated/handled almost equal to uploaded ones. The problem with linking to external resources is that they can be deleted without noticing it. That way the db gets filled with dead links. To avoid this you have to copy the image.
I like the idea about the geo search. But I think this would be an option to present possible photos of the crag during editing it. Then the editor can choose and decide if the proposed photos are useful.
brendanheywood
commented
9 years ago There are other hassles too, including lots of resizing and optimizing of the images and ensuring they are served in the best way. And yeah almost all apps, eg facebook, will scrape and clone any image you link to and serve it directly, so 'doing it right' doesn't reduce storage at all. I think what we want is just making the upload photo process a little smoother, ie make the url option do extra smarts like what you are suggesting. So the reall issue is still the lack of a data model to properly attribute licensed images
lordyavin
commented
7 years ago Any news/progress on this issue?
brendanheywood
commented
7 years ago No sorry @lordyavin - as a test to help clarify exactly what's missing can you point to a single exact image you'd like to use and what metadata you want to bring across with it?
lordyavin
commented
7 years ago https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:R%C3%A4tikon.jpg https://www.thecrag.com/photo/1205680986
Metadata to grap: description, date, author, license
Additionally the license should be identified and checked if it is compatible with TheCrag's license and copyright terms. If not compatible the system should deny using the image. Of course the description or a new field must mention the license and link to it. A link to the copyright holders website and the original image source.
brendanheywood
commented
7 years ago Thanks @lordyavin
I think this is a complete list of what is required on our side:
[ ] at the bottom of the photo upload process on the first page (ie as you upload the image) we add a dropdown for the license, which defaults to the normal theCrag contributor license and would include the other potential specific licenses for that crag / user (eg UNEMC license for gara), but then on top of that some generic licenses which are pre-assessed. In particular:
Compatible licenses
Incompatible licenses
Unknown
[ ] if 'Other license' is chosen then we popup a message saying 'contact us' with some blurb like 'not all licenses are compatible with out site, please contact us if you want us to assess and add other common licenses'. You cannot continue.
[ ] If an incompatible license is selected just get a 'sorry no can do' message and can't go further
[ ] if a compatible license is selected then it shows a bunch of new fields below
[ ] first the most important thing we need to know is whether this is 'you' licensing the photo to theCrag under a different license, or whether it is'you using a 3rd parties photo under their license. So we need a 'copyright owner' field. Note this is not always the same as the photographer, but usually is. If this field is blank it is assumed to be the submitter who just wants to use a different license.
[ ] optional url for the users link (eg wiki account page). If the copyright owner field is blank, and this field is blank, then we can auto link to the users theCrag profile url.
[ ] required link to the source
[ ] The original title is required for some licenses but may not be appropriate for us, eg some tourists photo of "Mount French" which we'd use as "Frog Buttress"
Another complexity is that different licenses require different things, eg earlier versions of the CC required the title of the work to be copied in the metadata and provided, but the current version doesn't. We could store a set of check boxes for which licenses require which fields, but I'm leaning towards a brute force method and making all fields required regardless of which license. So part of the assessment process is also making sure all these required fields are enough.
brendanheywood
commented
7 years ago Some cross over with https://github.com/theCrag/website/issues/1677
lordyavin
commented
5 years ago Still no milestone :cry:
Sometimes the repository of https://commons.wikimedia.org contains great images of crags and regions. It would be very nice to add (link) images from this site and have the copyright, author, license stuff automatically handled. IMHO to improve quality of theCrag we need much more images of crags.