To further David's point - Flickr.com staticflickr.com panoramio.com and two amazon web services urls
are all already whitelisted for the GWT. So, there are already several examples of commercially operated services that host freely-licensed media files being acceptable sources for the GWT. -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata On 11 January 2016 at 17:52, Maarten Brinkerink <w...@maartenbrinkerink.net> wrote: > +1 > > > Op 11 jan. 2016, om 17:51 heeft David Haskiya < > david.hask...@europeana.eu> het volgende geschreven: > > > > Hi, > > From my point of view: certainly. Commons already has loads of images > sourced from e.g. Flickr (and many GLAMs don't run their own servers but > put media in commercial providers servers). > > > > As long as the media objects have the correct file formats and > licenses/rights status I don't see why it would matter that they're fetched > from a server run by a commercial company. > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Glamtools [glamtools-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] on behalf of > Hans Muller [j.m.mul...@hccnet.nl] > > Sent: 11 January 2016 17:45 > > To: Conversations revolving around the development of GLAM Digital Tools > > Subject: [Glamtools] Can commercial GLAM companiy domains be whitelisted > for GWT? > > > > Dear all, > > > > In the Netherlands and elsewhere GLAMs pay companies like picturae.com > to > > produce images of their collections, resulting in thousands of .tifs > > etcetera. > > > > Up to now, as far as i know these company websites have not been > > whitelisted for uploads to Commons. It could be practical if GLAMs which > > want to donate images, can do so directly from such a company's domain. > (A > > GLAM asked me whether to ask a scanning company to allow this from their > > company side.) > > > > As i don't (yet) have a specific URL as a test, i can't at this point ask > > whitelisting on Phabricator. So i would like to test the waters here. If > > whitelisting of a company is a "no-no", it makes no sense aa company to > > allow this anyway. GLAMs (and I) must use other more indirect upload > > inroads. > > > > * What's your view? > > > > Thanks, hans muller > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Glamtools mailing list > > Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Glamtools mailing list > > Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools > > > _______________________________________________ > Glamtools mailing list > Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools >
_______________________________________________ Glamtools mailing list Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
