Notes: Part given to Otto Miettinen
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
|Could Be||1.0||5.88||1||(Christian Schwarz)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
it’s actually a crazy issue.
I work at a nature photography company by day and we constantly seem to be discussing “near-frame” issues for copyright reasons. Usually what is meant is “available at full resolution”.
We also talk a lot about what constitutes dissemination that goes against our priorities… it’s messy and usually just drives me back to defaulting to the open-info side of things…
i wonder then what is meant by “unavailable.” is that unavailable altogether, or unavailable at certain resolutions? what happens when an image which was meant to be some degree of “unavailable” outside a particular work becomes freely available online by some other means (as is so often the case)?
i ask out of sincere curiosity, not facetiousness.
I am experimenting with the balance between giving up control of full-resolution images on MO (since I occasionally make money off images and/or they are later used in places that require them to be made unavailable elsewhere) and providing nice full-rez images because I am theoretically fully in support of the free-knowledge open-source model…
The method I’m trying right now is size reduction for web since it’s an easy automated action in Photoshop. Not sure that I’ll stick with it…
I am always open to requests for full-res, so I tried to uploaded this one full resolution, but it timed out (I guess as part of the image upload issues MO is experiencing right now)
are preventing a decent look at the hymenium. i don’t suppose you’d be willing to bump up your max resolution for upload to MO, would you?
Created: 2014-10-18 17:47:45 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2014-10-20 22:01:57 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 64 times, last viewed: 2016-10-28 03:15:17 CDT (-0400)