As a person who recently started editing Wikipedia and noticed this phenomenon, it's great to see that other people are interested too. Even though I already knew everything about this subject, this video was still a great watch. I have one more thing to say. Most of these pictures have atleast been taken by professional photographers and have been uploaded on sites like Flickr with non-commercial use allowed. Well, here in Finland it seems like most pictures of celebrities have been taken by random Wikipedia editors with a camera who actually just go to every event with celebrities in them and take pictures. Some of the images are so horrible, that celebrities have requested for them to be deleted, lol.
Haha, that is pretty funny. Do you know which celebrities in particular have asked for their photos to be changed? I'd like to check out their wiki pages and see what the damage is...
@@AndrewMadeAFilm The english wikipedia page for finnish singer Sonja Lumme ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Lumme ) seems to still have the old image. A representative of Lumme asked the uploader of the image (Soppakanuuna) to delete it.
A picture with only non-commercial use allowed, is not enough. People sell CDs and thumb drives with Wikipedia on them. When my picture is in there, they have sold my picture without giving me a share of the money. So, we have to upload our pictures with all commercial use allowed, for whatever purpose, for free, forever. I have seen my pictures in various news stories, a travel agency's site, and printed in a book and in a magazine. What I haven't seen is the movie "Sully" which uses one of mine as background in a barroom scene. All these uses are without paying me. Some users have asked my permission, though the notice on the picture page says they already have my permission. However, I haven't snapped any celebrities. Don't care enough about them. If an actor or anyone else wants a good portrait in their Wikipedia biography, their photographer can release the picture unconditionally, for free, to everyone, forever, for all purposes. This gives up the photographer's chance to make more money later, so they will demand a higher fee. I figure it will usually be worth it.
It's not just public domain though, I can also be Creative Commons licenses, where you still have to credit the author, but they allow you to use it for any purpose. On German Wikipedia there are some projects to make better pictures: For example whenever there's an election some editors who know how to photograph professionally go to the politicians and make a good picture of them. These are actually then used by newspapers or online magazines since they're good and free to use
Celebs/studios do have the option of going to the lengths of getting a good image of themselves released into the public domain under a Creative Commons license if they hate the photos used of them.
That's a good point, although it seems like anyone else could quite easily update the page with an old photo at any time, so I wonder if it's worth the effort
@@AndrewMadeAFilm Wikipedia’s general policy is to use photos that are the “best” (I would summarize it as being that color, unobstructed photos with a flattering expression and with the subject facing forward are preferred). For living subjects, there is also the concern of recentness. Sometimes the less flattering photo IS chosen over a more flattering, but way outdated, image of a subject.
This is a really good video. For some reason this was just recommended me to now, a year later, in my explore page. and never showed it my subs. But I've always wondered the same thing!
Noticed a typo, i can see you wanted to say, “Why Wikipedia uses such weird photos” but use is just singular. But even still, great video with an incredibly interesting topic as usual Andrew!
Let’s take the Wikipedia page for Rakim as an example. The main way someone like Rakim would be out in public, is a show. Shows are the most common way of picturing a singer for Wikipedia. Two main issues with this. 1. Tours are rare, and happen only once in a couple years. 2. Some concerts might be photo-less, and can’t be photographed. 3. If a singer were to retire, this is literally impossible. 4. Death. The image of Rakim shown is from 2008, on tour. Rakim is a case of retirement, with the last studio album being released in 2007. It is true that celebrities go out in public, but they’re flooded with fans or have protection and bodyguards. Imagine trying to take a clear picture when people are in the way (either swarming, or just minding their business, as celebrities magnet to population centers). There’s also paparazzo, but they sell their photos for cash profit, and are one of the main reasons that Getty Images has a monopoly on photography ($500 for one image in large). In conclusion, fuck Getty Images, that’s why.
There are also many things to be aware of when selecting an image from Commons, as per the MoS (Manual of Style) for lead images, e.g., pictures of people should ideally look towards the text, and the highest resolution possible should be used. Sincerely, a Wikipedia editor.
Ah yes, the eternal struggle with copyright issues... _(*cries in blocked RU-vid videos)_ but that's a nice find, I hadn't thought about that. 5:15 Wahaha, best selfie xD
I remember as a Wikipedia editor I liked to add images about independent campaign logos and some candidate photos, but all of them with one exception were deleated, the reason? I said they were not my work (because they were work of the campaign), and apparently, every single image where the uploader is not the author, is doomed to be deleted, unless a formal request, mail from the original contributor and millions more of stuff is given. There was one candidate image where I had full consent of the campaign to upload, but still, Wikipedia didn't allowed it, since the approval was given on Twitter, instead of the formal mail, so I had to take the hard decision to list the author as myself (giving credit to the campaign in the description of course), and since the photo was never used by the media, only edited versions were used for propaganda and candidate registration, then I just decided to do it, and it remains the only photo of a person I have in my wiki profile
It’s not just for people. I was looking at Pentax cameras which were sold under multiple color schemes and they chose the ones with the ugliest color for a lot of the pages.
As a Wikipedia editor with over 700 edits, I can firmly say that is not a conspiracy and simply and article that does not meet our guidelines and the people complaining clearly don't know how Wikipedia works.
Fair use is only allowed if there is literally no other images of the person or thing that is not copyrighted in the world. An example is an album cover or film poster.
May you please get to the bottom of why Wikipedia loves to change peoples pictures to older ones after they die? I noticed this with Queen Elizabeth II and Pelé and it’s a bit dumb to be honest
While people are alive, editors generally select a recent photo (if available) because it best illustrates how someone looks right now. When ppl pass away, usually a photo from their most iconic period from their lives is selected.
