Talk:Project grants/Photographing UK cathedrals: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Discussion: removing.. trying to find a way to add it directly to the main grant application page)
Line 22: Line 22:
*Thanks for your comments. I think your analysis of the legal aspects of commercial photography sounds about right. I have been dealing with one cathedral in particular (Chichester Cathedral) which has initially said no on the basis that the images couldn't be guaranteed to remain only on Wikipedia/Commons. I diplomatically asked for them to reconsider and pointed out that it was rather at-odds with the idea that the cathedral exists to serve the community, and that the community was best served by it being open towards Wikipedia and open content. After all, regardless of where the image ends up being used, I fail to see how a high quality and attractive image could do anything else than attract visitors to the cathedral. It is also prudent for cathedrals to consider Wikipedia not just as an encyclopaedia but as an important source of information for potential visitors. In any case, I've managed to make a few contacts within the Diocese of London who have been both enthusiastic about my photography and the open content movement and may be able to put in a good word for me. [[User:Diliff|Diliff]] ([[User talk:Diliff|talk]]) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (BST)
*Thanks for your comments. I think your analysis of the legal aspects of commercial photography sounds about right. I have been dealing with one cathedral in particular (Chichester Cathedral) which has initially said no on the basis that the images couldn't be guaranteed to remain only on Wikipedia/Commons. I diplomatically asked for them to reconsider and pointed out that it was rather at-odds with the idea that the cathedral exists to serve the community, and that the community was best served by it being open towards Wikipedia and open content. After all, regardless of where the image ends up being used, I fail to see how a high quality and attractive image could do anything else than attract visitors to the cathedral. It is also prudent for cathedrals to consider Wikipedia not just as an encyclopaedia but as an important source of information for potential visitors. In any case, I've managed to make a few contacts within the Diocese of London who have been both enthusiastic about my photography and the open content movement and may be able to put in a good word for me. [[User:Diliff|Diliff]] ([[User talk:Diliff|talk]]) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (BST)
** That's good to hear. Please keep us updated with how it goes. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>&#32;[[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 16:24, 17 June 2014 (BST)
** That's good to hear. Please keep us updated with how it goes. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>&#32;[[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 16:24, 17 June 2014 (BST)
===Ongoing feedback===
Just to let you know, I've completed what is now '''PART 1''' of the project, covering 15 churches, abbeys and cathedrals over 700 miles. I'll explain below what I mean by part 1. I'm now going to go through the large number of images taken and put together the stitched mosaics which will take some time, perhaps another week or so to complete. Once I've completed the processing, I'll add them here (or is there a better location for project feedback? I'm new to the grant system). For now, I wanted to share some of the hits and misses and ask for your feedback on costs.
*I ended up splitting the project into two separate trips because I realised that it was not realistic to cover such a wide area over the course of 5 days, and that a number of notable northern English cathedrals just beyond the borders of the original route would be missed out. So I split it into two parts based on geography and distance covered: one covering the [http://s29.postimg.org/92oawy2fr/Eastern_Cathedral_Route.jpg eastern side] of England and the other covering the [http://s29.postimg.org/dysfvjw0n/Western_Cathedral_Route.jpg western side]. Part 1, the trip I've just completed, covers the western side and about 700 miles. Part 2 is an intended route for now, but is pretty much a confirmed route also covering around 700 miles.
*The good news is that splitting of the project actually means I would manage to cover significantly more abbeys, notable churches, minsters and cathedrals than the one bigger trip. I now estimate that the project could cover approximately 30 buildings in total, compared to the 15-20 planned originally, but it also means more driving, and therefore more fuel consumed.
*The bad news. I wanted to bring this up now because I think I've underestimated the fuel consumption for the trip. I estimated £120 in total for 800 miles of driving. It actually ended up being £140 for 700 miles in part 1 alone (bear in mind it is a 2 ton campervan I'm driving!), and I therefore estimate that part 2 will be another £140 or so. Given that the project was approved based on the lower estimate, I thought it appropriate to bring this to the grant team's attention now before I proceed with the intended part 2. It has ended up being about 80% of the costs of the trip. If I am to go ahead with part 2, it will require more money. The fuel will likely be around £280 in total. Paying a nominal £3 donation to each cathedral will also end up costing about £90. And parking will probably not exceed £40 in total, as originally budgeted for. Total cost therefore looks more like £400, which is significantly more than the £240-290 originally budgeted for, for the smaller project covering a smaller geographical area.
*Some more good news. I managed to avoid paying for parking in many of the smaller towns/cities so the costs for that are going to be slightly less than planned for.
As I said, in due course, I will provide a full update with all the images taken and their use in the relevant Wikipedia articles (which is a job in itself, I've started this already and it often means significant reshuffling to make room for them). For now, would you mind giving me some feedback (and hopefully approval!) on my proposed plans above? I apologise for the budget overrun. [[User:Diliff|Diliff]] ([[User talk:Diliff|talk]]) 19:28, 13 July 2014 (BST)


==Approval==
==Approval==
This grant application has been approved, to include the recommended donation and parking charge as discussed. If you would like any assistance from the office in contacting any of the cathedrals or other buildings, then please get in touch. In terms of reporting, please tag all resulting images with [[:commons:Template:Supported by Wikimedia UK]]. I would also be looking for as many images as possible to be nominated for [[:commons:Commons:Valued images|VI]], [[:commons:Commons:Quality images|QI]], and [[:commons:Commons:Featured pictures|FP]] on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (BST)
This grant application has been approved, to include the recommended donation and parking charge as discussed. If you would like any assistance from the office in contacting any of the cathedrals or other buildings, then please get in touch. In terms of reporting, please tag all resulting images with [[:commons:Template:Supported by Wikimedia UK]]. I would also be looking for as many images as possible to be nominated for [[:commons:Commons:Valued images|VI]], [[:commons:Commons:Quality images|QI]], and [[:commons:Commons:Featured pictures|FP]] on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (BST)

Revision as of 19:35, 13 July 2014

Discussion

For those who may not be aware, David was one of our three judges for the Wiki Loves Monuments competition last year. He is a well known contributor of professional-standard images to Commons, concentrating on the built enviroment, and virtually every image he submits has the potential to become a Featured Picture. There are significant gaps in Commons holdings in this area that this project could go some way to filling. There is to my knowledge nobody within Commons or within our own community who could do a better job of this than David, and I strongly support his application. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2014 (BST)

Support. David: do you need to factor in parking charges? I usually ignore "no commercial photography" restrictions, but perhaps the cathedrals concerned could be placated with the offer of copies of the images for their own use? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:22, 16 June 2014 (BST)

  • Andy, that's a good point, I hadn't factored parking charges in. I imagine that in some cities, it will not be easy to find free parking and even if I could, it would mean wasted time where time is very much of the essence given my optimistic schedule! Perhaps an additional £40 would cover parking charges assuming an average charge of £2-3 per city. As for dealing with restrictions on commercial photography, normally if I were to just shoot away and downplay my intentions of publication, I'd probably 'get away with it' and hear nothing more of it, but these cathedrals seem to quite keen to control both their 'image' and their ability to profit from commercial photographers and filmcrews. Given my tripod and equipment will probably immediately set off their alarm bells, I'd rather play it safe and get permission from cathedrals that have a policy on their website about commercial photography. Only a few are explicit about restricting commercial photography. If I can't find any information on their websites and they don't ask me to stop, I'll assume everything is ok. Diliff (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2014 (BST)
Happy to support the extra parking potential obviously! I'm sure there are some expert volunteers who could offer advice, and the office could offer support (and phone calls, etc.) re: restrictions. Sjgknight (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2014 (BST)

Thank you David for your application. I have notified the Grants Committee who may offer further comments on what they think of the application. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2014 (BST)

Comments from Simon

Looks very worthwhile and a thorough application. Very happy to support this as per the comments above. Sjgknight (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2014 (BST)

Comments from CT Cooper

Thank you for your application. I have read through it and I'm currently inclined to give it my full support.

The costs you've provided appear to be reasonable for what the community will get out of the trip, and I'm not going to ask for a further breakdown at this time. The map you've provided is very helpful, though I understand it is subject to change. Using a caravan is a good idea, and will probably be much cheaper than arranging hotels, though I feel inclined to make the standard remark – please me mindful of your safety and security when choosing where to stop for the night.

On liaising with the cathedrals and other buildings, I think it would be prudent to make any reasonable donation that the cathedrals ask for. £3 is a small amount and I'm more than happy to approve it. The "no commercial photography" is a potential issue, so I would tread carefully. I'm not qualified to give legal advice, but copyright will be irrelevant for the most part, as the architecture of the cathedrals themselves should be in the public domain by now, and failing that, UK freedom of panorama covers public places and premises open to the public. Only some 2D works of recent creation are a potential issue; I will leave such issues to your judgement. That said, I believe these buildings will be private property, so if they explicitly tell you that your photography is not wanted or similar, whether on site or by e-mail, I would strongly recommend you skip the cathedral in question. However, I hope offers of donations and giving them copies of the photos will prevent such a situation from occurring. I would be happy to support increasing the budget to resolve this as needed, as long as the amount is reasonable i.e. "donations" of hundreds to thousands of pounds aren't going to happen.

In the meantime, I wish you the best of luck with your project and I hope it all comes together. CT Cooper · talk 18:16, 16 June 2014 (BST)

  • Thanks for your comments. I think your analysis of the legal aspects of commercial photography sounds about right. I have been dealing with one cathedral in particular (Chichester Cathedral) which has initially said no on the basis that the images couldn't be guaranteed to remain only on Wikipedia/Commons. I diplomatically asked for them to reconsider and pointed out that it was rather at-odds with the idea that the cathedral exists to serve the community, and that the community was best served by it being open towards Wikipedia and open content. After all, regardless of where the image ends up being used, I fail to see how a high quality and attractive image could do anything else than attract visitors to the cathedral. It is also prudent for cathedrals to consider Wikipedia not just as an encyclopaedia but as an important source of information for potential visitors. In any case, I've managed to make a few contacts within the Diocese of London who have been both enthusiastic about my photography and the open content movement and may be able to put in a good word for me. Diliff (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (BST)
    • That's good to hear. Please keep us updated with how it goes. CT Cooper · talk 16:24, 17 June 2014 (BST)

Approval

This grant application has been approved, to include the recommended donation and parking charge as discussed. If you would like any assistance from the office in contacting any of the cathedrals or other buildings, then please get in touch. In terms of reporting, please tag all resulting images with commons:Template:Supported by Wikimedia UK. I would also be looking for as many images as possible to be nominated for VI, QI, and FP on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (BST)