Talk:Photographic mosaic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

[edit] Example

A less potentially controversial example would be good. FAL 04:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Toddmatic 03:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions? The George Bush example is good because the tiled images relate to the main subject image of the photo mosaic. --J2thawiki 11:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the one of Lincoln made up of Civil War photographs? Toddmatic 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a copyrighted image by Robert Silvers so I doubt wikipedia would get permission to use it--J2thawiki 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about this as a non-controversial example mosaic?

Seagull photographic mosaic using images of birds and other nature photos as tiles

[edit] Patent License

User:Phorut changed my entry:

There are a number of other commercial companies that create mosaics with photos. These companies either use processes that do not infringe on the particular process claimed in Silver's patents, have obtained licenses under those patents, or are infringing those patents but Silver/Runaway Technology have chosen not to bring infringement proceedings.

back to:

There are a number of other commercial companies that create mosaics with photos. These companies either use processes that do not infringe on the particular process claimed in Silver's patents or are infringing those patents.

Citing that:

Corrections, not know license to other companies, if you know, need reference, there was at least one case and some letters for patent problems

However, in my opinion mentioning the possibility of licenses in the absence of any citations whatsoever is essential. If there have been patent problems, we need verification of that. Otherwise, my version of the text lists all of the possible situations that could exist: either other companies use a different process, or they infringe, or they have licenses (meaning that using the claimed process does not count as an infringement). I am not claiming that there are any licenses under the patent, but that option must be included in the absence of verification of what the true situation is. Legally, it is also important to mention that, if there has been infringement, the patentee's have chosen not to bring proceedings since this could create a legal assumption that will not enforce the patents against future infringers.

Again, I repeat that I am not saying that any of these have actually ocurred, but in the absence of verification to the contrary, I think my general statement is the most accurate that can be made. I will therefore put it back in although I'll make the point clearer that this is merely a list of possible alternatives.

I just checked the UK register [1] for the current status of European patent EP0852363. It appears that there are no licenses recorded there (but that doesn't mean that there aren't any in other countries), but an application for revocation was filed in July this year. I think that's worth a mention too, since it's probably going to relate to part of the controversy over software patents. GDallimore 10:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

A large number of external links have just been removed. Although this may have been done in retaliation since that editer had had one of his link removed, I still say good riddance. They add little to the article and having too many of them is just inviting spam. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Anyone else like to comment? GDallimore (Talk) 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Although wikipedia is not a link directory (well, mostly - List_of_free_software_packages), relevant links for an article are welcome. Links to commercial/spammy stuff is obviously bad though. I think many people, having read the article, would want to create their own photomosaics so links to free software to do this is a good thing. Maybe we should have a vote with options for [no links],[free stuff only],[free and commercial software]? I'd personally vote for the middle one. --J2thawiki 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if people want to find software to create photomosaics, they can use a search engine. This is an article about photomosaics, not a resource for photomosaics.

While the idea of only having free links is certainly Wikipedia friendly, the problem with having any such links is that there may be hundreds of products out there and where do you stop? GDallimore (Talk) 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think photo mosaics is a small enough niche that the number of free products won't overwhelm the page. Anonymous Editor commented on my talk page to state their support for the removal of commercial links which I agree with as per WP:EL. --J2thawiki 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL suggested that commercial and non-commerical links are normally to be avoided if they add little to the article itself. How about only linking to those free products that only describe how the software works? In this way, we're not just linking to someone's software, but also providing an information link to tell people how to make a photomosaic. At the very least, the links we provide should be to sites that provide the source code for their software, otherwise it's not truly "free". GDallimore (Talk) 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that for most readers of the article, the inclusion of links to free software to make mosaics with is welcomed, and that for them, free simply means free to use, not the opportunity to read lots of sourcecode! --J2thawiki 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)