How to credit a photo

The alt attribute, or title, these are not appropriate ways to give credit.

For that, you need to use phases like: “Permission granted by”, “Original work of”, “Photo use with permission of”. alt is to cover the use cases, title is somewhat non-important.

img element’s attributes alone don’t cover the type of license and use agreement.

Also, when using a specific photo, click on the author’s profile. It may have requirements of its own, such as to see how you use his/her work.

The best you can do: for every photo you use, contact the author. Ask for permission, ask for the manner he/she wishes the credit be given, and special requests he/she may have: a back link to his/her site, use it only for making the grass grow greener, etcetera. That’s how you deal with using other people work, unless it’s public domain.

And Wiki Commons Terms of Use say pretty clear:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)

But alt is only available in certain circumstances, and so is title. They don’t complement each other. Since neither offer a valid way to always give credit, none is suited.

The title is not announced via the screen reader IF an alt is specified. If you don’t give an alt but do a title, a screen reader will read it, however that is invalid code.

In the settings of your reader you can set what you want to hear. Someone may have turned titles off because of CMSes like Turdpress insisting on adding redundant titles to stuff and they got sick of hearing everything repeat. So even title without an alt isn’t safe.

Everyone needs to who the author of the picture is (and I am trying to avoid having to note it using plain text below the image.)

IF you need the information available to everyone, you’ll not be able to escape the need to set the text out in plain site. As Ryan pointed out, title is limited by device (mice). Alt already has a stated use (not for credit info but image info).

The only way I can think of to get around showing the credit info as plain text is to do what Wikipedia does: their images are links, and clicking to them brings the user to a page with all the use information.

That might be way more work than just using a caption under the image.


What Early Out mentioned is a good idea: if you DON’T want IE showing alt text on mouse hover, it never hurts to add
title=“”
to your image. Because IE will see there IS a title attribute, it won’t be able to do it’s buggy thing with showing alts.

That’s what Early Out was saying (but it seems he was misunderstood).

Okay, interesting.

IF you need the information available to everyone, you’ll not be able to escape the need to set the text out in plain site. As Ryan pointed out, title is limited by device (mice). Alt already has a stated use (not for credit info but image info).

Well, Wikimedia Commons just says you have to “credit” the creator. It doesn’t say how. And I think as long as you make a reasonable attempt to credit the creator of an image, that is more than fair enough.

I think it is important to remember that people are putting their work up on the Internet and granting people free use of their work in writing! (If people don’t want others using their work, then putting it up on Wikimedia Commons and granting people free access is a bad idea!!! AND if the creator of some work needs to be in the spotlight, then they should say so in writing by including “I require that you credit my name under this image in 14point BOLD font.”)

Like everything in life, I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here…

I have no problem giving credit, but I just think it wold look ugly if under every tiny picture (e.g. 140px wide) I have to put “Credit: Roberta Ann M. Stevens-Johnson from Wikimedia Commons”?!

The only way I can think of to get around showing the credit info as plain text is to do what Wikipedia does: their images are links, and clicking to them brings the user to a page with all the use information.

Consciously sending customers to another website is a bad idea if you want to keep them and make $$$…

Thanks for the thoughts.

Debbie

Consciously sending customers to another website is a bad idea if you want to keep them and make $$$…
Then I would have to ask why use wikimedia pics?

Same reason everyone does…

I don’t have a $50,000 budget for a camera and models and a lawyer to write contracts just yet!!

Debbie

Then I don’t get the point of the line I quoted above. If you put, “Credit: Roberta Ann M. Stevens-Johnson from Wikimedia Commons”, I assume you aren’t going to link that correct?

Consciously sending customers to another website is a bad idea if you want to keep them and make $$$…

I didn’t mean another web site, I just meant a separate page.

Wikipedia sends you to the wiki-commons site only because wikipedia and wiki-this and wiki-that all share the commons. But for you I meant this could just be separate pages on your own site. I do this for when I post comics on my site: since longdesc isn’t reliable enough for me, I have a link where anyone can click it to read the “text” for the comic. It’s too much to put it under the comic, so I tuck it away on another page.

Well, Wikimedia Commons just says you have to “credit” the creator. It doesn’t say how. And I think as long as you make a reasonable attempt to credit the creator of an image, that is more than fair enough.

SXC.HU (the free stock exchange site) doesn’t generally have anything about credit must appear, but I use images from them fairly regularly and always put the credit info in the HTML or CSS where I’m referencing them.

Now this likely doesn’t fulfill whatever Wikicommons wants, but if you can grab stuff from elsewhere like sxc.hu, that’s a possiblility (some members tag their photos as needing explicit crediting, which I always take to mean it must be text on the page, so I don’t use their images. Some people also want permission. I ask and don’t use until I get an OK).

Like everything in life, I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here…

I have no problem giving credit, but I just think it wold look ugly if under every tiny picture (e.g. 140px wide) I have to put “Credit: Roberta Ann M. Stevens-Johnson from Wikimedia Commons”?!

I thought of something, but it might be more work than worth it.

I use CSS popups. They work with both :hover and :focus. The text is plain in the source, but pulled off-screen with CSS. Anyone surfing with either a screen reader OR without CSS gets the text all plain and Jane.
Users with CSS on don’t see the text unless they either hover or focus on the image (meaning, an anchor has to wrap the image and the image is a sibling to the text).

The only users who wouldn’t get this info that I can think of would be IE7 users without mice. :focus doesn’t work properly in IE7. IE6 will work if you add :active in the list. IE8 supports :focus. IE7 users with mice or pointing devices can still :hover.

Since I do CSS popups regularly, they’re not a lot of work for me and it’s something I’d consider doing if I were in this situation. But I dunno if it’ll be way time-consuming for you tho.

I didn’t understand what you quoted and your seemingly unrelated response.

  • I don’t think sending people to Wikimedia Commons is a good idea because people leave my site.

  • I think including text below every image would be problematic for the reasons I mentioned.

  • Stomme poes has some good ideas about a pop-up page or that other fancy thing she just described.

  • Again, I want to credit people. However, I don’t want the emphasis to be, “Look!! I am too cheap and poor to take or pay for my own photos, so I have to rely on using public source images from Wikimedia Commons!!!”

I think as soon as I am able, I’ll try to start taking my own pictures and just pay the subject $20 and have them “I sign my photo and soul away forever to you” and I’m covered! But until I get some money coming and some time, I figured that using people’s picture who are offering them for free and crediting them per their request using ALT and TITLE was fair enough.

Debbie

The “quoted line above” part in reply #26 was referring to reply #24. I just didn’t requote it, sorry.

I don’t think sending people to Wikimedia Commons is a good idea because people leave my site.
What I mean is when you say, “Credit: Roberta Ann M. Stevens-Johnson from Wikimedia Commons”, the words Wikimedia Commons wouldn’t be a link. Does Yahoo!News etc link to AP News when it gets a story from them or do they say Taken from AP? I know when I read a story on Yahoo from AP, I don’t run to APnews.com to read it there.

That’s probably because there is a written agreement between Yahoo and APnews.com stating it shouldn’t.

The best and safest possible way to use any work on web, is to contact the holder of IP rights and get an agreement on the terms of use directly from him. Guesswork doesn’t come cheap. :wink:

Right. If I provided the credit under the picture, it would always be in plain text. No links.

Debbie