wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with
the Frenc...
Teofilo wrote:
I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost
priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors
who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of
paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with
the Frenc...
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo:
I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
That sets it
Teofilo wrote:
David Monniaux said : release lower resolution pictures under free
license, keep high resolution pictures (those suitable for art books,
posters and so on) proprietary.
I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution
pictures of Public Domain works. Because
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I thought that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision basically was that a
reproduction like this enjoys no new copyright ?
I have a reproduction of Rembrandt's Toby and Anna whilst that
doesn't give the producer of the reproduction the right to stop me
making
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/27/2009 1:29:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
I have a reproduction of Rembrandt's Toby and Anna whilst that
doesn't give the producer of the reproduction the right to stop me
making copies from it, it also
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Sorry,
But my question is not if we as a wikimedia group is violating the license,
but if they as users are.
I would like a professional opinion on the question :
Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
It makes no difference.
Hay (Husky) wrote:
That's why it's so important, for projects like ours, to use a
license such as BY-SA that it usable by anyone, at anytime, for any
purpose without that ambiguity.
Except that it is not, the SA license ghettoizes the work just as an NC
licenses does. The only difference
Sage Ross wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
If someone write a piece of music and releases it under a CC-BY-SA
license, they can also allow uses under other conditions. Now assume
that you hear that music in some TV advert is the advert CC-BY-SA? Not
Jovan Cormac wrote:
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Secondly, just because YOU think something is PD or licensed under
Creative Commons does not mean that it is in reality so. For example
many images on flickr have been lifted from the web and the account
uploading them falsely
Bod Notbod wrote:
On the subject of Flickr, I have a proposal.
I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check license for
use on Wikipedia which would be an easy way for people to
a) make their pictures available to us and
b) easier to find by Wikipedians.
You can already
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
I agree, vigilantism is not necessary and counter productive. The
Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both
for whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third
party to intervene in a contract between two people and only two
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:40 PM, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On the subject of Flickr, I have a proposal.
I'd like to see an option given to Flickr users to check license for
use on Wikipedia which would be an easy way for people to
a) make their pictures
Sage Ross wrote:
If a copyleft license is being violated, that is potentially of
concern beyond the two legal parties, since properly using the license
would mean that derivative works are also part of the commons and
available for others to use and adapt.
The problem is that YOU have no
Jovan Cormac wrote:
Michael, I'm afraid you didn't understand the proposal.
The proposal has nothing to do whatsoever with people contributing to
Commons not being educated about licenses. It's about contacting to
people *outside* of Commons, people who may not be involved in any
geni wrote:
2009/8/6 Luna lunasan...@gmail.com:
That'd make sense, I think. From the article linked, it sounds like giving
the application in question might be approved with a 17+ rating. That's
probably reasonable where the application and its designer are drawing from
unrated content beyond
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
We need to recruit people who are willing to contribute for a few winter
months. And maybe - just maybe - continue in spring or return next year
again. Wikipedia was always intended for drive-by editing: Readers, who
correct a fact, add some
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 21:05, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time
while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by
making it public.
This may come as a shock to
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk:
If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that
is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising
non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share
cropping with
Ray Saintonge wrote:
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it
isn't
21 matches
Mail list logo
