2009/9/7 Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com:
I applaud fighting against Copyfraud but will it make sense to educate
e.g. the UK National Portrait Gallery? The Hydra Copyfraud has too
many heads.
There are times when it's prudent to let these things rest in a state
of quantum uncertainty,
Hoi,
You do not set out to educate the UK National Portrait Gallery or any
other hydra head. What you do is you engage GLAM and it helps when there
is a damn good introduction into the subject of copyright and licensing. At
the same time you have to engage in educating people why GLAMs are
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Too many people attribute to malice what is completely explained by
fuckups. WMF actually does better than most charities of comparable
staffing and funding ...
Yes, that's the way I view it too.
Most of these attacking
Precisely. I'm glad you understand. In fact, it's not about fighting
copyfraud (i.e. people and institutions who claim copyright while
knowing about public domain) at all - it's about educating those who
*don't* know about it. There will be no need to fight any battles at
all, since a good
2009/9/7 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com:
I wonder what motivates this kind of thread. Do those who regularly
seek to pick out any inconsistency or failure to communicate
actually /like/ Wikipedia, or do they have some grudge against the
whole enterprise?
That would describe the person who
For static timed text mv-embed library works reasonably well. It has a
simple interface for selecting the text track / language. What remains
to be done is an interface for people to collaboratively edit and
contribute the original transcript and translations. (some work has been
done in that
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.
It could be argued that it should say license
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
That would describe the person who started this thread, who has stated
elsewhere that anything whatsoever he does on any WMF site is only for
the purpose of trolling.
Was that the form of words used?
I'd be interested to
Exactly! Mwuahaha!!!
2009/9/5 Paul Williams p...@skenmy.com
Okie dokie.
2009/9/5 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
please!
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
That's a great idea. They might even do it...
Cheers,
Jovan Cormac
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
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Jovan Cormaclimu...@gmx.net wrote:
That's a great idea. They might even do it...
Thanks! :o)
I can't think of any huge reasons for them not to. I don't think it
would reduce their traffic. I suppose there's why should they? I
think it would be an improvement to
I met a few people helping out with Wikimania, including the lead
photographer on site, who got involved with the local Wikimedia
community after their photostream was found on Flickr and incorporated
into Wikipedia (es:wp)... Discovering your work has been used by
someone else is always a nice
All,
A bit of a mystery -- in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, page E-8, there's
an ad for the Wikimedia Foundation Head of Communications position. This ad
does not appear online, at least I could not find a companion posting,
either on the foundation site or on Yahoo (the Chronicle's online ad
2009/9/7 Sfmammamia sfmamma...@gmail.com:
All,
A bit of a mystery -- in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, page E-8, there's
an ad for the Wikimedia Foundation Head of Communications position. This ad
does not appear online, at least I could not find a companion posting,
either on the
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Sfmammamiasfmamma...@gmail.com wrote:
A bit of a mystery -- in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, page E-8, there's
an ad for the Wikimedia Foundation Head of Communications position.
Are you sure it wasn't the Communications Officer position?
No, the print ad definitely says Head of Communications -- in bold text,
at the top of the ad.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Sfmammamiasfmamma...@gmail.com wrote:
A bit of a mystery -- in Sunday's San Francisco
We'll know tomorrow whats up.
From: Sfmammamia sfmamma...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 10:27:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Head of Communications position open?
No, the
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
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 people. If the Commons Force
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
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourdegeo.p...@yahoo.com wrote:
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 people.
This
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 available to us and
b)
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
2009/9/7 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourdegeo.p...@yahoo.com wrote:
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
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
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
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
That's easily answered.
I'm not renaming the license. I'm proposing that there be a tick box
for that very same license with a more friendly tag that tells the
user can be used on Wikipedia. The license doesn't change, it's
2009/9/7 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com:
That's a very fair comment.
Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues?
Indeed. Just note on CC-by and CC-by-sa that they also make it
eligible for Wikipedia.
Offer a tickbox for asking Wikipedia reviewers to check your image,
2009/9/7 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com:
Is it possible to keep my proposal intact and address those issues?
Yes. Just put (This will allow your image to be used on Wikipedia)
next to the CC-BY-SA option.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Domas Mituzasmidom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard,
Remember, the Signpost is an en.wp publication. It is not really the
place
to announce such things.
it is up for Signpost editors if they want to include it or not. Not
your business :)
BR,
I guess I
**
____ _ __ _
/ / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___
\ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \
\ /\ /| | | |/ /| | | | | __/
\/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___|
.org
Year: 2009 Week: 34-35
A CC violation is not everyone's business. If A infringes on B's CC copyright,
and party C pokes A about it, A can tell C to bugger off. It's like filing a
DMCA notice when you don't own the work. Licensing is an agreement between two
entities, not the community.
It still isn't the place of a third party to police someone else's copyrights.
From: Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:32:09 PM
Subject: Re:
Bod Notbod wrote:
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
The problem with that kind of simplified explanation of what
CC-BY-SA means is that content that is licensed for use on
Wikipedia will be rejected
35 matches
Mail list logo
