Re: [Commons-l] Picture of the Year 2015 Results
Interesting - in order, the top twelve are: * from a public domain source (NASA) * from Wiki Loves Monuments * from Flickr under a CC license * from Wiki Loves Monuments * a normal Commons upload * from a public domain source (NASA) * from Flickr under a CC license * from Flickr under a CC license * from Wiki Loves Earth * made with the support of WMSE * a normal Commons upload * from the UK government via the Open Government License Nice demonstration of how diverse our sources are - two 'normal' uploads, three from contests, one supported by a chapter, three from Flickr under CC, two in the public domain from NASA, and one from a government open-license release. Andrew. On 10 June 2016 at 17:29, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote: > Dear Wikimedians, > > > The tenth Picture of the Year competition (2015) has ended and we are > pleased to announce the results: > In both rounds, people voted for their favorite media files. > > In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. > In the second round, people voted for the 56 finalists (the R1 top 30 > overall and top 2 in each category). > > > > We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these > beautiful media files and sharing them as freely licensed content: > > 658 people voted for the winner, File:Pluto-01 Stern 03 Pluto Color TXT.jpg > ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto-01_Stern_03_Pluto_Color_TXT.jpg ) > In second place, 617 people voted for File:Nasir-al molk -1.jpg > (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nasir-al_molk_-1.jpg) > In third place, 582 people voted for File:Heavens Above Her.jpg > (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heavens_Above_Her.jpg) > > > > See > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2015/Results > to view the top images » > > > We also sincerely thank to all voters for participating. We invite you to > continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work. > > > Thanks, > Steinsplitter on behalf of the Picture of the Year committee > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Co-ordinates for a path
I don't know if there's a best practice, but two options that come to mind: * Bounding box and centrepoint (as with a map); this has the disadvantage that it covers a lot of area and none of the coordinates listed might actually be anywhere near the ones seen on the film! On the other hand, it's certainly best for, say, a long series of S-shaped sampling tracks back and forth. (I should know what these are called) * An arbitrary point (say, midpoint of track) with other coordinates listed - say, start, end, points of particular interest. I'm not immediately sure if anything picks up coordinates mentioned in the file description, but at least they're there for future use as and when such tools appear. Andrew. On 10 May 2016 at 11:36, Richard Symonds wrote: > OK, can anyone answer my question? > > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia UK > 0207 065 0992 > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). > > Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over > Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. > > > On 10 May 2016 at 11:33, regu...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Because it doesnt work. Probably because my account is globally blocked to >> prevent me from improving the projects and to enforce my bullshit abusive >> ban on enwp.. >> >> >> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device >> >> >> -- Original message-- >> >> From: Nahid Sultan >> >> Date: Tue, May 10, 2016 6:28 AM >> >> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; >> >> Subject:Re: [Commons-l] Co-ordinates for a path >> >> >> There is a 'Unsubscribe' button at the bottom of every mail. Why don't you >> use that? >> >> --- >> >> Nahid Sultan >> User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation's public wikis >> Member of Wikimedia ombudsman commission >> Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh >> http://wikimedia.org.bd >> >> Facebook | Nahid Sultan >> Twitter | @nahidunlimited >> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 03:22:22 -0700 >> From: regu...@gmail.com >> To: richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk; commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Co-ordinates for a path >> >> Take me off these spam lists. Since editors arent wanted on the wmf >> projects and the wmf wants to enable bully behavior by admins I dont want to >> be spammed with this crap anymore. >> >> >> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device >> >> >> -- Original message-- >> >> From: Richard Symonds >> >> Date: Tue, May 10, 2016 5:18 AM >> >> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; >> >> Subject:[Commons-l] Co-ordinates for a path >> >> >> All, >> >> I have some videos of the seabed of the Dogger Bank, which includes some >> footage of wrecks on the bed, marine life, and parts of prehistoric >> settlements. >> >> I have the exact co-ordinates of the videos - however, because it's a >> video, the co-ordinates change over time, and the moving co-ordinates of the >> file can't really be entered into Commons - or can they? >> >> Can anyone help with this? * >> >> What's the best way to record the co-ordinates if they move over the >> duration of the video?* >> >> Richard Symonds >> Wikimedia UK >> 0207 065 0992 >> >> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and >> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. R egistered >> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. >> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia >> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who >> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). >> >> Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control >> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. >> >> >> ___Commons-l mailing >> listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> >> ___ >> Commons-l mailing list >> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> > > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] (no subject)
Hi Josephine, Looks really nice - congratulations! The autosuggested categories are a nice touch. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Four_quinces.jpeg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Embroidered_citation_needed_tag.jpeg Thanks, Andrew. On 17 February 2016 at 05:43, Josephine Lim wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been working on a project to improve the categorization of pictures in > the Upload to Commons Android app > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115101> as part of the Outreachy Dec '15 > program, which is soon drawing to an end. To summarize, 3 new features have > been implemented in this app: > > 1. If a picture with geolocation is uploaded, nearby category suggestions > are offered (based on the categories of other Commons images with similar > coordinates) > > 2. If a picture with no geolocation is uploaded, nearby category suggestions > are offered based on the user's current location. This is optional and only > works if enabled in Settings. > > 3. Category search (when typing in the search field) has been made more > flexible, whereas previously this was done solely by prefix search. E.g. now > searching for 'latte' should be able to return 'iced latte'. > > The latest version of the app is v1.11 and can be downloaded at > <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr.free.nrw.commons>. Please > feel free to leave feedback or bug reports at > <https://github.com/nicolas-raoul/apps-android-commons/issues>. > > I have had an amazing time working on this app as part of the Outreachy > program, and I greatly appreciate all the support and help that the WMF > community has given me. :) > > > Cheers! > > > -- > > Regards, > Josephine > > _______ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Fwd: Video view stats
Thought this might be of interest to commons-l as well... Andrew. -- Forwarded message -- From: Andrew Gray Date: 15 January 2016 at 09:28 Subject: Video view stats To: "A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics." Hi all, I hacked up a very quick count of the 2015 video viewing aggregate figures, using the data that Bartosz put together last year - with the caveat that the data only goes up to 10 December, but it's probably indicative of whole-year trends. I haven't yet tried to merge in the 11-31/12 data. Nothing very insightful but I don't recall seeing it done before, so it might be of interest! http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2016/most-popular-videos-on-wikipedia/ The headline figure is that we had about three billion (!!) video/audio plays during the year, and that some of the most popular items are insanely popular - the most popular was viewed an average of 42,000 times a day, every day. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] A new derivative/compilation court ruling
Perhaps of interest... A new (US) district court ruling on the distinction between a derivative work and a collection in the context of CC-BY-SA licenses - http://www.technollama.co.uk/us-court-interprets-copyleft-clause-in-creative-commons-licenses Looks like they came to the sensible decision - interpreting 'derivative' relatively narrowly. In this case, a CC-BY-SA image was used for the cover of a book and it was held that the license clearly did not extend to the rest of the book as a derivative work. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Help with a disappeared user account
The uploader is Ivdven (per file history) and this account seems normal - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ivdven However, they filled in the author field in the template as [[User:Inez|Inez]] - not sure why. This account doesn't exist. Andrew. On 14 May 2015 at 17:14, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > May someone help me to solve a mistery? > > For instance with this image: > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pont_sur_le_Rhone.jpg > > The account of the uploader doesn't exist. > > It's strange because I checked it immediately after the uploading. > > It's not one image that has this problem, other images of WLM CH 2014 has > some uploaders with no account. > > Regards > > -- > Ilario Valdelli > Wikimedia CH > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > Wikipedia: Ilario > Skype: valdelli > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli > Tel: +41764821371 > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] images
A note of caution: this material isn't really suitable for being dumped en masse into Commons just now. as it won't have much metadata beyond "an image, unidentified, from a book on subject X". See https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14595431897/ for an example of what the automated labelling is like. It's certainly useful to keep an eye on, but we'll need to hold off until some of the identification work has been done :-) We went through this with a similar collection from the British Library - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection - which is slowly being migrated, bit by bit. Andrew. On 29 August 2014 22:14, Fabrice Florin wrote: > Thanks, Gerard! > > This seems like a great idea. > > I believe that Liam Wyatt and Andrew Lih are reaching out to the project > leader, to see if he needs help uploading some of that content to Commons. > > Music to my ears :) > > > Fabrice > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: > > Hoi, > This article is of both interest to Commons and Wikipedia.. It is awesome. > Thanks, > GerardM > > http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28976849 > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > > > ___ > > Fabrice Florin > Product Manager, Multimedia > Wikimedia Foundation > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF) > > > > > _______ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] [Multimedia] Proposal: View Original File
On 24 May 2014 12:28, Samuel Klein wrote: > Rupert Thurner writes: >> View the original file plus older versions is, from a glam upload >> perspective, >> mandatory. > > I agree. Not merely "one more link", something central and obvious. > (Right now, that is the primary way to interact with image pages on > Commons: The largest active area on the page is the image, which when > clicked takes you to the original file.) I would agree that accessing the image description page/original image really needs to be more obvious than the buried "Commons" link (which is virtually invisible to anyone who doesn't know our site iconography). We've been telling people for years that if you keep clicking on the image file you'll get to our master copy in the end, so clicking on the expanded image seems a natural way to do it :-) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] [Multimedia] How to disable MediaViewer for some images
On 19 May 2014 14:50, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: >> There are images that do not use that syntax but we want to display them, >> for example infobox main images, gallery templates, images on the main >> page... > > But you could launch without the infobox images...? I think this would be pretty confusing - the infobox is the primary image for most articles (often the only one) and it would seem very strange to trigger it for other images but not this one. That said, a filter of: * is in one of the following "content" templates [infobox and variants]; or * is called with |thumb|; or * is in would seem to get most of the "content" images; the challenge would be building the template whitelist on a per-wiki basis. > Also the mediaviewer commons image parser doesnt work well for complex > pages, such as images typically seen on the frontpage of the projects. The > mediaviewer for Sitta europaea wildlife 2 1.jpg (on en.wp mp right now) only > gives the filename - the description is missing. This is indeed a complex image - the description seems to be embedded in a hand-coded table. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sitta_europaea_wildlife_2_1.jpg&action=edit IME, this is relatively unusual for frontpage highlighted images - they have rich metadata, certainly, but it's usually in a standardised form that the mediaviewer should be able to interpret. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files
Forwarding to commons-l. Andrew. -- Forwarded message -- From: Yael Meron Date: 3 April 2014 16:37 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files To: Wikimedia Mailing List After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule of the shorter term". Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion. Regards, Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Over 20000 maps released as CC0 by NY Public Library
Forwarding to Commons - some lovely material in here. Andrew. -- Forwarded message -- From: Charles Gregory Date: 1 April 2014 05:17 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Over 2 maps released as CC0 by NY Public Library To: Wikimedia Mailing List From the NYPL's blog - http://www.nypl.org/blog/2014/03/28/open-access-maps "The Lionel Pincus & Princess Firyal Map Division is very proud to announce the release of more than 20,000 cartographic works as high resolution downloads. We believe these maps have no known US copyright restrictions. To the extent that some jurisdictions grant NYPL an additional copyright in the digital reproductions of these maps, NYPL is distributing these images under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. The maps can be viewed through the New York Public Library's Digital Collections page, and downloaded (!), through the Map Warper" Regards, Charles / User:Chuq ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Challenge: develop tools to track and identify reuse of PD material
Here's an interesting project from the British Library - interesting both because people may wish to enter (there's £25000 available), and because it touches on a lot of the same questions we have about the value and impact of content donations http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2014/03/tracking-public-domain-re-use-in-the-wild.html https://ictomorrow.innovateuk.org/web/digital-innovation-contest-data/british-library The British Library has a large and growing collection of material in the public domain, available through online platforms, such as Flickr (www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary) and Wikimedia Commons, for anyone to use, remix and repurpose. However, once released online, the British Library has little way of following that content as it is re-used, which makes it difficult to measure any creative and economic benefit. The successful solution will allow public institutions to better quantify and optimise the economic impact of releasing content into the public domain (...) ---- -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] [Wikiversity-l] University engagement with Wikimedia projects
Depending on what you're looking for in particular, this may also be of some use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Participation_by_academic_projects (the EP material is mostly focused towards working with the educational side, rather than the research side) Andrew. On 8 March 2014 15:15, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Leigh Blackall, 28/05/2013 11:18: >> >> Hi folks. >> >> Who can point me to or suggest a process for a university wishing to >> engage Wikimedia projects? By that I mean initial consultation to get >> advice on how to consider and formulate an appropriate plan encompasing >> the alignment of policy and practices through to the use, development >> and production of content. We have ideas on what steps might be good, >> but I'm wanting suggestions and pointers from others. > > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Portal > > Nemo > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] The British Library releases 1 million images
Hi Lars, The original scans are large single-page TIFFs (or JP2? not immediately sure) from which these files were extracted - as you've noticed, they're not taken from the PDFs. The master images aren't available online, but I believe this is more for reasons of scale and size than from a desire to keep them protected - I know they've been made available to on-site researchers without any restrictions. You'd be best off contacting the BL team if you want access to the originals. For other items from the same book, use the imagesfrombook tag: http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/tags/imagesfrombook000507311/ Andrew. On 20 December 2013 19:50, Lars Aronsson wrote: > On 12/15/2013 05:08 PM, Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada wrote: >> >> Quote from full announcement >> http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html >> >> We have released over a million images >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary> onto Flickr Commons >> >> for anyone to use, remix and repurpose. These images were taken >> from the pages of 17th, 18th and 19th century books digitised by >> Microsoft >> >> <http://pressandpolicy.bl.uk/Press-Releases/The-British-Library-19th-Century-Book-Digitisation-Project-343.aspx> >> [...] >> >> >> >> Flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary >> Example of image http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11307195524/ >> Example of all images from a book >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/tags/sysnum002660292 >> Stuff for coders https://github.com/BL-Labs/imagedirectory > > > > I found an illustration from a Swedish book, found it in > the catalog of the British Library, and from there I could > both download a PDF and view the whole book in an > online 'item viewer'. > > However, the downloaded PDF has a much lower > resolution (I estimate it at 150 dpi) than the real scans > (which I estimate at 300 dpi). The illustrations on Flickr > are in full resolution. > > Has anybody found out how to download the whole > book in full resolution? The 'item viewer' appears to > be a Javascript zoom and pan interface based on > layers of 'tiles' (similar to OpenStreetMap), scaled > and cut from the scanned images. > > I had the same problem with books scanned by the > Norwegian national library, but there I was able to > figure out how to download images in full resolution > by requesting large tiles at full zoom. The URLs > used by the British Library are opaque to me. > > Here is the illustration found on Flickr, > http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11067189413/ > > The description there says 'page 331 of Elfsyssel', > Identifier: 000507311, an easily identifiable book. > > How can I search Flickr for other 'Elfsyssel' pictures? > This search yields nothing, > http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=elfsyssel > > The library catalog record is found here, > http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?mode=Basic&vid=BLVU1&vl%28freeText0%29=000507311&fn=search > > After I downloaded the PDF, I made the book > available for reading and proofreading here, > http://runeberg.org/elfsyssel/ > > The illustration (on "page 331") is here, > http://runeberg.org/elfsyssel/0331.html > but even if you select "full resolution" there, > you only get the image from the PDF, and > not the good picture from Flickr. > > > -- > Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) > Project Runeberg - free Nordic literature - http://runeberg.org/ > > > > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] The British Library releases 1 million images
Remember that while US caselaw is clear on this point, it is less clear-cut
elsewhere. We at WM tend to take a clear line that 2D reproductions are
ineligible, but it's not a guaranteed absolute truth, particularly in the
UK! We can predict how a court might rule... but they haven't yet, and
claiming copyright is a legally defensible position in many cases.
("Legally defensible" is not always "correct", of course...)
As a result, an explicit declaration is a positive thing and definitely
should not be discouraged.
A.
On 16 Dec 2013 04:57, "Robinson Tryon" wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
> > its more legal/copyright descriptive, that necessitates the wording than
> > just release them to the public which can still indicate they have
> > restrictions
>
> I guess I was just concerned that it was sending the wrong message re:
> the images, suggesting that the British Library had to put the images
> into the Public Domain because they (or some other entity) could still
> hold copyright to them.
>
> If it is unclear to the public that slavish reproductions of
> out-of-copyright 2D works are not themselves eligible for copyright,
> then perhaps we should work to improve that understanding. It's
> difficult for a member of the public to exercise his rights unless he
> knows to what he is entitled!
>
> --R
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] [Wikimedia-l] The British Library releases 1 million images
I was just about to respond with this :-) I discussed this with the BL team a few weeks before the release, and while we could sort out the technical issues of a million items fairly easily, it looked like the lack of metadata would make them very unsuited for Commons. There's nothing stopping us harvesting them individually, of course, but I think adding a million unidentified images and saying "the community will sort them out" would be a very quick road to my getting beaten up ;-) Andrew. On 15 December 2013 17:37, Jens Best wrote: > Just discovered a short note of Andrew Gray, why Flickr was preferred > instead of Commons. > http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2013/mechanical-curator-on-commons/ > > > 2013/12/15 Jens Best >> >> Thanks for the news. >> >> A question comes to my mind when I read this article: Why did the British >> Library use Flickr instead of Wikimedia Commons? Maybe it has to do >> something with a better usability of Flickr? - >> >> The usability of Wikimedia Commons most be increased to make it more >> attractive to individual and institutional users. Don't you think so? >> >> The next steps mentioned in the article indicates good opportunities for >> us to get involved and show the potential of an experienced platform for >> crowdsourcing information and knowledge: >> >> "We are looking for new, inventive ways to navigate, find and display >> these 'unseen illustrations'. and furtheron in the blogpost, "We plan to >> launch a crowdsourcing application at the beginning of next year, to help >> describe what the images portray. Our intention is to use this data to train >> automated classifiers that will run against the whole of the content." >> >> >> http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jens >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/12/15 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada >> >>> Quote from full announcement >>> >>> http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html >>> >>> We have released over a million >>> images<http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary>onto Flickr Commons >>> for anyone to use, remix and repurpose. These images >>> > were taken from the pages of 17th, 18th and 19th century books >>> > digitised >>> > by >>> > Microsoft<http://pressandpolicy.bl.uk/Press-Releases/The-British-Library-19th-Century-Book-Digitisation-Project-343.aspx>who >>> > then generously gifted the scanned images to us, allowing us to release >>> > them back into the Public Domain. The images themselves cover a >>> > startling >>> > mix of subjects: There are maps, geological diagrams, beautiful >>> > illustrations, comical satire, illuminated and decorative letters, >>> > colourful illustrations, landscapes, wall-paintings and so much more >>> > that >>> > even we are not aware of. >>> >>> >>> Flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary >>> Example of image http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11307195524/ >>> Example of all images from a book >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/tags/sysnum002660292 >>> Stuff for coders https://github.com/BL-Labs/imagedirectory >>> >>> So... :-) >>> ___ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Jens Best >> Präsidium >> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. >> web: http://www.wikimedia.de >> mail: jens.b...@wikimedia.de >> >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. >> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts >> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig >> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, >> Steuernummer 27/681/51985. > > > > > -- > -- > Jens Best > Präsidium > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. > web: http://www.wikimedia.de > mail: jens.b...@wikimedia.de > > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, > Steuernummer 27/681/51985. > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Fwd: [OSM-talk] ImageInOsm: a photomapping mobile application
Perhaps of some interest! Note that Commons support is apparently planned for future. Andrew. -- Forwarded message -- From: Gilles Bassière Date: 28 August 2013 15:58 Subject: [OSM-talk] ImageInOsm: a photomapping mobile application To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi All, I'd like to introduce ImageInOsm [1], a photomapping mobile application. The app is intended for on-the-field users. It is very easy to use (see screenshots [1]): 1. the user select an OSM object that he is seeing on the ground 2. he takes a picture of this object 3. the picture is sent to Flickr with the OSM id in the tags You can already try it: - for Android, just download and install this test package [2], - for iOS, we are unforunately not aware of any easy solution to publish a test package, you will have to build and install from the source code (you will need a Mac with the XCode software). Compared to traditionnal photomapping process, ImageInOsm promotes collaboration. Indeed, the pictures will not remain on a hard/flash drive, they will immediately be shared on the Web with metadata allowing others to find and use them. Please note that (as the name does NOT imply) pictures will not be stored on any OSM server. Instead, they will be sent to a 3rd-party server (Flickr, ...) under your own account. The sole innovation consists in linking the picture to the OSM object that it references. So far, the application only works with Flickr as a backend. The tagging convention used makes the pictures compatible with LizPOI [3] and OsmFlickr [4]. We hope that one day these pictures will be easily available in your editor (a JOSM plugin would do the job but we this is not on our roadmap, if anyone is interested). We are grateful to Jean-Louis Zimmermann from "Ville d'Orange" for having initiated and supported this project. Technically speaking, this app is built upon: - Cordova 3.0 - JavaScript + BackboneJS - HTML/CSS + Bootstrap 2.x Source code is available on Github [5], distributed under the Apache license 2.0. Of course, any contribution will be happily received: code, documentation, bug report, propositions, etc. We are aware that the project is not completely mature but the code is under active development. We are already planning the following updates: - support Wikimedia as a picture backend (ongoing development) - configurable filters for OSM objects so that users can make thematic campaign - improve user experience (see issues on GitHub) [1] http://naturalsolutions.**github.io/ImageInOsm/<http://naturalsolutions.github.io/ImageInOsm/> [2] http://depot.natural-**solutions.eu/ImageInOsm/**ImageInOsm-0.1.apk<http://depot.natural-solutions.eu/ImageInOsm/ImageInOsm-0.1.apk> [3] http://lizpoi.3liz.com/demo/**index.php/lizpoi/map/?tree_id=**1<http://lizpoi.3liz.com/demo/index.php/lizpoi/map/?tree_id=1> [4] http://www.3liz.com/blog/**rldhont/index.php?post/2013/** 02/18/OsmFlickr-:-Gestion-des-**liens-OpenStreetMap-Flickr<http://www.3liz.com/blog/rldhont/index.php?post/2013/02/18/OsmFlickr-:-Gestion-des-liens-OpenStreetMap-Flickr> [5] https://github.com/**NaturalSolutions/ImageInOsm/<https://github.com/NaturalSolutions/ImageInOsm/> Best regards Gilles Bassière NATURAL SOLUTIONS http://www.natural-solutions.**eu <http://www.natural-solutions.eu> __**_ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] WMF plans for a file feedback tool similar to ArticleFeedbackTool
This is linked (I am guessing) to an open RFC on Commons about such a tool, intended for opt-in use on specific collections (ie, those where we know there is a user or an external partner intending to do something with the responses) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_Comment/Feedback - I set it up in March, it got a trickle of (positive) feedback but has not had any comments since May/June. Thoughts appreciated. Andrew. On 2 August 2013 17:25, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > FYI > <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Engineering%2F2013-14_Goals&diff=753459&oldid=736806> > AFT is this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback > > Nemo > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Picturing Canada: historic Canadian photography now on Commons
Hi all, Today, the British Library announced the Picturing Canada project to mark Canada Day (1st July). Those of you who were at GLAM-Wiki in April may remember this collection: it's a digitisation of the Canadian Copyright Collection, 1895-1924, covering photographs deposited for copyright registration in Canada during this period. There's currently about 2,000 photographs, many of which are composites of multiple images stuck together; all are available as full-resolution TIFFs and JPEGs. There's more files still trickling up - including some interesting aerial photographs, panoramas, and a collection of official photographs from WWI - but almost all of the "general" images are now online, and we're now just adding the oddities. Including the official photographs, this will total around 4,000 works. Please do take a look - there's some marvellous material in there. WMF: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/01/picturing-canada/ (in English and French; translation by Benoit Rochon) BL: http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/americas/2013/07/happy-canada-day.html Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picturing_Canada Thanks to Wikimedia UK and the Eccles Centre for American Studies for funding this, and to Phil Hatfield at the British Library for championing the collection! Andrew. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?
On 2 March 2013 12:04, Fae wrote: > 2. Text on a memorial may be under its own copyright even though it is > on permanent public display, so the text itself must be demonstrably > out of copyright. This is a separate issue from the general FOP > provisions. If the text is incidental to the photograph, i.e. not a > close up and the text is effectively de minimus, then FOP is likely to > be valid. One other thing to remember: most of this text is fairly uncreative - in many cases, standard phrases or dates, and lists of names. We could make a reasonably good case that they are unlikely to be copyrightable texts regardless of age. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Time to test chunked uploading again
On 8 January 2013 20:04, Erik Moeller wrote: > > This has required some significant changes to the way uploads are > handled by the API to avoid timeouts, so it's likely to still be > fragile. Do play with it, and in particular comment on these bugs if > you have useful observations to share: > > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36587 > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36599 Thanks Erik - I've some large files to upload and I'll try them with this. Do you know if there's any chance it will be able to work with the API in future, for bot-assisted uploads? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] SearchExtraNs extension
I can imagine it being amazingly useful (particularly with autocompletion, but even without...). Alternatively, given the major role categories play for Commons compared to most mediawiki projects, is it possible to simply enable searching the category: namespace by default? - Andrew. On Friday, 2 November 2012, Erik Moeller wrote: > WikiVoyage has a small but clever extension to do quicker lookup of > pages in additional content namespaces if no namespace prefix is > provided. So if we used this for Commons, and configured "Category:" > as an extra lookup namespace, you could type "Low quality chemical > diagrams" and it'd pull up the category of that name immediately > without the full-text search being loaded. This appears to basically > be another solution to > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11380 > > The drawback is that it doesn't play nice with autocompletion and > other API consumers yet. Ideally I suspect you'd want autcompletion to > do lookup in multiple namespaces as well, and provide subtle namespace > hinting (as oposed to prefixing) in the dropdown, like so (where > CATEGORY would be in a smaller font). > > [ Low] > Low quality chemical diagramsCATEGORY > Lower Saxony > > Thoughts? Would this be a useful improvement for Commons in > particular, even without autocompletion? I suspect it could help > reduce some of the category/gallery pain. > > -- > Erik Möller > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Getting corporate representatives to donate photos
On 21 September 2012 09:15, John Vandenberg wrote: > Its already public > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2012-September/006693.html > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_in_Category:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Caf%C3%A9_Magazine There's a difference between "it's out there if you know where to look" and "we're actively drawing attention to it", though... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Getting corporate representatives to donate photos
One problem is that it's often not clear who actually *has* that authority in most organisations, even for someone within it. Where they deal with image licensing as a general rule (cultural institutions, publishers, media, etc) there'll usually be a system in place, but if not, the person we're dealing with will basically have to guess, or else keep referring it upwards until approved or, more likely, it vanishes into the ether. If they do take a gamble and release it, and someone later objects... well, it's very easy to say "sorry, it turns out I never had authority after all". The lack of any visible process makes this an eminently defensible position - who can challenge it, without knowing how that authority is laid out? A couple of probable rules of thumb for our own comfort: a) The more senior the contact (or the smaller the organisation they're in) the more likely they are to have authority; b) Any indication that a legal, publishing, or licensing department was involved, the more likely it is to be supported - Andrew. On Tuesday, 18 September 2012, David Gerard wrote: > On 18 September 2012 01:27, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > > > Just please make sure that whoever you talk to is actually authorized to > > legally donate the rights to the images. We've had several cases where > > someone at a company has donated a collection of images, but we later > had to > > delete them all because the representative didn't actually control the > > rights. PETA and Cafe Magazine are 2 examples I remember off the top of > my > > head. > > > Oh, ouch. Do we have writeups on said cases? What would constitute > sufficient evidence? > > > - d. > > ___ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights
On 9 April 2012 18:24, Platonides wrote: > I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on flickr > thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they can be > used now on Wikimedia Commons. > That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the license > was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it > isn't so bad to "lose" the images. This is an excellent suggestion - it solves several issues at once. As well as people who've set the "wrong" license ( = they probably didn't think it through) being able to fix it, it means that we do the nice and polite thing of actually telling people that their work was appreciated, that we're wanting to use it, etc. People like being told their images are being reused - I know that when someone left me a note on flickr to say that they'd copied my pictures to Commons, I was quite excited even when I had a vague feeling I should have uploaded them myself :-) And, of course, it promotes Commons to photographers... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Pics on Facebook
On 21 March 2012 23:07, Alhen wrote: > Will it be terribly bad to post Commons pictures on Facebook? User > jduranboger had the idea to promote Wikimedia Bolivia by posting a > different picture about Bolivia every week. Take a look at it here[1]. > > So, my question is if by doing this we fulfill the terms of cc-by-sa > 3.0 or is there a way to post facebook pages providing another way to > mention the author and the terms of the licence. Neat idea! I am no expert, but the current system you use of listing the author and license in the "image description" field, with links to Commons, should be fine. Readers do have to click through to see the author/license - on the other hand, they have to do this on Wikimedia projects as well, so we can't really complain! The only catch might be Facebook itself, which has in the TOS that: "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." I am not sure if *that* is CC-compatible... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Commons search function vs. Google
On 11 October 2011 16:53, WereSpielChequers wrote: > I don't know how Google does it, but I'd bet that our search prioritises by > word order in the description. So a description that starts Pearl Necklace > comes before "A white pearl necklace". If you amend the description them I > suspect the search results will change. There's some notes on the internals of Lucene-search here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Rainman/search_internals "Article content" presumably is the same as the image description in our context. I don't know quite what the "rank" metric would mean in the Commons context - presumably, only links from local pages on Commons count? It may be that more controversial images provoke more meta-discussion, with more links to them as a result (from talkpages, deletion discussions, etc) and so are more likely to appear "popular" to the search system, but that's just a guess. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Negative scanning (again)
On 27 July 2011 16:00, Daniel Schwen wrote: >>> I asked on this list a few years about negative scanning. The topic's >>> come up again at http://saveaussiemusic.org/ , so I wrote this up: > > I have quite a bunch of slides myself. And I was wondering how the > slide scanners stack up against photographing a projected slide. Dark > room, high quality screen, camera on a tripod, manual white balance, > exposure bracketing. This should give decent results with a good SLR. > Unfortunately I don't have my slides accessible right now. With a SLR, there's an even simpler approach for slides - you can get a simple slide duplicator, which is not very much more than a tube with a lens mount at one end and a clip for the slide at the other. Once you get suitably even lighting behind it, you're sorted - slide in, click, next slide, click, next slide, click. The image quality, when I tested this, seemed pretty good. Unfortunately, most of the duplicators on the market date from the film era, and so the focal length is off for a smaller digital sensor - it's going to give you a little crop of the centre of the slide. You could use a full-frame camera, if you have one lying around, or it's possible someone has made shorter APS-sized ones. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Nice icons...
On 7 October 2010 19:39, Paul Houle wrote: > There probably are thousands or tens of thousands of 'sharing' sites out > there, and you can't draw a clear line between ones that are "big > enough", the ones that are somebody's web-spam project (it isn't hard > to make a flock of electric sheep that can beat the average Digger at > the Turing Test), and ones that are just too little to matter... Not > without offending somebody, and in a consensus-driven organization, > that's a problem. As an example of this problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Booksources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GeoTemplate (These are enwp, but I'm sure other projects with similar things have similar issues) These two pages aim to provide something vaguely like the social-sharing links - in the first case, resolving an ISBN to a particular source for a book; in the second, resolving a set of coordinates to a mapping service. Both began with a handful of major services and rapidly grew; inevitably, there were kludgy attempts to come up with "most important" ones, arguments over how to order them, etc.; and by now, both are pretty unenticing to use. "Booksellers" is obviously a bigger pool than social networking sites or microblogging services or what have you, but I can certainly see Paul's point here that it's opening us up to a lot of potential hassle, and a lot of fuss from people who have very strong incentives to get their service listed. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Nice icons...
On 7 October 2010 14:23, Krinkle wrote: > Main reason being that, although the buttons are highly useful (and I > can't imagine any big usercase in which they would be unwanted), > so aside from that they are also in a very visible area that lots > of scripts, tools and applications do or could potentially use to > print their buttons and all sorts of triggers aswell. > In order to not further complicate that area (eg. "Oh I can't program > it here because some of the users of this particular script puts the > buttons there also.."); Now you mention it, I'm really surprised I haven't seen anything else using that big white-space area. But it seems a bit odd to keep it empty just in case someone else wants to use it, especially when making these prominent is so useful. A useful solution might be to implement an option to have the "normal" sharing buttons display below the images, and then anyone writing a script which wants to use the right-hand side can include the trigger for that function - move them out of the way in order to add in your new exciting rotation tool or what have you, but not affect them the rest of the time. As long as that second tool is itself an opt-in option, this wouldn't conflict too much... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Nice icons...
On 7 October 2010 09:05, Magnus Manske wrote: > By popular demand here :-) I have re-enabled the larger top/side > icons. It is easy to switch back and forth between them. Maybe a user > option? Or would that be overkill? I'm all in favour of keeping them on the left, though a user preference to optionally put them below would make sense. I'd certainly prefer we keep them prominent for non-registered users, ie the default view. (If memory serves, the interface is reversed when using RTL languages such as Arabic - what happens to the "left" buttons then?) My only quibble would be that the buttons look quite "rough" - the bottom one, information about reuse, is smooth and clean, but the top four are pixellated to some degree or another. I assume this is just an artifact of the original image size? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Problems using pictures from Commons in Blogger - making it more of a stock photo repository
On 28 September 2010 22:10, Magnus Manske wrote: > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inachis_io_qtl4.jpg?withJS=MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js > > Sincerely, > One Of The Few (TM) Magnus, you are if anything the All. It's marvellous! :-) I suppose the way to go from here would be to figure out where best to put it - underneath, with the full resolution link, or in the bar across the top above the image? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] not Djakota, IIP :-)
On 19 March 2010 02:35, Daniel Schwen wrote: > Hey, > inspired by the Djakota postig I whipped up a little wrapper around > IIP [1] and VIPS [2]. It is basically the same think as Djakota, but > as a compiled fast-cgi program (rather than Java). > > A couple of examples: > http://toolserver.org/~dschwen/iip/wip.php?f=LC-39_Observation_gantry_pano.jpg > http://toolserver.org/~dschwen/iip/wip.php?f=Chicago.jpg > http://toolserver.org/~dschwen/iip/wip.php?f=Seattle_7.jpg > > The examples use a flash viewer, but you can append &flash=no to the > urls to get a Javascript viewer. This is beautiful! I'm playing with it on an aging Windows machine, and I think it's smoother to view a large image via this tool than it is to open it locally and scroll across it :-) Does the processing and recompression cause any noticeable lack of fidelity, do you think? Working from a jpeg original, then converting to tiff and back again sounds like it might be problematic... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Djatoka
On 11 March 2010 09:58, Michael Peel wrote: > I would love to see something like Zoomify/SlippyMap for all image on > Commons (or even direct on Wikipedia) as a way of zooming in on > detail rather than needing to download the whole image - presumably > that's essentially what Djatoka does? There's a good article on the implementation of Djakota here: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september08/chute/09chute.html (I was very taken by it when I looked into it for a project at work a year or so back, but that sadly never got off the ground...) It seems that the main benefit of Djakota is that it's an elegant and open-source front end built upon JPEG 2000; it's this, the actual image format, which allows things like progressive loading from set coordinates within the image rather than downloading the entire file. You need the software to handle them, but you're not tied to a specific implementation. If we can generate these source files (there are vague worries about licensing, but to my untrained eye it seems okay) and store them without size issues then we'd have two options: * run a seperate system for viewing very large files, which we hand the user off to, perhaps in a popup window; run this on Djakota or something very like it, hosted locally, and make it seem as seamless as possible * integrate the "image browser" into MediaWiki itself, like we integrate the existing media players. Technically, I have no idea which of those would be more desireable or less headachey - anyone? I do agree entirely that something like this is quite desirable; even if we don't have many individual items requiring this sort of capability now, build it and they will come... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] [WikiEN-l] Images that are PD in their country of origin
On 10 February 2010 13:38, Eusebius wrote:
> Author date of death is a needed (crucial) parameter as well.
> Of course it will not cover all cases (unless you want to add parameters
> saying stupid things such as whether the author died for France in wartime),
> but neither does PD-old.
Yeah, I omitted that because it wasn't in the original example :-)
{{copyright
|date=whenever
|author=NAME
|died=whenever
...
}}
- there's an awful lot of cases we could use, but I suppose the best
approach would be to construct it for only one jurisdiction and build
outwards from there.
The obvious source for the workflows here is something like the public
domain calculator projects -
http://wiki.okfn.org/PublicDomainCalculators
I don't know how practical this is to run in template-code, though.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] External click logging
2009/11/19 Tim Starling : > Magnus Manske wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> as promised on the meeting, I wrote a small JavaScript/Toolserver >> setup that can log clicks on Commons leading to external pages. > > I believe this would be a violation of Wikimedia's privacy policy. If it contains no explicitly private information (no username) and isn't linked to any other log entries (no "person 489272 clicked the following links...") - and from the way Magnus describes it this seems to be the case - then it seems to me like it wouldn't, because no data can be linked to a user in any reasonable or consistent manner. That said, IANAL. ;-) (It is pushing into the area where we do need to be aware of privacy concerns, though!) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Growth of Commons traffic
2009/11/9 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > According to the statistics, the traffic of Commons grew last month by 35% > to 268 M. This makes it in traffic bigger then the German Wikipedia.. The > German Wikipedia is our third biggest Wikipedai... Does anybody have a clue > what is happening. Is there a potential for a similar sized growth next > month ?? The report from Paris earlier today mentioned that global usage details are now becoming available for Commons images. Might this have some kind of impact on the Commons usage statistics - has it altered the way they're calculated in any way? http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm Alternatively, it might just be a statistical blip. Wikisource jumped by 60% in September and then reverted; Wikispecies had a similar jump and fall in March. de.wp, looking more widely, did the same last December. We'll know for sure next month :-) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Archive pictures of North East Midlands, England
2009/8/10 Andrew Turvey : > That's interesting. How does this apply to the National Portrait Gallery > images then? These were copies of a British digitization which, under UK > copyright law, qualifies as a new item subject to copyright. ...to be more accurate, *maybe* it does. The law is distinctly vague on this; the statute leans one way, the caselaw leans the other, and common sense shakes its head and gives up. Good arguments either way, both on legal grounds and those of public policy, but no clear statement; and that is sadly the limbo it will remain in until someone goes to court. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues
2009/3/22 Liam Wyatt : > The original painting is certainly NOT public domain - but what about the > copyright status of a photograph that you or I might take of that painting? > That is the question. You can't turn a copyrighted work into a free one by... *making a copy of it*. Once you put it like that, it seems quite simple :-) Unfortunately, explaining that has historically been an uphill struggle! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Rare trove of US Army Medical Photos Heads to Flickr
2009/3/18 geni : > 2009/3/18 Durova : >> http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/medarchives.html >> >> Why is Flickr--a for-profit site--getting this rather than Commons? > > Becuase they have the rescources to have people working full time > developing the contacts needed to get this kind of thing. Judging by the story, this was done entirely unofficially by one guy there - I don't think it's a matter of "developing contacts" so much as he wanted to release them, and he happened to choose to do it on flickr. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Image moving enabled for sysops
2009/3/17 Bryan Tong Minh : > A quick heads up: Image moving has been enabled for sysops per > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15842 Oh, excellent. Is there somewhere central we can submit images that need retitling? There's a few which I've been meaning to do something about for a long time... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] A database of 3, 998, 093 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute.
2009/3/3 David Gerard : > We are going to hit 4 million files some time this evening. Probably > worth a quick press release, or at least WMF blog post. Is there > anything to note that hasn't been in previous ones? The Bundesarchiv donation? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] File deletion / copyvio.s and stuff
2009/1/29 private musings : > .it's illegal to break copyright, right? - and if an article, or image > on a wikimedia foundation project breaks copyright then it gets deleted. I > just wonder how the copyright owner feels about the article / image still > being available to over a thousand (and growing) number of unidentified > people - that's illegal, right? I think the practical explanation is - no, it's reasonable fair use :-) This content are available to admins, rather than just outright wiped, for administrative reasons; it's occasionally necessary to go back and check details about them, use them to confirm that a later image is also a copyvio, etc. Retaining them in this limbo, arguably, could tend to decrease the amount of copyright-violating material that is still available... The analogy that seems appropriate is that we, a publisher, have stopped printing copies of the offending documents - but we've kept a photocopy in our files so that our workers have a record of the mistake and can consult it later if need be... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
[posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to wikisource-l, perhaps?] I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july08/hirtle/07hirtle.html Copyright Renewal, Copyright Restoration, and the Difficulty of Determining Copyright Status - Peter B. Hirtle, Cornell University D-Lib Magazine, July/August 2008 Volume 14 Number 7/8 "It has long been assumed that most of the works published from 1923 to 1964 in the US are currently in the public domain. Both non-profit and commercial digital libraries have dreamed of making this material available. Most programs have recognized as well that the restoration of US copyright in foreign works in 1996 has made it impossible for them to offer to the public the full text of most foreign works. What has been overlooked up to now is the difficulty that copyright restoration has created for anyone trying to determine if a work published in the United States is still protected by copyright. This paper discusses the impact that copyright restoration of foreign works has had on US copyright status investigations, and offers some new steps that users must follow in order to investigate the copyright status in the US of any work. It argues that copyright restoration has made it almost impossible to determine with certainty whether a book published in the United States after 1922 and before 1964 is in the public domain. Digital libraries that wish to offer books from this period do so at some risk." The minefield is even murkier than we thought, it seems. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] 100k image donation to Wikimedia Commons
2008/12/3 Mathias Schindler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear Commonists, > > Starting on Thursday Dec 4, Wikimedia Commons will witness a massive > upload of new images. We are anticipating about 100.000 files from a > donation from the German Federal Archive. These images are mostly related to > the history of Germany (including the German Democratic Republic) and > are part of a cooperation between Wikimedia Germany and the Federal Archive. Oh, this is excellent news - 100,000! Is there any chance you could give us a better idea about the general scope of this content? I'm particularly curious as to: * what periods are covered; is it heavily post-1945, or is there substantial earlier content? * will we get a lot of illustrations of individuals? * are there any particular thematic collections? > These images are licensed cc-by-sa. Wikimedia Germany and the Federal > Archive have signed a cooperation agreement that, among other things, > asserts that the Federal Archive owns sufficient rights to be able to > grant this kind of license. ...and *this* is a very useful thing to have had explicitly stated. Rights problems are now firmly their responsibility :-) As to the image size issue: yeah, 800px isn't wonderful. It's better than a lot of the images we currently have, though, and it's *certainly* better than no freely-licensed picture at all - which is probably going to be the case for a lot of this material, especially if we get a good load of photographs of individuals... -- - Andrew Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] LIFE photo archive hosted by Google
2008/11/19 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/11/19 Michael Galpert | Aviary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> dont think that applies across the board since some of these images are >> being published for the first time > > Really? I thought the published/unpublished distinction didn't affect > that in US law. > > (I'm sure someone has full legal details to hand ...) It is indeed *published* before 1923, though we've been a bit vague about confirming this in the past. There's a very useful table of such things here: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ However, archives like these are still very useful - if it was made before 1923 for a news magazine, odds are high it were published quite promptly, and it's often a lot easier to take their image and confirm with a pre-1923 source than it is to ferret out the source and scan from scratch... -- - Andrew Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
