[Foundation-l] Project Proposal: WikiGuide
Please consider this proposal for the WikiGuide project: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGuide The goal of WikiGuide is to be a place for valid information that can't be accepted at other WikiMedia sites due to various quality guidelines, and to clarify some of the more confusing articles in Wikipedia and other projects. (Details can be found at the actual proposal, of course.) Thank you! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: George Herbert wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: [...] And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly. Please stop using this example. You're living in California again; recall that the earth does crack open here at regular intervals. If you keep saying it enough it will come true, and then you'll be Prophet Mike, and we'll all be doomed. You may be thinking about another Usenet legend,, you are talking to Mike Godwin, not James D. Nicoll of the Nicoll Event fame. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen Are you suggesting I don't remember my formative net years, Jussi? I'm far too young for Alzheimers, but old enough that the Morris Worm was a firsthand experience... I remember Mike from before the Law. Long before the Law. I know James Nicoll. I helped untangle Kent Paul Dolan's stunt with the speculative fiction newsgroups. .cabal and sci.physics.edward.teller.boom.boom.boom were a couple of my pranks... Yes, I murdered B-news. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hello -- Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread. Yes, but the opinion on what makes a readable reply may differ from person to person. This makes for far more noise than signal, True as people wade through six copies of the foundation-l footer Footers should of course be kept brief and to the point, else they become irritating.. Our current footer can probably be reduced to 1 or 2 lines. or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the content of the reply to the previous message. Good practice imho is to leave only the previous text, but delete all text before the previous message. This is easiest when people use top-line posting. But I must confess that I have not always done that in the past. The Toolserver wiki has a fantastic page that explains how to reply to a mailing list thread the Right Way.[1] If you suspect you've been Doing It Wrong, please have a read. See my reply further down. Thanks! MZMcBride [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette Thank you for providing the link. I think this policy must be discussed, as many people will prefer top-line posting, as shown by its popularity on this mailing list.. Inline posting, as demonstrated by this reply, may well obscure the orginal message. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
Was that supposed to be an example of a terrible use of inline posting? If so, ha, great job, I couldn't even figure out what was written by you and what was written by Mr. McBride. BTW, this is supposed to be an example of a good use of top posting. But in the end, you're just not going to forcibly change the posting habits of others, so I've found it best to just learn to deal with them. Or ignore them depending on how bad it is. This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:58 AM, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hello -- Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand how to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread. Yes, but the opinion on what makes a readable reply may differ from person to person. This makes for far more noise than signal, True as people wade through six copies of the foundation-l footer Footers should of course be kept brief and to the point, else they become irritating.. Our current footer can probably be reduced to 1 or 2 lines. or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the content of the reply to the previous message. Good practice imho is to leave only the previous text, but delete all text before the previous message. This is easiest when people use top-line posting. But I must confess that I have not always done that in the past. The Toolserver wiki has a fantastic page that explains how to reply to a mailing list thread the Right Way.[1] If you suspect you've been Doing It Wrong, please have a read. See my reply further down. Thanks! MZMcBride [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette Thank you for providing the link. I think this policy must be discussed, as many people will prefer top-line posting, as shown by its popularity on this mailing list.. Inline posting, as demonstrated by this reply, may well obscure the orginal message. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what. Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
On 31 March 2010 14:43, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what. Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing. I am still uncertain whether his comment that it was an example of a 'good toppost' was a joke, because I am getting that feeling. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
MZMcBride wrote: This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of the foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the content of the reply to the previous message. I've pretty much be ignoring this thread, and mark everything as read on arrival. However I'll just like to point out that this attempt to increase signal to noise have now resulted in at present count 29 (yes including mine) pretty much pointless emails... KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons Usability
Hoi, I am quite pleased to correct you because you are wrong. The usability initiative is based on the findings of usability tests that indicated many issues with the old user interface. Some of these are cosmetic but that does not make the change any less effective. The objective of the usability initiative is officially to improve the English Wikipedia. As such it does not address the many issues that exist with Wikimedia Commons. They are to be addressed with a follow up project that aims to improve the usability of Commons. Even though the English Wikipedia is the target of this first project, this initiative provides real benefits for Wikipedias in other languages. A recent addition in functionality is support for the characters used in the Bengali language (Hebrew is already supported). It has been observed that it order to improve the usability, it is essential that the software that makes up the Usability Initiative is localised. This is done best at http://translatewiki.net . You can help yourself and your language community to check out the status for your language. The choice of Commons and the English Wikipedia is in my opinion opportune because it not only prepares the way for the implementation on all the other Wikipedias, it also functions as a reminder how important it is to get the localisation of MediaWiki and its extensions done. Finally this new functionality and skin provides the basis on which the work for Commons will be build. Thanks, GerardM On 31 March 2010 17:34, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.ilwrote: Hi. If i understand correctly - and please correct me if i'm wrong - the current big Usability project is essentially a rather cosmetic change of the default skin. It is not really bad and i'm not really opposed to it, as many other users are, but it seems that it doesn't address a very big usability problem - the fact that Wikimedia Commons is hardly accessible for people who don't English well. Sure, it's possible to translate to translate templates and system messages to other languages and set the default language in the preferences, but this is very far from actually achieving the goal of making Commons the main media repository for all other WMF projects in all languages. And it's kinda symbolic that Commons will be the first project where the default skin will be switched. Now, before i start writing about the problems that i found in detail, this is probably something that was already discussed. If it indeed was, please point me to it (thanks in advance). If it was not discussed deeply, i'll probably start a discussion page somewhere. -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarify and announce a few things on the way the dilemma is presently being handled. First off, we have not yet made any final decisions; the topic is still open for discussion at the Swedish village pump. No changes have yet been widely implemented. As a background it is important to know that there is an almost unchallenged consensus on Swedish Wikipedia not to allow fair use imagery, in part because the fair use concept is not applicable in Swedish law, Sweden being of course home soil for a majority of the users. It's been years since we blocked local media upload, now depending solely on Commons. This means, as far as I am aware, that the WMF logos are the only pictures used on Swedish Wikipedia that are not being spread under a free license, free in this case concerning copyright of course, and not trademark or personality rights (making comparisons to proper names irrelevant to the discussion). The use of these logos are thus the only thing standing in the way of stating that all material from Swedish Wikipedia can be freely reused, without any further permission. (The license template on the WMF logos reserve all rights and call for specific permission for use.) The argument is not, and has never been, whether or not we are allowed to use the logos. Some users on Swedish Wikipedia as well as in this thread have given replies suggesting that they think that is what the issue is about. It is not. The issue is whether it is compliable with the principles of Wikipedia to include copyrighted material, which may not be re-used by others. I suppose that this dilemma is less problematic in jurisdictions that implement a fair use system, but where such are not present a copyrighted picture may not be freely redistributed. The current discussion on Swedish Wikipedia is divided into three main branches: 1. Should we keep even the Wikipedia logo in the top left corner? 2. Should we keep the WMF logos of navigation templates placed in articles? 3. Should we illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects with the logos? The discussions have, as far as I can tell, led to a near consensus yes for question 1, with the rationale that the picture is part of the GUI rather than of the article, and a near consensus no for number 3. Most of a lengthy debate has been over discussion number 2. The opinions on how to relate to number two diverge greatly. Some of us, including myself, would prefer to have all WMF logos removed from article space, including template use, making it free to redistribute printouts and PDF:s from Wikipedia articles. Some argue that since WMF will not pursuit any copyright breaches, we don't need to bother. This viewpoint is supported by those who think that the usability of the logos is too important to let the copyright issues take effect. A few have, in support of status quo, stated that there may be more to it, legally, than we know, but such claims have yet to be supported. For some users a main perspective is that of NPOV. They argue that since no other external links are supported by pictures, neither should the links to sister projects be. Also, since no other copyrighted logo are allowed, neither should WMF:s logos be. To some of these users, the use of the logos in well framed templates is agreeable, since this implies that the links are part of the GUI rather than of the article itself. Right now it seems like one of two suggestions will be the result of the discussions. Either (1.) to allow the WMF logos in a few specific navigation templates. These may be javascript-controlled to exclude the logos from printouts and PDF:s. This has been tested and seems to work. The second (2.) solution discussed is to implement a separate section for sister project links, including logos, in the GUI menu section on the left. I hope that I, despite having made rather clear stands on the issue, have managed to convey a fair description of the discussion. /David Castor ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
2010/3/31 Petr Kadlec petr.kad...@gmail.com: On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) specifically permits project communities to develop exemptions, with logos being listed as an example. So are you saying that a Wikipedia community is allowed to develop an EDP saying that _logos_ received from 3rd party owners under, say, CC-BY-ND [and possibly even -NC, but let's not get to the problems with that] are acceptable? I was told that this is not correct and the resolution allows only for EDP recognizing copyright limitations existing in national copyright laws (even though I do not see this in the resolution text). No, EDPs do indeed have to be grounded in the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project. But an EDP which recognizes those limitations only for logos of organizations whose trademark policies explicitly acknowledge reasonable uses of their marks within the confines of those limitations (as the WMF trademark policy does) would be acceptable, as would be one which recognizes them only for WMF's logos (for all the reasons that have already been given to make such an exception). -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send this some 50 messages ago. :| MarianoC.- --- El mié 31-mar-10, David Castor e-p...@pastorcastor.se escribió: De: David Castor e-p...@pastorcastor.se Asunto: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia Para: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: miércoles, 31 de marzo de 2010, 13:40 My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarify and announce a few things on the way the dilemma is presently being handled. First off, we have not yet made any final decisions; the topic is still open for discussion at the Swedish village pump. No changes have yet been widely implemented. As a background it is important to know that there is an almost unchallenged consensus on Swedish Wikipedia not to allow fair use imagery, in part because the fair use concept is not applicable in Swedish law, Sweden being of course home soil for a majority of the users. It's been years since we blocked local media upload, now depending solely on Commons. This means, as far as I am aware, that the WMF logos are the only pictures used on Swedish Wikipedia that are not being spread under a free license, free in this case concerning copyright of course, and not trademark or personality rights (making comparisons to proper names irrelevant to the discussion). The use of these logos are thus the only thing standing in the way of stating that all material from Swedish Wikipedia can be freely reused, without any further permission. (The license template on the WMF logos reserve all rights and call for specific permission for use.) The argument is not, and has never been, whether or not we are allowed to use the logos. Some users on Swedish Wikipedia as well as in this thread have given replies suggesting that they think that is what the issue is about. It is not. The issue is whether it is compliable with the principles of Wikipedia to include copyrighted material, which may not be re-used by others. I suppose that this dilemma is less problematic in jurisdictions that implement a fair use system, but where such are not present a copyrighted picture may not be freely redistributed. The current discussion on Swedish Wikipedia is divided into three main branches: 1. Should we keep even the Wikipedia logo in the top left corner? 2. Should we keep the WMF logos of navigation templates placed in articles? 3. Should we illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects with the logos? The discussions have, as far as I can tell, led to a near consensus yes for question 1, with the rationale that the picture is part of the GUI rather than of the article, and a near consensus no for number 3. Most of a lengthy debate has been over discussion number 2. The opinions on how to relate to number two diverge greatly. Some of us, including myself, would prefer to have all WMF logos removed from article space, including template use, making it free to redistribute printouts and PDF:s from Wikipedia articles. Some argue that since WMF will not pursuit any copyright breaches, we don't need to bother. This viewpoint is supported by those who think that the usability of the logos is too important to let the copyright issues take effect. A few have, in support of status quo, stated that there may be more to it, legally, than we know, but such claims have yet to be supported. For some users a main perspective is that of NPOV. They argue that since no other external links are supported by pictures, neither should the links to sister projects be. Also, since no other copyrighted logo are allowed, neither should WMF:s logos be. To some of these users, the use of the logos in well framed templates is agreeable, since this implies that the links are part of the GUI rather than of the article itself. Right now it seems like one of two suggestions will be the result of the discussions. Either (1.) to allow the WMF logos in a few specific navigation templates. These may be javascript-controlled to exclude the logos from printouts and PDF:s. This has been tested and seems to work. The second (2.) solution discussed is to implement a separate section for sister project links, including logos, in the GUI menu section on the left. I hope that I, despite having made rather clear stands on the issue, have managed to convey a fair description of the discussion. /David Castor ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, David Castor e-p...@pastorcastor.se wrote: My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarify and announce a few things on the way the dilemma is presently being handled. Thank you, David, for the very clear explanation of the issues at hand. I'm sure all of us who don't speak Swedish appreciate having the facts, rather than having to rely on the collective speculation/conjecture of a mailing list. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
Mariano Cecowski hett schreven: Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send this some 50 messages ago. :| I doubt that that would have spared you from receiving the 50 messages. Almost all of the facts presented by David were known right at the start of the discussion or were easy to find for anybody who cared to look. It was not lack of information that produced the 50 messages. It's just that people disagree about the conclusions drawn from the facts. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hi there, I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia. In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and they are not checked. People can just upload any and all maps that they somehow created themselves, even if they are derived from works that clearly do not allow a creativecommons sharealike processing of them. In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Why is this permitted and encouraged in wikipedia but forbidden in openstreetmap? Is there any chance of aligning the policies so that we can use the map material in wikipedia for openstreetmap? Do you want to start enforcing stricter checking of the sources of maps? The idea is that Wikipedia is to host free knowledge, but what good is this knowledge of the world (maps) if we cannot use it? If wikipedia were to enforce the same standards for maps, there would be very few maps available in it. thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's position is copyrightable? Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, as an entirety is copyrightable. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hoi, In Wikipedia we have many subjects that have geo coordinates associated with them. They are facts. Facts cannot be copyrighted. When these facts are harvested by data mining Wikipedia, you do not have a derived work from what is the origin of these facts, you have a new collection of facts and as such people could attempt to copyright such a collection. Such a collection however is obvious and does not require any originality. Consequently a subsequent accumulation of facts may be slightly different and illustrated the absurdity of claiming a copyright on such a collection. I have been blogging about maps and Wikipedia recently, two applications were described; a map with references to Wikipedia articles and a map with Wikipedia articles looking for an illustration. In my opinion is a blanket prohibition of maps based on information of Wikipedia plain silly. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com On 31 March 2010 21:20, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi there, I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia. In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and they are not checked. People can just upload any and all maps that they somehow created themselves, even if they are derived from works that clearly do not allow a creativecommons sharealike processing of them. In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Why is this permitted and encouraged in wikipedia but forbidden in openstreetmap? Is there any chance of aligning the policies so that we can use the map material in wikipedia for openstreetmap? Do you want to start enforcing stricter checking of the sources of maps? The idea is that Wikipedia is to host free knowledge, but what good is this knowledge of the world (maps) if we cannot use it? If wikipedia were to enforce the same standards for maps, there would be very few maps available in it. thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
(This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly one that involves inherent pictorial or photographic nature. It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about geographic relationships, and the accuracy of this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its nature. See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is absurdity is itself wrong. -Dan On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's position is copyrightable? Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, as an entirety is copyrightable. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons Usability
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 19:30, Guillaume Paumier gpaum...@wikimedia.org wrote: I invite you to read http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:About for a summary. All the documentation is published on the usability wiki, so you can dive as deep as you like from the Multimedia hub: http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:Hub Thanks, that's exactly what i was looking for. -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dan Rosenthal wrote: (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly one that involves inherent pictorial or photographic nature. It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about geographic relationships, and the accuracy of this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its nature. See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is absurdity is itself wrong. -Dan If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of maps themselves, but the copyrightability of location data pertaining to digital maps, i.e. the very non-pictoral fact compilations mentioned in the statement you provided. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuzrj8ACgkQyQg4JSymDYlH7QCgr1DgqtHsBTSwjTDXI9OqB+qS Y3UAn0a3klujZC32BwatqspcFE8WxOjP =yBeQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore copyrightable and I would think that openstreetmap should both be able to use those and should use those. I don't totally understand the thought process behind not allowing them to use actual geo locations from wikipedia. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :) On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly one that involves inherent pictorial or photographic nature. It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about geographic relationships, and the accuracy of this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its nature. See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is absurdity is itself wrong. -Dan On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's position is copyrightable? Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, as an entirety is copyrightable. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Sorry. they are facts and therefore NOT copyrightable. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore copyrightable and I would think that openstreetmap should both be able to use those and should use those. I don't totally understand the thought process behind not allowing them to use actual geo locations from wikipedia. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :) On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.comwrote: (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly one that involves inherent pictorial or photographic nature. It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about geographic relationships, and the accuracy of this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its nature. See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is absurdity is itself wrong. -Dan On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's position is copyrightable? Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, as an entirety is copyrightable. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hoi. The facts harvested from Wikipedia have to be compiled in order to be used in an overlay. The format of the overlay may be determined by the application that uses such an overlay. The process of creating such an overlay however is mechanical, slavish, it has no relation whatsoever with the map it is used upon either pictorial or photographic. The same data can be used to generate an overlay for another map application. It would be created in a similar mechanical, slavish way. The notion that the facts used in such a way are copyrighted because they are used as an overlay on something pictorial or photographic is unlikely to hold. Thanks, GerardM On 31 March 2010 22:12, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly one that involves inherent pictorial or photographic nature. It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about geographic relationships, and the accuracy of this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its nature. See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is absurdity is itself wrong. -Dan On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's position is copyrightable? Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, as an entirety is copyrightable. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Now some background : Today, I found a map of Albania with no sources mentioned , and currently I am working on mapping Albania. That is why I bring this up. With all these maps in wikipedia, how can the authors possible be the creators of the whole map, there are very few cases of maps that are usable under a creative commons sharealike license, and wikipedia seems to have many of them that might be infringing. About the point extraction, I started to extract points months ago to import into OSM, but I stopped because of concerns about importing from google data. Now on the issue is that of derived works and tracing, feature extraction. let me quote wikipedia on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth Currently, every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides. On the the other side , may of the geoeye licenses who provide information to google maps have this clause: http://gs.mdacorporation.com/products/sensor/irs/GeoEyeEULATier2007.pdf Other Derived Works (vector extraction, classification, etc.) have no restrictions on use and distribution. Reduced resolution data sets (RRDS) with ratios of 16:1 or higher shall have no restrictions on use and distribution, but shall contain the copyright markings. The google maps TOS: http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html 2. Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: (a) access or use the Products or any Content through any technology or means other than those provided in the Products, or through other explicitly authorized means Google may designate (such as through the Google Maps/Google Earth APIs); (b) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof; --- Well we are copying the location of items from google. (c) redistribute, sublicense, rent, publish, sell, assign, lease, market, transfer, or otherwise make the Products or Content available to third parties; (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data; ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import. (f) delete, obscure, or in any manner alter any warning, notice (including but not limited to any copyright or other proprietary rights notice), or link that appears in the Products or the Content; or (g) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device; or (ii) any systems or functions for automatic or autonomous control of vehicle behavior. --- So the navigation functions from openstreetmap coupled with points of interest from wikipedia could fall under that. So, I think that the usage of the google maps is very restricted and we should look into this more. thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data; ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import. Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use them. Start here on my page of genealogy tools http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources Near the top there's a link to the USGS called Find a Town which takes you here http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=127:1:1089405488282263 You can look for more than just towns, for example airports, cemeteries, creeks, whatever. For example look for Baptist in Arkansas, Hempstead County and you get eighteen entries with latitude and longitude for the Baptist churches. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
The use of the google maps (and other copyrighted maps) are restricted and derivatives of those maps similarly restricted. However what the actual geo points that you may get from those systems are not restricted (because they are not copyrightable). It is an understandable confusion to be honest, they understandably try to claim copyright over any derivative they possibly can, the fact remains In many ways them attempting to claim copyright over any derivative work isn't a problem (in this regard) because they just can't claim copyright over those points. Well they can CLAIM whatever they want but a copyright claim on the geo points is useless, as W.J said you can also get them from USGS or other sources if you'd prefer but I wouldn't be worried about it (and I don't think we should change our stance on it). The issue of being worried about actual maps being uploaded under the wrong license is completely understandable and a separate issue, I know I've nominated at least a couple that I found to be from a source that wasn't free and is definitly something we need to be watchful for. I do know though that there are alot up there that are based on free USGS maps and the like that ARE legitimate (though they should say where they are derived from. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :) On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Now some background : Today, I found a map of Albania with no sources mentioned , and currently I am working on mapping Albania. That is why I bring this up. With all these maps in wikipedia, how can the authors possible be the creators of the whole map, there are very few cases of maps that are usable under a creative commons sharealike license, and wikipedia seems to have many of them that might be infringing. About the point extraction, I started to extract points months ago to import into OSM, but I stopped because of concerns about importing from google data. Now on the issue is that of derived works and tracing, feature extraction. let me quote wikipedia on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth Currently, every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides. On the the other side , may of the geoeye licenses who provide information to google maps have this clause: http://gs.mdacorporation.com/products/sensor/irs/GeoEyeEULATier2007.pdf Other Derived Works (vector extraction, classification, etc.) have no restrictions on use and distribution. Reduced resolution data sets (RRDS) with ratios of 16:1 or higher shall have no restrictions on use and distribution, but shall contain the copyright markings. The google maps TOS: http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html 2. Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: (a) access or use the Products or any Content through any technology or means other than those provided in the Products, or through other explicitly authorized means Google may designate (such as through the Google Maps/Google Earth APIs); (b) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof; --- Well we are copying the location of items from google. (c) redistribute, sublicense, rent, publish, sell, assign, lease, market, transfer, or otherwise make the Products or Content available to third parties; (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data; ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import. (f) delete, obscure, or in any manner alter any warning, notice (including but not limited to any copyright or other proprietary rights notice), or link that appears in the Products or the Content; or (g) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device; or (ii) any systems or functions for automatic or autonomous control of vehicle behavior. --- So the navigation functions from openstreetmap coupled with points of interest from wikipedia could fall under that. So, I think that the usage of the google maps is very restricted and we should look into this more. thanks, mike
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data; ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import. Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use them. I have imported all the geonames for the areas that I am interested in. That is not the issue. The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap. Now once you start to include points from google mapmaker it even gets more interesting. The content that is not available freely are things like business listings, touristic points of interest, locations of interesting buildings etc. I am sure there are a large number of those points that are not available from any free source, except to go there with a gps and record the location itself. I think the best thing would be for wikipedia to really think hard about this, and to make a policy that ensures the locations and maps are also free from copyright issues so that we can use the information in osm. Given the incredible user base, you might be able to collect more unique points and have the truly usable. If wikipedia were to call out to people to do some real mapping work and not just copying points out of questionable sources, it would be a great benefit to the total human knowledge. thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap. I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of high quality satellite images. Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not copyrightable. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:04 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
David Castor writes: The use of these logos are thus the only thing standing in the way of stating that all material from Swedish Wikipedia can be freely reused, without any further permission. Is there any obvious legal problem with stating that (for example) All material from Swedish Wikipedia may be freely reused, without further permission, with the exception of the Wikimedia trademarks and copyrighted logos, for which separate, specific permission for reuse must be sought? Yes, that is a longer sentence. But in my experience the kinds of people who agonize over copyright permissions are uniformly capable of parsing longer sentences. Note that my suggestion handily dodges the need to instruct anyone about whether the Wikipedia image in the corner of the page is freely licensed for reuse. It also avoids the need to explain to someone what constitutes part of the user interface and what doesn't. It also doesn't require a non-law-trained user to parse issues of trademark versus copyright. So in fact it is a simpler, user-friendlier solution that seems consistent with David's statement of what Swedish Wikipedians want to be able to do. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data; ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import. Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use them. I have imported all the geonames for the areas that I am interested in. That is not the issue. The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap. Now once you start to include points from google mapmaker it even gets more interesting. The content that is not available freely are things like business listings, touristic points of interest, locations of interesting buildings etc. I am sure there are a large number of those points that are not available from any free source, except to go there with a gps and record the location itself. I think the best thing would be for wikipedia to really think hard about this, and to make a policy that ensures the locations and maps are also free from copyright issues so that we can use the information in osm. Given the incredible user base, you might be able to collect more unique points and have the truly usable. If wikipedia were to call out to people to do some real mapping work and not just copying points out of questionable sources, it would be a great benefit to the total human knowledge. thanks, mike Use of Google Maps website to derive data does not convey copyrightability. That would be like saying that Adobe has copyright of a graphic design you created in Photoshop, wouldn't it? Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuzuhYACgkQyQg4JSymDYndtwCfUFduLVHh2WGq7oiT0IpdzTy6 8PgAmwTwfhXguPstBCMWHZbU7BRFnd7a =NziO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 2:08:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pbeaude...@wikimedia.org writes: I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :) -- You are *taking* the picture however, with a mechanical device while you are excersizing creativity over it's content. It's your creativity that creates the copyrightable image, not who owns the mechanism. That's not the case with Google satellite images. There is no creativity involved. However this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth#Copyright seems to give another alternative using a public domain database of images. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is absurdity is itself wrong. -Dan If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of maps themselves, but the copyrightability of location data pertaining to digital maps, i.e. the very non-pictoral fact compilations mentioned in the statement you provided. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation It may have started off that way, but my impression was it quickly became All maps are free. That may have been a misinterpretation of GerardM's post. My broader point is that the situation is not entirely black and white. Blanket statements that all X can never be done are a bit dangerous to make. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore copyrightable and I would think that openstreetmap should both be able to use those and should use those. I don't totally understand the thought process behind not allowing them to use actual geo locations from wikipedia. The thought process (note: I do not agree with it) goes like this: * A map or a sattelite photograph is copyrighted material * Taking a location from a map or a photograph is getting a derivative work from it * You are not allowed to make a derivative work from a copyrighted source -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Mike, Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming or impossible for some OSM editors to use. We should certainly see how we can align policies about maps and map data so that work isn't duplicated or wasted. If in the process we discover that OSM standards are stricter than copyright demands, or that WP standards are more lax than they should be, we may be able to correct those points. SJ On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:25 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap. I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of high quality satellite images. Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not copyrightable. I have been looking to purchase sat images for usage in tracing for osm. It is not possible to purchase images that you can share with other people in general. Even if you have the rights to trace and extract vector information. So they must have a special deal on that imagery. We dont know what license they have and what rights, it is pretty simple. The source of google images you can see pretty easily in google earth, just turn on all the more layer, you will see each image and where it comes from. It is the same data used in google maps. The good imagery is from digitalglobe, geoeye and spot for the area that i am interested in, for example we are working on mapping the city of shkoder, in google earth, you can click on the area http://archive.digitalglobe.com/archive/showBrowse.php?catID=1010010001E43801 But the point is, even if google gets these rights, it does not mean they have to give them to us. The digiglobe allows for some users the right to create vector traces from the data, but does not mean google gives us these rights. http://nsidc.org/data/barrow/digitalglobe_license_form.html . DERIVED WORKS. Derived works containing imagery data from the Products are covered by this License. Derived works that do not contain imagery data from the Products are not covered by this License. For example a vector map (features, buildings, waterlines, classification) derived from a Basic Product is outside of this license. mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Mike, Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming or impossible for some OSM editors to use. We should certainly see how we can align policies about maps and map data so that work isn't duplicated or wasted. If in the process we discover that OSM standards are stricter than copyright demands, or that WP standards are more lax than they should be, we may be able to correct those points. Exactly, that is my point. I just want some clarity and some direction on this. I am a big proponent of wikipedia and I would love to see a closer cooperation between them. Some of my osm friends have given me a tip, the point is that the google maps are not about US copyright law , but also about european database law, and more importantly about contract laws. Google payed $500 Million for the exclusive usage of geoeye-1 sat photos, and they cover the publication and usage of these photos by CONTRACT LAW, and click through terms of service. You should read this blog about this topic as well, and the thousands of comments http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 Additionally there is a video talk from the SoTM 08 from Ed Parsons on this topic http://vimeo.com/6751141 Ed Parsons: What Map Maker is / is not at SOTM08 Thanks for your interesting responses, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
