[Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
Dear All, I am forwarding the below mail on behalf of a Malayalam wikipedian who is very active in Wikimedia Commons. Of late it is becoming very difficult for many Wikimedians from India to contribute to Wikimedia Commons especially if they are uploading historical images which are in PD. We are facing lot of issues (and many a times unnecessary controversies also) with the historic images in PD, images of wall paintings and statues, and so on. Please see the below mail in which Sreejith citing various examples. It is almost impossible for the uploaders from India to show proof of the century old images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The current policies of Commons are not permitting many of the PD images from India citing all sorts of policies which might be relevant only in the western world. With these type of policies we are going to have serious issues when we try to go for GLAM type events. But I also do not know the solution for this issue. Requesting constructive discussion. Shiju Alex -- Forwarded message -- From: Sreejith K. sreejithk2...@gmail.com Date: Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM Subject: Copyright problems of images from India To: Shiju Alex shijualexonl...@gmail.com Shiju, As you might be aware already, we are having trouble keeping historical images about India in Wikimedia commons. This pertains mostly to images about Hindu gods and people who died before 1947. Please see the below examples: - File:Narayana Guru.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narayana_Guru.jpg - This is the image of Sree Narayana Guruhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana_Guru, a Hindu saint, social reformer and is even considered a god by certain castes in Kerala. This image has been tagged as an image with No source. Narayana Guru expired in 1928 and considering the conditions in which India was in during that period and before, it is very difficult to get an image source online. Most active Wikipedians does not have access or information on how old the image is or where a source of it can be found. Any photograph published before 1941 in India is in public domain as per Indian copyright act. Common sense says that this image meets this criteria because the person was long lead before 1941, but we still need proof of the first publishing date. Deleting this image on grounds that no source could be found will only reduce the informative values of all the articles which this image is included in. - File:Aravana.JPG: This image has already been deleted, but you can see the amount of discussion that went in before deleting it. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aravana.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aravana.JPG. (An almost similar image can be found herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/anoopp/5706721852/in/photostream/.)This image as put for deletion because it had the image of Swami Ayyappanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Ayyappanin it. Ayyappan, a popular god of Kerala, has his image circulated everywhere on the plant with no proof of copyrights. It makes sense to believe that this image is not eligible for copyright because Hindu deities are all common property, but again, Commons need proof that the image is in public domain. This is the same case with all Hindu gods/goddesses. The images can only be kept in Commons if the uploader can provide proof that the images are in public domain. - File:Kottarathil sankunni.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kottarathil_sankunni.jpg: This is a picture of Kottarathil Sankunnihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kottarathil_Sankunni, the author of the famous book Aithiyamaalahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aithihyamala. Kottarathil Sankunni died in 1937 and so it makes sense to believe that this image was created on or before 1937 and thus falls in Public Domain. But some people in Commons is refusing to believe that and is asking for proof. Now it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to show proof that this image was published 60 years before today. The editor who nominated the image for deletion is on the safer side because it is not his responsibility to prove that the image is a copyright violation. So long story short, anyone can nominate any image for copyright violation and it becomes the uploaders responsibility to prove that its not. The deletion nomination need not be accompanied with a reason for disbelief. - File:Anoop Menon.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anoop_Menon.jpg: This is the picture of Anoop Menonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoop_Menon, a popular actor from Kerala. A discussion is going on about the uploaders credibility whether he is the original photographer of this image. Please see File talk:Anoop Menon.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Anoop_Menon.jpg. The reason for doubting the uploader is simple. This image has
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
Welcome to the problem of Orphan Works. what you have to show is that either of the following is true? (i) the author of which is a citizen of India; or (ii) which is first published in India; or (iii) the author of which, in the case of an unpublished work, is, at the time of the making of the work, a citizen of India; ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
I wonder how the citizenship of the author helps. The only thing that is of importance in a PD claim is the date of first publishing. - Sreejith K. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Welcome to the problem of Orphan Works. what you have to show is that either of the following is true? (i) the author of which is a citizen of India; or (ii) which is first published in India; or (iii) the author of which, in the case of an unpublished work, is, at the time of the making of the work, a citizen of India; ___ 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] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
2011/5/10 Sreejith K. sreejithk2...@gmail.com: I wonder how the citizenship of the author helps. The only thing that is of importance in a PD claim is the date of first publishing. Not really. For instance, in Europe the copyright protection runs for 70 years from the DEATH of the author, not the first publish date. So if the author is European (or American, for that matter), the picture might not yet be PD. I don't know the rules in India, but perhaps there the protection period runs from the publication date, in which case the citizenship of the author is important. Strainu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
In India the copyright is counted from the year of its first publication. It's different for different countries. For some countries, the copyright expiry is counted from the year of death of the author. Here I was highlighting the difficulties in proving the year of publishing especially in India where most of the decade old artifacts are still not online. - Sreejith K. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/5/10 Sreejith K. sreejithk2...@gmail.com: I wonder how the citizenship of the author helps. The only thing that is of importance in a PD claim is the date of first publishing. Not really. For instance, in Europe the copyright protection runs for 70 years from the DEATH of the author, not the first publish date. So if the author is European (or American, for that matter), the picture might not yet be PD. I don't know the rules in India, but perhaps there the protection period runs from the publication date, in which case the citizenship of the author is important. Strainu ___ 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] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
2011/5/10 Strainu strain...@gmail.com: 2011/5/10 Sreejith K. sreejithk2...@gmail.com: I wonder how the citizenship of the author helps. The only thing that is of importance in a PD claim is the date of first publishing. Not really. For instance, in Europe the copyright protection runs for 70 years from the DEATH of the author, not the first publish date. So if the author is European (or American, for that matter), the picture might not yet be PD. I don't know the rules in India, but perhaps there the protection period runs from the publication date, in which case the citizenship of the author is important. I guess that in case of India is not that simple. . Great Britain was gradually taking control over Inda from XVII century till XIX century. Under the British rule the Inda was a rather strange (from contemporary POV) combination of semi-independent countries (which probably had no any copyright law at all, like Afghanistan nowadays) and teritories under the direct rule of British Governors-General and Viceroys. The independent Inda was formally established in 1950, but Indian has a legal POV saying that British control over India was generally illegal - at least starting from 1930 (Purna Swaraj). Anyway - if you follow British POV over the legal issues (tell my why?) - you might have really tricky problem about the citzenship of Indian people. Those who lived on teritories under direct Viceroy rule - might be treated as his subjects, and you should probably apply to them a law of Calcuta parliament - so you should examine the copyright law of British India. Those who lived on teritories which were ruled under semi-independent princes were probably subjects of them - so you should examine their local copyright law (if there was any...) To make it more complicated - if you think of picture taken by British before 1950 - you may also have problem. They for sure were subjects of British Queen - but also a subjects of Viceroys. After 1950 - according to Indian Constiutution all of them - if only lived in India for longer than 5 years started to be Indian citizens: Article 5 of Indian Constiution: At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and — who was born in the territory of India; or either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India. As long as they do not decided to choose another citzenship. Good luck with sorting out all these issues. :-) -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
Why would the creator's citizenship, or the place of its creation, be decisive? The works of an Indian citizen are granted copyright under US law in the United States, on a parity with the works of a US or any other citizen, even if copyright has expired or still continues in India -- and it is US law that governs Wikimedia. FT2 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Welcome to the problem of Orphan Works. what you have to show is that either of the following is true? (i) the author of which is a citizen of India; or (ii) which is first published in India; or (iii) the author of which, in the case of an unpublished work, is, at the time of the making of the work, a citizen of India; ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
Citzenship and where the photo was taken is important *IF* the work is unpublished. In this case the applicable copyright depends on these things. On the other hand, wherever it was taken and no matter who took it, if the image has been published in a jurisdiction then it is subject to copyright from the publication date in that jurisdiction. :) So the reason sourcing is needed for these things is to establish: a) If the photo has been published; where and when it was b) If it hasn't been published; the source of the image (i.e. who and where) It's an aggravating problem. As a short term solution Wikipedia has slightly less strict policies and often accepts good faith submissions of this sort (where the image is almost certainly PD, but it cannot be proven). At the very least there is a valid non-free content rationale for the first photograph you link to. In a number of years things may change, and ultimately the photo will definitely be out of copyright wherever and whenever published though the simple passing of time :) Tom / ErrantX On 10 May 2011 14:42, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Why would the creator's citizenship, or the place of its creation, be decisive? The works of an Indian citizen are granted copyright under US law in the United States, on a parity with the works of a US or any other citizen, even if copyright has expired or still continues in India -- and it is US law that governs Wikimedia. FT2 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Welcome to the problem of Orphan Works. what you have to show is that either of the following is true? (i) the author of which is a citizen of India; or (ii) which is first published in India; or (iii) the author of which, in the case of an unpublished work, is, at the time of the making of the work, a citizen of India; ___ 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] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
Sreejith's point is that proving the date of authorship in commonly used religious iconography is difficult; it's also difficult to work through the dates of derivatives of the 'original' work in order to establish which versions have what period - if any - of copyright validity left. For what it's worth, Indian copyright law does have provisions to address orphan works. It's just that the provisions (linked to below my text) are rather cumbersome, and ultimately do not result in a public domain license being applied on the work even if it is found that the author is untraceable or doesn't exist; it merely results in a license to the individual who applied to use the work, possibly even the payment of royalty to the 'public account.' Current Indian copyright law has provisions around orphan works for 'Indian works' only (where questions of citizenship, as you described below, could play some part), but the law is about to be amended, and the new copyright law, effective very shortly, applies the orphan works provisions to all/any works vis-a-vis their use/effect in India, so this question will soon be moot. But the larger point is that unless one can definitively show that a work is out of copyright in terms of years since published or by the terms of an alternative copyright license, the law does not offer a way to deposit that work in the public domain. Current Indian copyright law (with suggested amendments from government and civil society): See s.31A - http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/advocacy/proposed-amendment-to-the-copyright-act-1957 Proposed amended copyright law (soon to be tabled in parliament): See s.31A - *http://tinyurl.com/3tb7drx* On Tuesday 10 May 2011 07:12 PM, FT2 wrote: Why would the creator's citizenship, or the place of its creation, be decisive? The works of an Indian citizen are granted copyright under US law in the United States, on a parity with the works of a US or any other citizen, even if copyright has expired or still continues in India -- and it is US law that governs Wikimedia. FT2 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM,wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Welcome to the problem of Orphan Works. what you have to show is that either of the following is true? (i) the author of which is a citizen of India; or (ii) which is first published in India; or (iii) the author of which, in the case of an unpublished work, is, at the time of the making of the work, a citizen of India; ___ 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] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: In a number of years things may change, and ultimately the photo will definitely be out of copyright wherever and whenever published though the simple passing of time :) If the US keeps its speed of extending copyright by 20 years in 22 years time, it can be *very* long... Assuming we don't know who took the picture back in 1941, in the year 2990 there would still be reasonable doubt whether the photographer had died before 2020, which would be necessary to be out of copyright according to the then valid rule of life plus 970 years. -- 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] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
As you say any photograph of a person obviously living, and yet who died before 1941 is in the Public Domain in India.? This is true regardless of any other point raised about the source of the photograph as you again say. The first step is to get agreement on those points for the Indian portion of Wikimedia Commons. -Original Message- From: Shiju Alex lt;shijualexonl...@gmail.comgt; To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List lt;foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.orggt;; Discussion list on Indian language projects of Wikimedia. lt;wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.orggt; Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 3:37 am Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India Dear All, I am forwarding the below mail on behalf of a Malayalam wikipedian who is very active in Wikimedia Commons. Of late it is becoming very difficult for many Wikimedians from India to contribute to Wikimedia Commons especially if they are uploading historical images which are in PD. We are facing lot of issues (and many a times unnecessary controversies also) with the historic images in PD, images of wall paintings and statues, and so on. Please see the below mail in which Sreejith citing various examples. It is almost impossible for the uploaders from India to show proof of the century old images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The current policies of Commons are not permitting many of the PD images from India citing all sorts of policies which might be relevant only in the western world. With these type of policies we are going to have serious issues when we try to go for GLAM type events. But I also do not know the solution for this issue. Requesting constructive discussion. Shiju Alex -- Forwarded message -- From: Sreejith K. lt;sreejithk2...@gmail.comgt; Date: Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM Subject: Copyright problems of images from India To: Shiju Alex lt;shijualexonl...@gmail.comgt; Shiju, As you might be aware already, we are having trouble keeping historical images about India in Wikimedia commons. This pertains mostly to images about Hindu gods and people who died before 1947. Please see the below examples: - File:Narayana Guru.jpglt;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narayana_Guru.jpggt; - This is the image of Sree Narayana Gurult;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana_Gurugt;, a Hindu saint, social reformer and is even considered a god by certain castes in Kerala. This image has been tagged as an image with No source. Narayana Guru expired in 1928 and considering the conditions in which India was in during that period and before, it is very difficult to get an image source online. Most active Wikipedians does not have access or information on how old the image is or where a source of it can be found. Any photograph published before 1941 in India is in public domain as per Indian copyright act. Common sense says that this image meets this criteria because the person was long lead before 1941, but we still need proof of the first publishing date. Deleting this image on grounds that no source could be found will only reduce the informative values of all the articles which this image is included in. - File:Aravana.JPG: This image has already been deleted, but you can see the amount of discussion that went in before deleting it. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aravana.JPGlt;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aravana.JPGgt;. (An almost similar image can be found herelt;.)This target=_blankhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/anoopp/5706721852/in/photostream/gt;.)This image as put for deletion because it had the image of Swami Ayyappanlt;in target=_blankhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Ayyappangt;in it. Ayyappan, a popular god of Kerala, has his image circulated everywhere on the plant with no proof of copyrights. It makes sense to believe that this image is not eligible for copyright because Hindu deities are all common property, but again, Commons need proof that the image is in public domain. This is the same case with all Hindu gods/goddesses. The images can only be kept in Commons if the uploader can provide proof that the images are in public domain. - File:Kottarathil sankunni.jpglt;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kottarathil_sankunni.jpggt;: This is a picture of Kottarathil Sankunnilt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kottarathil_Sankunnigt;, the author of the famous book Aithiyamaalalt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aithihyamalagt;. Kottarathil Sankunni died in 1937 and so it makes sense to believe that this image was created on or before 1937 and thus falls in Public Domain. But some people in Commons is refusing to believe that and is asking for proof. Now it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to show proof that this image was published 60 years before
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
2011/5/10 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: Why would the creator's citizenship, or the place of its creation, be decisive? The works of an Indian citizen are granted copyright under US law in the United States, on a parity with the works of a US or any other citizen, even if copyright has expired or still continues in India -- and it is US law that governs Wikimedia. Not really - because both US and India signed Berne, UCC Geneva, UCC Paris, and TRIPS treaties - so (with some expections) the works performed by non US-citizens in India are copyrighted in USA if they are still under copyright in India. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
It's actually even worse than that. Due to the URAA, thousands of works which are verifiably public domain in India have had their copyright restored in the United States. For example, all of the works of Mahatma Gandhi are public domain in India (since he died over 50 years ago), however, most of them are copyrighted in the U.S. until at least 2055 (even if they were never published here). Thus in order to host the files on Commons we have to know all of the following: * Who authored the work? * What year did the author die? * Was the work ever published in the United States? ** If so, what year? ** Were copyright formalities followed? ** Was the copyright renewed? If so what year? * If not, did the author die after 1945 (1996 - 50 - 1) ** If so, what year was the work first published in India? Was it before 1923? If you can't answer all of these questions, your image might get deleted. Welcome to the insanity of U.S. copyright laws and treaties! Ryan Kaldari On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/5/10 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: Why would the creator's citizenship, or the place of its creation, be decisive? The works of an Indian citizen are granted copyright under US law in the United States, on a parity with the works of a US or any other citizen, even if copyright has expired or still continues in India -- and it is US law that governs Wikimedia. Not really - because both US and India signed Berne, UCC Geneva, UCC Paris, and TRIPS treaties - so (with some expections) the works performed by non US-citizens in India are copyrighted in USA if they are still under copyright in India. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ 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] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
Sorry, change everywhere I said 50 to 60. I can't keep this stuff straight :P On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote: It's actually even worse than that. Due to the URAA, thousands of works which are verifiably public domain in India have had their copyright restored in the United States. For example, all of the works of Mahatma Gandhi are public domain in India (since he died over 50 years ago), however, most of them are copyrighted in the U.S. until at least 2055 (even if they were never published here). Thus in order to host the files on Commons we have to know all of the following: * Who authored the work? * What year did the author die? * Was the work ever published in the United States? ** If so, what year? ** Were copyright formalities followed? ** Was the copyright renewed? If so what year? * If not, did the author die after 1945 (1996 - 50 - 1) ** If so, what year was the work first published in India? Was it before 1923? If you can't answer all of these questions, your image might get deleted. Welcome to the insanity of U.S. copyright laws and treaties! Ryan Kaldari On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/5/10 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: Why would the creator's citizenship, or the place of its creation, be decisive? The works of an Indian citizen are granted copyright under US law in the United States, on a parity with the works of a US or any other citizen, even if copyright has expired or still continues in India -- and it is US law that governs Wikimedia. Not really - because both US and India signed Berne, UCC Geneva, UCC Paris, and TRIPS treaties - so (with some expections) the works performed by non US-citizens in India are copyrighted in USA if they are still under copyright in India. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ 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] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
wi.ki, on the other hand, would be safe in this regard :) By the way, since no one at WMF offered to send the email requesting a donation/price reduction of the wi.ki domain, I'll do it as the president of Wikimedia Portugal, with my @wikimedia.pt email. Hopefully that'll give me some leverage -- only a fraction of what an email coming from an @ wikimedia.org would, but hey, it's better than nothing. Waldir On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.comwrote: Although, on the other hand, would this leave us too open to imitators, given that wiki is not a trademark? Consider the scenario of a group like, say, 4chan registering eng.wiki and filling it with assorted shock content; enough people might mistakenly visit the fake site to generate considerable bad publicity for us. Kirill ___ 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] happy birthday, Wikipedias
Tomorrow (May 11) is another anniversary date: it's been 10 years since the first group of non-English Wikipedias came online. Originally with spelled-out names rather than language codes, these sites were: catalan.wikipedia.com chinese.wikipedia.com esperanto.wikipedia.com french.wikipedia.com deutsche.wikipedia.com hebrew.wikipedia.com italian.wikipedia.com japanese.wikipedia.com portuguese.wikipedia.com spanish.wikipedia.com russian.wikipedia.com (from http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-May/000116.html) The idea of having Wikipedias in multiple languages came from Jimbo in March 2001 (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-March/48.html); note that the original German Wikipedia was actually set up at that time, making it the second-oldest Wikipedia. Though the idea of using two-letter domain codes was first raised then, after the above sites were brought online in May there was further discussion, and the sites were switched to two-letter codes a few days later: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-May/000132.html. Happy tenth birthday, Wikipedias! (and many more!) May all of our language editions flourish. -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
A while back, I think the WMF got offered the enwp.org domain for free, which is a fairly oft used shortener. Does anyone remember what ever happened to that offer? On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Waldir Pimenta wal...@email.com wrote: wi.ki, on the other hand, would be safe in this regard :) By the way, since no one at WMF offered to send the email requesting a donation/price reduction of the wi.ki domain, I'll do it as the president of Wikimedia Portugal, with my @wikimedia.pt email. Hopefully that'll give me some leverage -- only a fraction of what an email coming from an @ wikimedia.org would, but hey, it's better than nothing. Waldir On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.comwrote: Although, on the other hand, would this leave us too open to imitators, given that wiki is not a trademark? Consider the scenario of a group like, say, 4chan registering eng.wiki and filling it with assorted shock content; enough people might mistakenly visit the fake site to generate considerable bad publicity for us. Kirill ___ 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] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: A while back, I think the WMF got offered the enwp.org domain for free, which is a fairly oft used shortener. Does anyone remember what ever happened to that offer? Casey has referred that to Rob Halsell. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.comwrote: Back to the issue at hand though: Thomas is (quite generously) offering the enwp.org domain. Would the foundation like to have it? I can only guess that the tech-oriented people don't seem to fancy the idea much. From this thread we have the following (explicitly stated): On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+...@free.fr wrote: Can we please stop multiplying the number of domains? Although the registration is cheap, the administration overhead is not that cheap. Plus the implicit indifference signaled by the absence of other inputs from the tech staff despite their being asked at least once --so we were told-- to comment on the issue. There's also a thread about this from 2008 in wikitech, especially this message from Brion On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote: I strongly recommend against making links through *any* unofficial alternate domain, whether WMF owns it or not. (Perhaps especially if WMF owns it!) Sooner or later someone will forget to renew it and it'll become a squatted spam site. :) -- brion [source: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/137602#137602] Well, I don't think this should be a valid impediment. I mean, don't domain registrars send reminders when the expiration date is close? Even if they don't, can't the tech people set one themselves? There must be some sort of system already in place for the several top-level domains we already have: one for every project (which amounts to 7), plus wikimediafoundation.org, mediawiki.org, and the .com, .net variants of many of these and god knows what else (funny, mediawiki.net seems to be owned by WM-IT). So, on one hand I can understand the resistance towards adding even more domains to that mix: the enwp.org would set a precedence for others in the same vein, and this would mean up to 7 (projects) * ~200 (languages) domains. Even if we assume only a handful of these would get enough demand to be registered, it could easily double or triple the number of domains currently managed by the WMF. In fact, if we assume only the .org domains I noted above (9 in total), adding the current shorteners I have knowledge of (enwp.org, frwp.org, enwn.net) means a 33% growth. On the other hand, as I said, there are likely more than the 9 .org TLDs I mentioned, so there probably is (if not, should be?) an automated system of reminders or something to that effect. This system could easily be extended to add one or a few more. Waldir ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Waldir Pimenta wal...@email.com wrote: On the other hand, as I said, there are likely more than the 9 .org TLDs I mentioned, so there probably is (if not, should be?) an automated system of reminders or something to that effect. This system could easily be extended to add one or a few more. Btw, if we consider the wi.ki domain, which would be the _only one_ we'd need to add for this purpose, so I really can't see any reason to not do it (except perhaps unwillingness to add to the wiki -- wikipedia misconception?) Waldir ps - ok, even if we didn't get a price reduction from the current owner and have to buy it for the $992 it currently costs (see https://domaininfo.com/search_result_xml.asp?domain=witld=kicurrency=USD), we would have to pay $1,000/yr for the renewal ( http://www.tak.ki/what-we-do/domain-name-registration.html), which doesn't sound very cost-effective. But you'd think an email from, say, Jimmy Wales ;) could get a price reduction from the Telecommunications Authority of Kiribati, wouldn't you? :D pps - I just wanted to point out to a related thread, from 2010, in the Village pump: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_76#URL_shortener_for_wikipedia.org_e.g._http:.2F.2Fwi.ki.2F_to_use_on_social_networking_sites_such_as_twitter.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] happy birthday, Wikipedias
2011/5/10 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com: Tomorrow (May 11) is another anniversary date: it's been 10 years since the first group of non-English Wikipedias came online. Originally with spelled-out names rather than language codes, these sites were: [...] Happy tenth birthday, Wikipedias! (and many more!) May all of our language editions flourish. Thanks, Phoebe! In fact, in Argentina we are celebrating Wikipedia10 next May 21, wich is one of the probably dates of the first edit in the Spanish Wikipedia: http://www.wikimedia.org.ar/node/28 Patricio -- Patricio Lorente Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
-- Forwarded message -- From: Waldir Pimenta wal...@email.com So, on one hand I can understand the resistance towards adding even more domains to that mix: the enwp.org would set a precedence for others in the same vein, and this would mean up to 7 (projects) * ~200 (languages) domains. Even if we assume only a handful of these would get enough demand to be registered, it could easily double or triple the number of domains currently managed by the WMF. In fact, if we assume only the .org domains I noted above (9 in total), adding the current shorteners I have knowledge of (enwp.org, frwp.org, enwn.net) means a 33% growth. The above makes a good argument for registering wp.org, wb.org, and wn.orgor whatever TLD. That's a handful of domains and various languages simply become subdomains. I throw my voice behind enwp.org being a poor naming convention and having too much administrative overhead with regards to the other languages. Because it won't stop at en.wikipedia; the other projects and languages will want theirs as soon as Wikimedia sets the precedent. A previous post suggested a new TLD such as .wmf but I have to mention that it would be a bad idea, as outside of Wikimedia WMF stands for the non-profit World Monuments Fund, for which that is actually an acronym and not just shorthand: http://www.wmf.org -- Adrignola ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 16:09, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: It's actually even worse than that. Due to the URAA, thousands of works which are verifiably public domain in India have had their copyright restored in the United States. For example, all of the works of Mahatma Gandhi are public domain in India (since he died over 50 years ago), however, most of them are copyrighted in the U.S. until at least 2055 (even if they were never published here). Thus in order to host the files on Commons we have to know all of the following: * Who authored the work? * What year did the author die? * Was the work ever published in the United States? ** If so, what year? ** Were copyright formalities followed? ** Was the copyright renewed? If so what year? * If not, did the author die after 1945 (1996 - 50 - 1) ** If so, what year was the work first published in India? Was it before 1923? If you can't answer all of these questions, your image might get deleted. Welcome to the insanity of U.S. copyright laws and treaties! Ryan Kaldari There have been similar problems with material from Europe, where images are generally regarded as PD 70 years after the author's death. I'd like to see a situation where, regardless of what the Commons does, the individual Wikipedias are at least allowed to respect local PD status. But editors who focus on images repeatedly challenge their use -- forcing us to claim fair use, then saying they're not covered by the bizarre way Wikipedia interprets fair use. It's a situation people have tried to draw attention to for years, with no success. Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: A while back, I think the WMF got offered the enwp.org domain for free, which is a fairly oft used shortener. Does anyone remember what ever happened to that offer? This is the thread we're discussing, which began Feb. 16. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
With regards to the wi.ki domain, I asked people at the WMF back in 2009 about whether they were interested in buying it given that the owner at the time had a notice on the site saying he was willing to sell. The response came back that they were concerned it could be problematic since neither the Wikimedia community nor the WMF has a monopoly on the word wiki and the WMF didn't want to overstep their claim to the concept. As a business decision it might be interesting for Wikia to purchase and use for their own sites, but that's not for us to determine. Hope that helps, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: A while back, I think the WMF got offered the enwp.org domain for free, which is a fairly oft used shortener. Does anyone remember what ever happened to that offer? I love this service, btw. Thanks for the offer, Thomas. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: With regards to the wi.ki domain, I asked people at the WMF back in 2009 about whether they were interested in buying it given that the owner at the time had a notice on the site saying he was willing to sell. The response came back that they were concerned it could be problematic since neither the Wikimedia community nor the WMF has a monopoly on the word wiki and the WMF didn't want to overstep their claim to the concept. I think that is a good reason to leave that alone. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: With regards to the wi.ki domain, I asked people at the WMF back in 2009 about whether they were interested in buying it given that the owner at the time had a notice on the site saying he was willing to sell. The response came back that they were concerned it could be problematic since neither the Wikimedia community nor the WMF has a monopoly on the word wiki and the WMF didn't want to overstep their claim to the concept. I think that is a good reason to leave that alone. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan It didn't get much attention, and since we've basically agreed against the .wmf TLD in addition to wi.ki, I'd like to throw my support behind Ryan Kaldari's suggestion of obtaining the w.org reserved name. Brian Mingus Graduate student Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab University of Colorado at Boulder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: With regards to the wi.ki domain, I asked people at the WMF back in 2009 about whether they were interested in buying it given that the owner at the time had a notice on the site saying he was willing to sell. The response came back that they were concerned it could be problematic since neither the Wikimedia community nor the WMF has a monopoly on the word wiki and the WMF didn't want to overstep their claim to the concept. I think that is a good reason to leave that alone. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan It didn't get much attention, and since we've basically agreed against the .wmf TLD in addition to wi.ki, I'd like to throw my support behind Ryan Kaldari's suggestion of obtaining the w.org reserved name. Here's an interesting bit of history from Wikipedia: http://enwp.org/Single-letter_second-level_domain Only 3 of the 26 possible Single letter Domains have ever been registered and this before 1992. All the other 23 Single Letter .com Domains were registered Jan 1 1992 by Jon Postelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel, the father of the Internet, with the intention to avoidthat a single company could commercially control a letter of the Alphabet. This makes it impossible for companies like Mc Donaldshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mc_Donalds or Deutsche Telekom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Telekom to buy their Logo M or T as an Internet address. It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his vision of no corporation controlling a letter. -- Brian Mingus Graduate student Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab University of Colorado at Boulder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.eduwrote: It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his vision of no corporation controlling a letter. +1 for the idealism, but I'd like to add the concept is quite silly if you consider the bulk of the internet users and their relevant care to domain names. It's pretty slim. Heck, pitchfork.com used pitchforkmedia.com for many, many years without qualms. Users see the URL and bookmark it. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
