On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Fæ wrote:
> On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna wrote:
> > THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to
> > prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the
> > copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but
miliarize themselves with Commons rules or worry about
files being deleted; if Commons wants the files they can get them, or not.
~Nathan
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Ryan Kaldari
wrote:
>
>>
>> Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and
> the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is
> whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the
> URAA. Witho
I'm not sure why you actually bother, to be honest. I'd just host all the
disputed images on the Hebrew Wikipedia and avoid Commons altogether. The
sea lawyer bullshit on regular projects is bad enough; on Commons its an
art form. Seriously -- why bother?
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Yann For
A post is live on Gizmodo today about a Commons contributor (Evan-Amos) who
takes high quality photos of video game systems and hardware.[1] Towards
the end it mentions that Evan started a Kickstarter to fund his efforts to
buy and photograph more systems as part of an online museum.[2]
Anyone kno
Hi Sage,
What's the target audience for a printed brochure?
Thanks,
Nathan
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Sarah wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
> > A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and
> > regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal
> with,
> > though, are not part of any contr
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
> this discussion appears to be missing some information specifically a link
> to what is being discussed
>
> I checked
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpgthat
> doesnt reflect what Tim is referri
Just to understand - on the last thread about this, it sounded like
the October 5 update forces MediaWiki to determine rotation based on
EXIF data. If the EXIF data is wrong or missing, the rotation may be
incorrect. As a result, a bot (RotateBot) with a gigantic backlog is
slowly fixing incorrect
thority or representative of Commons the project or its
community. You have no right to tell people "If you don't like it, get
out" as you have done several times. They are as free to express their
opinion as you are, and many (as you've no doubt n
t have any particular legal consequence, but its more or less
the standard language used to convey the warning of "Beyond here be
dragons!" and it's not bad PR cover.
Nathan
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://li
ts.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
Great news, David. Just so I'm sure I understand, the above is the
official report to the Culture Minister that he adopted? And the
report mentions Wikipedia twice in the second section? If so, awesome
work.
Nathan
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
's recommendation to the en.wp community (I assume, since it
was posted there) for this sort of reconsideration. [4]
Nathan
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=256870274&oldid=256869214
[2]
http://commons.wikimed
13 matches
Mail list logo
