ld be.
-- Rama
(*) Wikipedia is more and more used as a quick reference in society; should
it make it more subordinate to the interests of governments and
corporations?
On 27 June 2014 08:14, Yann Forget wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko :
>
> The question
There could be other similar questions, for instance the issue of what
"anonymous work" means (a naive understanding will equate that to not
knowing who the author is, which is wrong, there have been lawsuits brought
by right holders on such matters). In general, copyright law is
complicated, and i
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the
various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu
knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be
more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should
be
PS: my last rely to GerardM, not to Gnangarra.
On 22 June 2014 09:52, Rama Neko wrote:
> You are reverting the burden of responsibility. If files are improperly
> uploaded on Commons, the issue is not Commons removing them, it is the
> uploading that causes the problem. Which in its
iles that are generally available. It is then for the
>> people to grant a local right to use that image.
>>
>> In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects
>> gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies.
>> Thanks,
>> Ger
, importing and managing files for other projects make them
> first-class IMHO. ;oD
>
> Yann
>
>
> 2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko :
> > Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> > own standing, and the other projects are
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
sort of second-class contributors. Tha
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by
hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to
be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the
project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that
do
> In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the
> retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the
> courtesy removal would to the free culture community. And it looks terrible
> for us.
It's worse than that.
This situation does not make us l
> Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these
> photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action
> but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been
> deleted.
This is a matter of institutional politics in Commons.
As
With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the
subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as
opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a
supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game.
-- Rama
On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldar
The notion that we must *urgently* photograph/document/scan something is a
feeling that I have experienced first hand with reportage photography of
elderly celebrities [1]. If you do not photograph them, they have a nasty
tendency to die without a Free iconography. That yields either articles that
What motives this rejection? Has the nature of the filter been understood?
Do people fear a creep towards censorship? Something else?
-- Rama
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
That is an unexpected outcome. Do we have any idea of the proeminent
arguments for rejecting the filter ?
-- Rama
On 16 September 2011 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Dear readers
>
> Yesterday, on September 15th 2011, the German Wikipedia closed the poll
> (Meinungsbild) "Einführung persönlich
For the "Show respect" thing, I'd go as far as saying something to the
effect of
"do not photograph if it is not allowed, do not use you flash, do not
attempt in any way to 'steal' photographs, as the quality will be poor
and the short-term thrill and benefits are vastly exceeded by the
long-term
I though that this was what user sub-pages were about.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rama/test
-- Rama
On 24/02/2011, Stan Shebs wrote:
> On 2/23/11 6:20 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 23 February 2011 17:40, Paul Houle wrote:
>>> If you wanted to encourage a 'game mechanic' in Commons
Sorry, but I was under the impression that, apart from people making
public appearances where consent is implied, consent of the
participants should be obtained before publication of any photograph
anyway.
I fail to see how sexual content is different in this respect; perhaps
what we need is a rem
d I don't view Wikimedia as an American website/set of
>> projects. If a UK photographer's works are public domain in the UK
>> but not in the US, there shouldn't be anything stopping me uploading
>> them to (some variant of) Commons and tagging them as life+70 but not
>
We do not game copyright laws in this way.
You can see an example with Heinrich Hoffman's photographs: the USA
consider them to be in the Public Domain in apparent disregard for
international law on copyright; these photographs are protected by
copyright in Germany, where they are the object of v
And two of these three were copyvios.
-- Rama
On 01/02/2010, Platonides wrote:
> Daniel Schwen wrote:
>> Wow, fantastic :-(
>> So this had nothing to do with the timing of the mass-upload?
>>
>>> Commons has just reached 6 million files! At 10:17, January 31,
>>> 2010, Sailing_on_Ullswater_-_geog
Keep track of every instance of usage of a Commons file, you mean? I
think that there are probably too many of them for that to be
possible.
There are particular examples of usage that we herald, but they are
less trivial than yours. For example, a photograph of the Eiffel Tower
was used by archit
And this is more or less exactly what I see on top of the front page
of Commons: "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a database of 4,584,458
media files to which anyone can contribute and be sued about 10% of
the time".
The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many
articles of Wi
I support GerardM's statement, and I even feel that it has been
overdue. The work of our restorators is invaluable and unfairly
disconsidered. GerardM's report is a striking illustration that
restoration work is easily as valuable as that of photographers'.
Furthermore, since we do not have a great
Regarding the issue of drawings compared to photographs, I strongly
think that photographs are inherently better than drawings for such
documentary purpose.
Having contributed a number of drawings on the subject, I assume that
I cannot be accused of bias in favour of photography. I am actually
sur
erard a écrit :
>> 2009/4/22 Rama Neko :
>>
>>
>>> EXAMPLE 1
>>> Look at
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dnepr_motorcycle_IMG_1586.JPG
>>> I have edited this image to remove a pavement which I found
>>> distracting, and recreate a part of t
I would certainly like this very much in many circumstances, but I
would not love that unconditionnally.
EXAMPLE 1
Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dnepr_motorcycle_IMG_1586.JPG
I have edited this image to remove a pavement which I found
distracting, and recreate a part of the front wheel
Not to mention screenshots, which might provide invaluable photographs
of people whom cannot be easily approached, or scenes from places
where we cannot go.
-- Rama
On 15/01/2009, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> I had a look at the VID
I second what geni: I fully sympathise with Cary's feelings, which are
considerate and human, but opening the door to such deletions would
have very troubling implications for historical documentation.
I would be happy if the questionable copyright status of the image
could suffice to settle for a
Well, maybe you are a very good example of the mentality of people who
should stay out of Commons. That mixture of
- "I don't understand why Commons admins apply different laws for
different countries ! They should just ignore them all !"
- "I don't understand something, so NEITHER SHOULD YOU"
- "
Excuse me, but either we respect the law, or we do not. Our policy it to do so.
I do not know what you call being "helpful", but I think that removing
content that people publish illegally because they are not aware of
their local laws would rather be a service that we render to them.
That the la
Copyright laws are complicated; there are too many possible cases for
it to be possible to write a short and simple text for new users that
would cover all cases; furthermore, people typically have no intuition
about how copyright law works, and do not read our documentation
anyway (one reason for
31 matches
Mail list logo
