On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments,
even by Israeli law. Israel
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
None of the
discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of
publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the
2011/10/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
None of the
discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of
publication. The argument seems
On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote:
If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone
is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims
copyright in the digital images of the manuscripts, not in the text.
Well, there doesn't appear to be any basis for a
Hi, Gerard.
I supose you know what is paleography. And therefore you know that there is
an intrinsic value in a raw manuscript, which provides information about
schools of calligraphy, styles... an ancient manuscript is something like a
painting masterpiece. All those things can't be transmitted
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote:
If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone
is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims
copyright in the digital images of the
On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US.
Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
Well, for one thing, they could sue
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US.
Therefore, for a successful
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments,
even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize sweat of the brow and
requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2]
The Israeli Supreme Court did declare that a transcription of the Dead
Sea Scrolls
On 10/03/11 11:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments,
even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize sweat of the brow and
requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2]
Then it is a question of fact. Do these
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments,
even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize sweat of the brow and
requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2]
Does it
On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments,
even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize sweat of the brow and
requires a minimal degree of
I was not aggresive, but sarcastic.
But obviously, there are reasons for being furious.
2011/10/1 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com
Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for
possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as
heretical. The similar happens
Hoi,
I am here in Los Angeles with Amir. We have discussed the dead sea scrolls
extensively. We discussed transcription, fonts appropriate for such old
texts. The use of the text.
Do you believe that the suggestion for transcription was made by someone
from the museum at Wikimania? That Amit is
Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for
possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as
heretical. The similar happens in academia too. I know a certain
online text database based on a scanned PD works, but the publisher (a
certain academic society)
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US.
Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers.
WMF using the work is one
://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Art There are already ones in
there for Mexico, Samoa, Côte d'Ivoire and a few others.
WereSpielChequers
--
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:36:43 -0400
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs
wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it
Facts and Opinions on the copyright can be added to the Wikipedia talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Google_scans
--
John Vandenberg
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to
whatever this photograph is?
An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image.
You're just
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument.
You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant.
You were making a pro-copyright
There's an important point in what you say, though it is difficult to
avoid sarcasm when feeling a Google spider creeping up one's back.
In many of these cases there is the legal analysis and there is the
pragmatic analysis They do not bear identical results. The legal
analysis could
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an original photograph?
The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative.
Yes.
The photograph is not the
2011/9/28 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the
lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the
built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw
image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an original photograph?
Yes there is, and this isn't it.
The photograph is not
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts,
then there is an argument that the
Is the copyright claim on the scroll or the image. I would expect the latter
and they are
perfectly entitled to claim copyright on the image, the issue is that in
various countries
it could be held true by the courts that it is in copyright, and in others it
isn't.
Truth in copyright
Looks like you don't know the meaning of common word.
I also know how to paste cool links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_and_copyright_issues
2011/9/27 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had
more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme
Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common
lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law countries have moved
towards applying the threshold of
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat
based).
Well, we recently confirmed that computers can't have sweat on their
brows. So there's some progress!
Wow, it looks like I may be wrong. Very good news from Australia! Thanks
for the link.
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/27/11 11:57 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat
based).
Well, we recently
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
By the common meaning of the word original, I'd say the photograph
*is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within
the US legal meaning of the term.
I should add that, in my US analysis, I was making the
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had
more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme
Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 20:07 -0400, Anthony wrote:
UK requires originality. But it's not at all clear that a photograph
of something out of copyright is unoriginal (even if that something is
two dimensional).
By the common meaning of the word original, I'd say the photograph
*is* original.
Hi all;
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
Regards,
emijrp
[1] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/
[2] http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg
___
The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not the
originals...
On 26/09/2011 19:58, emijrp wrote:
Hi all;
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
By they way: Hi Wikimedia Israel.
Regards,
emijrp
[1]
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
2011/9/26 Neil Babbage n...@thebabbages.com
The digital copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have copyright, not
As the British Museum.
Hehehehe.
--Sarah (Stierch)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1]
ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
Damn. Joke fail.
-Sarah
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
As the British Museum.
Hehehehe.
--Sarah (Stierch)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
If originals don't have copyright,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
ASK THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
Damn. Joke fail.
-Sarah
Emijrp has a valid point.
We routinely dismiss this kind of bogus claims of copyright from museums
--
Pedro Sánchez
http://drini.mx
@combinatorica
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The Israel
Museum. Congratulations.
If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical texts,
then there is an argument that the author is still alive ;-)
(c) God, 2011
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1]
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for
claiming copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
___
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for
claiming copyright.
2011/9/27 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
wrote:
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals
Wikimedia Israel and I met with the Israel Museum in the days immediately
following Wikimania. The specific purpose of that event was to set up a
'Wikipedian in Residence' position at their research centre, starting with a
project to create articles about Israeli artists in English and Hebrew
We can have our fresh and promising Wikimedian-in-Residence there raise the
issue with museum staff. This news took us by surprise.
Apparently, the Google-IMJ project is quite a bit more than simple scanning
of the material, it involves more hypertextual contextual work.
Please, a more friendly
48 matches
Mail list logo
