2011/11/2 Dominic McDevitt-Parks :
> On 2 November 2011 00:40, Yann Forget wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Indeed, you are right. This is a great addition to Commons.
>> I am going through it now, and I have questions.
>>
>> In some cases, I found that there are better quality images than the
>> ones we
On 2 November 2011 00:40, Yann Forget wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Indeed, you are right. This is a great addition to Commons.
> I am going through it now, and I have questions.
>
> In some cases, I found that there are better quality images than the
> ones we have.
> Where do they come from?
>
> http://c
Hello,
2011/10/24 Dominic McDevitt-Parks :
> Hi all,
>
> Since it hasn't really been mentioned, I just wanted to point out that this
> image, never before available to the public in high resolution, was uploaded
> to Commons as a result of our ongoing cooperative efforts with the US
> National Arc
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:04, David Gerard wrote:
>
> Holy shit.
>
Procedural note: the second deletion request at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
has been cl
On 10/27/2011 6:43 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> On 26 October 2011 14:15, Anthony wrote:
>> > And apparently that's fine, if you are making a faithful reproduction
>> > of the image in its original context. ?But tagging an image PD does
>> > not imply "you may only make
On 26 October 2011 14:15, Anthony wrote:
> And apparently that's fine, if you are making a faithful reproduction
> of the image in its original context. But tagging an image PD does
> not imply "you may only make faithful reproductions of this image in
> their original context".
However in some
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Robin McCain wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 2:57 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>> You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions there.
>>
>> Of course Commons editors should be deciding which images are PD. But
>> when there is a dispute, it makes no
On 10/25/2011 2:57 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions there.
>
> Of course Commons editors should be deciding which images are PD. But
> when there is a dispute, it makes no sense for people who don't even
> know what a derivative wo
>> ...a deletion discussion among
>> non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law.
>
> Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts.
Courts are the proper way to determine the law after the fact. But
this is a question of determining the law before the fa
On 24 October 2011 17:48, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Nobody disputes the facts regarding the image of
> Mickey Mouse, but we don't know the relevant law.
We do know the relevant law its just unclear what it actually means.
The interplay with commons policy is also an issue. For example it is
possible
On 24 October 2011 12:56, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> We wouldn't need a lawyer to look at every case - ones where the
> author has released it under a free license should be fine, for
> example.
Not remotely. Even at the most basic you would have the whole Freedom
of panorama issue and is the author
Hi all,
Since it hasn't really been mentioned, I just wanted to point out that this
image, never before available to the public in high resolution, was uploaded
to Commons as a result of our ongoing cooperative efforts with the US
National Archives (i.e., my residency). Its copyright status was li
2011/10/24 Carl Fürstenberg :
> It's a difference deciding if uploads of babes with big boobs are
> stolen from the Internet at large or not, than to figure out if a line
> drawing from World War II is free or not.
Indeed. In legal terminology, the difference is between a matter of
fact and a matt
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:25, Orionist wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure a consenus of
>> wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we
>> consult an expert?
>
>
> In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every
> image uploaded to Commons. The thing is
On 24 October 2011 09:25, Orionist wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure a consenus of
>> wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we
>> consult an expert?
>
>
> In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every
> image uploaded to Commons. The thing is, we'
>
> I'm not sure a consenus of
> wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we
> consult an expert?
In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every
image uploaded to Commons. The thing is, we'd need at least 200 lawyers from
all around the world
On 23 October 2011 17:59, David Gerard wrote:
> It's a very tricky one.
Yes and no.
However regardless of its complexity (which isn't that bad compared to
some) it is how most real work copyright cases that people actually
care about work. Rather than single the single copyright we might
recogni
On 23 October 2011 13:12, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
> underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
> concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion was reopened by Anthony and is still in
prog
Reopened
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_(Mickey_Mouse)%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif#File:.22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam.22_.28Mickey_Mouse.29.22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif)
Though I agr
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely.
There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not su
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
>>> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
>> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
>> one on the derivative (which "extends only to the ma
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote:
> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
> one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed
> by the author of such work, as distingu
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on
>> [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone
>> (me) replaced the image in the article itself ..
On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard wrote:
> I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on
> [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone
> (me) replaced the image in the article itself ...
And I've just done a version without the text or flag:
On Oct 22, 2011 4:17 PM, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:11:53 -0700, Steven Walling
> wrote:
> > This is pretty damn cool.
> >
> > I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use
> this
> > illustration...
>
> What is the problem with the Dutch Wiki
On 23 October 2011 00:11, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
>> Holy shit.
> This is pretty damn cool.
I am *am
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:11:53 -0700, Steven Walling
wrote:
> This is pretty damn cool.
>
> I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use
this
> illustration...
What is the problem with the Dutch Wikipedia? From what I see, the file is
in use there.
Cheers
Yaroslav
_
This is pretty damn cool.
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use this
illustration...
On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NA
This is pretty damn cool.
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use this
illustration...
On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NA
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
Holy shit.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wi
31 matches
Mail list logo
