2009/4/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say Cheese
Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided that
they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by
anyone else provided that they state
From the Foundation-L post:
we sent a letter to
Wikipedia Art that was aimed, not to threaten legal action, but to outline
what our legal concerns were, and to try to begin a negotiation to resolve
the matter amicably -- ideally by switching the domain name over to us, but
not by requiring any
geni wrote:
2009/4/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say Cheese
Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided
that
they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by
anyone else provided
This is disingenuous. A letter sent by a law firm to outline our legal
concerns which uses legal language and tells a site that they will
settle
matters amicably if they meet a demand is a legal threat. It may not
actually
include the words or we will sue you, but trying to spin it as not
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 Ray Saintonge:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 wjhon...@aol.com:
When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;)
Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors
not displaying the license link?
Well, in relative terms, anyway:
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/04/The_age_of_austerity_speech_to_the_2009_Spring_Forum.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/dxdujw
Our government spends nearly £400 million a year on advertising to
reach sixty million people while Wikipedia, one of the
I guess that's the difference of someone actually wanting your content or
not...
Angela
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:45 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.comwrote:
Well, in relative terms, anyway:
2009/4/26 James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com:
Well, in relative terms, anyway:
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/04/The_age_of_austerity_speech_to_the_2009_Spring_Forum.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/dxdujw
Our government spends nearly £400 million a year on advertising to
reach
2009/4/26 Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszew...@gmail.com:
I guess that's the difference of someone actually wanting your content or
not...
Indeed. There is a big difference between advertising and providing content.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:45 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in relative terms, anyway:
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/04/The_age_of_austerity_speech_to_the_2009_Spring_Forum.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/dxdujw
Our government spends nearly £400 million a
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 wjhon...@aol.com:
In the long run, it my opinion, that no one is actually going to care how
the content is used with or without the license, enough, to actually hire a
lawyer. Of course someone could *mention* to those who take the content that
they should
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:45 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, in relative terms, anyway:
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/04/The_age_of_austerity_speech_to_the_2009_Spring_Forum.aspx
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is disingenuous. A letter sent by a law firm to outline our legal
concerns which uses legal language and tells a site that they will
settle
matters amicably if they meet a demand is a legal threat. It may not
actually
include the words or we will sue you, but trying
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/25 Charles Matthews
Which rather ducks the point that where
you go to graduate school would still matter enormously. Why _are_
people hired in the basis of MBAs?
I have a friend who's discovering that MBA is the degree after Ph.D if
you don't want to be an
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Of course WP:OWN is not about legal ownership. The two approaches
remain irreconcilable, and if I were a defendant in such a case I would
not hesitate to raise WP:OWN in evidence, making the point that it
nevertheless taints legal ownership. The
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
The matters of principle in the Jacobsen v. Katzer appear to have been
decided for the moment, but the denial of a preliminary injunction
suggests that the practicalities are far from clear. While it's true
enough that someone may have standing to
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Fred Bauder wrote:
This is disingenuous. A letter sent by a law firm to outline our legal
concerns which uses legal language and tells a site that they will
settle
matters amicably if they meet a demand is a legal threat. It may not
actually
include the words or
If I create a piece of art using Coca-Cola bottles and call it Coca-Cola
Art am I infringing on a trademark? Or am I describing my art piece
accurately?
Will Johnson
**
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
On 26 Apr 2009 at 09:24:54 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee wrote:
From the Foundation-L post:
we sent a letter to
Wikipedia Art that was aimed, not to threaten legal action, but to outline
what our legal concerns were, and to try to begin a negotiation to resolve
the matter amicably -- ideally
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge:
The matters of principle in the Jacobsen v. Katzer appear to have been
decided for the moment, but the denial of a preliminary injunction
suggests that the practicalities are far from clear. While it's true
enough that someone may have
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge:
Of course WP:OWN is not about legal ownership. The two approaches
remain irreconcilable, and if I were a defendant in such a case I would
not hesitate to raise WP:OWN in evidence, making the point that it
nevertheless taints legal ownership.
Of course the /real/ irony is that it now most definitely has
significant comment in multiple independent reliable
sources..
(Against that, 'famous for stirring up a matter to become famous'
isn't exacltly what WP:N is about. Lasting fame by (essentially)
trying to use WP:N norms
Or even this as a comment on the AFD:
Indeterminate. If kept, it is surely non notable and should be
deleted. However if consensus tries to agree deletion this will surely
be commented on by reliable sources and of significant interest and
indicate to the closing admin that (CRYSTAL aside) it
On 4/27/09, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course the /real/ irony is that it now most definitely has
significant comment in multiple independent reliable
sources..
(Against that, 'famous for stirring up a matter to become famous'
isn't exacltly what WP:N is about. Lasting
2009/4/27 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If I create a piece of art using Coca-Cola bottles and call it Coca-Cola
Art am I infringing on a trademark? Or am I describing my art piece
accurately?
Was Andy Warhol ever sued for his Campbell Soup cans?
I think
On 4/25/09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/4/25 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com:
Ars Technica reports:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars
As mentioned in the
Misuse doesnt get celebrated, no matter the nobility of its motive in
the performance art world, by simply creating drama in its wake. Too
abusable if so. (Article creation on a vandal if they manage to
vandalize wp enough to get media comment, anyone?)
That sounds very much like
The point isn't whether you take a picture of a Campbell's soup can and
call it Soup Five. The point is can you call it Campbell Soup Art
The name you give it, is the point. Not what the subject matter is.
Will Johnson
**
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just
28 matches
Mail list logo
