On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 20:24, Carcharoth
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:05 AM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> >> What kind of reusers do we have in mind? The reason I ask is that the
> >> image policies are crippling, or the way they're being appl
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 20:24, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:05 AM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> What kind of reusers do we have in mind? The reason I ask is that the
>> image policies are crippling, or the way they're being applied is.
>> I've lost count of the number of times Holocaust im
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:05 AM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 18:28, David Gerard wrote:
>> The problem for Commons is also reusability - Wikimedia could get away
>> with just about anything, but reusers may not.
>>
> What kind of reusers do we have in mind? The reason I ask is that
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 18:28, David Gerard wrote:
> The problem for Commons is also reusability - Wikimedia could get away
> with just about anything, but reusers may not.
>
What kind of reusers do we have in mind? The reason I ask is that the
image policies are crippling, or the way they're being
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:28 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 8 February 2010 00:16, Ian Woollard wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that the Wikipedia doesn't really have any risk
>> under the law.
>> Provided the strictures of the DMCA are followed, any uploaded
>> copyrighted material simply has to be
On 8 February 2010 00:16, Ian Woollard wrote:
> My understanding is that the Wikipedia doesn't really have any risk
> under the law.
> Provided the strictures of the DMCA are followed, any uploaded
> copyrighted material simply has to be removed promptly if they receive
> a copyright violation no
On 07/02/2010, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> In examining this one needs to distinguish between Wikipedia policy and
> copyright law. Wikipedia can establish its own policies, which largely,
> but not exclusively, tend to be more stringent that copyright law. In
> that it can be authoritative; it choos
>
>
> In summary, it's up to Wikipedia to adopt its own policies. Personally,
> I would avoid too doctrinaire an approach; I would more tend to assume
> that if one takes a fair-minded approach to including material with
> uncertain copyright status the worst that can happen is that some
> ghostly
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 16:35, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> SlimVirgin wrote:
>> So my first question is: if an image was regarded as in the public domain on
>> January 1, 1996 in its (non-U.S.) country of origin, is there a consensus as
>> to whether we are allowed to use it on Wikipedia as a PD image?
SlimVirgin wrote:
> Can anyone help with an authoritative opinion about this? The doubts about
> it are causing problems on a number of articles, including during featured
> article reviews.
>
> Where an image is in the public domain in its country of origin, and that
> country is not the U.S., I b
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Further examples can be multiplied, but I hope this shows that CSEs
> can be very useful for finding online sources; I'm sure it would work
> as well for other subject-areas!
>
> (And since I can't let recent events go, I'll mar my little e
Can anyone help with an authoritative opinion about this? The doubts about
it are causing problems on a number of articles, including during featured
article reviews.
Where an image is in the public domain in its country of origin, and that
country is not the U.S., I believe we still have to show
12 matches
Mail list logo
