On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, SlimVirgin wrote:
> Imagine that one of those victims were here now, part of this discussion.
> Please explain to him why we can't develop image policies that avoid that
> outcome.
If one of the victims was here now, and he took the picture, he could grant
a free license and w
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 04:34, Carcharoth wrote:
>
> I agree that the "educational content" and "free license or in the
> public domain" aspects do often conflict, but both aspects need to be
> borne in mind when debating such cases.
>
> Right, but both aspects aren't borne in mind, that's the pro
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
>
>> I agree that it is annoying to think of commons admins going to all this
>> trouble just for the benefit of unknown people selling t-shirts, but if
>> people *aren't* allowed to sell t-shirts
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> I agree that it is annoying to think of commons admins going to all this
> trouble just for the benefit of unknown people selling t-shirts, but if
> people *aren't* allowed to sell t-shirts then it's not free-culture
> project.
>
It's not a fr
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:29 AM, 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 t
Oh, and a current example, if anyone is interested:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Picture_upload_question
One of the big problems is finding out whether copyright was renewed,
but I'm not sure if the artwork in question was ever published in the
USA anyway. People miss nu
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:26 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 February 2010 13:21, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> I've sometimes thought that, in an ideal world, we should just phase
>> out PD-old and all its forms - it's often, as you say, wishful
>> thinking, or sometimes (and I know in my early days I
On 10 February 2010 13:21, Andrew Gray wrote:
> I've sometimes thought that, in an ideal world, we should just phase
> out PD-old and all its forms - it's often, as you say, wishful
> thinking, or sometimes (and I know in my early days I did this) a
> cover for a misunderstanding about just what
On 10 February 2010 02:58, Durova wrote:
> But we keep getting editors who use the PD-old template anyway as an
> exercise in wishful thinking. Too often, "the existence of a valid
> copyright is debatable" becomes a euphemism for "I've got a lousy source and
> haven't done enough research."
I'
>
> Yes, lack of good administrators is a big problem, but the policies that
> they administer would remain the same without regard to the number of
> administrators. A simpler formulation of the rules could ease the
> administrators' burdens. Alternatively, the solution is more administrators.
>
>
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:07, Cary Bass wrote:
>
> Cary Bass wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:59, Cary Bass
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> I'd like to point out that in fact, these images would be
> >>> accepted on to Commons, because Commons respects the country of
> >>> origin rule rather than the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cary Bass wrote:
> SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:59, Cary Bass
>> wrote:
>
>>> I'd like to point out that in fact, these images would be
>>> accepted on to Commons, because Commons respects the country of
>>> origin rule rather than t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:59, Cary Bass wrote:
>
>> I'd like to point out that in fact, these images would be
>> accepted on to Commons, because Commons respects the country of
>> origin rule rather than the PD-US rule that more of
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:59, Cary Bass wrote:
> I'd like to point out that in fact, these images would be accepted on
> to Commons, because Commons respects the country of origin rule rather
> than the PD-US rule that more often applies on the English Wikipedia.
Hi Cary, most of the image people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 17:22, Michael Peel
> wrote:
>> However, that is somewhat separate from the question of images
>> that are in the public domain _somewhere_. It is somewhat crazy
>> that US laws dictate what public domain mat
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 17:22, Michael Peel wrote:
> However, that is somewhat separate from the question of images that
> are in the public domain _somewhere_. It is somewhat crazy that US
> laws dictate what public domain materials you can upload to Wikipedia
> etc - irrespective of what laws app
On 8 Feb 2010, at 23:05, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> This is also a particular problem with pictures of living people,
> since we've
> been told that since it's *possible* to take another picture of a
> living
> person, all non-free images of living people are prohibited. The
> official
> way of
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, 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 images are proposed
> for deletion because, we're told, there's a fre
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:13, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> I believe the answer is serious in as much as the most contested (but
> allowed) re-use-cases of Commons content are for commercial purposes. It is
> a use-case that is both difficult to explain to many copyright holders but
> also important for us
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 removed promptly if they recei
Ian Woollard wrote:
> 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 than copyright law. In
>> that it
Durova wrote:
>> 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
SlimVirgin wrote:
> As you say, it's up to Wikipedia to formulate its own policy, so I'm
> wondering if that's being done anywhere, if there's an effort
> somewhere to clarify this.
>
>
The fact is that copyright issues have been a perpetual topic of debate
throughout my eight years of particip
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
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
