On 9/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Even if everything you've written is correct, there's no need to be so antagonistic with someone who is already blocked. This reads as a petty stab at someone who's already ostracized from the Wiki. Admins and arbitrators should rise above such behavior, even when it tests their patience. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

On 9/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Then my point is even more important; this isn't some obscure Usenet group we're communicating on. This is the official mailing list of the "flagship project" of a well respected worldwide community with scholarly goals. More courtesy for other editors is warranted. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

On 9/21/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: This is EXACTLY what I meant by "Admins and arbitrators should rise above such behavior, even when it tests their patience." Based on his message, we may want to make sure to review all of his edits, but that's no excuse to be discourteous to anyone. There is no "well past time" for courtesy. Even as we show someone the exit, we can still be courteous and polite. Even as we lock the door behind them, we can still be courteous and polite. Doing so improves Wikipedia and its image worldwide. What possible good can come from being discourteous to an editor, especially one who is not blocked or banned? -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

The below is at [[Image_talk:2UK_soldiers2.jpg]]. Im curious what the "public" thinks of the issue. ---- I have two questions on the public domain status of this image. On what basis is this said to be the work of an Iraqi government employee- it explicitly says "AFP" on the bottom right. Also, is the work of Iraqi government employees actually public domain- this is the situation with the U.S. government, but in most countries it is not.--Pharos 23:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC) The image was taken while the agents were in custody. No evidence or mention suggests that the photo was itself taken by afp, or any other copyright interested news agency. The photo has been published elsewhere on the web in an uncensored form, where there is no attribution to AFP. It is common practice for news agencies to claim source rights for images, even without modifications, as reproductions of photos which are in fact public domain. For these reasons I believe the photo is not the property of AFP, but instead is the work of an Iraqi police officer, taken in the conduct of official duties. -St|eve 23:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC) I don't know if it's originally from the AFP or not; it's quite possible it's from the Iraqi government, but there is no source for that. More important, there is no source saying Iraqi govenment photos are PD (in fact I don't think they are). BTW, if there is an "uncensored" version (presumably with the faces unblurred?), why shouldn't we have uploaded that one?--Pharos 23:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Why would they not be public domain? They dont even currently have an established system of patents and intellectual property. You're right--I will find a good uncensored version. -St|eve 23:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC) The intellectual property produced by most governments is not public domain- the U.S. is a real exception. I would guess they're probably operating under the old Saddam-era copyright system- the previous laws have not been repealed en masse, and most are still in operation. We can't just exclude Iraq from the international system of intellectual property and say that nothing produced by an Iraqi can be copyrighted.--Pharos 00:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Thats just speculation. We will have to do some research on Iraqi law. Maybe theres a lawyer we can reach through wikien. A second photo is at Image:2UK soldiers2.jpg, by the way. Still looking. -St|eve 00:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC) It is speculation, but we must presume a photo is copyrighted unless there is actual evidence it is not. We can't speculate in the other direction. I'm looking into the copyright law now; I'm sure it would be useful to know and not just in this instance.--Pharos 00:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Respectfully disagree, and to act within your bounds would be to completely submit to transitional and subjective interpretations of law which is equally transitional. There is a good case to make that the ip of nations in transition is in the PD, and not the copyright of any entity. -St|eve 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC) * Here's a PDF [1] of a 2004 ammendment by Bremer to the 1971 law. I'm not sure if it may have been superceded since then by the Iraqi Interim Government or the Iraqi Transitional Government, but probably not. No special mention is made of government works, so we should presume they are copyrighted. Moreover, look at the official government website, which says "© 2004 Iraqi Transitional Government - All rights reserved." at the bottom.--Pharos 00:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC) I would be reluctant to assume that a decree by a corporate appointee to the leadership position of a colonial government should be considered the basis for any laws by which we must abide. Your suggestion of "probably not" may be true, but only by the most cynical of rationales. And the notion that a disclaimer on a government website should be an indicator of the entirety of ip law in an entire country is likewise flacid. -St|eve 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC) __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Really? This is interesting, because Saddam law might have ruled it illegal to drive tanks over his statues, and take pictures of him in his underwear. Current "law" in Iraq doesnt seem to hold those "rights" inviolate. Theres a similar issue with Nazi-era photographs, etc. Does Germany claim Deutchland™ for anything Fuhrer™? SV __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Delirium wrote: I've heard of that case. It determined that the book was still copyright protected, but did not recognize Bavaria as the owner. Ec

Respect for the laws of others has nothing to do with who has nukes. This type of fatuous comment projects an image of Americans that would leave many American Wikipedians ashamed. Ec steve v wrote:

steve v wrote: I don't know whether this is better characterized as irrational or incoherent. There is no suggestion that President Hussein was the personal copyright holder for the photograph. Your ramblings have nothing to do with copyright. It doesn't seem right to want to punish all the citixens of a country just because you don't like its former president. Ec

On 10/3/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: They probably weren't public domain. However there may be a strong public interest argument for displaying those photographs. I'm not sure whether it would be wise to have an official policy on that (it would almost certainly be abused) but it's a good thing to bear in mind when considering the appropriateness of important photographs from unknown sources. The public interest argument might work better for wikinews. I'm not sure whether it would fly as well on the Wikipedia site. However Wikipedia has recently become noted for the speed and reliability of its coverage of current events, so it's obviously not in the same position that, say, Britannica might be if it carried Abu Ghraib photographs without permission. I'm not a lawyer, so the above is purely speculative.

steve v wrote: Copyright law is what has a direct bearing on what we do as Wikipedians. I have no more facts about whether the photographer wanted to remain anonymous than you, but I prefer not to engage in speculation about it. In the absence of personal knowledge about an anonymous photographer how can you possibly justify having "no doubt". What does the fact that you condone murder by occupation troops have to do with IP law? All I'm saying is that the military occupiers have no business imposing their IP values on the Iraqi people. The Abu Ghraig photos were taken by Americans who, as individuals, have not established any permanent residence in Iraq, so American copyright law should be applicable. Releases from the "models" in the picture is not a matter of copyright law, but of the privacy of those people in the photos. Ec

--- JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity when we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite, and as a valve to allow "decent wikipedians" (our clique) to trump "trolls, vandals" (undesirables, etc.). To my mind there is less ambiguity when a recent appointee to WP:AC forgets to mind WP:DBAD. SV __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

I was simply commenting on how one particular leg of the "Trifecta" may naturally be more popular with egomaniacs than the other two. SV --- JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

The use of clique should not be considered a pejorative, and may refer just as much to a "web of trust" as to a "cabal." I dont make any judgements, but rather chose a term which is neutral, and which critics as well as core members of the "cabal" (you and I ;)) may find agreeable. TINC, true, but WIND (democracy) is also true. Whether one prefers the term "core" or "cabal" is a matter of where one is on the map. SV --- Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote: __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

And LOTS of cliques. Jack (Sam Spade) On 9/22/05, Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, steve v wrote: You're right about that: Wikipedia does have a number of cliques in the neutral sense. I posted in haste & confused "clique" & "cabal". I apologize for my comments to you, Steve, & have restored the chunk of respect I deducted -- for whatever that is worth. Geoff

On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote: You might have a case if anyone had ever managed to get the admins to agree on anything. -- geni

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Alphax wrote: One of the features of Wikipedia once had that I miss was the counter on every page. It was a definite ego boost to create a new article, then return a day or two later & see how many people had rerad it. I understand why this feature was disabled, but it was a nice thing while it lasted. (And probably something suitable for the Wikiholic test.) Geoff