Sydney Poore wrote: [[LS Studio]] is an article about a porn studio which was closed down. It appears to be well-referenced, and only the most obtuse POV-pusher would manage to convince themselves after reading all the comments attached to those references that the cited stories might be about some other incident. You're forum-shopping and POV-pushing. Please stop it. WP:NOT censored. Just because something is horrid does not mean we should not have an article about it. Indeed our core mission is to educate and elucidate. This can hardly be accomplished by ninny-hammered burying of the truth on the tenuous grounds of "Yeeuuch". HTH HAND -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/LS-Studio-and-pro-pedophilia-pov-t1401250.html#a37850… Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[[LS Studio]] is an article about a porn studio which was closed down. It appears to be well-referenced, and only the most obtuse POV-pusher would manage to convince themselves after reading all the comments attached to those references that the cited stories might be about some other incident.

If an FBI report exists but is unpublished / unavailable, that is equivalent to it not existing right now.

If it actually exists and is not related to ongoing investigations, I'd imagine we could, but this still gets a little too close to original research / investigative journalism for me.

I didn't have any luck getting an answer to this on the wiki, so I'll try asking here. I've been using the {{pd-art}} tag for Greek vase paintings I've uploaded, but before I really go hog wild and start uploading these on a large scale I'd like to be sure that this would be a good idea. So, two questions: 1. Are we relatively sure that the Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corp. case applies to two dimensional art on a non-flat surface? I've seen other users use this tag for that purpose, but I don't know that any of them were any more informed about this than me.

2. Since that case was a strictly US case, are there likely to be issues with downstream usability of these images outside of the US?

This has come up in an article I'm working on- does this ruling apply to images from books or manuscripts? Are books three dimensional art works, even if what you're reproducing is a single page from them? My father, a librarian, seems to think the owning library continues to hold copyright for all such images. I'm not so sure.

for Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard. I don't know what the caselaw is on it, but I would be wary of an overbroad reliance on Bridgeman. - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard.

On 4/10/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Heh, you mean if there's a flaw, such as a scratch, in the photocopying process, copyright could reside in the flaw? :)

while we're a topic, a couple of months ago I took pictures (on a museum) of ancient mayan sculptures. Unfortunately I was on a hurry so I couldn't go talk with staff. Now, who owns the copyright? Those sculptures are like a thousand year old, but pd-old doesn't apply (it will apply 100 years after I die in case I actually hold the copyright of my pictures) Can I upload such pictures to wikipedia? Can museum claim copyright on the ancient sculptures? and if so, can it claim copyright on my pictures?

while we're a topic, a couple of months ago I took pictures (on a museum) of ancient mayan sculptures. Unfortunately I was on a hurry so I couldn't go talk with staff.

Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard.

I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, Bridgeman v Corel only applies to two-dimensional copies of two-dimensional works (though it may apply to three-dimensional copies of three-dimensional works). The basis of it is that a "slavishly accurate" copy of a work involves no creative effort, and so cannot establish a copyright separate from that of the original. Photographing a 3D work involves creative effort, in the choice of lighting and camera angle.

Images created and published in the US that are public domain under Bridgeman v Corel are probably public domain everywhere else, as well.

Mark Wagner wrote: Bridgeman v. Corel was a district court case, never litigated at the appeals court level, and therefore is not a strong precedent. It is, as far as I have been able to determine, a fairly unusual result not likely to be followed by other courts. Therefore, relying on Bridgeman v. Corel for anything is likely wishful thinking. I very much doubt this. --Jimbo -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # ####################################################################### _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 4/11/06, Mak &lt;makwik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Museums own think, precedent, does. </armchair Well of course they would differ on that. They see revenue going out the window as they tried in vain to claim active authorship rights on something that was made two hundred years ago. The only claims I have seen against the reasoning in Bridgeman and Feist are along the lines of "but we'd like the money" and "it takes effort/resources to make this product." Those are realistic economic considerations for a business but it is a sort of argumentation which should have nothing to do with copyright law -- it is the sort of argumentation which leads you down the horrible legislative paths like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act ("We'd like it extended because it's worth money, so fuck the principles"). Fortunately librarians and archivists are not as potent a constituency as the music industry, or else Congress would probably get involved. I have very little tolerance for archivists who think that ownership is the same thing as authorship, and do not care that copyrights are supposed to be LIMITED monopolies on culture. The long-term effects of Bridgeman v. Corel -- which I don't think anybody is predicting a swift overturning of -- are worth contemplating but are really beyond our personal control. Whether it will result in restriction of access (for the purpose of preserving IP without resorting to IP law) is a possibility, but just one of many. There are other ways to make revenue besides trying to misuse copyright law, thank goodness. Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go back over the images tagged as such and delete them. FF

Well, the UK is a place in particular where the issue raised in Bridgman v. Corel has not been ironed out one way or another.

My apologies for not being familiar with Ms. Emin.

The way I would read "irrespective of artistic quality" it is to protect even bad artists. This allows the drawings of a 3-year old to be protected, and prevents the argument that something is not good enough to be protected.

An interesting case would be over copyrights on the paintings by the elephants in the San Diego Zoo. Would an elephant be capable of exercising artistic craftsmanship?

The fact that the Bridgeman v. Corel situation has not been ironed out in Britain cannot be taken as support for either side of the argument. Subsection 4(c) at first strikes me as a redundancy unless it can be taken to apply prospectively to other formats that are not specified in (a) or (b). I think that any photograph that we may be considering would pass the test in section 4, but it must still pass the originality test specified in paragraph 1(1)(a).

BTW does this copy of the Act include amendments since 1988? I see that it still shows copyright duration as being life + 50. Why have I misunderstood that it would be life + 70?

In any event given the fuss that the museums of Britain have been making over this issue, it is amazing that there would be no British court decision on this.

It would, of course, be up to them to initiate any infringement proceedings. In the absence of such proceedings they have an infinite capacity to roar like paper tigers for as long as people are willing to take that roar seriously.

Unfortunately, as Wikipedia gets bigger it becomes less courageous in taking on these ruffians, because it has assets that it could lose.

It would be helpful to have a litigation-proofed organization that operates at arms length to Wikipedia, and that could openly inspire the museums into taking legal action.

Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go back over the images tagged as such and delete them.

Jimmy Wales wrote: It may not be binding outside of that district or on any higher court but it is influential as long as no contrary decision has been issued. As someone else has noted it has not been appealed, and that may very well be because the losers in the district court were convinced that such an appeal would get nowhere. Saying that is was "merely" a district court case does not mean that we cannot rely on it to some extent. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 4/11/06, Mak &lt;makwik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: If the work is out of copyright, they can only do that by requiring agreement to a legally valid and binding contract before letting you see the work. This is the case worldwide, in most cases. Nations differ as to whether an accurate 2D copy is itself copyrightable, but my understanding of the law is that once something is out of copyright, it can be legally copied unless you sign a contract stating you won't. If an 'unauthorised' copy is made, the issue is almost entirely one of contract law, not copyright law. I'm uncertain of what the legal position is if the owner of a work insists that "since we require everyone accessing this work to agree to a contract, this copy must be illegal" but fails to identify who was in breach of their contract and thus prove the breach of contract.

Bridgeman v. Corel was a district court case, never litigated at the appeals court level, and therefore is not a strong precedent. It is, as far as I have been able to determine, a fairly unusual result not likely to be followed by other courts.

In other words, basically every public-domain image except PD-self and some PD-USGov.

I can legally scan any image in the book and place it on Wikipedia. I do not need to assume the validity of Bridgeman v. Corel in order to do so.

On 4/11/06, Matt Brown &lt;morven(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Perhaps but you do need to in order to tag it correctly.

Matt Brown wrote: If the original image was in the public domain there is nothing wrong about your using someone else's scan of the image. That other person's scan of a public domain work is not copyrightable.

On 4/11/06, Matt Brown &lt;morven(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: In other words, basically every public-domain image except PD-self and some PD-USGov. -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

This is a kind of weird verifiability case. We don't say "God exists" in Wikipedia because such a statement couldn't be verified. But the statements in [[LS Studio]] could be verified if someone got their hands on an FBI report on the organization or somesuch. Since no one has yet, nothing in the article is verifiable... so do we delete it?

That's what happened to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_steamer anyway. We now have all the "popular culture" cruft back in there, and still absolutely no reliable sources. Unless you count the entry in the online dictionary of sex added by the well-known and trusted user "Anonymous", which some people apparently do.

On 4/12/06, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: That's basically what I did already: I cut all the unverifiable stuff and moved it to [[2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids]]. There have been no substantive changes in the five days since, after raging activity beforehand, clearly there is nothing of encyclopaedic value left. Nominating it for deletion is a good idea.