Hi there,
I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big
difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia.
In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and
they are not checked.
People can just upload any and all maps that they somehow created
themselves, even if they are derived from works that clearly do not
allow a creativecommons sharealike processing of them.
In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items
based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from
geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what
is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons.
Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material.
Why is this permitted and encouraged in wikipedia but forbidden in
openstreetmap?
Is there any chance of aligning the policies so that we can use the
map material in wikipedia for openstreetmap?
Do you want to start enforcing stricter checking of the sources of maps?
The idea is that Wikipedia is to host free knowledge, but what good is
this knowledge of the world (maps) if we cannot use it?
If wikipedia were to enforce the same standards for maps, there would
be very few maps available in it.
thanks,
mike
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
> The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high
> quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those
> positions for many of the locations and they are only available from
> non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them
> being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not
> usable for openstreetmap.>>
I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of "high quality
satellite images". Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't
own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is
that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not
copyrightable.
W.J.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 2:08:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org writes:
> I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :) >>>
> ----------
You are *taking* the picture however, with a mechanical device while you
are excersizing creativity over it's content. It's your creativity that
creates the copyrightable image, not who owns the mechanism. That's not the case
with Google satellite images. There is no creativity involved.
However this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth#Copyright
seems to give another alternative using a public domain database of images.
W.J.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
> (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person
> access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but
> not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery,
> and visible map data;
>
> ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to
> such a mass import.>>
Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their
claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long
points. If you're concerned than use them.
Start here on my page of genealogy tools
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
Near the top there's a link to the USGS called "Find a Town"
which takes you here
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=127:1:1089405488282263
You can look for more than just "towns", for example airports, cemeteries,
creeks, whatever. For example look for Baptist in Arkansas, Hempstead
County and you get eighteen entries with latitude and longitude for the Baptist
churches.
W.J.
Hi.
If i understand correctly - and please correct me if i'm wrong - the current
big Usability project is essentially a rather cosmetic change of the default
skin. It is not really bad and i'm not really opposed to it, as many other
users are, but it seems that it doesn't address a very big usability problem
- the fact that Wikimedia Commons is hardly accessible for people who don't
English well.
Sure, it's possible to translate to translate templates and system messages
to other languages and set the default language in the preferences, but this
is very far from actually achieving the goal of making Commons the main
media repository for all other WMF projects in all languages.
And it's kinda symbolic that Commons will be the first project where the
default skin will be switched.
Now, before i start writing about the problems that i found in detail, this
is probably something that was already discussed. If it indeed was, please
point me to it (thanks in advance). If it was not discussed deeply, i'll
probably start a discussion page somewhere.
--
אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
Amir Elisha Aharoni
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
(Resent with correct subject header)
John Vandenberg writes:
> By the way, check out <http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo>. ?I hope no one
> > thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo
> logo
> > without a license.
>
> That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of
> originality. Why do they do not need a license?
>
>
Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo "does not
meet the threshold of originality" and therefore is not copyrightable? Can
you cite a source on this?
--Mike
Please consider this proposal for the WikiGuide project:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGuide
The goal of WikiGuide is to be a place for valid information that can't
be accepted at other WikiMedia sites due to various quality guidelines,
and to clarify some of the more confusing articles in Wikipedia and
other projects. (Details can be found at the actual proposal, of course.)
Thank you!
In a message dated 3/30/2010 8:37:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mnemonic(a)gmail.com writes:
> Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use
> true
> names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA?>>
What I'm suggesting is that regardless of which license we decide to use as
a project, an editor submitting content to the project is effectively
giving up any right they may have to decide what is done with that content,
including the meta content like their true name. Including it's use as freely
reusable content.
I don't see this right you seem to hold that content submit, or meta
content that is tagged along with it, somehow enjoys a special position other than
what the project itself decides it should or should not enjoy. From where
does this extra right stem? The editor waives all rights to their
submissions. That's my position.
I would suggest even further, that they are giving up any right to decide
what is done, *even if* the licensing terms should change.
I know others don't hold that viewpoint.
WJhonson writes:
> I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to
> write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license
> to do so?
Not at all. I'm pointing out, though, that there are all sorts of potential
and actual rights embedded in content, and that the right of publicity (as
it's called in the United States) is one of them. If we insisted on a
simplistic notion of "freedom" with regard to free content, we'd have to
take this legal encumbrance into account.
By submitting, using their true names, they are granting us the license to
> use their true names per our terms.
>
Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use true
names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA?
>
> How could we interpret any of that differently? It seems like a
> hodge-podge.
>
Now you're beginning to see the complexity of the issues.
--Mike
In a message dated 3/30/2010 6:50:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org writes:
> I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish
> Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living
> Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them.>>
---------
I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to
write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license
to do so? If not, then by an editor submitting an article on a person to
Wikipedia, they are de facto granting license to reuse that content per our
terms.
By submitting, using their true names, they are granting us the license to
use their true names per our terms.
How could we interpret any of that differently? It seems like a
hodge-podge.
Any content submit, is being submit under a free reuse license.
W.J.