Hi.
How is the fund-raising goal determined each year?
Is there a fund-raising goal set for the upcoming fund-raiser (the one
beginning in November 2012)?
Is there a guideline or policy regarding what happens once the fund-raising
goal is met?
MZMcBride
OK, so the moderation of this mailing list appears to be broken (surely such emails should at least be held for approval by a moderator?). But please see my previous email (which I sent after hitting the 'reply' button)…
Thanks,
Mike
On 20 Aug 2012, at 21:19, wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
> are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to
> the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please send an email to
> wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org and we will forward your post to
> the list. Please be aware that all messages to this list are archived
> and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential communication
> to make, please rather email info(a)wikimedia.org
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> From: Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
> Date: 20 August 2012 21:36:07 BST
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: Kat Walsh <kat(a)wikimedia.org>, Jeffery Nichols <jnichols(a)wikimedia.ca>
>
>
> This sounds like a question to ask on Wikimedia Commons, rather than on this mailing list - particularly since the Commons community is the one that needs to monitor and maintain such a legal position! Also asking the question at the talk page of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy might be a good idea.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 20 Aug 2012, at 12:08, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
>> even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
>> the answer. I guess the options would be:
>>
>> 1) They are in the public domain
>> https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Radiograph_.28X-Ray.29 and
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Works_elig…
>>
>> 2) The X ray tech who took the image
>> 3) The person / institution who paid to have the image taken
>> a) The HMO or patient if in the USA
>> b) The government if in many parts of the world
>> 4) The doctor who ordered the image
>> 5) The doctor who read the image
>> 6) The hospital / shareholders of the hospital who owns the equipment
>> 7) All of the above / some of the above / none of the above
>>
>> Would be good to have a legal position on this.
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>
>> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
>
In Germany the person who makes the x-ray is the owner of the right
("Leistungsschutzrecht" according § 72 Copyright Act) even the work is
made for hire.
The discussion is full of confusion of privacy rights and copyright.
The distribution of the x-rays may be restricted by the patient's
rights but if x-rays are copyrighted the patient isn't the owner of
the copyright and cannot distribute the x-rays of his body.
Klaus Graf
http://archivalia.tumblr.com/
The WMF legal team has said they would provide an opinion on this
question some time next week. The law is ambiguous and I guess the
real question is how much is the foundation willing to put their neck
out.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
@ Tomasz: Per "a) if the picture is taken automatically by machine in
routine way (in case of X-ray, NMR and some other techinques this is
usually atomatic
and routine) - they are not copyrightable, as this is not any creative
work." This is my understanding. X rays are taken in the exact same
way each time. X ray techs are specifically not to use creative
license even though their job requires skill.
@ David: Yes we do have US case law. It was in the previous link but
here is a direct link to it
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-4222.pdf
X rays once the persons name / identifiers are removed do not contain
identifiable information. Per the legal team here patient
confidentiality is thus not a concern at this point. It is like taking
pictures of someones cerebral spinal fluid as I have done here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSF.JPG I did not get this person
permission.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
@ Klaus So if they are copyrightable in Germany who owns the copyright?
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
According to German legal literature X-rays are copyrighted as simple
photographs with a 50 years post publication term (if published 50
years after making).
There is no creativity in making an X-ray. Therefore I would say that
there are serious doubts that in the European Union X-rays are
copyrighted. In Switzerland they are definitively not copyrighted.
In "sweat of the brow" countries there is normal copyright IMHO.
Klaus Graf
A contributor has raised an interesting questions on wikien-l that concerns
French Wikimedians. As French Wikimedians are unlikely to see it there, and
wikifr-l seems moribund, I've appended a copy of the post below.
---o0o---
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2012-August/110434.html
"Under the French penal code, stocking personal details including race,
sexuality, political leanings or religious affiliation is punishable by
five-year prison sentences and fines of up to euro300,000 ($411,000)."
— http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/24/jew-or-not-jew-iphone-app_n_111173…
Doesn't this technically make the French Wikipedia illegal? I don't
really understand this law's nuances, so I'm wondering if someone with
more knowledge could elaborate.
--
~~yutsi
---o0o---
The underlying question concerns what is often deprecated as "Jew tagging"
and "gay tagging", i.e. adding Jewish or LGBT categories to biographies of
living people.
France (and quite likely other countries as well) has laws created after
the holocaust that make it illegal to collect personal details on people's
race, religion, or sexuality without their consent. An Apple app called
"Jew or not Jew?" that allowed users to look up whether a celebrity or
public figure was Jewish or not was withdrawn by Apple from worldwide
circulation after they were taken to court in France.
The question at issue is whether French Wikimedians might be individually
liable for violating French law if they add such categories in Wikipedia.
It isn't just a French issue, the whole of the European Union has Data
Protection Law based on the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive
And the categories of "Sensitive" data are similar across the EU.
Ethnicity, religion, health and Political opinion being perhaps the most
relevant to us. I think that not all countries defined criminal record as
Sensitive, and the UK apparently opted out of the philosophical opinions
bit, but the legislation across Europe has commonalities, though it would
be stretching a point to describe it as harmonised.
But the good thing is that it isn't as simple as a ban on processing such
data, there are various exemptions, and I'm pretty sure they include if the
individual has made that information publicly known. So French citizens are
allowed to know what political party their President is a member of, and
they can't be prosecuted simply for categorising the Pope as a Roman
Catholic. However just because somebody's parents, siblings and children
have self identified as Jewish doesn't mean that they also have disclosed
that information about themselves.
Now that we have chapters in some of these countries it might be worth
starting a dialogue with the various Information Commissioners (apologies
if this is already happening). I would hope that our existing policies
largely cover us here, provided that is that we editors living in the EU
treat what they consider to be "sensitive" data about living people as
contentious data. But there could be some grey areas, for example if no EU
source is covering something then an EU editor sourcing a fact from a
reliable source in the US might be in difficulty. Especially if that "fact"
was something that EU sources weren't covering because they had no legal
basis to do so.
I would hope that we could get some guidelines agreed between European
chapter and their national Information Commissioners, and that those
guidelines could then be communicated to editors; Both to reassure people
as to where the boundaries are and so that we in Europe know to leave
certain things to our colleagues outside the EU.
WSC
On 19 August 2012 13:23, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> As French Wikimedians are unlikely to see this thread here on wikien-l (and
> wikifr-l seems moribund), I've dropped a post about this to wikimedia-l.
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-August/121744.html
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000 pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since 2008 - it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a particular day were on one page, and people could come along and approve or reject based in certain criteria.
I think that system worked well. True, we have a lot more article creations, but I think it gave more visibility than the current system where everything is subpaged.
Some may think that the bar at AFC is set too high but this high bar discourages new users, especially when their submissions stay unreviewed for weeks at a time. And since editor retention is something we are trying to focus on, it seems a worthy project since many new users have their first experiences in AFC. The lack of volunteers in wikiprojects like AFC is not a new thing, so it's not that volunteers have reduced. I think we need to consider if AFC is something we still want to have, and if so, how can we improve it?
Steve Zhang
