Whilst browsing over the QI candidates page I noticed this image:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:EM_Spectrum_Properties.svg.
The image itself is licensed as public domain. However it is a
derivative of two images licensed under the GFDL
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:P_biology.svg and
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Skyscrapercompare.svg). Unless
I am misreading something quite badly, releasing a derivative of a
GFDL-licensed work to the public domain is a violation of the GFDL.
It is easy to fix one image, but I suspect we have deeper problems
throughout the project with a lack of respect for copyleft.
Establishing just how serious this issue is will be non-trivial, never
mind resolving it.
I can think of a number of approaches to this situation, some of which
are obviously harmful to the project and/or the free content movement
as a whole.
* Ignore the terms of the GFDL (or any other copyleft licenses) in this context.
* Treat them the same as any other copyright violation.
* Contact the creator of the derivative and inform him of the
pertinent terms of the original license; and ask him to change the
licensing on the derivative.
* Changing the licensing on the derivative work to be compatible with
the original work, and inform the creator of the new work of the
change and the reason why.
Furthermore we probably have the difficulties associated with of a
CC-BY-SA work and a GFDL work being combined. I'm no lawyer, but I
suspect to truly sort these cases out will need an additional release
from some of the creators of the original works.
If we cannot enforce the copyleft terms on our own community, can we
really expect external groups to?
Hello,
I've been interested for some time in the idea that Wikimedia project could
offer technical support to our contributors, in the form of specific
tutorials, small events with crash courses, and similar things.
To illustrate the concept, I have set up a small tutorial on Museum
Photography, which is available here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rama/Museum_photography
The red links in the box above are an illustration of the various other
subjects that I can think of from the top of my hat (and to which I could
contribute to some extend), I am sure that there are lots of others. The
idea is not to re-write the Photography Wikibook, but to write to-the-point
checklists.
I'd be glad to have comments on this, and maybe contributions to make it
truely worthwhile.
Cheers !
-- Rama
>From commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> Earlier: "... When I read this article [0]
> on "Telegraph", I knew I have seen the
> image before, somewhere [1]... I know
> this is not the first time nor the last this
> happens, I just wanted to highlight it,
> as I think it is one of the biggest
> newspapers in the UK. I see no way
> to contact them *. I suppose that, for
> some people, we are a just bunch of
> PD images... :-(
> [0]
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/19/scisc
issors119.xml>
> [1]
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_paper_scissors.jpg>
Peter Blaise responds:
I concur - the telegraph.co.uk web site seems to crap out when trying to
make contact:
* "Contact us" at the bottom of the quoted web page returns:
* Sorry, the page you have requested is not available
Please try again later
* This error message may occur for a number of reasons:
We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject
* The file may have been moved or deleted because it is out of date
* You may have followed a link from another web site that contains an
incorrect or out of date URL (web page address)
* You may have typed an incorrect URL into your browser
* There may be an error on the telegraph.co.uk site.
!!!
But I found on OTHER web sites the mention them:
"...contact the Telegraph via 020 7931 2076 or email:
photographs(a)telegraph.co.uk..."
so I imagine ANY name(a)telegraph.co.uk will work, such as
editor(a)telegraph.co.uk or webmaster(a)telegraph.co.uk and so on. Try it.
The image in question has no identifying markers on it, or in it, that
indicate origin - EXIF and IPTC are empty. So, if the image lands in
somebody's browser cache on their own PC, then it will be brought up in
their (free) Picasa / Google drive self-search with nothing more
identifying it than this type of location:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary
Internet Files\Content.IE5\RICPZFAU\Rock_paper_scissors[1].jpg
Where did it come from? The computer doesn't know! But, that's where
the image is on MY hard drive, and that's where my Picasa found it after
I browsed, and maybe the contributor to the Commons found it in THEIR
Picasa web cache display before they uploaded it?!? No origin. No
source identifier. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Until we learn to mark the Commons image files internally, and on their
face, with at least a source identifier, Commons (and ANY image on the
Internet) is acting like a free-for-all PD Public Domain farm.
Also, unless the image contains something that actively engages the
image in a copyright management system (DRM Digital Rights Management),
then there is also no chance of successfully prosecuting anyone for
tampering with it to remove source and copyright information.
What's the problem here? What's the goal? What's your point? Do we
want them to credit Commons as the source? Do we want them to not use
the image if there is a profit transaction? Do we want them to
negotiate republishing rights with the original copyright holder? Do we
want them to explicitly state the image source and that it is free for
anyone else to redistribute, and it is NOT part of their own copyright
on the rest of their publication? What? What is your point, what do
you want the telegraph.co.uk to have done?
What do we want the Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/ to do? Auto
EXIF / IPTC / DRM / watermark anyone?
We're collecting a boatload of resources to freely share with the world.
I'm not sure I understand if there was even a problem pointed to in the
original post.
More reading to do at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikime
dia
... which illustrates TEXT reuse, not images.
And of course, a Google search for "GFDL":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_Licensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrightshttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.htmlhttp://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5628http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876http://blog.jamendo.com/index.php/2007/12/01/breaking-news-wikipedia-swi
tches-to-creative-commons/
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_updatehttp://lessig.org/blog/2007/12/some_important_news_from_wikip.html
...
CC+ is basically a Creative Commons way of saying "if you want extra
permission beyond those granted in this license, contact me [or some
third party] to arrange that". It is mostly talked about in the
context of using a NC license and then using CC+ for anyone who wants
to get permission for commercial use.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus
However it also seems to make sense even for Commons which only allows
CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. A lot of people have personal "contact me for X"
statements where X could be a freer license, higher-res image,
whatever else.
We could start using CC+ as the framework for that today, as seen by
the simplest example
<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus#Easy_CC.2B_Markups>
(the main gist of it seems to be special attributes in the <a> html tag)
So the question is not should we allow it (we have no reason not to), but
- should we actively encourage people to use it, instead of personal
"contact me for X" statements?
Basically the only point of using CC+ instead of personal statements
is because CC+ is intended to be a standard.
This is not an issue where the benefits of standardisation are hugely
obvious to me, so I am not too fussed about this, but maybe some
people have strong feelings about it.
If you use a personal contact statement, is there any reason you
wouldn't switch to a standardised CC+ statement with an equivalent
statement?
cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: noreply(a)openclipart.org
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:37:28 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Clipart] [Open Clip Art Library] looking for someone to do
work for hire...
To: clipart(a)lists.freedesktop.org
I have a large database containing coat of arms shields. These are
proprietary. I basically need someone to clean up my existing database
as many of them were poorly rendered. The file type is .wmf. There are
thousands of files so the individual should be a very efficient.
Prefer someone with some coat of arms knowledge but not essential. Any
assistance with finding the right person would be greatly appreciate.
I live in California. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks
_______________________________________________
clipart mailing list
clipart(a)lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
This spun off from a different discussion elsewhere, but I was
wondering about the possibility of printing Christmas cards based on
images from Commons. Maybe a partnership with a printing company could
be made for next year's fundraiser? (I'd buy them!)
Angela
There is always this method.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
Date: 23 Dec 2007 13:24
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Our content gets *everywhere*
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On 12/21/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Six different front covers, each one with text lifted straight out of
> enwiki... I hit the roof - GFDL is not public domain! - but Management
> don't seem to care. Someone should sue ;-)
Prior to sueing, someone with a bit of initiative could send an
invoice. I suspect many companies, when faced with an actual invoice
of some reasonable amount (<$1000) would simply pay it. Some text to
the effect of "You didn't contact me before using my text. However,
I'm willing to grant a retrospective licence for $.... under the terms
at my website [...]".
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://www.linux.com/feature/123574
The Theora bitstream format is finalised, the Dirac bitstream is still
subject to change, but you can play with it and see what it's capable
of.
- d.
