As you might, or might not know, I have been quite busy with Flickr
lately, especially with [[User:FlickreviewR]]. I have written two
tools (or actually, one tool with two functions) with helps Commons
users with images for Flickr.
The first is a database of all images reviewed images from Flickr:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bryan/flickr/browse You can search on nsid,
username, photo_id, link, and Commons image. The database contains
over 28,000 images, which is over 70% of the total number of Flickr
images on Commons :) [1]
Now the second tool is really handy (imho ;P). It allows you to easily
upload images from Flickr:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bryan/flickr/upload :) All images uploaded
by this tool are guaranteed to be tagged under a free Creative Commons
license at upload time. Hopefully this will make it easier to upload
images from Flickr, reduce the number of copyvios and make sure that
only hi res images are uploaded.
All images are still in beta; by using this tools you are subject to
the Commons Licensing and Project scope policies, etc. etc.; Please
report errors to [[User talk:Bryan]]. If you find any security bug in
the upload part, the bot that performs the uploads and to be blocked
is Flickr_upload_bot.
:D,
Bryan
[1] I do have a database of more than 95% of all Flickr images, but a
lot of them are unreviewed. Human reviewed images are daily added to
the database.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Meet_our_photographers
Anyone adding themselves to this? (No, I haven't myself as yet ...)
I ask because I have use right now for some examples of photographers
who contribute professional-quality work under GFDL *and sell it as
well* to those who don't want to simply use it under GFDL. (Because
GFDL is easy to obey in books and on the web, but damn near impossible
in magazines or pamphlets.) I have some photographers I want to
convince that putting stuff on Commons is good advertising for their
talents.
- d.
FYI: Thanks to Yuri, who implemented a new api function,
[[MediaWiki:Gallerypreview.js]] can now preview galleries as well as
categories. Guess it can keep the name then...
[Note to self: Get own mailing list to not spam commons-l with toy updates]
Magnus
I'd like to invite you to participate in a survey about Wikimedia's
brands, their uses, and possible changes to our brand strategy:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey
Of particular interest from Commoners is the Wikimedia/Wikipedia
confusion and how to deal with it.
Thank you.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
I have put online a little JavaScript tool which allows (mass-) moving
of images between categories within commons through point-and-click
(no use of keyboard necessary;-)
I tested this on my local MediaWiki installation, where it worked
fine, but didn't stress-test it on commons yet. It can't damage
anything on commons, but it might not work under certain conditions at
the moment.
That said:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Cat-a-lot.js
Awaiting critique and bug reports :-)
Magnus
I wonder
are pokeball drawings derivative work of nintendo stuff or not?
Since I've sen many on commons (there's one Nuvo!a pokeball that was
created USING a red ball from the nuvola icon set, but that doesn't
mean the pokeball is from the nuvola icon, as it seems to be thought
by pokefans. Several other images are derivative from it
I've listed the ones I found at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Nuvo%21a_…
and also removed one created by geni upon him requesting it
Some of those (like the portal one) were created by users who at some
point made fairuse-like tempaltes for commons (see {{pokémon}}) to
justify their existence
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe those are GFDL-able, if it so, could someone
cluebat me in the deletion request?
Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:User-specific_galleries%2C_templa…
for a draft of a new policy towards user-specific annotation things.
I hope this is a reflection of a few previous discussions and the
prevailing attitude. Hopefully not controversial.
Please make any comments on the talk page rather than the mailing list.
cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
Hello,
It seems that concerns us.
Regards,
Yann
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 5.10, 23 May 2007
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:44:11 +0300
De: EDRI-gram newsletter <edrigram(a)edri.org>
Pour: <edri-news(a)edri.org>
============================================================
EDRI-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 5.10, 23 May 2007
============================================================
Contents
============================================================
1. US official makes PNR demands to the European Parliament
2. UK implements the Data Retention Directive
3. Google is profiling online gamers
4. UK House of Commons culture committee wants copyright extension
5. The Italian Big Brother Awards for 2007
6. Bulgarian actions against online piracy - "collateral damage"
7. Opennet Initiative publishes alarming results on Internet filtering
8. OECD finds the real piracy losses
9. International Declaration on G8 and Intellectual Property launched
10. Romanian open source community gets together
11. Polish people arrested for publishing movie translations
12. Recommended Reading
13. Agenda
14. About
(...)
============================================================
4. UK House of Commons culture committee wants copyright extension
============================================================
The copyright term for sound recordings is back on the public agenda in
UK, after a report from the House of Commons culture committee has
recommended its extension from 50 to 70 years, despite the negative
feedback received earlier from Andrew Gowers' report or a recent study
commissioned by the European Union and made public in January 2007.
The Culture committee report considered that the musicians have a "moral
right" to keep control of their creations while alive and that 7000
people will lose in the next years their royalties from the 50s and 60s
recordings.
Also the report considered there was a non-reasonable difference between
the copyright term for songwriters, whose families keep the copyright 70
years after the death of the author and the 50-year rule for sound
recordings.
"We recommend that the government should press the European Commission
to bring forward proposals for an extension of copyright term for sound
recordings to at least 70 years.", concluded the report.
77 UK MPs have signed a parliamentary motion calling for this extension.
EDRi-member ORG has publicly opposed the change asking from the people
to remind the politicians to debate this issue on the basis of evidence
- which points firmly against extension - rather than nostalgia.
The decision of the UK MPs is opposite to Andrew Gowers' report, backed
by the Treasury, that recommended not to extend the copyright term for
sound recordings.
Moreover, Gowers exclusively revealed to Out-Law Radio last month that,
far from leaning towards extension, he almost recommended shortening the
term of copyright:
"I could have made a case for reducing it based on the economic
arguments," he said. "We certainly considered it, and if you look at the
report that came from the academics that we commissioned to examine the
arguments and examine the evidence they also argued very robustly that
50 years could be arguably more than enough."
Copyright extension back on Commons' agenda (16.05.2007)
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=8053
Music stars 'must keep copyright' (17.05.2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6661283.stm
Copyright extension: Seems our MPs haven't been doing their homework
(14.05.2007)
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/05/14/copyright-extension-seems-our-mps…
EDRI-gram: Copyright extension term rejected by EU commissioned report
(17.01.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.1/copyright_term
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
There is a bit of confusion on the German mailing list about the
commons page [[List of dog breeds]]. As a brand-new commons admin, I
would also like to know what the community position on this issue is.
What happened is that this page is a kind of "meta-gallery",
consisting of a sortable table of links to all different breeds of
dogs. It does not contain images and is therefore not a gallery,
strictly speaking. However, it has been in existance for about a year
and a half, and several users worked on it during this time.
Then it was suddenly deleted, without any "official" process, and
without giving a reason for the deletion. I looked on several pages
describing the commons "mission", and deletion criteria, but didn't
find anything that says "lists gotta go", so I undeleted the page for
now.
While one could argue that a list has no place in the main "gallery"
namespace, I see a potential usefulness that exceeds the current
category system. What's the general opinion on this?
A possible solution would be adding small thumbnails, one example of
each dog breed, to the table rows, effectively making it a gallery,
just an unusual one. On the other hand, if such a hack is needed to
bend the rules, we might want to think about the rules again...
Magnus
Hello,
Following a deletion debate on Commons [1], we are left with the
problem whether or not Public domain images that are under other
restrictions, such as coats of arms, are allowed under the Foundation
Licensing policy. If I quote Erik Moeller, from another thread [2] on
the mailing list:
'[...]the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid
that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License,
which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition
of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_".[...]'
However, since we are talking about public domain, this does not apply
for this image, since public domain is not a license. This means that
another section of the resolution applies:
'[...] or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of
Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.'
Which is not the case, this specific image is under more restrictions;
see the deletion debate for details. Is this analysis correct? Or
should we just treat public domain as a "free content license"?
Bryan
(cc'd to commons-l)
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SilaTonga.svg
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029468.html
