Hello,
I am considering the purchase of a GPS data logger to automagically
geotag my photos on Commons (I am currently geotagging hundreds of
them manually and it's a *real* pain). I've been doing some research
already, but if anyone had some feedback to share about the hardware
available and the software to do the mapping (linux-compatible, I'm
using Ubuntu), that would be great.
Thanks,
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
Hi!
Just re-incarnation of old idea to support 3D image of chemical
structures... I played a little bit with Kalzium in KDE 4 today and
discovered molecule viewer which render molecules in Chemical Markup
Language.
CML (http://cml.sourceforge.net) is open XML-based format so we could
allow it on Commons and provide files repository for other projects
(such as Kalzium).
There is also Java-based open source viewer JMol
(http://jmol.sourceforge.net) including web browser plugin. With JMol
we could dramatically enreach chemistry/biochemistry related pages in
Wikipedia/Wikibooks/Wikiversity in same way as we support Ogg media
files playback now.
Eugene.
You may have already seen the FVorbis implementation of Vorbis in Flash 10:
http://people.xiph.org/~arek/pg/hx/test.html
This is a more integrated demo of the same approach:
http://www.omtk.org/js/demo-mod.html
The FVorbis implementation uses lower CPU on my system, but in any
case, this definitely seems like a viable approach to bring at least
Vorbis to many more people - especially when combined with native
support in Firefox 3.1 and the existing Java player.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Posted on wikitech-l :) :)
Brion Vibber wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Now that we've got uploads running on our new, beefier file servers,
> I've experimentally bumped the upload limit from 20 to 100 megabytes.
>
> Files nearing the high end of that range might not actually succeed,
> though, as it'll be hitting post-size limits etc.
>
> As time goes on we'll be improving ways to upload large video files in
> particular...
>
> - -- brion
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkknVv4ACgkQwRnhpk1wk45HaQCgzH3rAHh9cvBUQtSt6FZtO0cF
> s+0AoNNBOGGA9S8vFE4AQqALJuCHVtUZ
> =YKTr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Forgive me if this is the wrong list.
Inkscape is an Open Source authoring program used by some Wikipedians to
create SVG files. The author of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M1_Abrams-TUSK.svg placed one such
image in the public domain. On examining the image, I found a
non-public-domain texture called "Sand". Fortunately, the texture is
under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 . It has an "inkscape:stockid"
attribute, so I'm assuming it is a built-in stock image of Inkscape.
It is possible that Inkscape is not informing image authors that their
stock textures have a license. Those authors then dedicate the entire
image to the public domain on Wikimedia, and do not note the licensing
of the contained texture.
Recommended action: parse Wikimedia SVG files to detect <pattern> tags,
see how many have this problem, fix information pages to indicate
licensing of the textures, delete inappropriately licensed content if
necessary.
Thanks
Bruce
Neither am I your lawyer, but your points are very interesting and
potentially encouraging. Once the Wikimedia Foundation is able to
accept your points, recent pictures of very old coins may also become
acceptable on Commons, similar to mere copies of very old
2-dimensional works.
Jusjih
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:11:39 -0800 (PST)
> From: Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered derivatives
> in the US?
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <131842.94385.qm(a)web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> IANAL, but I would say it's solid as it has been cited in Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 2008 WL 697346 (M.D. Fl.)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Howard Cheng <howard(a)howcheng.com>
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:42:29 PM
> Subject: [Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered derivatives in the US?
>
> According to http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…,
> Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of New York ruled
> in SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.
> N.Y. 2000) that photographs of statues/sculptures are not considered
> derivative works, noting: "A photograph of Jeff Koons's 'Puppy'
> sculpture in Manhattan's Rockefeller Center merely depicts that
> sculpture; it does not recast, transform, or adapt Koons's sculptural
> authorship. In short, the authorship of the photographic work is
> entirely different and separate from the authorship of the sculpture."
>
> Note that this is the same court that issued the Bridgeman v. Corel
> ruling. If this hasn't been overturned at any point, and the blog post
> linked above doesn't indicate that it has, then we should start
> allowing photos of statues in the US, and perhaps anywhere even where
> there is no FOP for statues (similar to what we did for PD-Art).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -h
According to http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…,
Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of New York ruled
in SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.
N.Y. 2000) that photographs of statues/sculptures are not considered
derivative works, noting: "A photograph of Jeff Koons's 'Puppy'
sculpture in Manhattan's Rockefeller Center merely depicts that
sculpture; it does not recast, transform, or adapt Koons's sculptural
authorship. In short, the authorship of the photographic work is
entirely different and separate from the authorship of the sculpture."
Note that this is the same court that issued the Bridgeman v. Corel
ruling. If this hasn't been overturned at any point, and the blog post
linked above doesn't indicate that it has, then we should start
allowing photos of statues in the US, and perhaps anywhere even where
there is no FOP for statues (similar to what we did for PD-Art).
Thoughts?
-h
<http://images.google.com/hosted/life>
There is no directly copyright related metadata, but there is a "Date
taken:" field.
1923 is the magic number, is that right?
cheers
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
I have been downloading some video that is made from old silent film
movies. They are licenced cc no derivatives. Some are remixed. How is
this possible? I am thinking these old films were in the public domain
or the remixer bought the right to publish them. How do these clips get
published under CC. How does a remixer get the right to not allow
remixing or derivatives? If he did a voice over it makes sense that he
has the right to publish his added sound but how the video?
If you buy publishing rights can you then publish under a CC
licence. I am trying to figure out what I can use in making a video and
how it is that I can't use some things and can others. My video will be
maybe 70% my own work but I would like to use CC music.some pictures,
video and sounds, then publish in creative commons.
Doug
