I just tried to watch some presentation videos from Wikimania.
Some had very weak sound, some had no sound in the first minutes,
some only played the first minute and then stopped. I don't think
the Wikimania videos are unique in having such problems. Video is
new to Commons, and the expert contributors are more familiar with
still images.
How can we learn to make better videos? Are there some good
instructions? Perhaps a free instruction video (Wikibooks, but a
video instead of a book) on how to produce good videos is what we
need. In fact, the English Wikibooks has a title on "Video
Production", http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Video_Production but it
doesn't have a clear focus (pun not intended). It starts out with
discussing satellite TV and has long sections on file formats in
different operating systems.
There is a help page on Commons for converting video to the Ogg
Theora format, but that is only the last step in a long chain.
Given that video is new, how can we find and rate videos, nominate
"good/featured videos", and give advice on how to improve quality?
Is the Commons village pump enough for this? Commons has a
separate graphics village pump. Do we also need a separate video
village pump?
Current digital video cameras use hard disks or memory cards,
instead of tape cassettes. Many new models cost less than 300
euro (or dollars), some as little as 120 euro (memory card perhaps
not included). Some have a special "Youtube mode", and I guess
that kind of usage is what drives the price down. What models are
good, and what should one watch out for?
We can find free still photos on Flickr and copy them to Commons.
Is there somewhere we can find free videos and copy them? Yes, at
the Internet Archive. Somewhere else?
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
I am writing to request access to the GWToolset. I am a librarian at
Nashville Public Library in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Myself and
archivists from Metro Archives (http://nashvillearchives.org/) are hoping
to batch upload Archives' photos to Wikimedia Commons. Here's my Wikipedia
user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Librariabryan; my library's
GLAM page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Nashville_
Public_Library. I am a member of Tennessee Wikipedians User Group and have
Commons-Beta and MetaWiki accounts.
Any help would me much appreciated.
Thanks,
Bryan
Hello,
(I posted this on the the Commons Village Pump, apologies for cross-posting)
The Multimedia team at the foundation is getting closer to enabling support
for uploading and displaying 3D models on Commons. We have to do some work
on the database to get ready for 3D file support. This means we'll need to
put Commons in read-only mode for about 30 minutes on Wednesday October,
11th at 6:00 UTC. [0]
You will be able to read, but not edit Commons for a short period of time.
* You will not be able to edit or upload media for approximately 30 minutes
on Wednesday, 11 October, starting at 6:00 UTC (07:00 BST, 08:00 CEST,
02:00 EDT, 23:00 PDT).
* If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error
message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we
can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until
everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit.
But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
Why?
The team needs to modify the database primary master so it understands this
new file type. This will then allow for the future ability to upload and
display 3D models on Commons (and embed in other Wikimedia projects). Want
a sneak-peek? Take a look at this programmatically created crystal on Test
Wikipedia. [1] It is important to note that the ability to upload 3D files
will not be available immediately after the maintenance ends (but at a
later date), this only involves the contributor-impacting database work.
How can folks monitor?
You can keep track of the changes by joining #wikimedia-operations on
freenode.net
Where do I go with issues?
If you have issues after the database work is completed, please report a
ticket on the Wikimedia Bug tracker, Phabricator. [2]
Please help share this with your community.
[0] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T168661
[1]
https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Programmatically_created_crystal.stl
[2] http://phabricator.wikimedia.org
Yours,
Chris Koerner
Community Liaison
Wikimedia Foundation
Hirtle summary of
<https://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2016/04/us-court-correctly-interprets-crea…>
on Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, also covered in
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Drauglis_v._Kappa_Ma…>
<https://www.technollama.co.uk/us-court-interprets-copyleft-clause-in-creati…>
Nemo
-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Oggetto: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] By-SA and By-NC-SA
Data: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 22:31:34 +0000
Mittente: "Peter B. Hirtle" (via scholcomm Mailing List)
<scholcomm(a)lists.ala.org>
Eric, things may be a little clearer than you suspect. Let’s parse your
hypothetical:
“So imagine you are making a book from two chapters, one SA and the
other SA-NC. The book (a work in its own right because of a creative
cover)…”
That isn’t quite right (though it doesn’t matter for the rest of your
example). The cover itself is likely to have enough creativity to have
its own copyright, but the book as a whole will only have its own
copyright if it is itself an “original work of authorship.” This would
mostly involve some creative selection or organization of the material.
Slapping a copyrighted image on top of two separately copyrighted works
is, in my non-legal opinion, unlikely to be enough to be considered to
be a separate “original work of authorship.” The question would be
whether someone could publish the same two chapters but with a different
cover on it, and I think in most cases they could.
“…, has to be distriibuted under the more restrictive license (SA-NC)
because it staples together the two chapters.”
This is incorrect. You haven’t created an adaption of the original
material, so you are not required to use the SA license. Michael
Carroll has a good discussion of this in his blog post on a relatively
recent court case: see
https://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2016/04/us-court-correctly-interprets-crea….
In this case, a commercial publisher used a SA photograph on the cover
of its street atlas. It slightly cropped the image, but the court
concluded that the change was not enough to create an adaptation and
hence the publisher was not required to distribute its atlas with an SA
license on it. The publisher did comply with the attribution
requirements of the license.
In your hypothetical, if you decided to abridge the chapter, then you
would be created a derivative version and would have to apply the SA
license to the book. But so long as you follow the other terms in the
CC license, you can put any license you like on the book as a whole
(even if the cover image is the only thing actually being licensed by
you). You could even omit a license on your contribution. Just don’t
distribute it commercially.
“But it has to do two more things:
1. Add separate license statements for each chapter.”
Yes, I am postulating that you are complying with the attribution and
non-commercial elements of the license, which are not dependent on
whether or not the works are adapted.
2. The chapters must be separable (the staples can be easily removed)
No, the physical format does not matter. Copyright matters are separate
from physical formats. All you need to do is include the original
license and attribution with each chapter.
Peter Hirtle
From: scholcomm-request(a)lists.ala.org
[mailto:scholcomm-request@lists.ala.org] On Behalf Of Eric Hellman
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 5:24 PM
To: scholcomm(a)lists.ala.org
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] By-SA and By-NC-SA
The comments fro Billy Meinke and Peter Hirtle reflect my reality that
there seem to be only gray areas when it comes to copyright.
The 3.0 license defines "collections" and "adaptions".
1. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works,
such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or
broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in
Section 1(g) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of
their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is
included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in
themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work
that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as
defined above) for the purposes of this License.
and in doing so makes explicit how to deal with the SA vs SA-NC.
So imagine you are making a book from two chapters, one SA and the other
SA-NC. The book (a work in its own right because of a creative cover),
has to be distriibuted under the more restrictive license (SA-NC)
because it staples together the two chapters. But it has to do two more
things:
1. Add separate license statements for each chapter.
2. The chapters must be separable (the staples can be easily removed)
I would make the same argument for illustrations in a website or ebook.
If Mahrya Carncross's colleague's guide is more of a collection than
mix, then she might be in the clear.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode
The 4.0 license doesn't have this explicit carve-out for collections,
and appears to me to take a harder line against mixed license
"arrangement" works, but at the same time says that 3.0 licensed works
can be adapted into 4.0 licenses, so that's confusing to this non-lawyer.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
Eric Hellman
President, Free Ebook Foundation
Founder, Unglue.it<http://unglue.it> https://unglue.it/https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
twitter: @gluejar