Remove from my email
----- Original Message -----
From: <commons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:00 AM
Subject: Commons-l Digest, Vol 46, Issue 13
> Send Commons-l mailing list submissions to
> commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> commons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> commons-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Commons-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues (Andrew Gray)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:38:24 +0000
> From: Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <f3fedb0d0903230438m28cc450euc7a9d238db31b3e8(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2009/3/22 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>:
>
>> The original painting is certainly NOT public domain - but what about the
>> copyright status of a photograph that you or I might take of that
>> painting?
>> That is the question.
>
> You can't turn a copyrighted work into a free one by... *making a copy of
> it*.
>
> Once you put it like that, it seems quite simple :-) Unfortunately,
> explaining that has historically been an uphill struggle!
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> End of Commons-l Digest, Vol 46, Issue 13
> *****************************************
>
I've enabled a test configuration of MediaWiki's upload-by-URL ability
on http://test.wikipedia.org/
The default configuration limits URL uploads to sysops, so for now
you’ll need to be a sysop on Test Wikipedia to try it out. If everything
seems fairly problem-free we’ll start rolling this out a bit more widely
for Commons and other sites.
In addition to being able to handle large files without an ugly manual
download+reupload, the upload-by-URL functionality is also needed for
future-facing work Michael Dale is working on to allow an on-wiki media
picker to fetch freely-licensed files from Flickr, Archive.org, and
other places.
We may want to consider improvements to UI and workflow, but it seems to
at least work. :)
More at the Wikimedia technical blog:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/03/upload-by-url-for-testwikipediaorg/
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
remove from my email
----- Original Message -----
From: <commons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:46 AM
Subject: Commons-l Digest, Vol 46, Issue 12
> Send Commons-l mailing list submissions to
> commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> commons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> commons-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Commons-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Upload-by-URL for test.wikipedia.org (Brion Vibber)
> 2. Re: National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues (Eusebius)
> 3. Re: National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues (Liam Wyatt)
> 4. Re: National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues (Eusebius)
> 5. Re: National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues (Gerard Meijssen)
> 6. Re: National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues (Daniel Kinzler)
> 7. Re: National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues (Jastrow)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:09:01 -0700
> From: Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Upload-by-URL for test.wikipedia.org
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <49C6E12D.5030007(a)wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 3/21/09 9:59 AM, Magnus Manske wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Brion Vibber<brion(a)wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>> In addition to being able to handle large files without an ugly manual
>>> download+reupload, the upload-by-URL functionality is also needed for
>>> future-facing work Michael Dale is working on to allow an on-wiki media
>>> picker to fetch freely-licensed files from Flickr, Archive.org, and
>>> other places.
>>
>> The way I wrote the URL upload back in the day would make it an entry
>> point for POST-style uploads from third-party tools. I hope that still
>> works - it might ease mass "single shot" uploads from people or groups
>> who want to push an existing set of their files over to Commons.
>
> This is how Michael Dale's ongoing work with a media-add wizard is
> currently using it, though he's been talking about adding an API
> interface for it too.
>
> -- brion
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:42:17 +0100
> From: Eusebius <wikipedia(a)eusebius.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] National Gallery of Australia - 2 issues
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <49C72F49.6020301(a)eusebius.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> David Gerard a ?crit :
>> 2009/3/22 Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net>:
>>
>>
>>> I could see adding an {{information incomplete}} (do we have one
>>> already?) to images that meet our minimum requirements to stay on
>>> commons, but are lacking details - often images are uploaded from some
>>> other site, people not realizing that there is a definitive source with
>>> more information.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's a good idea! At least then if a gallery says "But you don't
>> have complete information" we can say "There's the 'so fix it' tag,
>> your information would be most welcome and will be added."
>>
> And how should we know that there is more information available somewhere?
>
Dear Commons-folk,
In my capacity as Vice President of Wikimedia Australia on Thursday I
spent several hours with the Rights and Permissions Officer of the
National Galley of Australia. As you might assume from a meeting that
went for 2.5 hours he was well disposed towards Wikipedia and to
Commons.
However, there were some concerns raised that I thought it a good
idea to talk through with you. 1) Attribution statements and 2) fair-
use vs. {{self}}. I also had meetings with several other Australian
national museums and galleries over the last couple of days each
equally interested in us but with similar concerns.
1) Attribution statements.
Let me start by saying that I am aware that there is no legal
requirement that an image in the Public Domain have an attribution.
However, in the context of artworks, I can see no reason why we would
not provide attribution - to do so is in the furtherance of our
mission after all.
Our custom of attribution is to list the name of the author and a
link back to where the image was found. Galleries and Museums have a
much more extensive attribution culture and as I discovered, if we
would like to develop and maintain good relations with galleries we
nee to take up their attribution standards. Take for example this
picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunbaker_maxdupain_nga76.54.jpg
This is a PD image in the National Gallery collection that they are
very happy for us to have. Furthermore, this is one of the nation's
most iconic photographs and the Galley makes a lot of money selling
posters of this picture. So, their happiness for us to have a copy
shows their understanding of Public Domain. Such understanding cannot
necessarily be assumed when dealing with galleries/museums/libraries.
See, for example: http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/
libraries-and-copyfraud.html
The attribution information alongside the "Sunbaker" photo is copied
directly from the gallery's website, which is also linked from the
image. Furthermore, the filename is the same as the Gallery's record
number. Attention to this detail is something that they greatly
appreciate. Furthermore, displaying such information with the object
is often a condition of its donation to the institution. In short,
all the information that we would often see as superfluous - such as,
"Type C photograph, gift of the John Doe foundation, 1975" - they
see as absolutely essential to the attribution. We have no reason not
to follow their practice as it makes no difference to us. Our
insistence that "we don't have to, it's PD" only makes us look silly
and them less likely to want to work with us. Meeting their
requirements would be a good thing to do.
So, I ask that when we copy images from galleries/museums/libraries,
or even when we take photos of the originals ourselves, we include
the comprehensive attribution that the gallery/museum itself
includes. I would suggest that this should be the Commons policy when
dealing with art.
2) Fair-use vs. {{self}}.
Later in the meeting I was directed to look at two images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Warlugulong.jpg and http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Margaret_olley_still_life_1975.JPG
Both of these paintings are in the Australian National Gallery
collection, both are self-made photographs taken by a visitor to the
gallery, both are uploaded to en:Wikipedia and the subject matter of
both are in copyright. However, one is listed as a fair-use claim
whilst the other is listed as Public Domain by virtue of the
photographer releasing the photo under that license. The question is,
which copyright licence is correct? They are both in the same
circumstances. At the time I did not look closely enough to see that
the images were taken by wikipedians (as opposed to having been
supplied by the gallery) and so I wrongly listed the
File:Warlugulong.jpg for speedy deletion on the basis of an incorrect
"self-PD" claim. As it turned out, even though my speedy deletion
request was incorrect, showing that an image can in fact be listed
for review by administrators was very encouraging to them. I also
explained the basis of our fair-use system on the English wikipedia -
and therefore the legal justification for our use of the Margaret
Olley image - and this was also accepted and understood.
However, the original question remains, if I go into a gallery and
take a photo of an in-copyright painting (and only the painting - I'm
not talking about things that appear in the background here) should
it be uploaded as fair use or as self-made? One of the above two
examples is incorrect and we need to change it. I'm sure we have a
policy about this kind of thing around somewhere but this policy is
clearly not consistently applied enough for us to look professional
when talking to galleries.
So, I ask that in the same way as we have a well defined and well
publicised system for using fair-use on en:WP but not on commons (or
de:WP for example) we should also make a well defined, consistent and
well publicised system for dealing with self-made photographs of in-
copyright artwork.
Your thoughts on these matters would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
-Liam Wyatt
email: liamwyatt(a)gmail.com
skype: wittylama
wikipedia: [[user:witty lama]]
So, we do not need BetacommandBot now, do we? And what to do with so called
"trusted users" ([[Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage]])?
2009/3/17 <commons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Send Commons-l mailing list submissions to
> commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> commons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> commons-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Commons-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Image moving enabled for sysops (Bryan Tong Minh)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:56:19 +0100
> From: Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Commons-l] Image moving enabled for sysops
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fd5886130903170056y18f0d940yad0a1a776b15da8e(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> A quick heads up: Image moving has been enabled for sysops per
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15842
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> End of Commons-l Digest, Vol 46, Issue 5
> ****************************************
>
--
Anatoliy Goncharov
mailto:ahonc.ua@gmail.com
ICQ: 364-176-156
So, we do not need BetacommandBot now, do we? And what to do with so called
"trusted users" ([[Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage]])?
2009/3/17 <commons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:56:19 +0100
> From: Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Commons-l] Image moving enabled for sysops
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fd5886130903170056y18f0d940yad0a1a776b15da8e(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> A quick heads up: Image moving has been enabled for sysops per
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15842
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> End of Commons-l Digest, Vol 46, Issue 5
> ****************************************
>
--
Anatoliy Goncharov
mailto:ahonc.ua@gmail.com
ICQ: 364-176-156
Dear All,
Pray, allow me to announce the first ever international picture
competition of Wikimedia Hungary. [1]
The competition officially launching tomorrow, commemorating a
Hungarian national holiday[2], is aimed at gathering visual
representations - photographs, videos, maps, drawings, SVG graphics,
etc. - that have a 'Hungarian aspect'.
We are awaiting submissions in the next three months from all over the
world. Apart from the endless possibilities of works created in
Hungary - e.g. on a summer visit -, we hope to engage the
international community of photographers, and graphic artists of
Wikimedia Commons. Please take a look at our prepared list of possible
works to be created all over the world (including geographical places,
museums, events and suggestions for non-photographic contributions).
[3]
The submissions will be evaluated by the community in a way similar to
the Picture of the Year competition, the authors of the best
pictures will be awarded a Wikimedia gift package.
For more information, please visit the competition's homepage on
Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Hungary_picture_competi…
Thank you,
Bence Damokos
Wikimédia Magyarország
http://wiki.media.hu/wiki/Home
P.s. I would like to ask you to forward this announcement to all whom
it may concern, your local village pumps, chapters' communities, and
photographers and people who might be interested in participating.
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Hungary_picture_competi…
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_Hungarian_Revolution
[3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Hungary_picture_competi…
