-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all;
I hope that this will address the matter of the new PD-Art policy and
its effects with some bit of resolution. Mike has forwarded me an email
from the Hatfield House, which he stated I should forward to the Commons
community with his comment about the attribution of the photograph;
seeing as it was his comment was being used as a basis for the new
policy change, we should certainly adopt this comment in its
implementation.
I've created a template:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed_copyright>, which I
hope can be used for cases such as these. It's a simple notice, like
"Personality rights" or "Trademark" that makes a point, informs, yet
doesn't detract from our own policies. I've applied the template on the
two images the Hatfield house has mentioned, using language I
painstakingly worked on to appease as many of us as possible. I'm
fairly certain this will address the wants of this particular claimant
and I'm absolutely certain this does not violate our own precepts.
Yes, we do believe it copyfraud to claim copyright on photographs of old
artwork wherever possible but we acknowledge that there are some locales
with silly laws that protect the copyright photographer of PD paintings,
and those should be acknowledged to some extent; without going crazy and
mass deleting these images.
- --Cary
Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> I think the point with regard to attribution is actually a pretty good
one.
>
> --m
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Victoria Perry, Hatfield House"
>> Date: August 29, 2008 9:14:11 AM PDT
>> To: <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: FW: Elizabeth I portrait at Hatfield House
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am writing regarding my below e-mail.
>>
>> There are still some images of ours on Wikipedia with incorrect
>> copyright notices. The main issue, is that the copyright notice states
>> that "This photograph was taken in the U.S. or in another country where
>> a similar rule applies" (e.g. see
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth_I_Rainbow_Portrait.jpg
>> also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth1England.jpg ) These
>> particular paintings have never left the UK and therefore the above
>> statement is incorrect. Like I have said in the past, we are happy for
>> our images to appear on Wikipedia but I really think that you should
>> make sure that the copyright citation is correct.
>>
>> With best wishes,
>>
>> Vicki Perry
>> Assistant Archivist
>> Library and Archives
>> Hatfield House
>> Hatfield
>> Herts
>> AL9 5AH
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Victoria Perry
>> Sent: 14 February 2008 09:54
>> To: 'Mike Godwin'
>> Subject: RE: Elizabeth I portrait at Hatfield House
>>
>> Dear Mike Godwin,
>>
>> I wonder if you have had chance to consider my below e-mail yet.
>>
>> I would like to make a suggestion if possible. We do not want to have
>> the image removed from Wikipedia, but we are concerned that a user has
>> uploaded the image and claimed copyright in it. I would like to attach a
>> tag to the image stating that:
>>
>> "the image is a photographic reproduction of an out of copyright work.
>> The photograph was taken in the UK and is considered to be in copyright
>> in the UK but not in the US and users should check the laws in their
>> respective countries before re-use".
>>
>> I think that this is a fair summary of the copyright situation with
>> regards to the image and if it is possible I think attaching it to any
>> photographs that we have taken that have appeared on Wikipedia could be
>> an acceptable solution to both us and yourselves.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Vicki Perry
>> Assistant Archivist
>> Library and Archives
>> Hatfield House
>> Hatfield
>> Herts
>> AL9 5AH
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Godwin
>> Sent: 17 January 2008 12:20
>> To: Victoria Perry
>> Subject: Re: Elizabeth I portrait at Hatfield House
>>
>>
>> I have sent a query to my copyright lawyer colleagues and will get
>> back to you.
>>
>>
>> --Mike
>>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Victoria Perry wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Mike Godwin,
>>>
>>> I have been passed your e-mail address by David Monniaux, and I hope
>>> that you will be able to help me.
>>>
>>> On the Elizabeth I page of Wikipedia, there is a digital photograph
>>> of a
>>> portrait of Elizabeth I that we own the original of. As I'm sure you
>>> are
>>> aware, the law in the UK and the US differs as to copyright in
>>> copies of
>>> works of art that are out of copyright. The digital image in question
>>> was taken from a photograph of the painting that was taken in the UK
>>> in
>>> 1985.
>>>
>>> On the page
>>>
>>> http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag
>>>
>>> Wikipedia says that:
>>>
>>> "Where the photograph was taken in a country (such as the UK) where
>>> faithful photographic reproductions of 2D works of art are generally
>>> considered to be protected by copyright, or in a country (such as a
>>> Nordic country) that provides 'simple photograph' protection: In
>>> such a
>>> case, either take your own photograph of the original work of art and
>>> license your photographic copyright under a free license, or approach
>>> the photographic copyright owner and ask for the copyright to be
>>> released under a free license."
>>>
>>> I feel that this rule has not been adhered to in this case as the
>>> photograph was taken in the UK. In fact, the uploader of the image has
>>> now changed the author to 'Hatfield House' and made it look as
>>> though we
>>> have released the image into the public domain!
>>>
>>> I am aware that international copyright law is a complicated subject
>>> to
>>> which no-one appears to have a satisfactory answer and we have no wish
>>> to have the image removed from this free resource. However, maybe the
>>> copyright notice could be altered to reflect the true position. The
>>> photograph was taken in the UK, the image scanned in the UK and was
>>> uploaded in the UK. Surely then if someone in the UK then re-used the
>>> image for their own work they would have broken UK copyright law?
>>>
>>> Perhaps it could be stated something to the effect that 'This is a
>>> photograph taken in the UK of a piece of artwork whose copyright has
>>> expired. It is considered to be in the Copyright of the Marquess of
>>> Salisbury in the UK and to be out of Copyright in the US. Please make
>>> sure you know the copyright position in your own country before re-
>>> using
>>> it', or something similar. We are happy for our photograph to be used
>>> (as indeed it has been all over the web) but obviously as we are in
>>> the
>>> middle of a major process of digitising some of our paintings, it
>>> would
>>> be best to get this issue cleared up. If, for example, in the future,
>>> this were to come up again over a painting that we have only
>>> photographed once and have only issued to people under licence (for
>>> example a publisher's licence that restricts its use to the purpose
>>> for
>>> which the image was supplied) would you take the signed licence
>>> agreement as a reason to take the image down?
>>>
>>> With best wishes and thank you for your time,
>>>
>>> Vicki Perry
>>>
>>> (This is a link to the image:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth_Rainbow_Portrait.jpg
>>> There
>>> is also one at
>>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth_I_Rainbow_Portrait.jpg
>>> , which states that the photograph was taken in the US. It was not and
>>> this should also be changed. Similarly:
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth1England.jpg states
>>> that the photograph was taken in the US when it was not.
>>> ______________
>>>
>>> Vicki Perry,
>>>
>>> Assistant Archivist,
>>>
>>> Hatfield House,
>>>
>>> Hatfield,
>>>
>>> Herts. AL9 5NF
>>>
>>>
>>
>
- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary(a)wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAki4X54ACgkQyQg4JSymDYlbbgCfVcYKv8+L+70nw7ywOyB8q4py
7X4An3m/ElODRKaoF2lV5eS+4siWWI3T
=vIiX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'm not sure who maintains the Gallery Preview widget, but it appears to
be broken at the moment and has been for at least the last day. I don't
see any recent revisions to
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Gallerypreview.js>
so I'm going to assume it's something else.
I have to say I've found it amazingly useful and would dearly love to
have it back :)
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary(a)wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAki1hxoACgkQyQg4JSymDYlGFQCeMb4J7G28mhc14LH8t0c9vMT7
IXgAniJrJZgrzQWTD6P4QXogVnDse9UH
=5vX+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi,
As you may or may not be aware, I'm coordinating the Philip Greenspun
illustration project, whereby illustrators are paid to create desired
illustrations for Wikimedia.
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project>
Round 1 is now underway. Part of the process is that when illustrators
submit their created image, it is put in a "Review" stage before being
finally accepted, so that people can comment on the quality and
accuracy and improvements can be made.
Feedback is encouraged from anyone and can be made anonymously too.
Images currently in review: <http://ur1.ca/2g3> It's fairly similar to
commenting on a Featured Picture nomination.
I want to have a small number of people with the designated role (in
JIRA) of 'Reviewers'. These should be people that I trust to
diligently check image accuracy, as best they can, against the
illustrator's provided sources and other standard reference works.
Reviewers will have the ability to change an image from being 'In
review' to 'Accepted' (or alternately, 'Rejected', although I don't
imagine that being used much). Reviewers also take into account
generally provided feedback (which is why this is a very useful thing
to do).
I have a few people but I need a few more. If you are interested in
doing this please send me an email off-list.
thanks,
Brianna
ps. there is also a category on Commons now:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_pr…>
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flaschen(a)gatech.edu> wrote:
> Supporters of broad use of PD-art outside of the U.S. have seized on a
> statement by Erik Möller that, "To put it plainly, WMF's position has
> always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain
> works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary
> represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." and called
> it the "position of the WMF"
> (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_po…
> )
> and "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation"
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-art).
>
> In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his
> intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the
> WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding
> resolution would be a much better means.
>
> This choice of interpretation involves deliberately ignoring the current
> legal climate in certain countries outside the U.S., and I believe that
> is a significant departure at Commons.
>
> I am asking the board to step in and provide clarity on this issue in
> particular, and the ways they will and will not communicate their views
> on important issues in general.
>
Adding commons-l as a CC as this clearly involves the commons community, and
should have included that CC to start. Lets all try to include commons-l on
future replies.
Erik is deputy director, and he, Sue, Mike Godwin or the board itself I
believe is entitled to make such a statement. Are you simply asking for the
board to endorse or not endorse it?
- Joe
I've just spent over 30 minutes uploading a file to Wikimedia Commons. The
excessive time was due to the new upload form.
The image in question is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stratford_station_360_-_August_2008…
I filled out all the sections of the form as it asked me to, but no matter
what I tried it would not let me upload the file, giving only the
unhelpful error "You must give the original source of the file, the author
of the work, and a license."
I say unhelpful because I had filled in all of the noted fields - even
changing them from the default to see if that mad a difference, but nope.
the only thing I can think of is that I hadn't selected a license from the
dropdown list, as I wanted to use my own custom tag
(user:Thryduulf/cc-by-sa-all) which wraps the standard cc template with a
note about my personal relicencing policy and categorises it in my user
category.
If the permission box is set to check if the licence included in there is
one of a known set, then if it doesn't match say so in the error message.
If the "none selected" license option doesn't let you upload the file then
you need to change the wording on it so that it doesn't imply you can and
give an option that says "I have added a license tag in the permissions
field above" that will let it upload.
When I found the link to the old-style basic upload form (and remembered
how to use it) everything went swimmingly. I used the same information in
the manual form as I was trying to upload using the pretty form.
I am using the latest version of Firefox 2 on 64-bit Kubuntu Linux.
Chris
--
Chris McKenna
cmckenna(a)sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Hi!
Just read in the news:
tineye.com is search for similar images. I think it may be useful to
find copyvio sources.
photosynth.net - Microsoft finally released Photosynth for public: 3d
model reconstruction from multiple images.
Eugene.
Hi!
Quite funny, but Photosynth allow to choose various Creative Commons
licenses, public domain and all right reserved. It also contains text
"We recommend a Creative Commons license".
So what is happen? :-)
Eugene.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I can proudly present you my new bot, User:Cropbot[1 <#1>]. :-)
He is able to crop jpeg-images. You can crop images on the Cropbot
interface on the toolserver, and upload it under the same or a
different name.
He crop images with the lossless crop tool jpegtran[2 <#2>].
For using Cropbot you must create a account on Magnus's TUSC system[3
<#3>], then you can login in to the Cropbot interface[4 <#4>].
If you find any Bugs or if you miss a feature, please let me know on
my talk page!
Greetings,
Luxo
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cropbot
[2] http://sylvana.net/jpegcrop/
[3]
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/tusc.php?language=commons&project=wikimedia
[4] http://toolserver.org/~luxo/cropbot/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIrXS09UvdeSclMvgRAo6RAKCYJ3D7xzKajzjB43LTJ5nl4eRomACgy5i7
m2JNqiDfuPHVaJwRjbRlrzE=
=z+7N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
A more (or less) new form of exploit has just been published [1]. By appending
a Java-Archive (JAR) file to an Image file (JPG/GIF) a hybrid file can be
created which will validate as both a valid JAR and a valid image.
The file can be uploaded to an image host and included as a Java-Applet on any
page on any host. The applet will have privileges to connect back to the
originating host and operate with all the account holders privileges.
Commons seems to be a target for such an attack. Upload is easy, although I'm
not to sure about the damage potential. I suppose if an administrators
account would get compromised an applet could be manufactured to mass delete
content or mass block users.
Anyhow. I was just surprised that nobody posted this already.
[1]
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/08/01/A_photo_that_can_steal_your_onlin…
--
[[en:User:Dschwen]]
[[de:Benutzer:Dschwen]]
[[commons:User:Dschwen]]
