http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
I got a call from some UN branch office (!) this morning, asking about how to reuse pictures from Wikipedia. I gave the usual response: (1) we don't own the images (2) they're under a variety of licenses, some of which are easy to obey, some of which are a nuisance (3) what's your email? I'll send you a link to the Reuse FAQ.
So, having sent him there, I looked over the page. It's almost complete! The only thing really missing is, in the CC section:
[TO DO: note differences between 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5, and different countries]
Presumably 3.0 as well, if we're allowing that.
I also tweaked the intro. With the recent Virgin Mobile case (the hazards of reusing a CC-by-sa pic without clearing model or personality rights), I put a warning at the top about images of people: "Take care with context."
So, I'd like those of you who know your way around the copyright brambles and who can write simply and clearly to:
1. Review the whole thing for accuracy. 1a. Review the whole thing for readability. 2. Fill in that and any other gaps you notice. 3. Re-synchronise translations. (I only edit the English version. Anything in other versions I've missed?)
- d.
On 9/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
I got a call from some UN branch office (!) this morning, asking about how to reuse pictures from Wikipedia. I gave the usual response: (1) we don't own the images (2) they're under a variety of licenses, some of which are easy to obey, some of which are a nuisance (3) what's your email? I'll send you a link to the Reuse FAQ.
So, having sent him there, I looked over the page. It's almost complete! The only thing really missing is, in the CC section:
[TO DO: note differences between 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5, and different countries]
Presumably 3.0 as well, if we're allowing that.
I also tweaked the intro. With the recent Virgin Mobile case (the hazards of reusing a CC-by-sa pic without clearing model or personality rights), I put a warning at the top about images of people: "Take care with context."
So, I'd like those of you who know your way around the copyright brambles and who can write simply and clearly to:
- Review the whole thing for accuracy.
1a. Review the whole thing for readability. 2. Fill in that and any other gaps you notice. 3. Re-synchronise translations. (I only edit the English version. Anything in other versions I've missed?)
Maybe this could be the basis for an overview? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Reuse_Wikimedia_content.svg (just patched together in Inkscape...)
Magnus
On 26/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe this could be the basis for an overview? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Reuse_Wikimedia_content.svg (just patched together in Inkscape...)
Hmm, possibly. (I'm now thinking in terms of SVGs with text replaceable per language ...)
- d.
Magnus:
Does cc-sa exist? cc-by-sa "similar license" should be another cc-license?
Barcex
Maybe this could be the basis for an overview?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Reuse_Wikimedia_content.svg (just patched together in Inkscape...)
Magnus
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 9/26/07, Barcex barcexwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus:
Does cc-sa exist? cc-by-sa "similar license" should be another cc-license?
Apparently it does, but it seems to be a CC-BY-SA alias: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I'll remove it later, unless I forget, or someone edits the SVG first...
Magnus
On 26/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 9/26/07, Barcex barcexwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus:
Does cc-sa exist? cc-by-sa "similar license" should be another cc-license?
Apparently it does, but it seems to be a CC-BY-SA alias: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I'll remove it later, unless I forget, or someone edits the SVG first...
Magnus
There were some non attribution licenses in the early days of commons. Not sure what happened to them.
On 9/26/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There were some non attribution licenses in the early days of commons. Not sure what happened to them.
If I recall correctly, there were non-attribution versions of each license, but nobody ever used them, so they retired them.
Tracy Poff
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 14:30 -0400, Tracy Poff wrote:
On 9/26/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There were some non attribution licenses in the early days of commons. Not sure what happened to them.
If I recall correctly, there were non-attribution versions of each license, but nobody ever used them, so they retired them.
2007/9/26, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
On 9/26/07, Barcex barcexwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus:
Does cc-sa exist? cc-by-sa "similar license" should be another
cc-license?
Apparently it does, but it seems to be a CC-BY-SA alias: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I'll remove it later, unless I forget, or someone edits the SVG first...
Magnus
I see it existed, we have about 3000 images licenced with cc-sa-1.0 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:CC-SA-1.0
Anyway, I suggest not to include that license in the diagram in order to simplify it, if possible.
Barcex
On 27/09/2007, Barcex barcexwiki@gmail.com wrote:
2007/9/26, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
On 9/26/07, Barcex barcexwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus:
Does cc-sa exist? cc-by-sa "similar license" should be another
cc-license?
Apparently it does, but it seems to be a CC-BY-SA alias: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I'll remove it later, unless I forget, or someone edits the SVG first...
Magnus
I see it existed, we have about 3000 images licenced with cc-sa-1.0 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:CC-SA-1.0
Anyway, I suggest not to include that license in the diagram in order to simplify it, if possible.
I agree. And if by "X" (cross) you mean "yes", I suggest replacing it with a tick/check-mark. Cross looks very confusing to me.
Also remove the heading from the graphic.
but nice, for a quick hack. :) it takes me hours to come up with stuff a tenth as useful.
cheers, Brianna
On 9/27/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/09/2007, Barcex barcexwiki@gmail.com wrote:
2007/9/26, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
On 9/26/07, Barcex barcexwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus:
Does cc-sa exist? cc-by-sa "similar license" should be another
cc-license?
Apparently it does, but it seems to be a CC-BY-SA alias: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I'll remove it later, unless I forget, or someone edits the SVG first...
Magnus
I see it existed, we have about 3000 images licenced with cc-sa-1.0 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:CC-SA-1.0
Anyway, I suggest not to include that license in the diagram in order to simplify it, if possible.
I agree. And if by "X" (cross) you mean "yes", I suggest replacing it with a tick/check-mark. Cross looks very confusing to me.
Also remove the heading from the graphic.
but nice, for a quick hack. :) it takes me hours to come up with stuff a tenth as useful.
OK, new version is up.
Magnus
On 27/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
OK, new version is up.
MediaWiki renders the text somewhat idiosyncratically (i.e. wrong), but it's good enough I've put it on the FAQ!
- d.