Sorry, pressed send by mistake prematurely, here is the rest of my message
This is a natural consequence of wikipedia, because virtually all
discussions on wikipedia are about disputes. You don't put something
on a talk-page if you agree with them, and you don't start an RFC
either.
The chess championship is a way for users to interact in a way that is
not related to disputes. Please let us have it. If it gets out of
hand, I'll be the first to send it to a VfD
- gkhan
Calling someone a "fascist hag" is not a crime either,
but it is obnoxious namecalling that should not belong
on this list. We shouldn't tolerate such trollish
behavior in the name of "dissent".
Geoffrey Bell truetheatertype at gmail.com:
Wait wait wait...I haven't been watching this list
like a hawk, and maybe
we're talking about two different people, but I don't
see any trolls, only a
dissenter. And dissent is not a crime, of course.
On 7/1/05, Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Can we please remove the anonymous troll from this
list?
>
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> Oh, btw, I also see your next post to the
> mailing list, where you have "figured out why it's doing it". Is that
> your idea of an apology?
I wonder how many times I'll have to resend this totally on-topic
e-mail before it finally gets through (not censored by the mod).
Let's put this response in a numerical list clearly outlining every
totally relevent statement.
1. It's not an apology.
2. It's an acknowledgement that either your did something wrong or
there is a bug with the system.
3. Are you going to apologize for your false accusation against me?
The _only_ account under which I hit 'edit page' was njyoder. Knowing
this, you must retract your accusation.
4. Since I have not actually violated the block, will you now remove
it 24 hours from when it was originally issued (as you are obligated
to)?
5. I'd like specific examples of what personal attacks I used that
warrant this block. Note that no one has attempted to define personal
attack yet because they know if they did the accusation and blocked
would become completely unwarranted and make you look bad, as well as
the other arbtrators in my case who _flat out refused_ to define it.
Simplying describing someone's behavior--calling them a hypocrite, is
NOT a personal attack. This has been a matter of debate on the no
personal attacks talk page, especially considering the policy does not
state what constitutes a personal attack. The examples given on the
"no personal attacks" page (the closest thing to a definition) are
very different things from what I've said and you'd either have to be
either incredibly stupid or very dishonest to state otherwise.
I expect a direct apology from you and a removal of the block
immediatly.
----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------
Thank you again, Andrew. I think your
latest letter clears up the remaining
doubt.
I think most of us here would agree that
we would have an excellent [[lex ferenda]]
case for using a picture of this priceless
mediæval manuscript. According to Andrew's
sources, on the other hand, it seems that
the [[lex lata]] in Britain is very much
against our interests.
Now, when this picture was submitted into
Wikipedia no-one bothered to ask for permission,
assuming on the basis of U.S. law that the use
was legal anyhow. It is possible that such
permission could be obtained. Would that be
useful or would we rather forego having the
image at all? (It could possibly be replaced
by a scan from an old out of copyright
mediocre quality black-and white photo.)
Or should we continue to blithely ignore the
law outside of the U.S. amidst heartfelt
proclamations of "free" meaning "free for
anyone in the world"?
Regards,
Haukur
Thank you, Andrew. That seems very clear
(not to mention evil). I've just got one
remaining question. At the time the picture
in question became featured it was argued
that while the original photo (with the
ruler and all) was copyrighted a derived
work using only the manuscript part of the
image would not be (presumably because of
Bridgeman v. Corel).
So my question is: Would this cropping help
at all under British law?
Regards,
Haukur
Bishonen wrote:
> Swedish copyright law affords protection to photographs *iff* there
> is artistic input ("verkshöjd") in the creation of them, explicitly
> not to mere reproductions of two-dimensional images. The Nordic
> countries are normally keen to coordinate things in this sphere, so
> it's hard to believe they would vary drastically.
For those photographs which don't include artistic
input the "protection" period is 50 years, rather
than 70 years. Danish law is indeed similar. As is,
I think, German law.
I've included the relevant articles from the Danish
code below. Basically article 1 says that a work is
protected if it is, in a wide sense, a work of art.
Article 70 says that if a photograph qualifies as
an artwork the normal laws apply. If it doesn't
qualify then the author nevertheless has a monopoly
for 50 years.
Regards,
Haukur
- - -
§ 1. Den, som frembringer et litterært eller kunstnerisk værk, har
ophavsret til værket, hvad enten dette fremtræder som en i skrift eller
tale udtrykt skønlitterær eller faglitterær fremstilling, som musikværk
eller sceneværk, som filmværk eller fotografisk værk, som værk af
billedkunst, bygningskunst eller brugskunst, eller det er kommet til
udtryk på anden måde.
Stk. 2. Kort samt tegninger og andre i grafisk eller plastisk form udførte
værker af beskrivende art henregnes til litterære værker.
- - -
§ 70. Den, som fremstiller et fotografisk billede (fotografen), har eneret
til at råde over billedet ved at fremstille eksemplarer af det og ved at
gøre det tilgængeligt for almenheden.
Stk. 2. Retten til et fotografisk billede varer, indtil 50 år er forløbet
efter udgangen af det år, da billedet blev fremstillet.
Stk. 3. Bestemmelserne i § 2, stk. 2-4, §§ 3, 7, 9, 11 og 11 a, § 12, stk.
1, stk. 2, nr. 5, og stk. 3, §§ 13-16, § 17, stk. 1, 3 og 5, § 18, stk. 1
og 2, § 19, stk. 1 og 2, §§ 20, 21 og 23, § 24, stk. 1 og 2, og §§ 25, 27,
28, 30-31, 33-35, 39-47, 49-58 og 60-62 finder tilsvarende anvendelse på
fotografiske billeder. Er et fotografisk billede genstand for ophavsret
efter § 1, kan denne også gøres gældende.
It seems Weyes has left. What a disgrace. We've never had such a diligent
RC patroller, and he was more right than wrong in his crusade against
excessive external links. That's another one gone after RickK. Why on earth
do we fail the Wikipedians who do so much to protect our project from
vandals, cranks and idiots?
Jfdwolff
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.6/33 - Release Date: 28/06/2005