You're mistaking what I said.
I did not say that subjects can edit their own wiki biographies with
impunity and force.
What I said is that subjects speaking about themselves have a wide latitude.
If the New Bedford Post (newspaper) reports that "Britney Spears was born on
Mars" and Britney in her personal blog reports that "I was not!", we can
report both, and equally, even though Britney is speaking in-the-first-person.
A subject's own statements, about themselves, can always be reported in
their own biography.
I'm not saying that they would edit those in. I'm saying that we can. Not
that we should or must, only that we can.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/27/2008 8:58:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wilhelm(a)nixeagle.org writes:
I thought the last time I checked subjects were asked to *not* edit
their pages... And generally when they do... Someone shouts COI at
them.
(I generally agree with subjects not dictating their pages but some of
the users that deal with COI in the past were not always that nice to
the subjects.... Anyway, I just wanted to point out that subjects
don't get THAT much leeway. St leafy not as of 3 months ago.)
On 12/27/08, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Link me the essay Derida wrote and I will summarize it.
> Then your problem will disappear and we won't have to hear any more about
> him :) (or her or it or goat).
>
> By the way, you are aware Phil, that subject's speaking about themselves,
> in
> their own articles, have a wide latitude. Right?
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
>
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
This is old, but still true:
http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
Apply to our category tree, interwiki links etc.
Thankfully Wikipedia does better than the whole wide Internet.
- d.
<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 11:33:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mbimmler(a)gmail.com writes:
"I believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928
documents, you will immediately find that they are assessing dubious
copyright" and "Could you elaborate on this and supply a specific
example?" could be formed in much nicer words>>
-----------------
Although if you look at the history of this thread, you will see that I did
ask for a specific example.
Now that we know of this non-issue let's explore it a bit more.
IF I take a photograph, or even "digitize" (scan) a print document, I own
the copyright to what *I* have done.
That does *not* give me an automatic copyright to the underlying work *of
someone else* and this is the key point here.
If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image. That does NOT give me a
copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged. If I take a
picture of the Lincoln Memorial, I gain a copyright to my image. Not to the item
imaged.
My copyright to my image whether paper or digital, whether glossy, flat, or
airbrushed. Any derivative work based substantially on my image, in such a
way as to deprive me of income from my image, etc etc etc.
This, as I'm sure we're all aware, does not, in any way, prevent anyone from
taking SAID image (even), extracting all the text from it, and then
presenting it as the original PD document (in plain text not as an image).
SHOULD you not be so lazy as to actually get your own copy of said original
PD document, I'm sure you'll sleep much sounder.
I however won't be limited by that level of silliness.
Now can we move on?
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
Ian you're right I overspoke.
If I scan a document, I don't create a new copyright for that, as I'm merely
doing a mechanical action, which shows no originality.
On the photograph issue, I agree with the way you framed it. If a person
merely takes a picture of some copyrighted object that does not create a new
copyrightable object.
I think my point was that JSTOR, rightly or wrongly, is asserting copyright
over the images they've taken. Not over the underlying paper documents,
which are PD. So the mere fact that JSTOR has digitized a document doesn't
create an overwhelming burden for us. The document itself can still be put on
wikisource as pure text or even as someone else's image, just not as a copy of
the image from JSTOR. That would be the way I'd approach it.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 11:43:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
whether that refers to the images or the contents seems
moot really.>>
Well David, in the case he pointed to, is stating that under US law (which
is what governs Wikipedia), they don't even own a copyright to the images.
What I'm saying, is that even *if* they had a copyright to the images, they
don't own a copyright to the text.
"Download or print" is the entire issue in my mind. If you want a copy of
the *information* in the image, you don't have to download or print it, you
can simply clip out the text and render it as plain text, over which, even with
a photographic claim, they would have no copyright.
Either way, this entire issue is moot.
We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or actually
asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text.
We should, imho, refrain from making copies of their images, whether they
actually enjoy a valid copyright claim or not.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 3:25:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
I wouldn't consider "WTF" by itself to be hostile. I view it as an
expression of great surprise.>>
I would hope it would be fairly apparent, that if I respons with "piss off
with your attitude" that I am, in fact, responding to a hostile message.
Otherwise why would I mention "your attitude" ?
To me "WTF" says "YOU ... ARE... AN... IDIOT" I have to hold your hand and
speak slowly.
It is not *my problem* to demonstrate that my own statements are backed with
evidence. That is up to the person speaking. If I say {{fact}} it is not
my requirement that I find the evidence. It is the requirement of whoever is
asserting the statement. That is one of the core foundational procedures we
have had in place in-project for years. You are the one saying it... so you
show the evidence.
When I ask what the evidence is, to be responded-to with a "wtf" says to me
" I can't believe we have to prove the sky is blue to this guy!"
It's quite hostile. In my world. Population one.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
I David am not the one who threw WTF in the face of a serious contributor as
if I was a complete idiot.
I do not appreciate that type of hostility, to a serious point of
contention, for which no evidence was produced, and will respond with equal hostility
when aroused.
Much like Debby Harry.
In a message dated 12/26/2008 11:35:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
ps: your civility levels in these two messages
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.>>
-----------
WTF? WTF?
Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you.
I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no evidence.
So piss off with your attitude. And merry christmas !
Now let's see some evidence.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
OMG...
THIS is what you are screaming about?
Silly silly silly boy.
They DO have a copyright to the PHOTOGRAPH you bazooka.
They do NOT have a copyright to the plain text.
*Throws up hands*
Next non-issue please.
You cannot copy their IMAGE, you can copy the text obviously.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:26:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
Agreed, including Philosophical Transactions, a journal that started in
1665:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions
Though to be fair, the digitisation only seems to go back to the 1800s so
far.
This was interesting...
http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/royalsociety/
Carcharoth
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
> thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
>
>
>
> On 12/25/08, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>> arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
>>
>> There are plenty of things which people can't just force you to do, but
>> which you can agree to do as part of a contract. If access depends on a
>> license agreement to treat PD material as copyrighted, then it does.>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------
>>
>> So I take it there aren't any actual examples of JSTOR doing this.
>>
>> I'm glad we can now ignore this moot issue and move forward.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>> **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
>> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
>>
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
There are plenty of things which people can't just force you to do, but
which you can agree to do as part of a contract. If access depends on a
license agreement to treat PD material as copyrighted, then it does.>>
-------------------------
So I take it there aren't any actual examples of JSTOR doing this.
I'm glad we can now ignore this moot issue and move forward.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)