With a healthy dose of skepticism that this really is the real person he
claims to be.
If he is a professor there is the possibility of independently verifying his
identity through an official college website.
In a message dated 9/10/2008 8:45:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
agkwiki(a)googlemail.com writes:
Thanks for the input, geni, Wily. Will get back to him presently.
2008/9/10 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> 2008/9/10 Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com>:
> > If it's a published book, I think Wikisource can take it.
> >
> > Either way, Wikiversity can, I believe.
> >
> > From there, it's easy to link to a Wikipedia article.
> >
> > Brian.
> >
>
> I doubt he wants to release his entire book.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
Any advice on how to respond to this?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doctorlloydmiller <docmiller(a)burgoyne.com>
Date: 2008/9/8
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: AGK <agkwiki(a)googlemail.com>
Greetings,
I was so excited to find Wikipedia and to see that I was mentioned as a
source expert for my subject of expertise. So I thought the honorable thing
to do was to submit portions of my seminal book in the secion that mentioned
the book so others might have access to some of the material. So I spend
many hours preparing and submitting a new section of the submect but was
accused of multi-crimes and deleated like a rat tossed from a trap,
everthing I wrote, even little edits to the chapter already there to improve
it, all gone. In fact they even deleated another of my books that I added to
a list of further reading on Afghan music where my coleagues were listed. Do
I have leprosy and does everyone hate me for some unknown reason?
I don't understand why when my book is listed as a reliable source for
Persian Traditional Music on Wikipedia, everything I added to the article on
Persian music or any other place on Wikipedia, even just a word or two, was
viciously deleted as if I was some horrible stupid know-nothing and an
unwelcome intruder when I was only trying to be helpful. In the world of
Persian music, I am accepted as one of the scholars and my book has been
called "the last word" on Persian muaic; so why would Wikipedia despise my
every effort to submit material and seemingly block every word I have spent
hours preparing? How can scholars in a field ever submit anything if they
are first threatened with potential plagerism then, when they demonstrate
they are the copyright holders of their own book, accused of conflict of
interest even if all the quotes in the book are from accepted scholastic
source persons? It's like Dante's Inferno or Zoroastrian hell.
Dr. Lloyd Miller, PhD Persian literature and music. 00:49, 8 September
2008 (UTC)~~~~~
---
This e-mail was sent by user "Doctorlloydmiller" on the English Wikipedia to
user "AGK". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation
cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and
you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on
privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing,
see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
I respond in-general to responses that are themselves in-general.
"Are movie trailers free" is a general question.
The specific trailer mentioned should be added to Commons unless a
reasonable objection is raised, not solely in the presence of a reasonable argument
for it. That's my opinion, in general, of any obscure copyright claim or
question.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 4:23:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Given the context of the discussion I think we were taking the
relevant dates as read.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
Yes and No. I'm sure you are aware that specific notices of copyright are
no longer a requirement, they are offered by courtesy however in the vast
majority of cases. But the mere lack of a copyright notice on new products is no
longer a carte blanche to do what you will with them.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 3:44:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
There is no additional interpretation. As statute law is written
screen shots of trailers published before their respective films
without copyright notices are PD.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
Hey everybody! I've been lurking around here for awhile, but haven't posted
before.
I just wanted to bring something to the attention of this list. It seems the
website thefreedictionary.com, which has been mirroring wikipedia content
for awhile now, has produced some sort of widget that gives an "article of
the day" with a link back to a wikipedia they are mirroring.
Here's the thing, the widget doesn't credit wikipedia. It just says "Free
content provided by The Free Dictionary." Isn't the widget a derivative work
based on the wikipedia article (it includes a preview paragraph of text)? As
such, shouldn't it have to credit wikipedia under the terms of the GFDL?
What do people think about this? Is it a bad thing? Is it a GFDL violation?
You can see lots of examples of the widget in action if you google "Free
content provided by The Free Dictionary." Or you can go to:
http://www.malaspina.com/home.htm to see one example.
-Andy
I know that this is a Commons question but in my experience the Commons list
doesn't have as many people who are familiar with or care about US copyright
law. So I'm posting it here.
There are a lot of stills from US movie trailers on Commons.
Example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gentlemen_Prefer_Blondes_Movie_Trai…
The movies they are from are in almost every case still copyrighted (you can
look up the renewal records pretty easily).
The entire rationale that the trailers are in the public domain comes from
the dubious argument on this website that the trailers constitute entirely
separate copyrights since they are "published first" and weren't explicitly
copyrighted or renewed: http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=copyright
Personally I find this pretty dodgy reasoning (and not written in a way
which gives me any faith that said site actually got solid legal advice on
the issue).
There is no case law on the subject that I have been able to find (though my
effort in such was not great -- a few Google searches turned up nothing
obvious, nothing that was being cited by others). This seems like definitely
murky area and certainly not clear cut. I would be surprised, personally, if
a US judge did not see the trailer as being a derivative work of the film
itself, even if it is exhibited before the films themselves.
Some back-and-forth on a media list serv seems to support at least the point
of view that this is pretty murky legal ground:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2008/07/msg00124…
Do we think this reasoning is sound enough for the "freedom" of Commons (and
Wikipedia)? Personally I think not. I am not a lawyer, but it's clear to me
that without any case law on the subject we are probably not justified in
saying that these are in the public domain.
And no, I'm not really worried about Commons or Wikipedia getting sued over
it (no more than I am worried about getting sued over fair use screenshots).
But Wikimedia getting sued is obviously not the border of "free". I'm not
being copyright paranoid -- I just don't want Commons (and by extension,
Wikipedia) advertising certain things as PD if they might not be.
If I were actually staking any financial resources into this particular
question, I'd definitely need to consult a lawyer first. And if that's the
case, then it's probably not free enough for Commons. So goes my reasoning.
I've nominated one of the screenshots (the one I linked to above) for
deletion on Commons as being non-free (or at least, that we have
insufficient reason to assert freedom). Feel free to participate in that,
either way. If it does get deleted, though, there are at least 350 other
such images on Commons (do a site-specific search for the sabucat page).
I'm not going to be spending any more time on this particular issue -- it's
just something I noticed and thought I'd put out there. And I think it's an
area where some people who are relatively well-informed on US copyright law
could be useful.
FF
The initial post stated that we need to respect Wikipedia's rules in our
outside dealings.
My response was basically "No we don't"
Your response doesn't address that, it shows where someone has posted
silliness to try to avoid real-world repercussions for in-wiki bitchiness. But the
point is always the same. If you're an ass expect to get bitch-slapped :)
That goes for both sides.
Wikipedia cannot police everything that goes on in the real worth. And we
shouldn't be trying to. That's the point of my response.
The Isreal/Palestine conflict has been going on for a lot longer than
Wikipedia has existed. We are not going to be able to solve it in-wiki, and no
matter what rules we have or haven't, it isnt' going to go away by policy.
In a message dated 9/7/2008 4:47:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdhowie(a)gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:33 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia's rules do not reach outside Wikipedia.
> What we all do outside Wikipedia has no bearing on what we do inside.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks>
Seems pretty clear to me.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
Wikipedia's rules do not reach outside Wikipedia.
What we all do outside Wikipedia has no bearing on what we do inside.
In a message dated 9/7/2008 4:11:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
szvest(a)gmail.com writes:
So it is OK to breach the privacy of Wikipedia's editors by posting their
alleged pictures (i.e. CJCurrie) on *my* website and accuse them for doing
just the same!
No that is not OK. And of course, both sides of the conflict need to respect
Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia editors should refrain from disclosing the
privacy of each other. Wikipedia editors should refrain stating the
ridiculous "ya bad, meh good".
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
>From http://www.thejidf.org/2008/08/cjcurrie-biased-wikipedia-editor.html
*We posted a picture of someone we thought was CJCurrie. We never cited the
source of where we found the photo and we never mentioned the name of the
person in it. *
So it is OK to breach the privacy of Wikipedia's editors by posting their
alleged pictures (i.e. CJCurrie) on *my* website and accuse them for doing
just the same!
No that is not OK. And of course, both sides of the conflict need to respect
Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia editors should refrain from disclosing the
privacy of each other. Wikipedia editors should refrain stating the
ridiculous "ya bad, meh good".
Fayssal F.
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:54:44 +0100 "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: [WikiEN-l] More POV-pushing nutters
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<fbad4e140809070554y37e1d466ree9c884c6edb2ea9(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
<snips>
http://www.thejidf.org/2008/09/wikipedia-editors-snooping-email.html
9.07.2008
Wikipedia editors snooping email, invading privacy, making threats, etc.
We're keeping a very close eye on the discussion on the JIDF article
page. We have corresponded with some top notch Wikipedia people
"behind the scenes" who have advised us to not discuss anything via
email unless fully encrypted and secure, due to unethical and possibly
illegal activities of various Wikipedia editors. Seems like some of
them are extremely determined (through their own unreliable and
"original research") to discover everyone they think might be behind
the scenes at the JIDF and to try to "out" their identity, etc.
We intend to to do everything in our power to defend and protect the
people and things which are important to us. When we are hit, we hit
back harder---with every resource at our disposal. We are fans and
supporters of disproportionate response.
<snips>
On 7 Sep 2008 at 11:47, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The entire rationale that the trailers are in the public domain comes from
> the dubious argument on this website that the trailers constitute entirely
> separate copyrights since they are "published first" and weren't explicitly
> copyrighted or renewed: http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=copyright
This recent case might be of some relevance:
http://uncivilsociety.org/siegel_superman_032608.pdf
The case, pertaining to the exercise of copyright termination rights
by heirs to one of the creators of Superman, included as one of the
things in dispute the matter of exactly what date the first Superman-
related copyright went into effect, which would affect whether the
attempted termination was done in a timely manner based on deadlines
that are calculated from the initial publication date. At issue here
was whether promotional ads for Action Comics #1 that showed its
cover (with Superman lifting up a car), which came out a month or so
before the actual comic, constituted publication of that cover image
and concept, starting the clock running on its copyright. [See
discussion starting on page 26 of this decision.]
It wasn't asserted by either side that this made the promo ad in the
public domain, since the other comics in which that ad appeared had
valid copyright notices of their own, and have been renewed. It did,
however, affect the ability of heirs of the creator to assert
copyright termination if not done in time for the earlier deadline of
that copyright relative to that of the Action #1 issue itself.
The judge ultimately ruled [p. 40] that the earlier publication of
the ad, as a "derivative work" of the (as of yet unpublished) first
comic book story and cover of Superman, was indeed separately
copyrightable as of an earlier publication date from the comic
itself, but that this still didn't invalidate the copyright
termination for the comic, since the earlier ad merely showed a black-
and-white image of Superman with no indication of any of his specific
characteristics other than that he was strong enough to lift a car.
Thus, "The Court thus concludes that defendants may continue to
exploit the image of a person with extraordinary strength who wears a
black and white leotard and cape. What remains of the Siegel and
Shuster´s Superman copyright that is still subject to termination
(and, of course, what defendants truly seek) is the entire storyline
from Action Comics, Vol. 1, Superman´s distinctive blue leotard
(complete with its inverted triangular crest across the chest with a
red "S" on a yellow background), a red cape and boots, and his
superhuman ability to leap tall buildings, repel bullets, and run
faster than a locomotive, none of which is apparent from the
announcement."
This ruling is possibly precedent for a claim that movie trailers
have a separate copyrightable existence dating to their first release
(usually preceding the movie itself), and might be capable of having
their copyright lapse or fail to be properly secured by the
technicalities of copyright law, which, if it happened, would affect
the use of anything specifically in the trailer (but not aspects of
the movie itself not shown in the trailer).
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
.jpg){kind=link}