[posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to
wikisource-l, perhaps?]
I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping
those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a
given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US.
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july08/hirtle/07hirtle.html
Copyright Renewal, Copyright Restoration, and the Difficulty of
Determining Copyright Status - Peter B. Hirtle, Cornell University
D-Lib Magazine, July/August 2008
Volume 14 Number 7/8
"It has long been assumed that most of the works published from 1923
to 1964 in the US are currently in the public domain. Both non-profit
and commercial digital libraries have dreamed of making this material
available. Most programs have recognized as well that the restoration
of US copyright in foreign works in 1996 has made it impossible for
them to offer to the public the full text of most foreign works. What
has been overlooked up to now is the difficulty that copyright
restoration has created for anyone trying to determine if a work
published in the United States is still protected by copyright. This
paper discusses the impact that copyright restoration of foreign works
has had on US copyright status investigations, and offers some new
steps that users must follow in order to investigate the copyright
status in the US of any work. It argues that copyright restoration has
made it almost impossible to determine with certainty whether a book
published in the United States after 1922 and before 1964 is in the
public domain. Digital libraries that wish to offer books from this
period do so at some risk."
The minefield is even murkier than we thought, it seems.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
<<In a message dated 1/13/2009 10:28:59 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
fastfission(a)gmail.com writes:
I once e-mailed them about this and the person who e-mailed me
back said that they were claiming the copyright on the _scans_, not the
images themselves.>>
That is sort of the argument I was making a while ago, and I was greatly
interested in the recent copyright case where some museum (I can't remember the
details) was claiming copyright over high quality images they produced of old
(flat) artworks (i.e. paintings or drawings).
The case went against them I believe and the reasoning was repeated here on
this list just recently.
It would seem pretty clear that the same reasoning could be used against say
Google books scans of old documents/books/maps.
That these scans themselves enjoy no special ability for a new copyright
claim vis a vis the expiration of old copyrights (pre 1922).
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
I don't believe it's possible to move something from the public to the
private domain.
The issue at hand wasn't that. The issue was *can* we use *their* image of
that public domain material as the source image or source in general?
That's not the same as, can we go take some other image of the same work, or
take our own image of it and use that.
They never implied (as far as I know) that the mere act of making an image,
immediately gained them copyright over *all previous images of that work
ever*.
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: WikiGeist <wikigeist(a)365capita.org>
Date: 2009/1/13
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] WikiGeist: Wikipedia equivalent of Google's Hot Trends
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
of course .. sorry .. http://www.wikigeist.com/
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/1/13 WikiGeist <wikigeist(a)365capita.org>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just completed a project using the Wikipedia page counters made available
> by
> > *Domas Mituzas (
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-December/035435.html)
> >
> > *WikiGeist is an attempt to build the Wikipedia equivalent of Google's
> Hot
> > Trends or other websites' most popular widget. It tracks, aggregates,
> ranks
> > and reports the page views on en.wikipedia.org. There are three types of
> > report: Top Pages by Count (ranks the articles according to the number of
> > page views during the past hour,) Top New Entries (ranks the articles by
> > page views with prior page views of 0) and Top Pages by Page Count
> Increase.
> > When articles are accessed individually, a excerpt of the wikipedia page
> is
> > shown as well as a graph reporting the trend during the past 24 hours.
> >
> > Let me know what you think of it.
>
> Am I missing something, or did you mean to include a link?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: WikiGeist <wikigeist(a)365capita.org>
Date: 2009/1/13
Subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiGeist: Wikipedia equivalent of Google's Hot Trends
To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hi,
Just completed a project using the Wikipedia page counters made available by
*Domas Mituzas (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-December/035435.html)
*WikiGeist is an attempt to build the Wikipedia equivalent of Google's Hot
Trends or other websites' most popular widget. It tracks, aggregates, ranks
and reports the page views on en.wikipedia.org. There are three types of
report: Top Pages by Count (ranks the articles according to the number of
page views during the past hour,) Top New Entries (ranks the articles by
page views with prior page views of 0) and Top Pages by Page Count Increase.
When articles are accessed individually, a excerpt of the wikipedia page is
shown as well as a graph reporting the trend during the past 24 hours.
Let me know what you think of it.
Thanks.
willy -- [[user:Tookam]]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
If you think that then you're not understanding the proposal.
It isn't a two-tier of *what you can read*, you cannot read these even in
snippet form outside the project.
That's quite a different thing from the FA system which is completely an
internal event that no one outside really cares about.
So these pages would not be included in dumps, they wouldn't be indexed,
links to them would be in a different color, if even allowed at all.
An alternative would be to create a brand-new project for wikipoop and put
them all there.
In a message dated 1/13/2009 7:01:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia(a)surlygeek.com writes:
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
>> reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are
>> "acceptable" in the mainstream,
This already exists with GA/FA ratings. Creating a new public/internal
division just adds a new front for controversy.
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual
deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement'
where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where
people who know would improve them.
And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's
a general consensus.
--
Alvaro
On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman <noah(a)salzman.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
>> reader
>> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the
>> mainstream,
>> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
>> edit.
>
>
> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate
> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
>
> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
> article.
>
> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main
> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots
> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
>
> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
>
> --Noah--
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
I thought I should share this gem with the list:
An iPhone application that takes your location via GPS, lists articles
about nearby towns/buildings/objects/etc., and reads them to you via
speech synthesis. Instant free audio tour guide, (almost) anywhere.
http://lifehacker.com/5129490/hearplanet-is-a-free-talking-tour-guide-for-y…
Cheers,
Magnus
Why exactly would your translation not need sources?
In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alvareo(a)gmail.com writes:
Once I translated like 3 paragraphs of a Roger Waters
interview, from Spanish to English, that I read on a magazine and thus
didn't need sources nor they could be put. Two days later, my
substantial contribution was deleted.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
The source is the magazine.
Why would you say there are no source, when you have a magazine as the
source?
In a message dated 1/11/2009 9:35:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alvareo(a)gmail.com writes:
Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)