WikiEN-l January 2009

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

88 participants
184 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/15/2009 11:06:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, fastfission(a)gmail.com writes: <<By "created" you mean "scanned"? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. If someone scans an and puts it on the web, I don't think we are required to follow the wishes of the uploader if the image is in the public domain. They do not "own" the image content whatsoever if it is in the public domain.>> I know you don't agree. But there are others who think that the mere act of making available electronically vast archives of paper, creates an ethical situation where the creator and exerter of all that effort should get *some*thing for their effort. <<As I related, their sole reason is they believe they own the copyright "on the scan." Which, as pointed out, is not something we value very much around here, for good reasons (legal and ethical). So far all case law to my knowledge has gone along with the notion that mere reproduction does not generate copyright. Scanning should be even less an issue than photography in this case -- it is even more mechanical.>> They are others believe this, or did believe it. I and others do tend to value effort ethically if not legally. Do you know of more than one case? I've only heard of a single case. The issue is not just whether scanning generates a copyright, which it probably does not, but whether the use of that image generates an appropriate ethical treatment of the creator. <<And yes, it is illegal to claim copyright over something that you don't own copyright to. It just isn't prosecuted as far as I can tell. Obviously you'd have to prove intent to deceive.>> No it is not illegal to claim copyright over something to which you don't own copyright. If you believe it is illegal, then perhaps you could cite the law that states that, so we can review it. If you have to prove "intent to deceive" than I would suggest that the law you are thinking of, does not specify copyright at all, but is more general. <<Please take a look at the discussion I was linking to. Nobody claimed we took the image file from Corbis.>> The case law that has been cited is exactly a case where an image was taken from a creator and used without their copyright attached. As I have said repeatedly, even IF a creator exerts a copyright claim over their own image, that does not change whatsoever the state of the original item, or any other images taken by other creators of that item. >>Um, that's not what is going on. Corbis is selling (expensive) licenses which give the publisher in question the right to use the image. It's not a matter of "giving credit," it's a matter of pretending you can sell copyright licenses for things that are clearly in the public domain.>> The right to "use" of an image is not "selling [a] copyright license" for that image. I can certainly sell you the right to use my image whether I exert a copyright claim or not. I own the image, even if the underlying document is in the public domain. Will Johnson **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt… eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=Decemailfoot…)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Announcing "Epistemia", a new wiki encyclopedia
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/15/2009 4:17:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com writes: - civil and polite conduct is required, and no tolerance is shown for those people whose intention is to cause disruption or damage;>> ----------------- This brings up an interesting point. Is there any analysis of the history of the splitting of Wikis, by whom, when, for what reason, and the longer term result? Might make an interesting bit of research to chart these all. Will **************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)

3 2

CBC interview with Jimbo
by William King 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

On Wikipedia Day, the CBC has an interview with Jimbo: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2009/01/15/jimmy-wales.html?ref=rss

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 15 Jan '09

15 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard(a)gmail.com writes: This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public domain.>> ------------------------ David that isn't relevant. Copyright and Credit are two seperate items. We need to discuss them seperately. You don't Credit the Copyright holder. You Credit your source, which may or may not be a copyright holder. You credit where *you* got it from. You even "Credit" public domain sources such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on anything whatsoever. "Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", it has to do with "Normal scholarly citation methods" Will Johnson **************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)

5 5

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 15 Jan '09

15 Jan '09

<<In a message dated 1/13/2009 4:20:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, fastfission(a)gmail.com writes: The entire point of me posting this was to point out that this was exactly what we were doing in practice. In the instance of the Einstein-Planck photo, we were using the fact that Corbis had claimed it as a reason to suspect it must be copyrighted. My point was that just because Corbis claims it, doesn't mean it is copyrighted.>> Agreed. But if a possessor of an image, which they themselves created, denys our use of that image, we should respect such a denial. The image belongs, is owned, by them, regardless of whether it can be copyrighted or not, and regardless of whether they claim such a copyright. <<You can't use whether Corbis claims something as evidence of its copyrighted status, if you have other reasons to suspect it is in the public domain. That's my point. Don't trust Corbis to be up front about copyrights. They aren't.>> Agreed. You can only use it as evidence that they make such a claim. Anyone can make a claim of copyright status on things which are not copyrightable in court. That is why there are court fights over it. It is not illegal to suggest that you have a copyright over something which later in court is denied. Exerting a copyright claim does not make you immoral, as you seem to suggest by saying "they aren't upfront". They may have a valid reason for the belief that their effort makes their work copyrightable. <<When we get to the point where we all start trusting Corbis, then Corbis has, _in effect_, taken something from the public domain.>> I deny this claim. We can trust Corbis, that they make copyright claims that are or aren't defensible. However provided we *stop using THEIR images* and use other images of the same material, than what Corbis does or doesn't claim is not relevant. I have a photograph of the Declaration of Indenpendence, which I took with my own camera. I give it to the project. Whether Corbis also has a photo of that, does not stop me or the project in any way from using *my own image*. You seem to be confusing the use of a particular image, with the use of any image of the same work. <<I see lots of stuff I know to be public domain in news media in particular that credits it to Corbis, Getty, etc. This happens even in very obvious cases, like US military photos of atomic tests.>> Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be scandalous. IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal. The image belongs to me, and I give you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise. That's S.O.P. in the image world. Nothing to do with copyright. Seperate issue. Will Johnson **************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)

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
by Alvaro García 15 Jan '09

15 Jan '09

It went to a period of decline because Steve Jobs was fired. Then ha came back at 1998 and they released the iMac and the iBook, and some years later, on 2001, they released the iPhone. They continued anouncing good things. More iPods, the MacBooks came, the migration to Intel, and then, on 2007, came the iPhone. Talk about decline. -- Alvaro On 14-01-2009, at 16:14, "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Apple was an engine of innovation from about 1976 to 1991 with > overlapping > breakthrough projects (1976-1983: Apple I/II) (1978-1985: Macintosh) > (1986-1992: Powerbook). It then entered a period of decline, > reaching a > nadir in the mid-nineties. > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Alvaro García <alvareo(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Apple!? >> >> >> -- >> Alvaro >> >> On 14-01-2009, at 11:29, "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an >>> inexorable >>> decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of >>> innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). >>> Perhaps >>> Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor >>> to emerge >>> under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for >>> posterity >>> is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat >>> <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> You high or something? >>>> - White Cat >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator >>>> <cunctator(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Long live deletionism! >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke >>>>> <wikipedia(a)zog.org >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 2009/1/13 Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke < >>>> wikipedia(a)zog.org >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems >>>>>>>> to >>>> have >>>>>>>> disappeared: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T… >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T… >> > >>>> < >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T… >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T… >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The edit summary just says "oops". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The deletion log helps in cases like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArti… >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArti… >> > >>>> )< >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArti… >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> >>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArti… >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "OTRS Courtesy blank" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia >>>>>>> OTRS >>>>>>> service and asked for a courtesy deletion. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page >>>>>> now >>>>> reads >>>>>> "The result was *delete*." with the rest of the deletion >>>>>> summary in >>>> html >>>>>> comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm officially weirded out. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Michel >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea
by WJhonson＠aol.com 15 Jan '09

15 Jan '09

<<In a message dated 12/23/2008 8:57:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wilhelm(a)nixeagle.org writes: If we start to use sources that only certain people can access, that closes off the ability of the average reader to verify what we write.>> ----------------------- The answer to this is "that only certain people can access ONLINE..." Any citation should give a full bibliographic citation that could be looked up offline as well. We would not want to subscribe to any content that is *solely* online and doesn't exist offline (such as stirnet.com). So a subscription to the San Francisco Chronicle, *could* be found in an offline format, the online link is merely a convenience link for those who have access to it. Readers without, should still be able to verify the content in another fashion. 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…)

12 19

Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
by WJhonson＠aol.com 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt to ensure the source is reliable". Will Johnson In a message dated 1/11/2009 5:44:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dgerard(a)gmail.com writes: It depends how querulous and idiotic they're being, and if they can get a couple of their mates to be querulous and idiotic as well. **************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)

15 27

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
by WJhonson＠aol.com 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

<<In a message dated 1/14/2009 8:54:02 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com writes: Indeed but doesn't every non featured article fall under "not ready for consumption" category? - White Cat>> That's odd to me. You think an article needs to be FA before we should let people find it in a search? That seems to be a 10 percent rule, while I'm advocating a 90 percent rule. That is that *most* articles are ready, only the few that already undergo AfD might (and I use "might" advisedly) not be so ready. This is a mole hill, not a mountain. Will Johnson **************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000027)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

Yes Ian I agree. It's not really a question of *law*, its a question of *citation practice*. Will **************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000027)

1 0

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
19
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l January 2009