A few differences on currency (and some other items).
Making "copies" of currency is often explicitly a crime. So there is a legal obligation to be clear that what is presented is not "currency" regardless of whether it would help criminals or not. This doesn't appear to be the case for most logos and documents.
Also unlike the FBI badge, currency is common (uniquitous) and may well be scrutinized; the details on an FBI logo are coarse and little known, unlikely to be checked whereas the details on a print of currency are likely to be checked. Most people can obtain good quality scans with minimal effort but the kinds of professional and very high resolution digital versions needed to produce non-crude forgeries may not be so easy to create.
I think if I were drawing a line for Wikimedia I'd have it somewhere like this:
"There is rarely a need to show the detail of anti-copying shading, or if there is, there is rarely a need to show the entirety of it for a whole document. Currency and other official documents that have fine scale anti-copying devices (currency, passport pages and laminate, etc) may be held in detail on Wikimedia, but the anti-copying shades and effects should either not be entirely shown, or if entirely shown then they should not be shown in excess of ___ dpi."
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
You may be right. Changing subject slightly, does that argument apply with currency counterfeiting laws? I know this thread isn't about currency images, but Commons does actually pay a fair amount of respect to concerns that currency could be counterfeited, which has always surprised me somewhat, given that most currencies now use security methods that no high-resolution image will help with when counterfeiting.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Currency#Counterfeiting_tag
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument is spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc)
would
fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically accurate
or
not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with
someone
who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something
anyone
can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to
look
"clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most
impersonators
only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to
do
the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator
will
not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard
is
more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l