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(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews(a)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(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