I realise that the lengths of ArbCom terms are set by Jimbo, and whilst I recognise his authority in such matters, I would like to postulate that the length of the terms is perhaps excessive.
I say this not as a losing candidate in the recent election but merely as a concerned Wikipedian. Two and three years is a looong time, especially on the internet. I think that (especially given the -50% returns of 6 "winners" in the recent elections) terms so long only perpetuate notions that Wikipedia is somehow run by a cabal.
I myself would prefer the terms to be staggered at six months, twelve months, and eighteen months. However, I realise some people would be concerned about going through the nasty election process every six months. So perhaps we should develop better election procedure. Or perhaps 12-18-24 months would be more feasible.
Just some thoughts.
I don't think three years is excessive. It might seem a long time since Wikipedia is a relatively young project, but the experience which arbitrators will build up during that three year period will be invaluable in assisting them in making good decisions.
If there is a danger that people will feel "Wikipedia is somehow run by a cabal" then I believe the solution to that is to enlarge the size of the arbitration committee, not to reduce the length of time arbitrators can serve.
Having elections more regularly could negatively affect the way arbitrators work, since they would be more concerned about getting re-elected than doing the job for which they were elected. The election process should not be allowed to interfere with the workings of the committee, and I believe that making arbitrators go through this so regularly could be damaging.
Angela (just my view, not necessarily that of the Foundation)
I agree with Angela completely. The real problem I see with 3 years is just that experience shows that many arbcom members will not stick around that long -- the job is just too exhausting.
On the other hand, elections are quite stressful for the candidates as well.
My plan is to watch the caseload and possibly expand the committee with new appointments fairly quickly if it seems warranted.
Angela wrote:
I don't think three years is excessive. It might seem a long time since Wikipedia is a relatively young project, but the experience which arbitrators will build up during that three year period will be invaluable in assisting them in making good decisions.
If there is a danger that people will feel "Wikipedia is somehow run by a cabal" then I believe the solution to that is to enlarge the size of the arbitration committee, not to reduce the length of time arbitrators can serve.
Having elections more regularly could negatively affect the way arbitrators work, since they would be more concerned about getting re-elected than doing the job for which they were elected. The election process should not be allowed to interfere with the workings of the committee, and I believe that making arbitrators go through this so regularly could be damaging.
Angela (just my view, not necessarily that of the Foundation) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:48:02 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I agree with Angela completely. The real problem I see with 3 years is just that experience shows that many arbcom members will not stick around that long -- the job is just too exhausting.
On the other hand, elections are quite stressful for the candidates as well.
My plan is to watch the caseload and possibly expand the committee with new appointments fairly quickly if it seems warranted.
And I agree with Jimbo completely. This is the way to proceed, IMO.
-- ambi
blankfaze wrote:
So perhaps we should develop better election procedure.
Perhaps we could scrap the election procedure and just have a simple support/oppose vote whenever someone feels like running for it like we do for admins? That way the community could decide how many arbitrators are qualified and required at any given time, rather than picking an arbitrary number and being stuck with it.
Shane.
blankfaze wrote:
So perhaps we should develop better election procedure.
Perhaps we could scrap the election procedure and just have a simple support/oppose vote whenever someone feels like running for it like we do for admins?
I don't know that we really want or need that many arbitrators in the system. If these elections seemed ugly, imagine what a perpetual Requests for Arbitratorship would be like. Also, I think Arbcom should develop an institutional memory so that its rulings are consistent, and that would be hard to do with a fluid membership.
Charles (Mackensen)
Also, I think Arbcom should develop an institutional memory so that its rulings are consistent, and that would be hard to do with a fluid membership.
Actually I don't think memory is good enough. To be consistant the Arbcom should formulate guidlines for rulings:
Repetedly breaking the 3RR on certain pages ----> Ban from editing those pages for 3 month
Repeated personal attacks -----> Personal attack parole (like irisimeisters)
Abuse of admin powers (!st instance) ------> instruced not to use admin powers for 3 months
And so on. Obviously each case is different and so the punishments can't be rigid, but having a guidline will keep the process fair, and will make formulating a ruling easier.
Theresa
The copyright on the paintings of the great masters are obviously all well out of date, however, does this mean that straight photos of these are uncopyrightable? Or are they like translations of the classics which are copyrightable. It just seems that not enough has been down by taking a photo (or photocopying or scanning or however the hell it is that art galleries make thier pictures of paintings) to really justify calling it a new work in its own right.
Anyone know the answer? Even any unqualified people want to take a stab at guessing the answer?
Also if they are copyrightable, does anyone know of any place where there are PD/open license pics of the works of the great masters?
Paz, amor y Papá Noel, rjs, [[User:The bellman]]
The copyright laws of the United States, which require actual creativity, would seem to argue that photographs of paintings are not derivative works in themselves - no new copyright is created, and the only copyright in question is that of the original work. After all, the aim of the copier is to reproduce the painting as accurately as possible. A perfect copy should have no changes whatsoever; such change as there is are undesirable errors, not creativity.
There is some, but not much, case law in this area. The Corel Corporation was involved in a lawsuit that established some precedent here, where it was decided that copying digital images of out of copyright works was not a violation. Some argue that this is not a good precedent since the plaintiff admitted that the digitization was "slavish"; they argue that this admission should not have been made. However, others argue that the slavishness of the reproduction was self-evident and indeed the precise intention of the reproduction of the painting.
The laws in other nations differ in what qualifies for copyright protection. In this matter, treaties like the Berne Convention offer little help, since US courts have ruled that the scope of what is copyrightable as it applies in the US even for works of foreign origin is entirely defined by US law.
-Matt (User:Morven) who is entirely not a lawyer. As with all free advice, this may be worth only what you paid for it.
Robin Shannon wrote:
The copyright on the paintings of the great masters are obviously all well out of date, however, does this mean that straight photos of these are uncopyrightable? Or are they like translations of the classics which are copyrightable. It just seems that not enough has been down by taking a photo (or photocopying or scanning or however the hell it is that art galleries make thier pictures of paintings) to really justify calling it a new work in its own right.
Anyone know the answer? Even any unqualified people want to take a stab at guessing the answer?
Also if they are copyrightable, does anyone know of any place where there are PD/open license pics of the works of the great masters?
The copyrightability of photographs of Paintings that are in the public domain has been a matter of considerable dispute both here and elsewhere. I support the view that they are not copyright because there is not enough creative effort involved.
Ec
Thanks for the clarification, but what about outside of the US (eg. for the purposes of the mandrake distro, or for wikireaders etc.). Does anyone know of any precedents esp. in commonwealth countries and in the EU?
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
Ordinary pictures of out of copyright paintings remain in the public domain, after all, a photograph is just a copy. The usual issue arises when you attempt to photograph the picture itself while it is in a venue controled by its owner or licensee who may attempt to impose restrictions on what you may do while you are in the space.
Fred
From: Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com Reply-To: Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:39:31 +1100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Painting copyright
The copyright on the paintings of the great masters are obviously all well out of date, however, does this mean that straight photos of these are uncopyrightable? Or are they like translations of the classics which are copyrightable. It just seems that not enough has been down by taking a photo (or photocopying or scanning or however the hell it is that art galleries make thier pictures of paintings) to really justify calling it a new work in its own right.
Anyone know the answer? Even any unqualified people want to take a stab at guessing the answer?
Also if they are copyrightable, does anyone know of any place where there are PD/open license pics of the works of the great masters?
Paz, amor y Papá Noel, rjs, [[User:The bellman]]
-- hit me: robin.shannon.id.au jab me: saudade@jabber.zim.net.au
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As far as I know, certainly in some jurisdictions very little modification of public domain or out of copyright work may be required to create a new copyrighted work.
While we don't want to be too fussy, as it's unlikely an uncertain case will be challenged, we should keep an eye on photos of such objects (to pick a contrived copyrighted example, an inspired photo of a row of old paintings - i.e. an original work to some extent despite the paintings not being the work of the photographer)
My two eurocent anyways.
Zoney
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:36:49 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Ordinary pictures of out of copyright paintings remain in the public domain, after all, a photograph is just a copy. The usual issue arises when you attempt to photograph the picture itself while it is in a venue controled by its owner or licensee who may attempt to impose restrictions on what you may do while you are in the space.
Fred
From: Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com Reply-To: Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:39:31 +1100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Painting copyright
The copyright on the paintings of the great masters are obviously all well out of date, however, does this mean that straight photos of these are uncopyrightable? Or are they like translations of the classics which are copyrightable. It just seems that not enough has been down by taking a photo (or photocopying or scanning or however the hell it is that art galleries make thier pictures of paintings) to really justify calling it a new work in its own right.
Anyone know the answer? Even any unqualified people want to take a stab at guessing the answer?
Also if they are copyrightable, does anyone know of any place where there are PD/open license pics of the works of the great masters?
Paz, amor y Papá Noel, rjs, [[User:The bellman]]
-- hit me: robin.shannon.id.au jab me: saudade@jabber.zim.net.au
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:37:04 +0000, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know, certainly in some jurisdictions very little modification of public domain or out of copyright work may be required to create a new copyrighted work.
While we don't want to be too fussy, as it's unlikely an uncertain case will be challenged, we should keep an eye on photos of such objects (to pick a contrived copyrighted example, an inspired photo of a row of old paintings - i.e. an original work to some extent despite the paintings not being the work of the photographer)
Also, as a practical matter, I suspect that even in those jurisdictions, since the work is in the public domain and only the copies have a claimed copyright, the owners would have to prove WHICH copy you in turn copied. After all, there's no original copyright to defend, so proving a resemblance to the original is not enough to prove infringement. I suspect being unable to determine which copyright was in fact infringed would make a case rather difficult to prove.
~~~~
Charles Fulton wrote:
I don't know that we really want or need that many arbitrators in the system. If these elections seemed ugly, imagine what a perpetual Requests for Arbitratorship would be like. Also, I think Arbcom should develop an institutional memory so that its rulings are consistent, and that would be hard to do with a fluid membership.
Well the beauty is if enough people don't think we need that many arbitrators, then people can vote oppose to people who put their name forward unless they are very much exceptional candidates.
Think of it as being closer to Requests for bereaucratship rather than adminship in that respect.
As far as consistency goes, I think it's more important that it's effective. If having lots of available arbitrators means decisions can be turned around faster, I'm all for it. If that comes at a cost to consistency, then I think that's a fair price to pay. The people who punishments are currently being delt to are more than fully deserving of a good kick in the bum. I don't mind whether the size of kick varies a bit from case to case, so long as the kick happens before they cause even more damage.
Shane.
--- blankfaze blankfaze@gmail.com wrote:
I realise that the lengths of ArbCom terms are set by Jimbo, and whilst I recognise his authority in such matters, I would like to postulate that the length of the terms is perhaps excessive.
Admins, Stewards, and Bureaucrats are elected for indefinite terms. I don't see what is wrong with ArbCom member terms being 3 years. It is not a political position, and thus members should not be in near constent re-election mode.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com