Give me strength. Image deletionists are systematically going through and deleting each and every image produced by NASA, simply because it contains a symbol that says it's written by NASA. Apparently they think that they might let me keep some NASA images if I more or less pretend it was written by somebody who added it to the wikipedia by actually removing the insignias.
Um. What?
So far as I can tell NASA have got a specific law that says you can't fraudulently stick their (public domain!) insignia on something to make it look like it was written by them when it wasn't, but other than that, they very, very, very probably want you to say where you got an image from, and the images/insignias/documents are not covered by copyright unless they weren't done by NASA but one of their contractors. In other words, you might be breaking the law by removing it.
The wikipedia image guys really just absolutely have no idea what they're doing, they have completely lost the plot.
What are their rationales? That US government produced symbols can't be put in images inside of wikipedia even though the image is Public Domain by law?
Can't fight fair use guys though. They have the uncertainty based on wikipedia never going to court and hence we have to be ultra sensitive about any IP issues just in case because nothing has been defined by a court.
Peter
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Give me strength. Image deletionists are systematically going through and deleting each and every image produced by NASA, simply because it contains a symbol that says it's written by NASA. Apparently they think that they might let me keep some NASA images if I more or less pretend it was written by somebody who added it to the wikipedia by actually removing the insignias.
Um. What?
So far as I can tell NASA have got a specific law that says you can't fraudulently stick their (public domain!) insignia on something to make it look like it was written by them when it wasn't, but other than that, they very, very, very probably want you to say where you got an image from, and the images/insignias/documents are not covered by copyright unless they weren't done by NASA but one of their contractors. In other words, you might be breaking the law by removing it.
The wikipedia image guys really just absolutely have no idea what they're doing, they have completely lost the plot. -- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
What are their rationales? That US government produced symbols can't be put in images inside of wikipedia even though the image is Public Domain by law?
I'm not entirely sure; they seem to be claiming that the meatball itself is copyright (but it ISN'T). If you read the wikipedia's [[Template:PD-USGov-NASA]] this template says it is, but:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html#Guidelines
*doesn't* claim this, and I checked the regulations and they say that the meatball is PD; but that you have to get permission to use it.
It seems to be a confusion relating to the fact that you or me can't just stick the meatball logo on anything (since that would be basically FRAUD ;-) ), but that's not maintained via copyright law (in fact the meatball specifically is public domain!); but there's a specific *law* that says you can't do that without permission from NASA.
The thing is, all the material we've added to the wikipedia essentially has pre-existing permission that it can bear the meatball when it was originally published by NASA. But the deletionist morons seem to be just deleting everything willy-nilly.
Can't fight fair use guys though.
The deletionists certainly seem to be 8-(
Peter
On 01/04/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Where on Wikipedia (or Commons) is this being discussed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_Ma...
There's a couple of delete requests there at least. I don't know how many previous deletes there may (or may not) have been.
It doesn't help that Template:PD-USGov-NASA is out of date with respect to the wikimedia version- it's currently locked, but there's a request in to update it.
-Matt
-- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_Ma...
I've put in keep opinions for all the ones listed there.
What this is is a recurrence of an issue that comes around every so often; whether non-copyright restrictions are important as regards freedom for images. The NASA case (and other US government insignia) can be regarded as a special case of trademark protection in most ways. Wikipedia's track record is that the depiction of trademarked items does not render an image unfree for our purposes, and this should follow the same logic.
That being said, when NASA logos are unnecessary in an image and it doesn't hurt the image to crop them out, I'd vote for removing them.
-Matt
On 02/04/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_Ma...
I've put in keep opinions for all the ones listed there.
What this is is a recurrence of an issue that comes around every so often; whether non-copyright restrictions are important as regards freedom for images. The NASA case (and other US government insignia) can be regarded as a special case of trademark protection in most ways. Wikipedia's track record is that the depiction of trademarked items does not render an image unfree for our purposes, and this should follow the same logic.
I had a screenshot of wikipedia I made and uploaded for debugging purposes deleted as unfree...
That being said, when NASA logos are unnecessary in an image and it doesn't hurt the image to crop them out, I'd vote for removing them.
Seems reasonable to me. Maybe I should have anonymised Wikipedia by blocking out the copyright part of the interface and declared the rest as PD/GPL. The generic visual representation of a user interface produced entirely by GPL software should not be under any copyright restrictions ;-)
Peter
On 01/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_Ma...
I've put in keep opinions for all the ones listed there.
What this is is a recurrence of an issue that comes around every so often; whether non-copyright restrictions are important as regards freedom for images. The NASA case (and other US government insignia) can be regarded as a special case of trademark protection in most ways. Wikipedia's track record is that the depiction of trademarked items does not render an image unfree for our purposes, and this should follow the same logic.
I had a screenshot of wikipedia I made and uploaded for debugging purposes deleted as unfree...
Which it is. Screenshots of wikipedia pages are a complete copyright mess. Unfree bits GPL bits GFDL bits CC bits.
Seems reasonable to me. Maybe I should have anonymised Wikipedia by blocking out the copyright part of the interface and declared the rest as PD/GPL. The generic visual representation of a user interface produced entirely by GPL software should not be under any copyright restrictions ;-)
Well the normal GPL ones (if all else fails http://id.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/headbg.jpg is protectable by copyright)
On 02/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_Ma...
I've put in keep opinions for all the ones listed there.
What this is is a recurrence of an issue that comes around every so often; whether non-copyright restrictions are important as regards freedom for images. The NASA case (and other US government insignia) can be regarded as a special case of trademark protection in most ways. Wikipedia's track record is that the depiction of trademarked items does not render an image unfree for our purposes, and this should follow the same logic.
I had a screenshot of wikipedia I made and uploaded for debugging purposes deleted as unfree...
Which it is. Screenshots of wikipedia pages are a complete copyright mess. Unfree bits GPL bits GFDL bits CC bits.
Makes you wonder how a GPL programme with GFDL encyclopaedia data and possibly CC images which all in themselves are free, got to be so messed up despite its progress so far. Maybe the whole free culture thing is really a joke as the people who declare it don't have the monetary resources to enforce it or even decide themselves what status compilations are.
Not to mention that like a few others, I allow all of my contributions to be CC BY-SA/GFDL dual liccensed :)... I do like the trend on the non-Wikimedia parts of the web to make all free culture items CC based though. Gets away from the horrid complexities of the GFDL programme documentation focused license so at least you have a hope of clearly making up your own mind that your data can easily be entrenched in someone elses site. Did wikipedia really think GFDL was going to spread through the web given its complexity?
Seems reasonable to me. Maybe I should have anonymised Wikipedia by blocking out the copyright part of the interface and declared the rest as PD/GPL. The generic visual representation of a user interface produced entirely by GPL software should not be under any copyright restrictions ;-)
Well the normal GPL ones (if all else fails http://id.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/headbg.jpg is protectable by copyright)
The wikipedia foundation really has made sure they believe doublethink completely without question in this respect if they make it look for all purposes like wikipedia is free culture but then copyright the basic aspects so you ironically can't use "it", just the data... It is interesting that they have so many copyright elements though in a serious sense too. Makes you wonder what exactly they fear from copyleft and why they can put on a straight doublethink face for the media who don't understand these nuances.
Peter
On 01/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Makes you wonder how a GPL programme with GFDL encyclopaedia data and possibly CC images which all in themselves are free, got to be so messed up despite its progress so far.
History and people choosing to reinvent the wheel (to be fair the alternative would be trying to work with Richard M. Stallman to improve the triangular wheel).
Things are getting better the Open Audio License has merged with CC-BY-SA and the GFDL is heading in that direction.
The situation is far worse with NC licenses. You can't move for homebrew NC licenses which are not compatible and are so badly worded that it is pretty much impossible to work out their legal meaning.
Maybe the whole free culture thing is really a joke as the people who declare it don't have the monetary resources to enforce it or even decide themselves what status compilations are.
There are significant interests in seeing the compilations issue not settled. Wikipedia for one. Enforcing the GFDL would be doable but for various reasons there is little point in stealing something already widely available. It has happened but the person doing it normally gets fired shortly afterwards so little point in going to court. Since very little GFDL material is registered with the US copyright office any damaged awarded would be pretty minimal.
Not to mention that like a few others, I allow all of my contributions to be CC BY-SA/GFDL dual liccensed :)... I do like the trend on the non-Wikimedia parts of the web to make all free culture items CC based though. Gets away from the horrid complexities of the GFDL programme documentation focused license so at least you have a hope of clearly making up your own mind that your data can easily be entrenched in someone elses site. Did wikipedia really think GFDL was going to spread through the web given its complexity?
At the time wikipedia was making the decision the only alternatives would have been a software license the Design Science License and the Free Art license (and technically the nupedia license but I've never seen a copy). Design Science License is dead and the Free Art license has it's own problems.
The wikipedia foundation really has made sure they believe doublethink completely without question in this respect if they make it look for all purposes like wikipedia is free culture but then copyright the basic aspects so you ironically can't use "it", just the data... It is interesting that they have so many copyright elements though in a serious sense too. Makes you wonder what exactly they fear from copyleft and why they can put on a straight doublethink face for the media who don't understand these nuances.
In the monobook skin the only elements not under a free license of some sort are the wikipedia globe the wikimedia foundation logo and perhaps bits of the mediawiki logo (the mediawiki flower is PD).
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
What are their rationales? That US government produced symbols can't be put in images inside of wikipedia even though the image is Public Domain by law?
The "meatball" insignia is not protected by copyright law (ie, it's PD) but it is protected by other, specific, non-copyright federal regulations:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/14cfr1221_07.html
Use of the insignia contrary to the regulations is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-....
On 01/04/2008, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
What are their rationales? That US government produced symbols can't be put in images inside of wikipedia even though the image is Public Domain by law?
The "meatball" insignia is not protected by copyright law (ie, it's PD) but it is protected by other, specific, non-copyright federal regulations:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/14cfr1221_07.html
Use of the insignia contrary to the regulations is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-....
How is reproducing a public domain image going against that law? If they wanted to copyright the image so that people couldn't use it they wouldn't have put it in the public domain right? Wikipedia doesn't put its logo under a free license because it doesn't want people to well... use it? The government can't take those kind of liberties without a reason though, right?
And besides, if you don't want the image because it would promote something that is not the one true source of knowledge (hail WP) then you can just take it out, you can definitely at least do that to Public Domain items.
Peter
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
How is reproducing a public domain image going against that law? If they wanted to copyright the image so that people couldn't use it they wouldn't have put it in the public domain right? Wikipedia doesn't put its logo under a free license because it doesn't want people to well... use it? The government can't take those kind of liberties without a reason though, right?
As I said, it's not subject to copyright restrictions, it's subject to special restrictions that apply just to the NASA seal and insignia, that are entirely separate to copyright.
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 04:39, Peter Ansell wrote:
How is reproducing a public domain image going against that law? If they wanted to copyright the image so that people couldn't use it they wouldn't have put it in the public domain right?
Ever hear of a classified document?
It's not the same laws in this case, but it's the same principle.
On 01/04/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 04:39, Peter Ansell wrote:
How is reproducing a public domain image going against that law? If they wanted to copyright the image so that people couldn't use it they wouldn't have put it in the public domain right?
Public domain is largely a copyright law term, but as this shows, it doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other legal restrictions elsewhere that cover particular material.
Ever hear of a classified document?
It's not the same laws in this case, but it's the same principle.
Yes, I think classified documents produced by the government are not copyright, but other laws cover their copying and possession etc.
As I understand it, documents produced by the government are invariably not copyright, which is why they had to handle the meatball under other laws. (I imagine people were adding it into documents without any compunction.)
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
-- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
So copyright-wise it is fine? Please carry out this discussion on commons by the way. What is discussed on the mailing list, stays on the mailing list.
- White Cat
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
What are their rationales? That US government produced symbols can't be put in images inside of wikipedia even though the image is Public Domain by law?
The "meatball" insignia is not protected by copyright law (ie, it's PD) but it is protected by other, specific, non-copyright federal regulations:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/14cfr1221_07.html
Use of the insignia contrary to the regulations is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-....
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Give me strength. Image deletionists are systematically going through and deleting each and every image produced by NASA, simply because it contains a symbol that says it's written by NASA. Apparently they think that they might let me keep some NASA images if I more or less pretend it was written by somebody who added it to the wikipedia by actually removing the insignias.
Um. What?
So far as I can tell NASA have got a specific law that says you can't fraudulently stick their (public domain!) insignia on something to make it look like it was written by them when it wasn't, but other than that, they very, very, very probably want you to say where you got an image from, and the images/insignias/documents are not covered by copyright unless they weren't done by NASA but one of their contractors. In other words, you might be breaking the law by removing it.
The wikipedia image guys really just absolutely have no idea what they're doing, they have completely lost the plot. -- -Ian Woollard
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image. As a result the NASA logo is not compatible with free content.
I don't suppose someone "corporate" could actually talk to NASA and try to work this out?
On 01/04/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't suppose someone "corporate" could actually talk to NASA and try to work this out?
NASA can't do anything about it. We are dealing with an issue of US law rather than NASA policy.
How about we grow up and do something constructive, The image is Public Domain per United States Government Policy, since the underlying image is PD just remove the parts that are not. see my on wiki response: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AImages_and_media_for_d...
The Devil Himself, Betacommand
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't suppose someone "corporate" could actually talk to NASA and try to work this out?
NASA can't do anything about it. We are dealing with an issue of US law rather than NASA policy.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/04/2008, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
How about we grow up and do something constructive, The image is Public Domain per United States Government Policy, since the underlying image is PD just remove the parts that are not.
They're *all* public domain, even the logo. There's a legal restriction that you can't do stuff like misrepresent NASA and use the logo for *other* things, but IMHO anybody that does that is up to no good and deserves all they get. The wikimedia tag used is quite specific anyway and we don't need to remove anything.
The Devil Himself,
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
How about we grow up and do something constructive, The image is Public Domain per United States Government Policy, since the underlying image is PD just remove the parts that are not.
They're *all* public domain, even the logo. There's a legal restriction that you can't do stuff like misrepresent NASA and use the logo for *other* things, but IMHO anybody that does that is up to no good and deserves all they get. The wikimedia tag used is quite specific anyway and we don't need to remove anything.
I (tentatively) agree with Ian here. The restrictions on reuse do not seem to be anything like a no-derivs license.
Free re-use is something that we insist upon only with respect to copyright (and perhaps if some other non-copyright restrictions were onerous enough, we would refuse that as well). Saying that you can't use an image to commit fraud, etc., is not a restriction on reuse that bothers us. Nor should it.
--Jimbo
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
How about we grow up and do something constructive, The image is Public Domain per United States Government Policy, since the underlying image is PD just remove the parts that are not.
They're *all* public domain, even the logo. There's a legal restriction that you can't do stuff like misrepresent NASA and use the logo for *other* things, but IMHO anybody that does that is up to no good and deserves all they get. The wikimedia tag used is quite specific anyway and we don't need to remove anything.
I (tentatively) agree with Ian here. The restrictions on reuse do not seem to be anything like a no-derivs license.
Free re-use is something that we insist upon only with respect to copyright (and perhaps if some other non-copyright restrictions were onerous enough, we would refuse that as well). Saying that you can't use an image to commit fraud, etc., is not a restriction on reuse that bothers us. Nor should it.
--Jimbo
This point is extremely apt and seems to have been missed. *Every* image we host has restrictions we can't overcome on its reuse. I'm legally barred from engaging in Libel, Sedition or Alarming the Queen, and yet I could (presumably) modify any freely licensed image to do this anyways. And there's no licence I can select to get around this. Panaramic shots can be freely used, but if I clip out the Coke ad in a shot of Times Square, it's no longer free. Trademarked items can infringe on various reuses, but nonetheless we use green squares, even though someone reusing it for the tax company logo could certainly be sued.
Re-use will always be subject to restrictions. We cannot hope to promise that transformative downstream users will be legally clear. All we can hope to do is not add restrictions and promise straight reprintings are in the clear.
Cheers WilyD
On 01/04/2008, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
How about we grow up and do something constructive
How likely is that? It's much easier to just delete a hell of a lot of useful and legitimately-used information.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
How about we grow up and do something constructive
How likely is that? It's much easier to just delete a hell of a lot of useful and legitimately-used information.
Please don't troll this conversation - Beta's been helpful and very rational here and on-wiki on this point.
On 03/04/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Betacommand Betacommand@gmail.com wrote:
How about we grow up and do something constructive
How likely is that? It's much easier to just delete a hell of a lot of useful and legitimately-used information.
Please don't troll this conversation - Beta's been helpful and very rational here and on-wiki on this point.
He has, yes. Certain others haven't, for reasons which escape me.
Geni, you simply haven't read the statute. It specifically says that the NASA Public Affairs Office *can* give us permission.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't suppose someone "corporate" could actually talk to NASA and try to work this out?
NASA can't do anything about it. We are dealing with an issue of US law rather than NASA policy.
On 01/04/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, you simply haven't read the statute. It specifically says that the NASA Public Affairs Office *can* give us permission.
Giving wikipedia only permission isn't that useful (due to the things we use the images for it isn't really needed) and I'm not sure how a blanket everyone for any use permission would work out.
--- Geni
I don't see where we have to take responsibility for the things other people do with the images.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, you simply haven't read the statute. It specifically says that the NASA Public Affairs Office *can* give us permission.
Giving wikipedia only permission isn't that useful (due to the things we use the images for it isn't really needed) and I'm not sure how a blanket everyone for any use permission would work out.
On 01/04/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see where we have to take responsibility for the things other people do with the images.
We don't but our policies require images to be free for reuses which is why we don't accept wikipedia only images.
Look I really rather doubt we have many meatball logos on wikipedia finding them and editing them out of the images where posible should not be a major problem.
The NASA images are free for reuse. Taking the logo from those images is not, but then, taking a corporate logo from one of our images and using it isn't free either.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:29 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see where we have to take responsibility for the things other people do with the images.
We don't but our policies require images to be free for reuses which is why we don't accept wikipedia only images.
Look I really rather doubt we have many meatball logos on wikipedia finding them and editing them out of the images where posible should not be a major problem.
--
geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/04/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
The NASA images are free for reuse. Taking the logo from those images is not, but then, taking a corporate logo from one of our images and using it isn't free either.
Why would it not be allowable to take a non-free part out of an otherwise Public Domain artifact and reproduce it as being allowed to have further changes? Does the existence of the logo in the first place change the status of all US government artifacts being PD?
Peter
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We don't but our policies require images to be free for reuses which is why we don't accept wikipedia only images.
Which precise policy is incompatible with the NASA images?
Look I really rather doubt we have many meatball logos on wikipedia finding them and editing them out of the images where posible should not be a major problem.
I have my own policy about people inventing their own policies and unilaterally applying them to the wikipedia- I revert on sight.
I found one bunch of clowns systematically removing all safety related information relating to certain chemicals from the wikipedia. 'In case somebody used the information and got hurt and then wikipedia could be liable' and 'it's all in the msds' anyway'. But a fair amount of it wasn't in the msds's and yeah, it was referenced.
Seems to me this is pretty similar; you appear to be worried that somebody, somewhere doing something that is not routinely done on the wikipedia could possibly break the law.
You know what? Yeah, they could. And how is this the wikipedia's problem? We don't encourage them, on the contrary we tag our images with the restrictions - and there are ALWAYS restrictions. And if we find an illegal image on the wikipedia we delete it.
The NASA license is free for all the normal things that the wikipedia and people that make use of our material use these images for. In *that* sense, it's FREE. I don't care beyond that, provided it's correctly tagged with the license, I really don't, and I *really* don't think you should either.
--
geni
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I have my own policy about people inventing their own policies and unilaterally applying them to the wikipedia- I revert on sight.
In this case the people would be the foundation. Per
"All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above."
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition is wikipedia policy
Check out the "The freedom to distribute derivative works" section
I found one bunch of clowns systematically removing all safety related information relating to certain chemicals from the wikipedia. 'In case somebody used the information and got hurt and then wikipedia could be liable' and 'it's all in the msds' anyway'. But a fair amount of it wasn't in the msds's and yeah, it was referenced.
Seems to me this is pretty similar; you appear to be worried that somebody, somewhere doing something that is not routinely done on the wikipedia could possibly break the law.
You know what? Yeah, they could. And how is this the wikipedia's problem?
Because it is a problem caused by the material being non free.
We don't encourage them, on the contrary we tag our images with the restrictions - and there are ALWAYS restrictions.
Restrictions on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grays_Thurrockmap_1946.jpg
?
And if we find an illegal image on the wikipedia we delete it.
That would depend on exactly how you define illegal. There are images on wikipedia that run into issues with US statute law.
The NASA license is free for all the normal things that the wikipedia and people that make use of our material use these images for.
People use our images for all sorts of stuff. Old Negro Space Program fan art would be far from the weirdest.
In *that* sense, it's FREE. I don't care beyond that, provided it's correctly tagged with the license, I really don't, and I *really* don't think you should either.
Someone has to. Once of the annoying things about wikipedia is that what was last week a weird corner case is this week something that happened three times. You might think say that the question exactly of what documents of state management means under North Korean law isn't significant but the issue has arisen.
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me this is pretty similar; you appear to be worried that somebody, somewhere doing something that is not routinely done on the wikipedia could possibly break the law.
You know what? Yeah, they could. And how is this the wikipedia's problem?
Because it is a problem caused by the material being non free.
Hah! Is it a problem with a GFDL'd image that if you hand painted a meatball in it that it becomes illegal? Gasp! GFDL clearly isn't free! OMG you can't make all derived works!!!! Delete all the GFDL'd images from the wikipedia immediately!!!
No, in general it's a problem due to living a society with laws that apply to images. Some of these laws put restrictions on what images you can *make* in any way, as a derived work or *otherwise*. None of the NASA images stop you making derivatives *from* then. They are free images in any *sensible* definition.
And yes, there are images you can't make from NASA images. But they are images you can't make *anyway*.
-- geni
On 02/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me this is pretty similar; you appear to be worried that somebody, somewhere doing something that is not routinely done on the wikipedia could possibly break the law.
You know what? Yeah, they could. And how is this the wikipedia's problem?
Because it is a problem caused by the material being non free.
Hah! Is it a problem with a GFDL'd image that if you hand painted a meatball in it that it becomes illegal? Gasp! GFDL clearly isn't free! OMG you can't make all derived works!!!! Delete all the GFDL'd images from the wikipedia immediately!!!
Pure GFDL is non free we know this. But that is an aside. That you cannot combine non free with free material is a feature not a bug.
No, in general it's a problem due to living a society with laws that apply to images. Some of these laws put restrictions on what images you can *make* in any way, as a derived work or *otherwise*. None of the NASA images stop you making derivatives *from* then. They are free images in any *sensible* definition.
Not really. By the standards you've just used crown copyright images are free.
And yes, there are images you can't make from NASA images. But they are images you can't make *anyway*.
No there are images I can't make from images with the NASA logo (okey technically I'm not sure how the extradition hearing would work out). Remove the logo and I can make them.
Ok lets stop being complete dumbasses. most of the images can have the NASA logo removed, without harming the image. So lets just get our heads out of the sand and actual be productive. I spent about five minutes and removed two logos from a image and re-uploaded it to commons under a PD license per NASA's rights.
Betacommand
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:06 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me this is pretty similar; you appear to be worried that somebody, somewhere doing something that is not routinely done on
the
wikipedia could possibly break the law.
You know what? Yeah, they could. And how is this the wikipedia's problem?
Because it is a problem caused by the material being non free.
Hah! Is it a problem with a GFDL'd image that if you hand painted a meatball in it that it becomes illegal? Gasp! GFDL clearly isn't free! OMG you can't make all derived works!!!! Delete all the GFDL'd images from the wikipedia immediately!!!
Pure GFDL is non free we know this. But that is an aside. That you cannot combine non free with free material is a feature not a bug.
No, in general it's a problem due to living a society with laws that apply to images. Some of these laws put restrictions on what images you can *make* in any way, as a derived work or *otherwise*. None of the NASA images stop you making derivatives *from* then. They are free images in any *sensible* definition.
Not really. By the standards you've just used crown copyright images are free.
And yes, there are images you can't make from NASA images. But they are images you can't make *anyway*.
No there are images I can't make from images with the NASA logo (okey technically I'm not sure how the extradition hearing would work out). Remove the logo and I can make them.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No there are images I can't make from images with the NASA logo (okey technically I'm not sure how the extradition hearing would work out).
No, not *from*! There are images you can't *make* with the NASA logo.
This is not a restriction going *from* NASA images, it is a restriction *from* any and all images everywhere in the whole world that you can't go *to* some types of images.
-- geni
Ian Woollard wrote:
I found one bunch of clowns systematically removing all safety related information relating to certain chemicals from the wikipedia. 'In case somebody used the information and got hurt and then wikipedia could be liable' and 'it's all in the msds' anyway'. But a fair amount of it wasn't in the msds's and yeah, it was referenced.
Protecting ourselves from the evils of copyright infringement serves a higher purpose than making information available that might save someone's life. ;-)
Ec
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image.
No, not in any significant way.
As a result the NASA logo is not compatible with free content.
The logo *itself* in isolation might be, but the images with it aren't; they're public domain you can modify them as much as you want. There's *nothing* stopping you changing the image in any sensible way including removing the tags if you wish.
--
geni
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image.
No, not in any significant way.
Please present your arguments for this claim.
As a result the NASA logo is not compatible with free content.
The logo *itself* in isolation might be, but the images with it aren't; they're public domain you can modify them as much as you want.
False there are many modifications you cannot make to those images. Editing in some images of the KKK for example would cause problems.
There's *nothing* stopping you changing the image in any sensible way including removing the tags if you wish.
You are claiming that creating Old Negro Space Program fan art is not a sensible use?
The images with the tags removed are free. With then not removed they are not.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image.
No, not in any significant way.
Please present your arguments for this claim.
I have never heard anyone inside or outside NASA make this image restriction claim, and though I'm not the most in the loop person there, I have significant business contacts in the agency and with journalists who cover spaceflight activities.
The interpretation that the meatball is some sort of free content contagion is novel to this group in Wikipedia, and the argument is prima facie ludicrous.
Free content is good. Free content legalism to the point where you delete free content is insane.
On 01/04/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image.
No, not in any significant way.
Please present your arguments for this claim.
I have never heard anyone inside or outside NASA make this image restriction claim, and though I'm not the most in the loop person there, I have significant business contacts in the agency and with journalists who cover spaceflight activities.
Because it is not an issue for normal journalists or normal NASA activities. Wikipedia is neither.
The interpretation that the meatball is some sort of free content contagion is novel to this group in Wikipedia, and the argument is prima facie ludicrous.
No it is a logical reading of the relevant statutes. If you have a problem with the relevant statutes I suggest you take the issue up with your congressbeing
Free content is good. Free content legalism to the point where you delete free content is insane.
The logo is not free content per any of the standard definitions.
I understand that image editing programs are widely supported across OSs so the removal of such logos should not present you with a problem.
geni wrote:
On 01/04/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote
The interpretation that the meatball is some sort of free content contagion is novel to this group in Wikipedia, and the argument is prima facie ludicrous.
No it is a logical reading of the relevant statutes. If you have a problem with the relevant statutes I suggest you take the issue up with your congressbeing
At the heart of the "logical reading" of relevant statutes rests the spirit of original research. Nothing that a legislator can do will prevent the suicidal misinterpretation of statutes.
Ec
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo *itself* in isolation might be, but the images with it aren't; they're public domain you can modify them as much as you want.
False there are many modifications you cannot make to those images. Editing in some images of the KKK for example would cause problems.
Yeah, well, that would be fraud wouldn't it? And how is that license related? You could do that with any image, irrespective of license and expect much the same consequences.
The images with the tags removed are free. With then not removed they are not.
Even free isn't free in most cases. You can't stick GPL in GFDL or vice versa *unless* it's dual licensed. In fact, this material is public domain- you can do more things with it than GFDLd work. It's more free than 'free'.
-- geni
-- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
On 01/04/2008, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 08:06:20PM +0100, Ian Woollard wrote:
Even free isn't free in most cases. You can't stick GPL in GFDL or vice versa *unless* it's dual licensed.
That's interesting, since we accept GPL images: [[Category:GPL images]].
We would argue for a wikipedia article being a compilation work under the GFDL. If you really want to have fun try and figure out how the free art license is meant to mesh with the GFDL.
In the meantime actually enforcing the "The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not in the public domain." part of the warning template would be far more useful. I rather doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USSR_Luna_lander_bus.jpg is really a NASA pic.
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo *itself* in isolation might be, but the images with it aren't; they're public domain you can modify them as much as you want.
False there are many modifications you cannot make to those images. Editing in some images of the KKK for example would cause problems.
Yeah, well, that would be fraud wouldn't it?
Not always
And how is that license related? You could do that with any image, irrespective of license and expect much the same consequences.
With any image? How would it get you into trouble with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Grays_Thurrockmap_1946.jpg ?
The images with the tags removed are free. With then not removed they are not.
Even free isn't free in most cases. You can't stick GPL in GFDL or vice versa *unless* it's dual licensed. In fact, this material is public domain- you can do more things with it than GFDLd work. It's more free than 'free'.
Breaking the GFDL is civil law. Using the NASA logo in certain ways is criminal law.
The terms on the NASA logo limit what type of derivatives can be made. This means non free.
On 02/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image.
No, not in any significant way.
Please present your arguments for this claim.
As a result the NASA logo is not compatible with free content.
The logo *itself* in isolation might be, but the images with it aren't; they're public domain you can modify them as much as you want.
False there are many modifications you cannot make to those images. Editing in some images of the KKK for example would cause problems.
Editing in changes like that would get libel suits from most organisations, even under so called "free/derivatives allowed" licenses. That is a red-herring against the entire idea of open data.
There's *nothing* stopping you changing the image in any sensible way including removing the tags if you wish.
You are claiming that creating Old Negro Space Program fan art is not a sensible use?
The images with the tags removed are free. With then not removed they are not.
--
geni
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image. As a result the NASA logo is not compatible with free content.
There are no restrictions of these images under copyright law.
Historically we have not considered non-copyright restrictions as being incompatible with free content. For example, trademark law restricts image use in a very similar manner. Attempts to delete any image containing a trademarked element have failed in the past and should fail again, IMO.
-Matt
On 01/04/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The logo is in effect under an ND license and by leavening it in the image we get a ah limited derivatives image. As a result the NASA logo is not compatible with free content.
There are no restrictions of these images under copyright law.
Historically we have not considered non-copyright restrictions as being incompatible with free content.
Not technically true if you consider what the law of the Philippines with regards to government produced images would appear to mean from a pure copyright POV.
For example, trademark law restricts image use in a very similar manner.
Civil and criminal are not similar.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:58 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
For example, trademark law restricts image use in a very similar manner.
Civil and criminal are not similar.
Missing the point, geni.
-Matt
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Give me strength. Image deletionists are systematically going through and deleting each and every image produced by NASA, simply because it contains a symbol that says it's written by NASA. Apparently they think that they might let me keep some NASA images if I more or less pretend it was written by somebody who added it to the wikipedia by actually removing the insignias.
Has anyone compiled a list of these images for review?