I'm working at home this week, which means I get the small child on my arm. This leaves the other arm free to use AutoWikiBrowser! So I've been going through [[Category:Living people]] and adding [[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] or [[Image:Replace this image female.svg|right]] to every article that doesn't have an image or at least the word "image" in it.
Anyone else want to help? Our living bios are overwhelmingly male, so I glance over the text in the edit box and (as needed) paste [[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] in, and add "fe" if the subject is female.
That thing is durned ugly, but already has people finding suitable images on Commons or other Wikipedias, and based on past experience will net us more than a few free content photos we didn't have before.
I might replace the current SVGs with some of the less ugly ones mooted in the Village Pump thread as well ...
- d.
In the case of marginally notable subjects, wouldn't finding images of the subjects without their consent be a privacy violation?
(If not, why are certain websites considered attack sites?)
Let's see... publicity rights may affect public figures, and privacy rights may affect everyone else.
This article focuses on US law: http://www.publaw.com/photo.html
Basically, even a public figure has a right to control 'commercial use' of his or her likeness. Privacy rights may apply to pretty much anyone who isn't a politician or celebrity - basically, if it's not in legitimate public interest to know, it doesn't need to be there. It is apparently recommended to obtain written permission from any subject of a photo who would be recognised in order to avoid worrying about the nuances of publicity and privacy rights.
The European Convention Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 covers privacy in Europe, including the UK. Apparently the UK has no specific law on the subject, but judges often rule as if they do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2975718.stm http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3#sch1
#include <notlawyerdisclaimer.h>
On 26/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
In the case of marginally notable subjects, wouldn't finding images of the subjects without their consent be a privacy violation?
(If not, why are certain websites considered attack sites?)
It's important to note that when we're talking about commercial use in the context of publicity & privacy rights, there are big exemptions under US law: art and journalism, roughly. Editorial use (which Wikipedia's use of such images certainly is) is in most cases exempt, because of the First Amendment implications (doing otherwise would be an unconstitutional restraint on free speech).
-Matt
Well, not everyone lives in the US.
The UK passed Human Rights Act 1998 in response to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Anyway, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which covers freedom of expression, is much weaker than the US First Amendment, having many exceptions written in.
Article 10 Freedom of expression 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3
On 27/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
It's important to note that when we're talking about commercial use in the context of publicity & privacy rights, there are big exemptions under US law: art and journalism, roughly. Editorial use (which Wikipedia's use of such images certainly is) is in most cases exempt, because of the First Amendment implications (doing otherwise would be an unconstitutional restraint on free speech).
-Matt
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, not everyone lives in the US.
The UK passed Human Rights Act 1998 in response to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Wikimedia is not subject to UK law in any meaningful sense. Try and pay attention.
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, not everyone lives in the US.
The UK passed Human Rights Act 1998 in response to the European Convention on Human Rights.
on 9/27/07 5:00 AM, geni at geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia is not subject to UK law in any meaningful sense. Try and pay attention.
Geni,
Try this message without the last sentence. It doesn't contribute to the discussion, is argumentative, and adds to the negativity on this List.
Marc Riddell
On 27/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, not everyone lives in the US.
The UK passed Human Rights Act 1998 in response to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Wikimedia is not subject to UK law in any meaningful sense. Try and pay attention.
-- geni
Yes, actually, Wikimedia is, in the sense that in the UK, material is considered published in the location where it is read. For material on the internet, that is the whole world. Non-British people have sued non-British people in the UK for defamation. I don't know about foreigners suing foreigners for privacy violations in the UK, but privacy does seem to be covered by the same part of the Human Rights Act as defamation, so I wouldn't rule it out.
http://www.globaljournalist.org/magazine/2004-2/libel-tourism.html
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Yes, actually, Wikimedia is, in the sense that in the UK, material is considered published in the location where it is read.
I know. That is why I included the words meaningful sense. The foundation has no assets UK courts can get their hands on thus any judgement is going to have very little practical effect.
On 27/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Yes, actually, Wikimedia is, in the sense that in the UK, material is considered published in the location where it is read.
I know. That is why I included the words meaningful sense. The foundation has no assets UK courts can get their hands on thus any judgement is going to have very little practical effect.
-- geni
How exactly does a large organisation plan to hide from the world?
In any case: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I know. That is why I included the words meaningful sense. The foundation has no assets UK courts can get their hands on thus any judgement is going to have very little practical effect.
How exactly does a large organisation plan to hide from the world?
It doesn't have to hide from the world, it just has to not have any assets in the United Kingdom. This is not particularly difficult so long as you don't have a habit of getting drunk and playing "let's buy a new office, someone throw a pin at the map to find out where", and I think we can reasonably assume we're safe from that.
In any case: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
A non-issue. Astonishingly, people who actually understand UK law have been involved in this, and it is not a legal liability to Wikimedia. We made that very very very very very clear...
So, if someone tries to sue WM in the UK, successfully or otherwise, WM's plan is to... ignore it?
Fascinating.
On 27/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I know. That is why I included the words meaningful sense. The foundation has no assets UK courts can get their hands on thus anyjudgement is going to have very little practical effect.
How exactly does a large organisation plan to hide from the world?
It doesn't have to hide from the world, it just has to not have any assets in the United Kingdom. This is not particularly difficult so long as you don't have a habit of getting drunk and playing "let's buy a new office, someone throw a pin at the map to find out where", and I think we can reasonably assume we're safe from that.
In any case: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
A non-issue. Astonishingly, people who actually understand UK law have been involved in this, and it is not a legal liability to Wikimedia. We made that very very very very very clear...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
So, if someone tries to sue WM in the UK, successfully or otherwise, WM's plan is to... ignore it?
Fascinating.
You're surprised by this? It's not unknown for publishers sued on what they percieve as frivolous grounds in a foreign jurisdiction; don't waste money fighting the case, just ignore it. You lose whatever happens, after all, but this is the least expensive way.
On 27/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I know. That is why I included the words meaningful sense. The foundation has no assets UK courts can get their hands on thus any judgement is going to have very little practical effect.
How exactly does a large organisation plan to hide from the world?
It doesn't have to hide from the world, it just has to not have any assets in the United Kingdom. This is not particularly difficult so long as you don't have a habit of getting drunk and playing "let's buy a new office, someone throw a pin at the map to find out where", and I think we can reasonably assume we're safe from that.
Indeed. AB, stop it with the FUD - it just makes you look stupid and deprecates whatever little is left of any arguments you may have.
- d.
On 27/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. AB, stop it with the FUD - it just makes you look stupid and deprecates whatever little is left of any arguments you may have.
- d.
The legal arguments are mostly targeted at the people who want to hurt other people *because they can*.
I recall you worrying about not making black marks against people, so I guess you don't hurt people because you can.
Doesn't even the US have restrictions on journalism? Perhaps something along the lines of proving that revealing information on a private figure is 'in the public interest'?
On 27/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
It's important to note that when we're talking about commercial use in the context of publicity & privacy rights, there are big exemptions under US law: art and journalism, roughly. Editorial use (which Wikipedia's use of such images certainly is) is in most cases exempt, because of the First Amendment implications (doing otherwise would be an unconstitutional restraint on free speech).
-Matt
On 9/26/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Doesn't even the US have restrictions on journalism? Perhaps something along the lines of proving that revealing information on a private figure is 'in the public interest'?
A photograph of an individual in a public place is by definition not private information. What occurs in public is public.
-Matt
On 9/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm working at home this week, which means I get the small child on my arm. This leaves the other arm free to use AutoWikiBrowser! So I've been going through [[Category:Living people]] and adding [[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] or [[Image:Replace this image female.svg|right]] to every article that doesn't have an image or at least the word "image" in it.
Anyone else want to help? Our living bios are overwhelmingly male, so I glance over the text in the edit box and (as needed) paste [[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] in, and add "fe" if the subject is female.
That thing is durned ugly, but already has people finding suitable images on Commons or other Wikipedias, and based on past experience will net us more than a few free content photos we didn't have before.
I might replace the current SVGs with some of the less ugly ones mooted in the Village Pump thread as well ...
Try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php with "Living people" as category, and check "Skip articles that have an image". Will take a while, but it's rather comprehensive :-)
Cheers, Magnus
On 26/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php with "Living people" as category, and check "Skip articles that have an image". Will take a while, but it's rather comprehensive :-)
Excellent! Is there any way to get that data as just a list of article names, rather than as formatted HTML?
- d.
On 26/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php with "Living people" as category, and check "Skip articles that have an image". Will take a while, but it's rather comprehensive :-)
Excellent! Is there any way to get that data as just a list of article names, rather than as formatted HTML?
Oh - does that use a database dump or the live database? It doesn't pick up articles that already have a "Replace this image" placeholder, but maybe that's just new ones.
-d.
On 9/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php with "Living people" as category, and check "Skip articles that have an image". Will take a while, but it's rather comprehensive :-)
Excellent! Is there any way to get that data as just a list of article names, rather than as formatted HTML?
Oh - does that use a database dump or the live database? It doesn't pick up articles that already have a "Replace this image" placeholder, but maybe that's just new ones.
It uses the toolserver database, which has some replication lag, depending on the language (currently up to two days, but decreasing).
I can add optional CSV or wiki output. Which one would you prefer?
Magnus
On 26/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
I can add optional CSV or wiki output. Which one would you prefer?
Ooh ... CSV might be fun to play with!
- d.
On 9/26/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 9/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/09/2007, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php with "Living people" as category, and check "Skip articles that have an image". Will take a while, but it's rather comprehensive :-)
Excellent! Is there any way to get that data as just a list of article names, rather than as formatted HTML?
Oh - does that use a database dump or the live database? It doesn't pick up articles that already have a "Replace this image" placeholder, but maybe that's just new ones.
It uses the toolserver database, which has some replication lag, depending on the language (currently up to two days, but decreasing).
I can add optional CSV or wiki output. Which one would you prefer?
CSV is better for AWB, pywikipedia takes flat text input (one entry per line, no brackets)
On 9/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else want to help? Our living bios are overwhelmingly male, so I glance over the text in the edit box and (as needed) paste [[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] in, and add "fe" if the subject is female.
Wouldn't a template be preferable?
Steve