Thanks. Two questions though: It sounds promising, but would this really make any more difference than a lawyer's c&d? And how does one identify who is upstream of Brandt?
David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au:
DMCA notice. Anyone from any country can send one of these. To him and two levels of upstream. Possibly as a press release as well.
http://www.holysmoke.org/ga/ga45.htm
- shows how [[Tilman Hausherr]] has successfully used DMCA notices sent from Germany when Scientology-related organisations played fast and loose with his photos.
The takedown provisions of the DMCA are a matter of great concern, but a DMCA notice when someone is pretty damned clearly *ripping off your stuff* is IMO quite morally sound.
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au: The takedown provisions of the DMCA are a matter of great concern, but a DMCA notice when someone is pretty damned clearly *ripping off your stuff* is IMO quite morally sound.
Better send a DMCA notice to Internet Archive too, as they're "clearly *ripping off your stuff*" at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~rfernand/index2.html
Anthony
Hi,
There has been some strife, meaning edit-warring and page-protection, over the use of unfree copyrighted images in userspace over the past week or so.
Two specific cases are [[:Template:User democrat]] and [[:Template:User firefox]]. In both cases, a number of users are arguing that because the images involved are logos, there is no real legal concern over the copyright infringement. Following from this, the passage in [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] disallowing Fair use images in Template and Userspace has been removed. My understanding is that the passage is going to go back in with the caveat that when there is consensus, fair use images may be used in either space.
It seems to me that this represents a philosophical shift away from a radically open-licensed project. Nor is it clear to me that the desire to decorate ones userpage with official logos should be driving precedent. I may be confused about the mission of our project, and am hoping that by posting this to the list those users who have more history with Wikipedia's relationship to unfree copyrights might do some thinking about the situation.
Thanks, Jkelly
On 29/12/05, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi,
There has been some strife, meaning edit-warring and page-protection, over the use of unfree copyrighted images in userspace over the past week or so.
Two specific cases are [[:Template:User democrat]] and [[:Template:User firefox]]. In both cases, a number of users are arguing that because the images involved are logos, there is no real legal concern over the copyright infringement. Following from this, the passage in [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] disallowing Fair use images in Template and Userspace has been removed.
It's still there.
*Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.
I tihnk the problem is that people are having trouble with the fact that Firefox are giving rights /which Wikimedia are choosing not to use/ wrt reuse of the icon...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 29 Dec 2005, at 20:03, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 29/12/05, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi,
There has been some strife, meaning edit-warring and page- protection, over the use of unfree copyrighted images in userspace over the past week or so.
Two specific cases are [[:Template:User democrat]] and [[:Template:User firefox]]. In both cases, a number of users are arguing that because the images involved are logos, there is no real legal concern over the copyright infringement. Following from this, the passage in [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] disallowing Fair use images in Template and Userspace has been removed.
It's still there.
*Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.
There seems to be an exception to allow FU images on the main page, which seems just about ok. Although the main page ought to exemplify our policies really; I dont think featured articles for example should have any non free content.
If we had cross-project usernames it would make moving all the free media to commons in a non invasive way much easier. Mirrors could then just not download the en image dump and remove broken links; forking a free wikipedia would then be easier.
Justinc
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Nor is it clear to me that the desire to decorate ones userpage with official logos should be driving precedent.
Regarding at least the political templates, I would like to raise, gently, a different issue. I have concern about people massing together in groups based on political affiliations at Wikipedia.
For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection. A mood of kindness and love. A mood of helpfulness and productivity. Neutrality and _getting it right_ in the company of others who are doing the same, this is what I'm here for.
Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian.
--Jimbo
Perhaps we need a "This user is a Wikipedian" template. The banding together in groups is caused by scaling up.
Theresa
On 12/29/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Nor is it clear to me that the desire to decorate ones userpage with official logos should be driving precedent.
Regarding at least the political templates, I would like to raise, gently, a different issue. I have concern about people massing together in groups based on political affiliations at Wikipedia.
For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection. A mood of kindness and love. A mood of helpfulness and productivity. Neutrality and _getting it right_ in the company of others who are doing the same, this is what I'm here for.
Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:28:29 +0100, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps we need a "This user is a Wikipedian" template. The banding together in groups is caused by scaling up.
Oh, they are way ahead of you on that one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia there is the vanilla wikipedian box and one for every wiki philosophy under the sun and then some.
Collecting these boxes seems to be the latest fad among some users, wich is fine by me, but some of them get extremely vexed if you try to tell them they can't use fair use images in them...
On 12/29/05, Sherool jamydlan@online.no wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:28:29 +0100, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
is fine by me, but some of them get extremely vexed if you try to tell them they can't use fair use images in them...
However the argument about the firefox image is because Mozilla allows you to use their image in order to promote the use of the browser. Mozilla would be happy that thier logo is being used in this way so why can't people use it?
Theresa
On 30 Dec 2005, at 08:09, Theresa Knott wrote:
On 12/29/05, Sherool jamydlan@online.no wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:28:29 +0100, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
is fine by me, but some of them get extremely vexed if you try to tell them they can't use fair use images in them...
However the argument about the firefox image is because Mozilla allows you to use their image in order to promote the use of the browser. Mozilla would be happy that thier logo is being used in this way so why can't people use it?
You want to check the context of every use of the template to see if it promotes the use or not? Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting anyones products anyway; having this image is by definition not NPOV.
Justinc
On 12/30/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
You want to check the context of every use of the template to see if it promotes the use or not? Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting anyones products anyway; having this image is by definition not NPOV.
Without regard to the other arguments, this is spurious: NPOV does not apply outside the article space, and we are talking about user pages.
-Matt
On 12/30/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
You want to check the context of every use of the template to see if it promotes the use or not? Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting anyones products anyway; having this image is by definition not NPOV.
User space follows CPOV, not NPOV.
Kelly
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
It seems to me that this represents a philosophical shift away from a radically open-licensed project. Nor is it clear to me that the desire to decorate ones userpage with official logos should be driving precedent. I may be confused about the mission of our project, and am hoping that by posting this to the list those users who have more history with Wikipedia's relationship to unfree copyrights might do some thinking about the situation.
I have a photo of myself on my user page declared "fair use" for the sole reason that I don't want it to be freely redistributed. The photo was taken by a good friend of mine, and I'm sure I could talk him into releasing it under whatever license I asked for, but for privacy reasons I would prefer it if that photo (and other such images) were restricted for use within the Wikipedia community, and were kept out of the article namespace or any other publications.
I was surprised to find a deletion template on the image, but frankly, I'd prefer to see it deleted than have it freely plastered all over the web. Hopefully, however, Wikipedia can find some compromise between the copyleft fundamentalists and those like me who believe that a psychological separation between public and private space is important. Given the objections to the posting of meetup photos which have arisen at the past, I don't believe I'm alone. I think this concept of a balance between freedom and privacy is one which could use some more discussion.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
[...] Hopefully, however, Wikipedia can find some compromise between the copyleft fundamentalists and those like me who believe that a psychological separation between public and private space is important. Given the objections to the posting of meetup photos which have arisen at the past, I don't believe I'm alone. I think this concept of a balance between freedom and privacy is one which could use some more discussion.
I could see the addition of a special tag/category of non-free images specifically designated for use only on user pages, and enforced with bots. The point of being strict about fair use is to facilitate free downstream usage, but downstream users don't really have any use for user pages anyway; for them we just need a way that they can automate the filtering of images they don't want, and a special tag will do the job just fine.
Stan
Technically they are, of course, doing just that (and even worse at times -- one can often use the Wayback Machine to get free access to articles which were posted by magazines and newspapers free for a limited amount of time and then turned into paying-archival links). They even have a little bit about it on their FAQ page saying they'll happily remove things which people consider IP violations. Personally I think they are just fortunate that most people don't know about them and it takes some rooting around to get content out of them.
Don't get me wrong -- I think it's a wonderful service and an amazing tool. But let's not claim that there isn't a major copyright issue with keeping full-site archives of other people's content with the happy intent of making it available even if the site itself has been taken down or turned into a pay-for-content site. If its capabilities became well-known (and perhaps if its servers weren't perpetually down!) they'd be served up DMCA takedown requests every day, I reckon.
FF
On 12/29/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au: The takedown provisions of the DMCA are a matter of great concern, but a DMCA notice when someone is pretty damned clearly *ripping off your stuff* is IMO quite morally sound.
Better send a DMCA notice to Internet Archive too, as they're "clearly *ripping off your stuff*" at
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~rfernand/index2.html
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Some sites get taken down because people fail to pay their fees or simply because they break. In such cases it's good to have a independant place be a back up.
Mgm
On 12/30/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Technically they are, of course, doing just that (and even worse at times -- one can often use the Wayback Machine to get free access to articles which were posted by magazines and newspapers free for a limited amount of time and then turned into paying-archival links). They even have a little bit about it on their FAQ page saying they'll happily remove things which people consider IP violations. Personally I think they are just fortunate that most people don't know about them and it takes some rooting around to get content out of them.
Don't get me wrong -- I think it's a wonderful service and an amazing tool. But let's not claim that there isn't a major copyright issue with keeping full-site archives of other people's content with the happy intent of making it available even if the site itself has been taken down or turned into a pay-for-content site. If its capabilities became well-known (and perhaps if its servers weren't perpetually down!) they'd be served up DMCA takedown requests every day, I reckon.
FF
On 12/29/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au: The takedown provisions of the DMCA are a matter of great concern, but a DMCA notice when someone is pretty damned clearly *ripping off your stuff* is IMO quite morally sound.
Better send a DMCA notice to Internet Archive too, as they're "clearly *ripping off your stuff*" at
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~rfernand/index2.html
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Some sites get taken down because people fail to pay their fees or simply because they break. In such cases it's good to have a independant place be a back up.
That's perhaps the single biggest reason behind the ephemeral nature of internet sources as references. Without the confidence that our passive users can verify our sources we can't effectively use them for fact checking.
Ec
Hey -- I agree completely on its utility! I love the site myself! But let's not pretend that there aren't some major copyright questions with mirroring the content of the entire internet and making it available to everyone who wants it.
FF
On 12/30/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Some sites get taken down because people fail to pay their fees or simply because they break. In such cases it's good to have a independant place be a back up.
Mgm
On 12/30/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Technically they are, of course, doing just that (and even worse at
times --
one can often use the Wayback Machine to get free access to articles
which
were posted by magazines and newspapers free for a limited amount of
time
and then turned into paying-archival links). They even have a little bit about it on their FAQ page saying they'll happily remove things which
people
consider IP violations. Personally I think they are just fortunate that
most
people don't know about them and it takes some rooting around to get
content
out of them.
Don't get me wrong -- I think it's a wonderful service and an amazing
tool.
But let's not claim that there isn't a major copyright issue with
keeping
full-site archives of other people's content with the happy intent of
making
it available even if the site itself has been taken down or turned into
a
pay-for-content site. If its capabilities became well-known (and perhaps
if
its servers weren't perpetually down!) they'd be served up DMCA takedown requests every day, I reckon.
FF
On 12/29/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au: The takedown provisions of the DMCA are a matter of great concern, but a DMCA notice when someone is pretty damned clearly *ripping off your stuff* is IMO quite morally sound.
Better send a DMCA notice to Internet Archive too, as they're "clearly *ripping off your stuff*" at
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~rfernand/index2.html
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/31/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Hey -- I agree completely on its utility! I love the site myself! But let's not pretend that there aren't some major copyright questions with mirroring the content of the entire internet and making it available to everyone who wants it.
FF
Sure, there are copyright questions with mirroring content. There are also some answers, including the doctrine of fair use. In any case, that there are copyright questions over mirroring content doesn't mean that mirroring content is the same as ripping someone off. I mean, c'mon, does Rob think he was going to make any money off that page?
It seems to me this is a privacy issue (if anything), not a copyright one.
Anthony
Hey, the design wasn't *that* hideous. ;)
On 12/31/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I mean, c'mon, does Rob think he was going to make any money off that page?
Well, I agree that this is a privacy issue primarily.
As an aside, I find it unlikely that "fair use" could possibly be interpretted to allow the wholesale copying and *re-distributing* of the whole of copyrighted content of entire websites. (Personal copying for historical record with limited access would have a pretty good argument for it. But the Wayback Machine is open to everyone. Hell, I've used it myself to get once-free content which has since become pay content!)
But anyway, this little thread has, I think, run its little course...
FF
On 12/31/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/31/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Hey -- I agree completely on its utility! I love the site myself! But let's not pretend that there aren't some major copyright questions with mirroring the content of the entire internet and making it available to everyone who wants it.
FF
Sure, there are copyright questions with mirroring content. There are also some answers, including the doctrine of fair use. In any case, that there are copyright questions over mirroring content doesn't mean that mirroring content is the same as ripping someone off. I mean, c'mon, does Rob think he was going to make any money off that page?
It seems to me this is a privacy issue (if anything), not a copyright one.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l