At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=2
The original FBI letter http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Mike Godwin replies http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Alan
Did that never make it as far as this mailing list? We all had great fun with it on foundation-l a few days ago.
On 7 August 2010 23:42, Alan Sim cambridgebayweather@yahoo.com wrote:
At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=2
The original FBI letter http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Mike Godwin replies http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Alan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the "FBI Seal and Wikimedia" thread on foundation-l, starting here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html
There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having "fun" over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts.
Carcharoth
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Did that never make it as far as this mailing list? We all had great fun with it on foundation-l a few days ago.
On 7 August 2010 23:42, Alan Sim cambridgebayweather@yahoo.com wrote:
At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=2
The original FBI letter http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Mike Godwin replies http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Alan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 08/08/2010 01:29, Carcharoth wrote:
I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the "FBI Seal and Wikimedia" thread on foundation-l, starting here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html
There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having "fun" over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts.
How legally strong is FBI's position? Even ignoring Mike reply, one only have to look at *every* news article regarding the matter which *all* contain a copy of the seal...
KTC
On 8 August 2010 01:29, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the "FBI Seal and Wikimedia" thread on foundation-l, starting here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html
There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having "fun" over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts.
You were expecting something substantive from foundation-l?
If the FBI try something else, we'll deal with it then. We can't do anything about it without knowing what they'll try, and it doesn't seem wise to speculate about what they could try on the public list - we might give them ideas! I considered the concerns raised and rejected them. If you think there is actually something worth discussing, please speak up.
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 01:29, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the "FBI Seal and Wikimedia" thread on foundation-l, starting here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html
There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having "fun" over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts.
You were expecting something substantive from foundation-l?
If the FBI try something else, we'll deal with it then. We can't do anything about it without knowing what they'll try, and it doesn't seem wise to speculate about what they could try on the public list - we might give them ideas! I considered the concerns raised and rejected them. If you think there is actually something worth discussing, please speak up.
I thought the bit about high-resolution imagery possibly being problematic was a reasonable point. Most other organisations would agree to use a low-resolution version, but that can be a difficult or impossible approach for Commons to take for various reasons.
I also found it interesting that someone made a point that the Encyclopedia Britannica seemed to remove their image of the seal from their article on the FBI (though as someone else pointed out, it is still available from the media section of their article). Someone did try and raise that point on the foundation-l thread, but nothing much further was said on that point.
I'm unclear what would happen if the source Commons got the seal from was taken down, and all the official sources of the seal were all low-resolution. I get that such logos can be turned into .svg versions, which makes the question of resolution a bit pointless, but have a look at the sourcing statement of the image:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBI-Seal.svg
"Extracted from PDF file available on this page (direct PDF URL here), and colorized according to bitmap version on the FBI home page and other versions such as Image:FBISeal.png. Most bitmap versions use gradients, but I'm not experienced enough to add those."
It's more a manipulated copy of the seal, with manipulation including a file format change, rather than taking and using a pure copy. Usually, in cases where you don't want the appearance of an official emblem to drift or change, you have either an original from which all copies are made, or detailed specifications (like those for the US flag). Here, you have people piecing together bits and pieces of information from different online copies to try and come up with a version to use here. Usually, the approach you would take if you wanted an accurate version is to go to the organisation and ask for a file to use, but again, Commons is different from other organisations in the approach it takes.
If you look at the various forms of the FBI seal on Commons, it becomes clearer that what Commons has is not an official version of the seal, but something they claim is official, but may not be.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_seal.svg
"This vector image was created by converting the Encapsulated PostScript file available at Brands of the World"
Again, this is a rather strange way to source an image.
Other versions have sourcing statements such as:
"Extracted from PDF version of a DNI 100-day plan followup report" "Better quality version, from the FBi presentation at to U.S. DOJ"
Also, the gallery here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBI-Seal.svg
Has the following comments:
1) Bitmap version, with gradients 2) Alternate SVG version, with gradients 3) Alternate SVG version, may not be official
The heraldy is described here:
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/fbiseal/fbiseal.htm
But where the exact dimensions and appearance originated from is not clear.
It would be interesting to compare the modern-day seal's appearance with that of the seal in 1908.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 01:29, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
There are some 11 posts to that thread, none of which seem to actually say anything substantive. I would have thought that a serious debate would have been better than having "fun" over this clash with an authority figure organisation. The FBI may have been wrong this time, but that doesn't mean they won't try again with another argument, and it doesn't mean that some of the concerns raised shouldn't be considered in this or other contexts.
You were expecting something substantive from foundation-l?
If the FBI try something else, we'll deal with it then. We can't do anything about it without knowing what they'll try, and it doesn't seem wise to speculate about what they could try on the public list - we might give them ideas! I considered the concerns raised and rejected them. If you think there is actually something worth discussing, please speak up.
I thought the bit about high-resolution imagery possibly being problematic was a reasonable point. Most other organisations would agree to use a low-resolution version, but that can be a difficult or impossible approach for Commons to take for various reasons.
There is an important point in what Thomas said. When one is talking about the potential legal argument, however remote, it is wise to avoid speculating what might be the basis for an opponent's argument. High/low resolution is an arguable point, but why make it for the other side.
A lot of people who have never seen the inside of a courtroom tend to interpret a statutory provision in the worst possible light, then apply that unfortunate interpretations to their own detriment, and even look for ways to apply it against themselves. By doing that they don't give themselves a leg to stand on if it ever comes to a court fight; the other, more experienced opponent is less likely to do that.
I don't think that the FBI has a valid point in this matter of the logo, so let's not try to convince ourselves that they do.
Ray
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
<snip>
There is an important point in what Thomas said. When one is talking about the potential legal argument, however remote, it is wise to avoid speculating what might be the basis for an opponent's argument.
It's done all the time on Commons. In this case there is an actual legal argument going on, and why it is in the public domain with the New York Times publishing the letters from both sides, I have absolutely no idea. I would have avoided publication of those letters like the plague if at all possible, but those letters were published for some reason, presumably to allow a public debate on the matter.
High/low resolution is an arguable point, but why make it for the other side.
The FBI had already made that point in its letter:
"The inclusion of a high quality graphic of the FBI seal on Wikipedia is particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations of these restrictions by Wikipedia users."
They don't specifically mention image resolution, but "high quality" does imply that to me, and at least one of the public threads discussing this has already picked up on this point:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060368.html
"infinitely scalable detail"
That is speaking directly on the point that providing an svg version allows this infinitely scalable detail. It is a file format designed to allow scalability (Scalable Vector Graphics). People that realise this tend to avoid putting stuff that you don't wanted counterfeited in svg format. If an organisation publishes a PD image in svg format in error and tries to retract this error, what do we normally do?
On a more general point (where people take non-SVG images and convert them to SVG), my position is that changing the format of a file is a modification that should be done with care if there are restrictions on the use of the original file. It's not a legal position (as I'm not a lawyer), but a cautious position that says you should respect the source of the image and you should have a reason to make modifications (i.e. don't make modifications just because you can).
My other point is that you should obtain such images from an official source, not scrabble around and extract them from documents containing the image. In such situations, I ask myself where professional publications go to get such images. Do they extract them from random documents found on the internet, or do they go to the organisation and ask for an official image to use in their publication?
A lot of people who have never seen the inside of a courtroom tend to interpret a statutory provision in the worst possible light, then apply that unfortunate interpretations to their own detriment, and even look for ways to apply it against themselves. By doing that they don't give themselves a leg to stand on if it ever comes to a court fight; the other, more experienced opponent is less likely to do that.
I agree. Which is why such arguments should be kept private. I'm still mystified as to why this ended up in a national newspaper. The bare facts of the dispute could have been reported, but why publish those two letters in full?
I don't think that the FBI has a valid point in this matter of the logo, so let's not try to convince ourselves that they do.
I am quite happy to stop discussing the matter, but one of the arguments the Foundation often makes is that the community is capable of discussing things itself and the Foundation is only there for certain purposes. If this is one of those matters that the community should not be discussing, and the matter should be discussed only by the legal counsels, then it might be better if the correspondence between them had not been published in the New York Times.
Other examples of the community discussing this (link is a permalink to the state of the discussion at the time of writing):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldi...
As you can see, there were some aspects of this I wanted to discuss, and some of my questions did get answered.
The images were also nominated for deletion and speedy kept (I wasn't going to do that, as it was obvious they would be speedy kept, but it was predictable that someone would nominate them):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:US-FBI-Seal... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FBISeal.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:US-FBI-Shad... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FBI_seal.sv... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FBI_seal.pn...
Someone here said they thought a debate was needed:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:US-FBI-Seal.svg
Back in the Commons village pump discussion, I asked what the status was of this image:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg
But that question didn't get answered. My view is that a debate is needed, and since the issue has been brought into the public domain with the publication of news stories and the letters from the FBI and the WMF, we should have that debate, but if consensus is that it is best left for legal counsels to deal with, that is fine as well, though I would hope we don't have the spectacle of each round of correspondence being published in the New York Times.
Carcharoth
On 8 August 2010 14:03, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I agree. Which is why such arguments should be kept private. I'm still mystified as to why this ended up in a national newspaper. The bare facts of the dispute could have been reported, but why publish those two letters in full?
Possibly the WMF lawyer and PR person know more about the law and PR than you do? Did you ask them?
- d.
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 14:03, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I agree. Which is why such arguments should be kept private. I'm still mystified as to why this ended up in a national newspaper. The bare facts of the dispute could have been reported, but why publish those two letters in full?
Possibly the WMF lawyer and PR person know more about the law and PR than you do? Did you ask them?
No. Would you like to do that?
Carcharoth
On 8 August 2010 14:22, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the WMF lawyer and PR person know more about the law and PR than you do? Did you ask them?
No. Would you like to do that?
I feel no need to, since I'm not the one pontificating from nothing but personal ignorance. What a strange question.
- d.
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 14:22, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the WMF lawyer and PR person know more about the law and PR than you do? Did you ask them?
No. Would you like to do that?
I feel no need to, since I'm not the one pontificating from nothing but personal ignorance. What a strange question.
Well, I don't feel any need to be insulting, David. You are right that I don't follow the WMF press releases - what I do is read the newspapers and read news websites. If I see Wikipedia and the WMF mentioned on the BBC news website (the one I tend to read), I like to discuss that with other Wikipedians. If you know about the public relations (PR) that has been done here, please tell us or point us to the press release on this, as I'd like to read that.
Carcharoth
On 8 August 2010 14:22, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the WMF lawyer and PR person know more about the law and PR than you do? Did you ask them?
No. Would you like to do that?
on 8/8/10 9:23 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I feel no need to, since I'm not the one pontificating from nothing but personal ignorance. What a strange question.
Enough, David! In the four years that I have been a part of this List, I have yet to see you say one positive, kind or encouraging word to anyone. The Community has grown beyond you, David. Either catch up with it, or take your displaced anger somewhere else.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 8 August 2010 14:22, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the WMF lawyer and PR person know more about the law and PR than you do? Did you ask them?
No. Would you like to do that?
on 8/8/10 9:23 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I feel no need to, since I'm not the one pontificating from nothing but personal ignorance. What a strange question.
Enough, David! In the four years that I have been a part of this List, I have yet to see you say one positive, kind or encouraging word to anyone. The Community has grown beyond you, David. Either catch up with it, or take your displaced anger somewhere else.
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard is more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Charles
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard is more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument is spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically accurate or not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with someone who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something anyone can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to look "clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most impersonators only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to do the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard is more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You may be right. Changing subject slightly, does that argument apply with currency counterfeiting laws? I know this thread isn't about currency images, but Commons does actually pay a fair amount of respect to concerns that currency could be counterfeited, which has always surprised me somewhat, given that most currencies now use security methods that no high-resolution image will help with when counterfeiting.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Currency#Counterfeiting_tag
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument is spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically accurate or not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with someone who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something anyone can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to look "clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most impersonators only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to do the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard is more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A few differences on currency (and some other items).
Making "copies" of currency is often explicitly a crime. So there is a legal obligation to be clear that what is presented is not "currency" regardless of whether it would help criminals or not. This doesn't appear to be the case for most logos and documents.
Also unlike the FBI badge, currency is common (uniquitous) and may well be scrutinized; the details on an FBI logo are coarse and little known, unlikely to be checked whereas the details on a print of currency are likely to be checked. Most people can obtain good quality scans with minimal effort but the kinds of professional and very high resolution digital versions needed to produce non-crude forgeries may not be so easy to create.
I think if I were drawing a line for Wikimedia I'd have it somewhere like this:
"There is rarely a need to show the detail of anti-copying shading, or if there is, there is rarely a need to show the entirety of it for a whole document. Currency and other official documents that have fine scale anti-copying devices (currency, passport pages and laminate, etc) may be held in detail on Wikimedia, but the anti-copying shades and effects should either not be entirely shown, or if entirely shown then they should not be shown in excess of ___ dpi."
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
You may be right. Changing subject slightly, does that argument apply with currency counterfeiting laws? I know this thread isn't about currency images, but Commons does actually pay a fair amount of respect to concerns that currency could be counterfeited, which has always surprised me somewhat, given that most currencies now use security methods that no high-resolution image will help with when counterfeiting.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Currency#Counterfeiting_tag
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument is spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc)
would
fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically accurate
or
not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with
someone
who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something
anyone
can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to
look
"clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most
impersonators
only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to
do
the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator
will
not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard
is
more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 9 August 2010 12:15, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You may be right. Changing subject slightly, does that argument apply with currency counterfeiting laws? I know this thread isn't about currency images, but Commons does actually pay a fair amount of respect to concerns that currency could be counterfeited, which has always surprised me somewhat, given that most currencies now use security methods that no high-resolution image will help with when counterfeiting.
As FT2 says below, a distinction is that making a clear copy of an image of a banknote is often by definition illegal, regardless of context or reason, unless you do things like stamp "SPECIMEN" on it or print it in false colours or somesuch. The FBI are trying to argue that copying their seal falls under a similar provision - you cannot make copies of the seal, end of story - whilst we are arguing that the law actually says "you cannot make *badges* and other identifying things with the seal on it".
As the judges say, we are prepared to distinguish ;-)
A good analogy to currency might, perhaps, be a law which prevents you minting your own coins - but doesn't actually stop you making pictures of the designs on them.
Well, I tried that and quickly found
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg
That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike and the FBI are discussing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-....
I've nominated this for deletion. There may be others. Also, this is a object not an image. It presents the same problems as an image of a statue.
Fred
I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument is spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically accurate or not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with someone who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something anyone can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to look "clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most impersonators only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to do the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard
is
more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Commented. The main question is that not being lawyers, most users are unqualified to assess whether it falls into an exception under 18 U.S.C § 701.
Mike's input is really needed, as genuine matters of US legality cannot be agreed by mere consensus. If he says it's okay then we're okay, if not then not.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, I tried that and quickly found
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg
That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike and the FBI are discussing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-....
I've nominated this for deletion. There may be others. Also, this is a object not an image. It presents the same problems as an image of a statue.
Fred
I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument is spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically accurate or not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with someone who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something anyone can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to look "clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most impersonators only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to do the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard
is
more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not to be too cynical, but I hope that doesn't get speedy kept as well. I *had* mentioned that image of the badge earlier, at the Commons Village Pump, but no-one seemed to be that bothered. I also suggested adding the restrictions note that Fred also added to the image, but again, the response I got was: "We may choose to add a warning to the file description page, as we do for several other types, but I don't personally think it'd be very useful in this case.".
This whole debate makes the point that when the WMF legal counsel gets involved because some outside organisation has sent him a letter, and this debate between lawyers then becomes public, the community sometimes looks like a deer caught in the headlights, unsure whether they should debate the issue, or apply what counsel has said, or ask counsel for further advice.
The problem with the first two approaches is that the debate might end up with the wrong result, and if people say "but we followed the WMF legal counsel's advice" (even if they misinterpreted what he said), that might be bad for several reasons. The problem with the third approach is that the WMF legal counsel doesn't scale, and you can't ask him everything about every image (though if someone thinks it worth contacting him, they should always do so). The best of several poor options seems to be for the community to judge as best they can, contact the WMF legal counsel in rare cases only, and take note if an external request leads to the WMF legal counsel over-riding a community debate and learn the lessons from that.
On a completely different note (though I see Fred raised it as well), is that badge really genuine? The source isn't that reliable, and it would be nice to have a date, as I'm positive the design of such badges has changed over the years. For all images, you really do want to try and find the most reliable source possible, not some random website.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, I tried that and quickly found
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg
That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike and the FBI are discussing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-....
I've nominated this for deletion. There may be others. Also, this is a object not an image. It presents the same problems as an image of a statue.
Fred
I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument is spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically accurate or not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with someone who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something anyone can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to look "clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most impersonators only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to do the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard
is
more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I must say, though, we do have a nice collection of US law enforcement badge images:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_enforcement_badges_of_the_Uni...
Very impressive. One that is missing from that category is this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US-SecretService-StarLogo.svg
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
This whole debate makes the point that when the WMF legal counsel gets involved because some outside organisation has sent him a letter, and this debate between lawyers then becomes public, the community sometimes looks like a deer caught in the headlights, unsure whether they should debate the issue, or apply what counsel has said, or ask counsel for further advice.
The problem with the first two approaches is that the debate might end up with the wrong result, and if people say "but we followed the WMF legal counsel's advice" (even if they misinterpreted what he said), that might be bad for several reasons. The problem with the third approach is that the WMF legal counsel doesn't scale, and you can't ask him everything about every image (though if someone thinks it worth contacting him, they should always do so). The best of several poor options seems to be for the community to judge as best they can, contact the WMF legal counsel in rare cases only, and take note if an external request leads to the WMF legal counsel over-riding a community debate and learn the lessons from that.
We have a voluminous body of policy for the legal questions we need to address without the assistance of the WMF (e.g. copyright policies at various levels, WP:NLT, etc.), but I don't see the issue with asking for Mike's input in situations with unusual circumstances. We have a tendency towards knee-jerk reactions, whether its "OMG DELETE!" or "piss off with your censorship." The FBI Seal / Badge issue is a pretty good example of why we actually need Mike's opinion to limit the risk posed by the overly cautious or the overly incautious.
Nathan
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The FBI Seal / Badge issue is a pretty good example of why we actually need Mike's opinion to limit the risk posed by the overly cautious or the overly incautious.
Possibly. In this case it might be simpler. The first question to ask when assessing any image is whether it is genuine. In this case, I really would like to see an *official* FBI site that confirms this is what an FBI badge looks like. I'm not sure if any official sites do actually have such images, so that might be a problem considering the numbers of replicas around.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5614599_fbi-badge-look-like_.html
Maybe "badgepolicecom" on youtube is a reliable source?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlK08uYlg48
They are "official and licensed reseller partner of bellingham&carrington police badges" apparently, so their images would be genuine. But I doubt they would release their images under a free license. You would have to find someone who could confirm that they had access to an official badge (or historical badge) and were willing to release their photograph under a free license (the badge itself is PD, but as a 3D object photographs of it are not PD so the photographer still needs to release his work under a free license).
Oh wait, I found a page here:
http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm
That would be a better source for images, but the images don't seem to be there.
I tried searching the FBI site for "badge", and found stuff about people being arrested and tried for selling badges:
http://sandiego.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/sd021710.htm http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/credentialfraud070108.htm http://houston.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/ho020510.htm
There should be an official page somewhere with an image for people wanting to know what an FBI badge looks like so they can identify people using fraudulent badges, but I can't find such a page.
Please note this is about images of the *badges* not images of the *seal* (equivalent to a logo). The 3D versus 2D stuff makes a difference here (in the US at least), so you need explicit permission from the *photographer* to use the image.
Carcharoth
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by impostors with obviously fake badges only because it's impossible to determine what the real ones look like.
Nathan
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by impostors with obviously fake badges only because it's impossible to determine what the real ones look like.
Nathan
Only reliable sources are acceptable.
If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and change such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which would permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge or identification of the correct design.
By the way, that position has nothing to do with liking the FBI or Secret Service. It has more to do with understanding the suffering that can result from such lapses in security.
Congress could, if they were quick on their feet, which they are not, bill those who disclose such images for the expense of changing design and issuing new badges or identification cards.
Fred
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by impostors with obviously fake badges only because it's impossible to determine what the real ones look like.
Only reliable sources are acceptable.
I agree.
If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and change such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which would permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge or identification of the correct design.
But this is a silly argument. You don't confirm someone's identity from their badge design (unless it is very bad). You confirm their identity by asking them for the necessary details and contacting their superiors. Do you think police officers carefully look at badges, or do they phone the local FBI office and say "the Feds that have turned up aren't the usual lot, can you confirm they are real?"
By the way, that position has nothing to do with liking the FBI or Secret Service. It has more to do with understanding the suffering that can result from such lapses in security.
See above.
Congress could, if they were quick on their feet, which they are not, bill those who disclose such images for the expense of changing design and issuing new badges or identification cards.
Please Google the number of sites offering badges for sale. I dread to think how many are sting operations.
Carcharoth
Now this is fascinating:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Q-clearanc...
That image deletion debate appears to be over some security badge. The debate started in February 2007 and was closed in June 2007 (deletion debates were closed faster back then). But the image is now deleted.
And look at the deletion reason:
18 U.S.C. §701 https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&Ticket...
I think that is an OTRS request pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §701. I would be very interested to know how many OTRS tickets and/or deletion logs involved citations of 18 U.S.C. §701, which is one of the statutes being cited here as well.
Carcharoth
Now this is fascinating:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Q-clearanc...
That image deletion debate appears to be over some security badge. The debate started in February 2007 and was closed in June 2007 (deletion debates were closed faster back then). But the image is now deleted.
And look at the deletion reason:
18 U.S.C. §701 https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&Ticket...
I think that is an OTRS request pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §701. I would be very interested to know how many OTRS tickets and/or deletion logs involved citations of 18 U.S.C. §701, which is one of the statutes being cited here as well.
Carcharoth
That would seem to be a valid basis for oversight. However, the image of the badge is on Commons.
Fred
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Now this is fascinating:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Q-clearanc...
That image deletion debate appears to be over some security badge. The debate started in February 2007 and was closed in June 2007 (deletion debates were closed faster back then). But the image is now deleted.
And look at the deletion reason:
18 U.S.C. §701 https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&Ticket...
I think that is an OTRS request pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §701. I would be very interested to know how many OTRS tickets and/or deletion logs involved citations of 18 U.S.C. §701, which is one of the statutes being cited here as well.
That would seem to be a valid basis for oversight. However, the image of the badge is on Commons.
What? I'm talking about a different image now. And I'm talking about the Commons queue of OTRS queries:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS
Though confusingly that page only gives details for confirming image details. It should also say that anyone can contact OTRS (which serves all the projects) and complain about an article or image or almost anything.
In this case, I think someone contacted OTRS (in December 2007) with a complaint about the "Q-clearance badge" image and the OTRS volunteer deleted the image. I can't find any other deletion discussion relating to that image (other than the deletion discussion that took place from February to June 2007 - before the OTRS request), so I presume that this is what happened. You would have to look at the OTRS ticket (or ask someone with access to that OTRS queue) to be certain what happened there.
Oh, and the image is on en-Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-clearance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Q-clearance_badge.jpg
22:27, 12 December 2007 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) restored "File:Q-clearance badge.jpg" (5 revisions and 1 file restored: Restore here; commons image to follow; OTRS ticket 2007120810008853 discussion on OTRS list and WMF legal)
The person at the deletion discussion who said it was a rubbish photo was correct.
But have a look at some of the edits associated with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Q-clearance_badge.jpg&dif...
And look at the lengths people will go to:
"Cropped from this photograph, a photograph of Linton Brooks by the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The source image has since been modified to remove the badge from the photograph. The original is still available via the Internet Archive as of Feb. 15, 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20060227224312/http://www.lanl.gov/news/albums/me...."
Massive debate on the talk page as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Q_clearance
"Q clearance is a United States Department of Energy (DOE) security clearance equivalent to a United States Department of Defense Top Secret (TS) clearance and Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information (CNWDI)."
Remember this all took place when Brad Patrick was WMF lawyer.
Carcharoth
If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I wouldn't rely on a "badge". Waving round a badge, no matter the design, proves nothing - any more than waving round a badge would prove the person or people who ring the bell, have a nice uniform, and want to enter your home, are genuine police officers.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and change such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which would permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge or identification of the correct design.
Well, you know, I think there is a duty of care involved. If a genuine badge can be purchased along with a genuine identification card and uniform there is an obvious danger to the public. Even to the agency itself.
Fred
If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I wouldn't rely on a "badge". Waving round a badge, no matter the design, proves nothing - any more than waving round a badge would prove the person or people who ring the bell, have a nice uniform, and want to enter your home, are genuine police officers.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and change such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which would permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge or identification of the correct design.
Duty of care is a legal term.
I think more to the point an expectation of commonsense applies to those having a random badge waved at them, to verify it and not merely take it on trust.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, you know, I think there is a duty of care involved. If a genuine badge can be purchased along with a genuine identification card and uniform there is an obvious danger to the public. Even to the agency itself.
Fred
If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I wouldn't rely on a "badge". Waving round a badge, no matter the design, proves nothing - any more than waving round a badge would prove the person or people who ring the bell, have a nice uniform, and want to enter your home, are genuine police officers.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and change such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which would permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge or identification of the correct design.
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 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Duty of care is a legal term.
But I note no-one has been able to refute the argument that we don't know who took the photograph and thus the photograph has not been freely licensed and hence should be deleted. What is needed is a way to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who took this photograph and get them to release the photograph. But there are problems with both these approaches (namely, getting permission to photograph a genuine FBI badge and finding who took this photograph).
Carcharoth
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
What is needed is a way to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who took this photograph and get them to release the photograph. But there are problems with both these approaches (namely, getting permission to photograph a genuine FBI badge and finding who took this photograph).
Crop this:
http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badge&gun.jpg
From the FBI media gallery: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/photos.htm
I assume {{PD-USGov-FBI}} applies here.
-User:Avicennasis
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Shane Simmons avicennasis@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
What is needed is a way
>to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it >and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who >took this photograph and get them to release the photograph. But there >are problems with both these approaches (namely, getting permission to >photograph a genuine FBI badge and finding who took this photograph).
Crop this:
http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badge&gun.jpg
From the FBI media gallery: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/photos.htm
I assume {{PD-USGov-FBI}} applies here.
Thank-you. We have that image already at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge_%26_gun.jpg
Ironically, it is not used on any articles, but is used here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_FBI
Hopefully, once this image is cropped and used, the other one can be speedily deleted as "inadequately sourced" or something.
I can't add this to the deletion discussion at the moment, so hopefully someone else who agrees with this will.
Carcharoth
http://www.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=...
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Shane Simmons avicennasis@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
What is needed is a way to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who took this photograph and get them to release the photograph. But there are problems with both these approaches (namely, getting permission to photograph a genuine FBI badge and finding who took this photograph).
Crop this:
http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badge&gun.jpg
From the FBI media gallery: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/photos.htm
I assume {{PD-USGov-FBI}} applies here.
-User:Avicennasis _______________________________________________ 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 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=...
The point, FT2, is that those images should be used, not the one being debated. Delete the current one, upload a new one. Problem solved as far as "official" images and the "photography license" are concerned.
Carcharoth
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good educational value image, in preference to a poor and dubious one, if we keep any.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=...
The point, FT2, is that those images should be used, not the one being debated. Delete the current one, upload a new one. Problem solved as far as "official" images and the "photography license" are concerned.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The permission given seems to invite use of the badge and gun image. If permission was improvidently given, it is up to them to withdraw it.
Fred
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good educational value image, in preference to a poor and dubious one, if we keep any.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=...
The point, FT2, is that those images should be used, not the one being debated. Delete the current one, upload a new one. Problem solved as far as "official" images and the "photography license" are concerned.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:20 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good educational value image, in preference to a poor and dubious one, if we keep any.
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:20 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good educational value image, in preference to a poor and dubious one, if we keep any.
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
Carcharoth
Yes, a great resource.
Fred
On 9 August 2010 20:26, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
The obvious steps would be:
1. Upload the best quality imagery you can from there, possibly a Sec 701 template warning people that the image is PD but misuse in the US is highly illegal (if such doesn't exist already). 2. Start using them on articles.
The not-so-good articles can then be removed at leisure, without gaps in the articles.
- d.
On 9 August 2010 20:37, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The not-so-good articles can then be removed at leisure, without gaps in the articles.
not so good images.
- d.
On 9 August 2010 20:37, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2010 20:26, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
The obvious steps would be:
- Upload the best quality imagery you can from there, possibly a Sec
701 template warning people that the image is PD but misuse in the US is highly illegal (if such doesn't exist already).
There are similar issues with some other US government imagery - no copyright restrictions per se, but using it in a misleading fashion is explicitly illegal. The first example I can think of is the NASA logo, which we mark accordingly:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_logo.svg
- note the third template.
On 9 August 2010 20:44, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
There are similar issues with some other US government imagery - no copyright restrictions per se, but using it in a misleading fashion is explicitly illegal. The first example I can think of is the NASA logo, which we mark accordingly: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_logo.svg
- note the third template.
Yep, yep. There's no structural problem, and if people misuse it they get done under the relevant laws. Same for trademark or personality rights.
- d.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2010 20:26, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
The obvious steps would be:
- Upload the best quality imagery you can from there, possibly a Sec
701 template warning people that the image is PD but misuse in the US is highly illegal (if such doesn't exist already). 2. Start using them on articles.
The not-so-good articles can then be removed at leisure, without gaps in the articles.
I think Fred is sort of doing that already
1) Remove image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation&am...
2) Add in image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation&am...
The other pages using the image are:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D._McAtee http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virkamerkki http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%80%A3%E9%82%A6%E6%8D%9C%E6%9F%BB%E5%B1%80
And on a talk page here:
http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A3%CF%85%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B...
Noting this here because it seems impossible to ever find out where images were used in the past once they are removed from articles, unless you have a list to go back and check.
Carcharoth
On 9 August 2010 20:49, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Noting this here because it seems impossible to ever find out where images were used in the past once they are removed from articles, unless you have a list to go back and check.
There's gotta be a MediaWiki bug to this effect ...
But yes. This is quite soluble without drama. And that's saying something on Wikipedia.
- d.
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
What is needed is a way to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who took this photograph and get them to release the photograph. But there are problems with both these approaches (namely, getting permission to photograph a genuine FBI badge and finding who took this photograph).
Crop this:
http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badge&gun.jpg
From the FBI media gallery: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/photos.htm
I assume {{PD-USGov-FBI}} applies here.
-User:Avicennasis
Explicit permission is given:
"FBI Photos
High Resolution Photographs These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images. "
Fred
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From the FBI media gallery: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/photos.htm
I assume {{PD-USGov-FBI}} applies here.
-User:Avicennasis
Explicit permission is given:
"FBI Photos
High Resolution Photographs These materials are for your use in publicizing the FBI. No permissions are needed; please just credit the FBI. Click on the links below to download the high resolution images. "
Fred
Including several nice, clear images that contain the seal:
http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/evidenceresponseteamvehicle.j... http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/bombtechniciansvehicle.jpg
Then there is this, which virtually anyone could turn into a credible reproduction of the seal:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Duty of care is a legal term.
But I note no-one has been able to refute the argument that we don't know who took the photograph and thus the photograph has not been freely licensed and hence should be deleted. What is needed is a way to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who took this photograph and get them to release the photograph. But there are problems with both these approaches (namely, getting permission to photograph a genuine FBI badge and finding who took this photograph).
Carcharoth
Yes, but those devastating arguments fail to gain a purchase at Commons:Deletion requests/File:FBI Badge.jpg at least so far.
Fred
Duty of care is a legal term.
Yes, and a legal term Wikipedia editors would be wise to learn the meaning off.
OK, you're shown a badge. How would you know from the genuine if there is no image of the genuine on the FBI webpages. And how could they have a genuine image without themselves releasing the image?
Actually if the FBI approached me I would know them by their manner, which is quite distinctive, although not impossible to mimic.
Fred
I think more to the point an expectation of commonsense applies to those having a random badge waved at them, to verify it and not merely take it on trust.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, you know, I think there is a duty of care involved. If a genuine badge can be purchased along with a genuine identification card and uniform there is an obvious danger to the public. Even to the agency itself.
Fred
If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I wouldn't rely on a "badge". Waving round a badge, no matter the design, proves nothing - any more than waving round a badge would prove the person
or
people who ring the bell, have a nice uniform, and want to enter your home, are genuine police officers.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and
change
such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which
would
permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge
or
identification of the correct design.
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 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Actually if the FBI approached me I would know them by their manner, which is quite distinctive, although not impossible to mimic.
{{citation needed}}
:-)
Carcharoth
2010/8/9 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Actually if the FBI approached me I would know them by their manner, which is quite distinctive, although not impossible to mimic.
{{citation needed}}
:-)
Actually, I think {{expand}} would be a more interesting tag to apply to Fred's comment.
Yours curiously,
AD
I don't believe an encyclopedia has what is meant by a legal duty of care (all deference to the lawyers among us).
Duty of care is usually a term in civil law relating to a case where someone may be expected to rely on a statement or representation to the point that the statement should not be made recklessly. While a criminal case could be made for some imagery (legal opinion needed), or a moral case for other imagery (not a legal issue), duty of care is probably not tenable.
As to the other, the answer is that I would not expect to learn anything from the badge as to whether the person presenting it is genuine or not. That's not how I would check (seems incredibly naive) and someone who did rely on a shape shown to tham is in the same category as people who let strangers in their house because they wore a uniform and claimed to be from the police or whoever (namely, hopefully not too badly harmed when it goes wrong).
Most people don't meet the FBI on a routine basis so they have no way to know what's genuine and what isn't, and badges won't help. Considering average ignorance about basics (moon v sun being closer, basic science, etc) I would be amazed if more than a couple of % could determine a fake FBI badge anyway.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Duty of care is a legal term.
Yes, and a legal term Wikipedia editors would be wise to learn the meaning off.
OK, you're shown a badge. How would you know from the genuine if there is no image of the genuine on the FBI webpages. And how could they have a genuine image without themselves releasing the image?
Actually if the FBI approached me I would know them by their manner, which is quite distinctive, although not impossible to mimic.
Fred
I think more to the point an expectation of commonsense applies to those having a random badge waved at them, to verify it and not merely take it on trust.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, you know, I think there is a duty of care involved. If a genuine badge can be purchased along with a genuine identification card and uniform there is an obvious danger to the public. Even to the agency itself.
Fred
If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I wouldn't rely on a "badge". Waving round a badge, no matter the design, proves nothing - any more than waving round a badge would prove the person
or
people who ring the bell, have a nice uniform, and want to enter your home, are genuine police officers.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and
change
such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which
would
permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge
or
identification of the correct design.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by impostors with obviously fake badges only because it's impossible to determine what the real ones look like.
From what I can tell, if you suspect an imposter, looking at the badge
is not that helpful. You should phone the local FBI office and ask them if they have agents in the area and who they are (though obviously this can't be done in all situations). I got that from here (to state the obvious, not an official site):
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/67526.html
"Despite what you see in movies and on television, FBI agents will not come busting down your door or push their way in without your permission. Unless it's a matter of immediate life or death, they still have to follow the law."
"And if you stand your ground, they will give you all the time you need to read their ID's, make your calls (while they wait outside), and verify who they are. If they don't, most likely, they are not real Feds."
It makes sense to me, though clearly some imposters will claim it is a matter of life and death.
But really, I'm sure the FBI do have images of their badges somewhere on their website.
As for the image in question, I would also be asking who the photographer is. The original uploader (User:Bugs5382) is retired but started editing again a few days ago after an absence of nearly 2 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bugs5382
He got the image from this website:
http://www.altremappe.org/Indymedia/operazione%20indymedia.htm
It's not the most stable or reliable image source. I suspect using that image would need an OTRS ticket to confirm that the photographer had freely licensed the image. Or am I wrong to think that this object is "3D enough" to require the photographer to license the creative aspects of taking the photograph? I would say this at the deletion debate, but that would likely get swallowed amongst the legal arguments about badge impersonation (and I think Fred is wrong there).
Carcharoth
On 10/08/10 03:01, Carcharoth wrote:
"And if you stand your ground, they will give you all the time you need to read their ID's, make your calls (while they wait outside), and verify who they are. If they don't, most likely, they are not real Feds."
If they are armed, and you don't have several armed guards to back you up, then you should let them do what they want, especially if they are imposters.
If an imposter has gone to the trouble of making a realistic-looking FBI badge, you can probably assume that they have thought of a plan for what to do if you call the real FBI. It might not involve going away and leaving you in peace. Once they've taken what they want, and have left, then you're safe to make your calls.
-- Tim Starling
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
... Oh wait, I found a page here:
http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm
That would be a better source for images, but the images don't seem to be there.
Older revisions have the image:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040825160713/http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/prio...
-- John Vandenberg
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:47 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
... Oh wait, I found a page here:
http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm
That would be a better source for images, but the images don't seem to be there.
Older revisions have the image:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040825160713/http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/prio...
Thank-you! I was right about the badges changing over time. The badge in 1908 is very different from the other ones.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:47 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
... Oh wait, I found a page here:
http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm
That would be a better source for images, but the images don't seem to be there.
Older revisions have the image:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040825160713/http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/prio...
Thank-you! I was right about the badges changing over time. The badge in 1908 is very different from the other ones.
Carcharoth
So, is this possible section appropriate or over the top:
==Badges== [[File:HistoricalFBIBadges.jpg|thumb|right|200px]] Beginning in 1908 when agents of the precursor of the FBI were known as the "Special Agent Force" s series of similar badges have been displayed by agents. Badges have consistently featured a shield topped by an eagle with the prominent initials "US" and either "Bureau of Investigation" or "Division of Investigation" at the top and "Department of Justice" at the bottom. There is a central image of Justice which is blindfolded with a scale in her right hand and a sword in her left.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040825160713/http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/prio... Archived FBI "Facts and Figures"] which contains "Badges.jpg" displaying historical FBI badges. Display and possession of FBI badges and other identification and insignia is governed by 18 U.S.C § 701 which provides: <blockquote>Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.</blockquote>
Fred
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, is this possible section appropriate or over the top:
<snip>
In principle fine, but would be better discussed on the talk page of the article. Discussions that specific are not really suitable for a mailing list, but you could link from here to there.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, is this possible section appropriate or over the top:
<snip>
In principle fine, but would be better discussed on the talk page of the article. Discussions that specific are not really suitable for a mailing list, but you could link from here to there.
Indeed, there is a discussion there already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation#Wikipedia:...
Carcharoth
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, is this possible section appropriate or over the top:
<snip>
In principle fine, but would be better discussed on the talk page of the article. Discussions that specific are not really suitable for a mailing list, but you could link from here to there.
Indeed, there is a discussion there already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation#Wikipedia:...
And discussion on this is splintered all *over* the place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg
Carcharoth
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, is this possible section appropriate or over the top:
<snip>
In principle fine, but would be better discussed on the talk page of the article. Discussions that specific are not really suitable for a mailing list, but you could link from here to there.
Indeed, there is a discussion there already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation#Wikipedia:...
Carcharoth
That discussion is not about using the recently discovered image of historical badges. Obviously they have removed it from their website. It is very low resolution, indeed, the details of the badges are almost unrecognizable. But would the section put too much emphasis on what are, in fact, trivial details, simply because the question exercises us?
Fred
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That discussion is not about using the recently discovered image of historical badges. Obviously they have removed it from their website. It is very low resolution, indeed, the details of the badges are almost unrecognizable. But would the section put too much emphasis on what are, in fact, trivial details, simply because the question exercises us?
You would start a new section on the talk page if you wanted, or make the edit and see if anyone reverts, and then discuss on the talk page. I have an opinion on this, but I'm not going to discuss it on a mailing list (I don't mind discussing deletion debates, but discussing article editing at this level of detail feels wrong). It really does need to be discussed on-wiki.
Carcharoth
Well,
All of us who are or have been arbitrators are pretty much in the anti-cynicism business. Nothing the Commons administrators do would surprise me, but it's time we grappled with them. I'm not an active uploader of images but I do edit there.
Fred
Not to be too cynical, but I hope that doesn't get speedy kept as well. I *had* mentioned that image of the badge earlier, at the Commons Village Pump, but no-one seemed to be that bothered. I also suggested adding the restrictions note that Fred also added to the image, but again, the response I got was: "We may choose to add a warning to the file description page, as we do for several other types, but I don't personally think it'd be very useful in this case.".
This whole debate makes the point that when the WMF legal counsel gets involved because some outside organisation has sent him a letter, and this debate between lawyers then becomes public, the community sometimes looks like a deer caught in the headlights, unsure whether they should debate the issue, or apply what counsel has said, or ask counsel for further advice.
The problem with the first two approaches is that the debate might end up with the wrong result, and if people say "but we followed the WMF legal counsel's advice" (even if they misinterpreted what he said), that might be bad for several reasons. The problem with the third approach is that the WMF legal counsel doesn't scale, and you can't ask him everything about every image (though if someone thinks it worth contacting him, they should always do so). The best of several poor options seems to be for the community to judge as best they can, contact the WMF legal counsel in rare cases only, and take note if an external request leads to the WMF legal counsel over-riding a community debate and learn the lessons from that.
On a completely different note (though I see Fred raised it as well), is that badge really genuine? The source isn't that reliable, and it would be nice to have a date, as I'm positive the design of such badges has changed over the years. For all images, you really do want to try and find the most reliable source possible, not some random website.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, I tried that and quickly found
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg
That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike and the FBI are discussing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-....
I've nominated this for deletion. There may be others. Also, this is a object not an image. It presents the same problems as an image of a statue.
Fred
I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument is spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically accurate or not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with someone who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something anyone can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to look "clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most impersonators only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a good quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able to do the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that
Gerard is
more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 8/8/2010 1:42 AM, Alan Sim wrote:
At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=2
The original FBI letter http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Mike Godwin replies http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Alan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I was just discussing this over lunch. Kind of wowed at how an organization can expect that their public symbil would not be used in an encyclopedia.
Jon
On 8/8/2010 2:46 AM, Jon wrote:
On 8/8/2010 1:42 AM, Alan Sim wrote:
At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY
Times
The original FBI letter
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Mike Godwin replies
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson....
Alan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I was just discussing this over lunch. Kind of wowed at how an organization can expect that their public symbil would not be used in an encyclopedia.
Jon
Symbol* (spelling) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l