On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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&old…
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-Sea…
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FBISeal.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:US-FBI-Sha…
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FBI_seal.s…
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FBI_seal.p…
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
