Wikimedia-l March 2010

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

124 participants
119 discussions

[Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
by jamesmikedupont＠googlemail.com 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Hi there, I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia. In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and they are not checked. People can just upload any and all maps that they somehow created themselves, even if they are derived from works that clearly do not allow a creativecommons sharealike processing of them. In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Why is this permitted and encouraged in wikipedia but forbidden in openstreetmap? Is there any chance of aligning the policies so that we can use the map material in wikipedia for openstreetmap? Do you want to start enforcing stricter checking of the sources of maps? The idea is that Wikipedia is to host free knowledge, but what good is this knowledge of the world (maps) if we cannot use it? If wikipedia were to enforce the same standards for maps, there would be very few maps available in it. thanks, mike

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
by WJhonson＠aol.com 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes: > The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high > quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those > positions for many of the locations and they are only available from > non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them > being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not > usable for openstreetmap.>> I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of "high quality satellite images". Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not copyrightable. W.J.

4 5

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
by WJhonson＠aol.com 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

In a message dated 3/31/2010 2:08:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org writes: > I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :) >>> > ---------- You are *taking* the picture however, with a mechanical device while you are excersizing creativity over it's content. It's your creativity that creates the copyrightable image, not who owns the mechanism. That's not the case with Google satellite images. There is no creativity involved. However this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth#Copyright seems to give another alternative using a public domain database of images. W.J.

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
by WJhonson＠aol.com 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes: > (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person > access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but > not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, > and visible map data; > > ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to > such a mass import.>> Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use them. Start here on my page of genealogy tools http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources Near the top there's a link to the USGS called "Find a Town" which takes you here http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=127:1:1089405488282263 You can look for more than just "towns", for example airports, cemeteries, creeks, whatever. For example look for Baptist in Arkansas, Hempstead County and you get eighteen entries with latitude and longitude for the Baptist churches. W.J.

3 2

[Foundation-l] Commons Usability
by Amir E. Aharoni 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Hi. If i understand correctly - and please correct me if i'm wrong - the current big Usability project is essentially a rather cosmetic change of the default skin. It is not really bad and i'm not really opposed to it, as many other users are, but it seems that it doesn't address a very big usability problem - the fact that Wikimedia Commons is hardly accessible for people who don't English well. Sure, it's possible to translate to translate templates and system messages to other languages and set the default language in the preferences, but this is very far from actually achieving the goal of making Commons the main media repository for all other WMF projects in all languages. And it's kinda symbolic that Commons will be the first project where the default skin will be switched. Now, before i start writing about the problems that i found in detail, this is probably something that was already discussed. If it indeed was, please point me to it (thanks in advance). If it was not discussed deeply, i'll probably start a discussion page somewhere. -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

3 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
by Mike Godwin 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

(Resent with correct subject header) John Vandenberg writes: > By the way, check out <http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo>. ?I hope no one > > thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo > logo > > without a license. > > That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of > originality. Why do they do not need a license? > > Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo "does not meet the threshold of originality" and therefore is not copyrightable? Can you cite a source on this? --Mike

7 16

[Foundation-l] Project Proposal: WikiGuide
by rnddim 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Please consider this proposal for the WikiGuide project: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGuide The goal of WikiGuide is to be a place for valid information that can't be accepted at other WikiMedia sites due to various quality guidelines, and to clarify some of the more confusing articles in Wikipedia and other projects. (Details can be found at the actual proposal, of course.) Thank you!

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
by WJhonson＠aol.com 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

In a message dated 3/30/2010 8:37:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mnemonic(a)gmail.com writes: > Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use > true > names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA?>> What I'm suggesting is that regardless of which license we decide to use as a project, an editor submitting content to the project is effectively giving up any right they may have to decide what is done with that content, including the meta content like their true name. Including it's use as freely reusable content. I don't see this right you seem to hold that content submit, or meta content that is tagged along with it, somehow enjoys a special position other than what the project itself decides it should or should not enjoy. From where does this extra right stem? The editor waives all rights to their submissions. That's my position. I would suggest even further, that they are giving up any right to decide what is done, *even if* the licensing terms should change. I know others don't hold that viewpoint.

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
by Mike Godwin 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

WJhonson writes: > I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to > write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license > to do so? Not at all. I'm pointing out, though, that there are all sorts of potential and actual rights embedded in content, and that the right of publicity (as it's called in the United States) is one of them. If we insisted on a simplistic notion of "freedom" with regard to free content, we'd have to take this legal encumbrance into account. By submitting, using their true names, they are granting us the license to > use their true names per our terms. > Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use true names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA? > > How could we interpret any of that differently? It seems like a > hodge-podge. > Now you're beginning to see the complexity of the issues. --Mike

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
by WJhonson＠aol.com 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

In a message dated 3/30/2010 6:50:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org writes: > I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish > Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living > Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them.>> --------- I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license to do so? If not, then by an editor submitting an article on a person to Wikipedia, they are de facto granting license to reuse that content per our terms. By submitting, using their true names, they are granting us the license to use their true names per our terms. How could we interpret any of that differently? It seems like a hodge-podge. Any content submit, is being submit under a free reuse license. W.J.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l March 2010