Hoi, I selected a great picture from Commons. I loaded it on my memory stick. I went to a copy shop and had it printed in poster format for little money. No fuss. I did not even need to bring it on a memory stick, I could have downloaded the picture at the copy shop. This is the real world. There is nothing stopping anyone from printing one of the great pictures from Commons.
With all the talk about the French chapter's cottage village solution to printing, the reality is that printing a poster is not a problem anyway. Given this reality, what are we talking about. What do we think we realistically achieve. You have to appreciate that the poster has to be shipped, there has to be something for the French chapter and all the overhead you think up has to be paid. In another thread all kinds of difficult theories are discussed about atribution. The more complicated it is in the real world, the more likely it is that the chapter will end up with very little indeed and that all this talk will only kill a goose that lays "golden" eggs. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I selected a great picture from Commons. I loaded it on my memory stick. I went to a copy shop and had it printed in poster format for little money. No fuss. I did not even need to bring it on a memory stick, I could have downloaded the picture at the copy shop. This is the real world. There is nothing stopping anyone from printing one of the great pictures from Commons.
I think this is the great thing about our emerging age. You don't need to own a printing press to be able to make a book. (of course before the printing press you needed to have a scribe to make a book, but that it very much by the by)
With all the talk about the French chapter's cottage village solution to printing, the reality is that printing a poster is not a problem anyway. Given this reality, what are we talking about. What do we think we realistically achieve. You have to appreciate that the poster has to be shipped, there has to be something for the French chapter and all the overhead you think up has to be paid.
I don't think it is at all a bad thing that wikimedias chapters would have to face all the same obstacles as other re-users, and of course the obstacles are all there for a reason, and traditional copyright would not only be worse, but would make production of something like wikipedia essentially impossible.
In another thread all kinds of difficult theories are discussed about atribution. The more complicated it is in the real world, the more likely it is that the chapter will end up with very little indeed and that all this talk will only kill a goose that lays "golden" eggs. Thanks,
I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs. Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.
Yours cordially,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, I could not disagree more with you. People who work on Wikipedia do this because they make a difference. This making a difference is what I think is of paramount importance, what makes people proud of this endeavour. When people use my pictures and my ,it makes a difference how they use it. But essentially I do not really care as long as my ideal of more and better information or more people is realised.
Obviously I like it that my picture of a wild boar is used on a Russian website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING this than in having my name on their website.
When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so dear to you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs ? Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I selected a great picture from Commons. I loaded it on my memory stick.
I
went to a copy shop and had it printed in poster format for little money.
No
fuss. I did not even need to bring it on a memory stick, I could have downloaded the picture at the copy shop. This is the real world. There is nothing stopping anyone from printing one of the great pictures from Commons.
I think this is the great thing about our emerging age. You don't need to own a printing press to be able to make a book. (of course before the printing press you needed to have a scribe to make a book, but that it very much by the by)
With all the talk about the French chapter's cottage village solution to printing, the reality is that printing a poster is not a problem anyway. Given this reality, what are we talking about. What do we think we realistically achieve. You have to appreciate that the poster has to be shipped, there has to be something for the French chapter and all the overhead you think up has to be paid.
I don't think it is at all a bad thing that wikimedias chapters would have to face all the same obstacles as other re-users, and of course the obstacles are all there for a reason, and traditional copyright would not only be worse, but would make production of something like wikipedia essentially impossible.
In another thread all kinds of difficult theories are discussed about atribution. The more complicated
it
is in the real world, the more likely it is that the chapter will end up with very little indeed and that all this talk will only kill a goose
that
lays "golden" eggs. Thanks,
I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs. Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.
Yours cordially,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so dear to you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs ?
It could be in a discrete line at the bottom of the poster. Just how much information should be there remains an open question, but there should be enough for the owner of the printed poster or successive future owners to determine the copyright status of the picture. Somewhere down the line an owner may want to republish the picture (admittedly with reduced quality), but the chain of free licensing will have been broken. Would we accept uploading such a picture with unknown origins?
Ec
Hoi, So you are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is the license and the uploader AND it may be PD. The cost of adding this is not calculated as there is no functionality (as far as I know) that does it. When I print at my copy shop, I get a prestine copy. Remeber these are typically single copies. Thanks, Gerard
2009/1/30 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so dear
to
you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the
goose
that lays the golden eggs ?
It could be in a discrete line at the bottom of the poster. Just how much information should be there remains an open question, but there should be enough for the owner of the printed poster or successive future owners to determine the copyright status of the picture. Somewhere down the line an owner may want to republish the picture (admittedly with reduced quality), but the chain of free licensing will have been broken. Would we accept uploading such a picture with unknown origins?
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Obviously I like it that my picture of a wild boar is used on a Russian website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING this than in having my name on their website.
This point brings to mind my early days on the internet in the 90s, working side jobs creating simple websites and making ugly websites less ugly. I had all sorts of graphics creating packages that I somehow acquired in some fashion or another. Never having been a professional graphic artist (nor having any ambitions as such) I myself took pride that images I created were appearing (unattributed) on other people's websites. I neither made money from them nor intended to and wasn't suffering for the loss of income or attribution.
Cary
I Wrote:
I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs. Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.
And in reply Gerrard mejsen top-posted:
Hoi, I could not disagree more with you. People who work on Wikipedia do this because they make a difference. This making a difference is what I think is of paramount importance, what makes people proud of this endeavour. When people use my pictures and my ,it makes a difference how they use it. But essentially I do not really care as long as my ideal of more and better information or more people is realised.
I in fact agree with this. It can even be proven by the success of such sites as Distributed Proofreaders, where people do not edit as editors at all, but are merely faithfully reproducing works to which they have no copyright (or even copyleft) that there is no shortage of people willing to work without their contribution being acknowledged in the finished product ; and yes, I count myself among those who do that kind of work, and really will never be credited for participating in creating an as faithful reproduction as possible of for instance an early printing of William Tyndale's translation of Genesis, in any lasting form.
No-one can deny that we would not lack in contributors if we turned away everybody who wanted to see their name with the work.
But human nature is such, that lots of good work can be had from people who *do* work from completely selfish motives of pride. Not all such work is of course of good quality. To this effect too, proofs can be had from Distributed Proofreaders. Some there do the work hastily, and without care, just because they want their name to shine on the list of people who do much work.
I do disagree that those people should be actively discouraged from helping us.
Obviously I like it that my picture of a wild boar is used on a Russian website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING this than in having my name on their website.
When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so dear to you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs ? Thanks,
Now this though, I cannot understand at all. How is the image spoiled, if we know who created it?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, Two answers and a PS,
- first you do not have to actively discourage the narcissists from contributing. But playing to their egocentric notions of copyright, notions where the two licenses are largely the same is damaging to our objective. The information needs to spread out, by hook or by crook. - When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you can ignore this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not want the license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want a clean picture just as it would be when I have it printed at my local copy shop.
PS forget your crusade re top posting and use a more modern approach to e-mail or get over it.
Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
I Wrote:
I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs. Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.
And in reply Gerrard mejsen top-posted:
Hoi, I could not disagree more with you. People who work on Wikipedia do
this
because they make a difference. This making a difference is what I
think is
of paramount importance, what makes people proud of this endeavour.
When
people use my pictures and my ,it makes a difference how they use it.
But
essentially I do not really care as long as my ideal of more and better information or more people is realised.
I in fact agree with this. It can even be proven by the success of such sites as Distributed Proofreaders, where people do not edit as editors at all, but are merely faithfully reproducing works to which they have no copyright (or even copyleft) that there is no shortage of people willing to work without their contribution being acknowledged in the finished product ; and yes, I count myself among those who do that kind of work, and really will never be credited for participating in creating an as faithful reproduction as possible of for instance an early printing of William Tyndale's translation of Genesis, in any lasting form.
No-one can deny that we would not lack in contributors if we turned away everybody who wanted to see their name with the work.
But human nature is such, that lots of good work can be had from people who *do* work from completely selfish motives of pride. Not all such work is of course of good quality. To this effect too, proofs can be had from Distributed Proofreaders. Some there do the work hastily, and without care, just because they want their name to shine on the list of people who do much work.
I do disagree that those people should be actively discouraged from helping us.
Obviously I like it that my picture of a wild boar is used on a Russian website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING this than
in
having my name on their website.
When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so
dear to
you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the
goose
that lays the golden eggs ? Thanks,
Now this though, I cannot understand at all. How is the image spoiled, if we know who created it?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2 Feb 2009, at 07:11, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
- When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you
can ignore this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not want the license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want a clean picture just as it would be when I have it printed at my local copy shop.
Is this full stop, or meant in a specific way? Obviously, having the license, author list, etc. printed on top of the image is unacceptable. However, I've seen posters with a small white space at the bottom where the author name and copyright is given. I've also seen posters where the information is put on the back of the page. Would those options be acceptable?
I have made a number of images available on the Wikimedia Commons under a CC-BY-SA license. I'm quite happy for people to print them off, so long as my name remains attached to them (i.e. I'm attributed, as per the license). It's easy to do this in an unobtrusive manner. I've so far been unable to find out whether the WMFR poster printing setup includes attribution or not; does anyone know the answer to this?
Mike
PS: To date, I'm aware of one of my images being printed out in poster form. In this case, I wasn't attributed - but in this specific case I don't mind because they sent me a copy of the print (there was a delivery mistake, and they got two copies). That was fine by me, but it would have been even nicer if I was attributed....
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that it will not be accepted a solution. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/3 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net
On 2 Feb 2009, at 07:11, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
- When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you
can ignore this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not want the license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want a clean picture just as it would be when I have it printed at my local copy shop.
Is this full stop, or meant in a specific way? Obviously, having the license, author list, etc. printed on top of the image is unacceptable. However, I've seen posters with a small white space at the bottom where the author name and copyright is given. I've also seen posters where the information is put on the back of the page. Would those options be acceptable?
I have made a number of images available on the Wikimedia Commons under a CC-BY-SA license. I'm quite happy for people to print them off, so long as my name remains attached to them (i.e. I'm attributed, as per the license). It's easy to do this in an unobtrusive manner. I've so far been unable to find out whether the WMFR poster printing setup includes attribution or not; does anyone know the answer to this?
Mike
PS: To date, I'm aware of one of my images being printed out in poster form. In this case, I wasn't attributed - but in this specific case I don't mind because they sent me a copy of the print (there was a delivery mistake, and they got two copies). That was fine by me, but it would have been even nicer if I was attributed....
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that it will not be accepted a solution.
Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse - too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or more meaningless usernames too.
Sam
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:01, Sam Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that it will not be accepted a solution.
Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse - too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or more meaningless usernames too.
You're overlooking the large range (with a high skew) of the number of authors on images and are instead focussing on the extremal value. For my pictures, I am currently the single author on all of them (although that may not be the case in the future). They are released under a license that requires attribution. If you don't like that, use another picture.
Where larger numbers of authors for images are concerned, you're arguing your viewpoint, not the legal situation. Unless you can argue fair use, then you're bound by the licenses that the images were released under originally. If those licenses say that the author must be attributed, then you must attribute the author. You can't whitewash over that.
Two final points. Note that all of my images (and edits) are done under my real name; not everyone's username is meaningless. Also, Wikimedia (inc. or exc. Commons) is not Wikipedia.
Mike
Hoi, The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but for all projects as I understand things.
When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the real world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them if I can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA. Thanks,
2009/2/3 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:01, Sam Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that it will not be accepted a solution.
Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse - too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or more meaningless usernames too.
You're overlooking the large range (with a high skew) of the number of authors on images and are instead focussing on the extremal value. For my pictures, I am currently the single author on all of them (although that may not be the case in the future). They are released under a license that requires attribution. If you don't like that, use another picture.
Where larger numbers of authors for images are concerned, you're arguing your viewpoint, not the legal situation. Unless you can argue fair use, then you're bound by the licenses that the images were released under originally. If those licenses say that the author must be attributed, then you must attribute the author. You can't whitewash over that.
Two final points. Note that all of my images (and edits) are done under my real name; not everyone's username is meaningless. Also, Wikimedia (inc. or exc. Commons) is not Wikipedia.
Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:39, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but for all projects as I understand things.
The change of license can only apply to wiki-created GFDL works, which does not apply to the images. They will remain with their current licenses.
When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the real world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them if I can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA. Thanks,
You still buy the jeans with labels attached; it's up to you if you remove them later.
The RIAA's stance is completely different to mine. They want you to pay money (preferably repeatedly); I only care about attribution.
Mike
Hoi, Your wish for attribution comes at a monetory cost so the difference is negligible. They want their reward for the creation for IP and so do you. Thanks, GerardmM
2009/2/3 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:39, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but for all projects as I understand things.
The change of license can only apply to wiki-created GFDL works, which does not apply to the images. They will remain with their current licenses.
When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the real world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them if I can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA. Thanks,
You still buy the jeans with labels attached; it's up to you if you remove them later.
The RIAA's stance is completely different to mine. They want you to pay money (preferably repeatedly); I only care about attribution.
Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:59, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Your wish for attribution comes at a monetory cost so the difference is negligible. They want their reward for the creation for IP and so do you. Thanks, GerardmM
Huh? Where am I asking for money? Depending on the method of attribution, there should be negligible extra cost involved with printing the poster (i.e. < 1p)
Mike
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the real world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them if I can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA.
And yet you release your images under a license that requires attribution (among other requirements). You're in no position to complain about barriers if you put them up yourself.
Hoi, The Zwijntje picture is actually one that is rather special. I use it as an avatar on many of my profiles. When people abuse this picture, it may hurt me. There is another aspect as well, I am not arguing about attribution to the nth degree of foolishness. It is also very unlikely that I will go to court over my IP. This is where I am utterly different from the RIAA because it is part of their business model.
So in essence, it is normal to attribute material using the best practices. The GFDL was long considered to be a best practice by me. This is no longer the case for the type of material that we deal with in Wikipedia and Commons. Certainly not following the arguments that I have heard so far from the proponents of staying with the GFDL for WMF projects. The irony is that it iseven the FSF that agrees that we are better off with the CC-by-sa. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/4 Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the
real
world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them
if I
can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA.
And yet you release your images under a license that requires attribution (among other requirements). You're in no position to complain about barriers if you put them up yourself.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Zwijntje picture is actually one that is rather special. I use it as an avatar on many of my profiles. When people abuse this picture, it may hurt me. There is another aspect as well, I am not arguing about attribution to the nth degree of foolishness. It is also very unlikely that I will go to court over my IP. This is where I am utterly different from the RIAA because it is part of their business model.
So in essence, it is normal to attribute material using the best practices. The GFDL was long considered to be a best practice by me. This is no longer the case for the type of material that we deal with in Wikipedia and Commons. Certainly not following the arguments that I have heard so far from the proponents of staying with the GFDL for WMF projects. The irony is that it iseven the FSF that agrees that we are better off with the CC-by-sa.
You do know what the "by" in CC-by-sa means, I hope?
I have a bit of another view on this attribution stuff..
There are people doing great work to get permission to use pictures.. We tell the people that the name from the photographer will stay with the image because the license says so.. Most of the time the people say just no.
When Wikimedia has a printingservice that doesn't attribute on the right way it will make it only harder to get permission..,
Huib
Hoi, It is a better mouse trap then the GFDL. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/4 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Zwijntje picture is actually one that is rather special. I use it as
an
avatar on many of my profiles. When people abuse this picture, it may
hurt
me. There is another aspect as well, I am not arguing about attribution
to
the nth degree of foolishness. It is also very unlikely that I will go to court over my IP. This is where I am utterly different from the RIAA
because
it is part of their business model.
So in essence, it is normal to attribute material using the best
practices.
The GFDL was long considered to be a best practice by me. This is no
longer
the case for the type of material that we deal with in Wikipedia and Commons. Certainly not following the arguments that I have heard so far
from
the proponents of staying with the GFDL for WMF projects. The irony is
that
it iseven the FSF that agrees that we are better off with the CC-by-sa.
You do know what the "by" in CC-by-sa means, I hope?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sam Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that it will not be accepted a solution.
Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse - too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or more meaningless usernames too.
I'm surprised that nobody is saying that there is nobody saying that each individual photo in the logo collage should be attributed.
Some countries include a simple attribution on the bottom of postage stamps. Something that size in the bottom margin of something as large as a poster that can probably be covered when it is framed would be sufficiently discrete.
Nevertheless, omitting attribution when the poster is solely for personal use is not normally an enforceable violation.
Ec
2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that it will not be accepted a solution. Thanks, GerardM
Assuming posters are not for large scale public display sending the credits on a separate bit of paper would probably meets the requirements.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that it will not be accepted a solution.
Assuming posters are not for large scale public display sending the credits on a separate bit of paper would probably meets the requirements.
I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse is still unnecessarily restricted.
Sam
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Sam Johnston samj@samj.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between
cheap
and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back
is
two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it
is
nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be
that
it will not be accepted a solution.
Assuming posters are not for large scale public display sending the credits on a separate bit of paper would probably meets the requirements.
I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse is still unnecessarily restricted.
Sam
Unfortunately I do not understand the interface of Wikiposters, but reading the translated English FAQ, I got the impression, that for instance if you order a poster of a GFDL image, they will print you the text of the GFDL as well. So I assumed Wikiposters is mindful of attribution requirements.
I guess, we would need someone, who has actually seen a Wikiposters poster, to tell us how they handle this -- and other licences -- in practice.
Bence Damokos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Sam Johnston samj@samj.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between
cheap
and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the
back is
two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that
it is
nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be
that
it will not be accepted a solution.
Assuming posters are not for large scale public display sending the credits on a separate bit of paper would probably meets the requirements.
I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse is still unnecessarily restricted.
Sam
According to this [1], the Wikiposter service on the French Wikipedia provides attribution by printing a separate page with the license details.
In reply to Huib Laurens: is this the/a right way to attribute?
[1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression/en#Frequently_asked_questions
Best regards, Bence Damokos
I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost...
Isn't it the same when a photo will be used in a newspaper but the attribution will be send on a flyer with the newspaper...
2009/2/4, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Sam Johnston samj@samj.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between
cheap
and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the
back is
two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that
it is
nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be
that
it will not be accepted a solution.
Assuming posters are not for large scale public display sending the credits on a separate bit of paper would probably meets the requirements.
I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse is still unnecessarily restricted.
Sam
According to this [1], the Wikiposter service on the French Wikipedia provides attribution by printing a separate page with the license details.
In reply to Huib Laurens: is this the/a right way to attribute?
[1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression/en#Frequently_asked_questions
Best regards, Bence Damokos _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost...
There is nothing that says that the license and author should not get lost. The obligation to provide author, licensing and copyright information exists when the work is distributed or published, not necessarily the whole time that it is in existence.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost...
There is nothing that says that the license and author should not get lost. The obligation to provide author, licensing and copyright information exists when the work is distributed or published, not necessarily the whole time that it is in existence.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Agreed. If the license and attribution are provided to the poster- buyer, then we (as a content provider) and the printer (as a content distributor) have done our parts. We have facilitated the reuse of our content in accordance with the terms of the license.
Now, if the buyer goes and loses the license and authors the next day, that's their problem. The only exception being a poster intended for public display and/or the buyer wanting to redistribute it themselves, where the license/attribution would need to stay alongside it.
-Chad
Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost...
There is nothing that says that the license and author should not get lost. The obligation to provide author, licensing and copyright information exists when the work is distributed or published, not necessarily the whole time that it is in existence.
My amateur legal opinion is that it's legally OK, but the question is whether we want and can encourage further reuse by ensuring that the two are permanently together. (For example, if source, author and licence info could be printed on the back of the poster.)
2009/2/3 Sam Johnston samj@samj.net:
I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse is still unnecessarily restricted.
Sam
That must make it rather hard to use the postal service.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org