Hi all --
Verlag Bautz, a German printing house, has a totally cool website, the
"Kirchenlexicon." It invites contributions, but is also clearly marked
with a copyright (2001). My question...are direct translations of
entire articles, even when credited, fair use? I'm pretty sure that
they are not -- I know they wouldn't pass muster at the university copy
center...
Opinions?
J Hofmann Kemp, off for the summer
> Life + 70 is the rule for the European Community. The general
> world-wide rule which applies here in Canada is life + 50. There
> is no obligation for any country to give greater copyright
> protection to a foreign writer than it would give to its own
> citizens.
Well, sort of. The "worldwide" rule is no copyright at all.
The Berne Convention is life +50, to which we, Canada, and many
other nations are signatories. The WIPO treaty is life+70, to
which most European nations are signatories, but not Canada and
the US. The US, however, added 20 years with the Sonny Bono
Disney Corporate Welfare Act. So yes, you can photocopy
Mein Kampf in Canada. But we probably shouldn't put it on our
San Diego-based server until after the Supreme Court rules the
Bono act unconstitutional (which they are likely to do).
0
I don't really know any html... but I see that some people upload a
small version and a large version of the same picture. How do you make
the small picture into a link? Do you have to manually insert the html,
and what codes do you have to put?
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra
out of the dragon (or the Kitty)...
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Love and huggles to all!
<g> One of the better closing shots I can think of, though not as good as the final shot of the remake of /Invasion of the Body Snatchers/ (the one with Donald Sutherland, and Leonard Nimoy as a hippy psychiatrist).
You Wrote:
> Or do the Brazilian clones figure into this? ;)
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
0
I've been called a paranoid turkey before, but never so nicely. ;-)
kq
>In addition to the two kinds of material, copyrighted and non-copyrighted,
>there is also a third kind, a grey zone, where the copyright status is
>unknown or very hard to determine, including material produced in the
>1920s and 1930s. How to treat that kind depends on whether you have an
>"ISP policy" (let it be published, but remove it if the owner complains),
>or a "safe policy" (refuse publication unless non-copyright can be
>proven). As far as I can see, Jimmy/Bomis is an ISP that hosts Wikipedia.
>But I am not a lawyer.
0
Is there some reason that I can't access and edit the naming conventions
page? There's some outdated stuff there, and I would like to change
it... Thanks!
Jules
On Thursday 18 July 2002 04:31 pm, you wrote:
> It is also true that people will tend to write longer pages instead of
> splitting them up at a certain point.
>
> Please don't implement this "feature" (or better: please turn it off)
> before we have discussed enough about it. I think this could have
> consequences comparable to subpages, so we should think twice before
> using it.
>
> Kurt
Yes, I second this point. It is often a daunting task to chop up long
articles and their apparent "completeness" often discourages editing (or
even reading for that matter). A while back one wikipedian produced a mega
article on nuclear weapons and I have been meaning to chop it up into
digestible pieces ever since. Having the above function might very well
encourage longer articles.
--maveric149
On Thursday 18 July 2002 04:31 pm, Eclecticology wrote:
> Rewriting the material in
> your own words instead of translating it would not be a breach of
> copyright.
I sure hope so -- I've been rewriting Los Alamos National Laboratory text for
the elements articles to circumvent their stupid copyright notice. Their
copyright notice states that material produced by them and displayed on their
website can only be used for non-commercial purposes and only if their
copyright notice is displayed on any copies. This agers me because everything
they do is mostly paid for by US federal tax dollars with much of the
remaining money comming from California state tax dollars via the UC Regents
(although CA state produced IP is /not/ in the public domain unless there is
an explicit statement to the fact -- which also angers me).
However, much of what LANL provides in their periodic table needs heavy
copyediting anyway, so I really don't care that much about having to take an
extra step or two (at least then the resulting wikipedia articles will be
that much more unique -- although rewriting is time consuming and has slowed
the conversion process).
--maveric149
On Thursday 18 July 2002 04:31 pm, you wrote:
> Is there some reason that I can't access and edit the naming conventions
> page? There's some outdated stuff there, and I would like to change
> it... Thanks!
> Jules
--maveric149
Strange, I had the exact same problem while trying to edit the main page from
work (during a break of course ;P ). To get around the problem I first had to
unprotect the page and then edit it (which was a bit terrifying since I
didn't know if wikipedia would freeze again and result in an unprotected
front page when it came back online). Seems that as soon as I hit edit the
wikiware no longer saw that I was logged in as a sysop and flashed a
'protected page' message. This logging out behavior also occurs sometimes
when I access article history pages -- which is a pain when I need to block a
vandal.
The 'can't edit page' problem only occurs for me while using Internet
Explorer (I've only tried it with version 6). The same thing happened for me
at work (Windows 2000) and home (Windows XP). I have /not/ had this problem
with Konqueror or any other Linux browser (thankfully since that is where I
spend most of my wikipedia time). Also, both at home and work I am behind a
firewall. I'll try editing a protected page on Friday with Navigator at work
to see if the same problem occurs. Might have something to do with the way IE
handles cookies combined with some change to the software that has recently
been made.
--maveric149