> What it also needs is a list of public domain image sources that
> people can use to find copyright free images to upload. I was just
> looking at a public site that I saw somebody else using and I'm
> sure there are a thousand pics there that we could use... the
> problem is wading through and finding them, and recognising them
> when you see them because most of them are not labelled or
> categorised.
>I found two public domain image sites yesterday:
>http://GIMP-savvy.com/PHOTO-ARCHIVE/
Already listed on our Public domain resources page.
>http://www.aquarius.geomar.de/omc/omc_intro.html (automatic public
>domain map-generating program)
>http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org11-2.htm (US navy archive of
>public domain ship photos)
These are new. I'll add them.
0
> But seriously maybe the image upload page should have a
> big warning at the top of it 'Do not upload copyrighted
> images to the Wikipedia (insert brief technical warning
> speil here) Public Domain images are available here' Sure
> you have to tick the box but newbies don't know why.
Please check out the text on the new software
(http://beta.wikipedia.com) and tell me what you think should
be changed. I can see that a link to the Public domain
resources page wouldn't be a bad idea, along with perhaps a
somewhat more detailed copyright warning (but I don't want to
be too discouraging either).
0
> Ummm, WHAT public domain resources page? I've never seen it or
> thought to look for it... maybe it should be linked from the
> front page of the Wikipedia and/or from the photo upload pages
> to enhance its visibility?
The Wiki page "Public domain resources", and there already is a link
to it on the front page.
0
Shortly before June 9, Jennifer uploaded pictures of dresses and wrote
articles about dresses. She was asked to stop uploading them if she couldn't
prove that they are public domain, and she apparently has left. The articles
were edited to not use the pictures. Should the pictures be deleted? I
already deleted cobbler.jpg, not realizing that she wrote articles, but it's
still on beta.
phma
Maybe wikipedia should have a "request a photo/picture" page,
where people can put requests for photos to accompany articles.
Especially when dealing with monuments/buildings/objects in
museum.
Considering that Wikipedians are fairly widely spread around the
world, it should be fairly easy to get photographs from a wide range
of places.
With historical artifacts often the only photographs that are
publically available are copyright to the museums (for instance I
was trying to find a photo of the ancient board game "Royal Game
of Ur" to use in an article, but the only ones I could trace were all
copyright to the British Museum who own several of the few boards
to have survived).
Imran
--
TheOpenCD Project
Promoting Open Source on Windows
http://www.theopencd.org
> My approach to copyright is to first use common sense, make
> reasonable inquiries, and give the benefit of the doubt to
> including the material while recognizing the author's moral
> right to be given credit for his work no matter how old it is.
> The "better safe than sorry" approach that avoids all risk is a
> recipe for accomplishing nothing. Once due diligence has been
> applied, a policy of "It's easier to get forgiveness than
> permission" makes good sense. Willingness of the ISP to take
> down offending material on receipt of proper notice will protect
> him legally. A reputation for reasonable (rather than absolute)
> diligence should satisfy our users about the copyright safety of
> the material.
I couldn't agree more (well, actually, I don't agree that authors
have any moral right to credit, but I certainly have no objection
to giving them credit anyway). I don't think we should blindly
accept any and all copyright claims for which there is no reasonable
justification, and I would have no problem including things like
the WPA drawings you mention. All that being said, common sense
does occasionally come down on the oher side--Jennifer's dresses
in particular look like fairly recent catalog photos, so it's a
dafe bet that they're out.
0
On 7/17/02 1:33 PM, "Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske(a)epost.de> wrote:
> I thought we already had this discussion, and concluded that if the meta
> becomes part of the English wikipedia, it wouldn't be neutral anymore (or
> something like that;)
>
That was mentioned, but it's certainly not much of a conclusion. By the same
logic, the wikipedia: namespace shouldn't be part of the English wikipedia.
The benefits to having it integrated are greater than having it separate.
I'm pretty sure the only real reason it hasn't been integrated is because it
would be something of a pain to do.
and 35mm, and larger formats (if anyone is so lucky). :-)
I got my Nikon recently and am very much looking forward to taking pics for wikipedia once work lets off some. =^)
kq
>Of course I second that proposal. Grab your digital cameras and
>set out for your hometown. Wikipedia needs your digital pictures !
>
>Regards,
>kpj.
0
>> I tottally agree -- but instead of banning certain file
>> extensions I say we should think about only allowing
>> certain ones. But at any rate, .exe and .zip should /never/
>> be allowed to be uploaded. Also, is there an efficient way
>> for the software to check uploads, for example, to see if
>> in fact a file with an image extension is really an image
>> and not an exe or mp3 in disguise?
> A quick shell out to the "file" command should answer that nicely.
I've added this to the SourceForge tracker as well. Mailing
list posts are easily forgotten.
0