The Wikipedia entry for "Bloody Sunday" contains reference
to "Bloody Sunday - Northern Ireland," 30 January 1972, but
not Ireland's earlier "Bloody Sunday" of 20 November 1920.
While true that "Bloody Sunday" of 1972 is distinguished by
having occurred in *Northern* Ireland, standard practice in
indexing books of Irish history is to distinguish by year.
Without alteration of titles, one ends with entries perhaps:
"Bloody Sunday - Northern Ireland"
"Bloody Sunday - Ireland - 1920"
Which seems less optimal toward disambiguation than:
"Bloody Sunday - Ireland - 1920"
"Bloody Sunday - Ireland - 1972"
So, I'm new here. How does one resolve such circumstance?
I notice that we have about 50-60 pages titled "XXX (movie)",
and maybe a dozen titled "XXX (film)". I'd like to see these
merged, and obviously it's less work to settle on "(movie)"
as our standard. Are there any film buffs out there with a
good argument why our standard should be "(film)", or why there
might actually be a distiction?
Hi all --
Please 'scuse the phone numbers on my last -- if there's any way to
edit out that part, I'd really appreciate it.
Here's my question. As you know, we've had LOTS of images uploaded
lately. Since Isis was one of the people doing a lot of uploading, I
asked her about the copyright. She claimed that,
"Yes, they're in the public domain because I've put them there now. I
created them from works that were not under copyright, most of which
(the paintings and such) were created 100s of years ago, and my work in
creating and manipulating the digital images makes them my own
work-product, just as a photographer owns the rights to the pictures he
takes but not whatever he takes the picture of."
Montrealis then asked about the use of videotape covers, etc, and this
was the response:
"They fall under the "fair use" doctrine for documenting sources in
scholarly works but, even if they didn't, the remedy for infringement is
disgorgement of the profits, and there are none here. (The covers are
like your face: When you're in public, anyone who wants to can take a
picture of you, but if they try to use it to make money, you can either
stop them from using it or make them pay you what they got from using
it.) But the question is academic, because as a practical matter it's
free publicity to entities that live on publicity. And if you've ever
tried to report bootleg tapes to the companies that own the rights, you
know that they don't care." isis
The thing is, this just sounds wrong to me, based on personal
experience. When I wrote my dissertation, University Microfilms was
very clear on using images from other sources. I couldn't. Not even my
own re-workings from reproductions of old maps. Isis may be a
lawyer and correct about all of this, but it just sounds iffy to me,
especially in light of the second answer, which sounds like "it could
be, but they won't prosecute".
Does anyone have a definite answer?
Jules
I'm using Netscape 6.x. And upgrading's not /all/ bad; at least you can set per-site cookie permissions (always accept from wikipedia; never accept from doubleclick, etc.)
kq
You Wrote:
>lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
>
>>The practical upshot of this is that any code changes we make
>>that affect the HTML output should continue to be tested on MSIE
>>5 and 6 (both if possible), Gecko, and (alas) Netscape 4.
>>
>Hmm! No mention of Netscape 6.x - Maybe I should never have upgraded
>from 4.
>>The practical upshot of this is that any code changes we make
>>that affect the HTML output should continue to be tested on MSIE
>>5 and 6 (both if possible), Gecko, and (alas) Netscape 4.
> Hmm! No mention of Netscape 6.x - Maybe I should never have
> upgraded from 4.
Netscape 6 and later are Gecko-based, aren't they?
I did some analysis of the browsers accessing Wikipedia, to get
an idea of what the software should be optimized for.
By far the most accesses to Wikipedia use MSIE 5.X and
MSIE 6.X, with over 1.4 million accesses from those browsers.
Nothing else even comes close (and they are about equal to
each other).
Next are the Netscape 4.X family and compatibles, with
180,000 accesses. Obsolete, but apparently still popular :-(
Gecko-based browsers (essentially Mozilla, Galeon, and a few
stragglers) account for 140,000. (barely beating out Googlebot).
Other Netscapes and compatibles add up to about another 140,000.
Konqueror and Opera show up at 18,000 and 8,000. Lynx is about
2,000, below even some off-line tools like Wget.
I have no idea who or what "Wikipedia Spy" is, but he's accessed
the server 406 times.
The practical upshot of this is that any code changes we make
that affect the HTML output should continue to be tested on MSIE
5 and 6 (both if possible), Gecko, and (alas) Netscape 4.
For the record, I don't think that Helga is particularly anti-Semitic --
although she often comes off that way. My take is that she pretty much
discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her
assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII. For
her the Holocaust is minor -- as are the Stalinist purges that ran into
the tens of millions -- except those directed towards the
Heimatvertriebene. This also keeps her from seeing that there may have
been long-standing resentments caused by German actions over a long
period of time and began well before Hitler -- not that this is a reason
for genocide or any other wartime or post-war atrocity. She just seems
incapable of seeing any of this in context because she's got her own
agenda that borders on obsession.
It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and
weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that
it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.
Jules
Julie wrote:
>Please 'scuse the phone numbers on my last -- if there's any way to
>edit out that part, I'd really appreciate it.
Your phone numbers have been in several messages you've sent, Julie. I was wondering if you wanted that badly to hear what your coworkers sound like. :-)
>"Yes, they're in the public domain because I've put them there now. I
>created them from works that were not under copyright, most of which
>(the paintings and such) were created 100s of years ago, and my work in
>creating and manipulating the digital images makes them my own
>work-product, just as a photographer owns the rights to the pictures he
>takes but not whatever he takes the picture of."
Did Isis take pictures, or scan in pictures? Or simply resize images in Photoshop or whatever? Two of those would probably not be covered, though the photos probably would.
>Montrealis then asked about the use of videotape covers, etc, and this
>was the response:
>"They fall under the "fair use" doctrine for documenting sources in
>scholarly works but, even if they didn't, the remedy for infringement is
>disgorgement of the profits, and there are none here. (The covers are
>like your face: When you're in public, anyone who wants to can take a
>picture of you, but if they try to use it to make money, you can either
>stop them from using it or make them pay you what they got from using
>it.) But the question is academic, because as a practical matter it's
>free publicity to entities that live on publicity. And if you've ever
>tried to report bootleg tapes to the companies that own the rights, you
>know that they don't care." isis
I can't speak for print media, but as far as documentaries go, you have to prove that you have the rights to use every snippet of music you can hear in the film as well as every image and bit of film that you didn't produce yourself. (The only exception I know of is newsbroadcasts, which can be filmed and shown without paying royalties. And this rather stringent requirement may be one that came about as a means of avoiding lawsuits, even ones that the filmmakers could win. But HBO, PBS, film festivals, etc. will not play your film if you don't have the paper trail for all of the above.)
Ridiculous, I know. I would like to see a light at the end of the tunnel, so I hope it's not as bad as all that in terms of video covers etc.
kq
>It's actually easier to implement as a special page as Brion
>points out: ISBNs will generate a link to
>"/wiki/Special:Booksources?isbn=XXXXX", and that special page
>will have links to Pricescan, AddAll, Amazon,
Why not allow for
Special:Booksources?isbn=XXXXX&titlewords=YYYY&author=ZZZ
with all values optional. All the above mentioned sites can search
books based on author and title. We could then also add ebay links for
example, as well as links to catalogs of libaries which participate in
interlibrary loan.
The Title/Author combination has the advantage that it captures all
editions and therefore doesn't age like ISBN numbers do.
We just have to come up with some catchy wiki notation for the book
links. Maybe
[[book:Douglas Hofstadter|Godel, Escher, Bach|0465026567]]
(again with all fields optional) could turn into a
link to Special:Booksources and render as something like
"(find this book)".
Axel
> I'd like to give readers the choice of where the ISBN links go to.
> ...
It's actually easier to implement as a special page as Brion
points out: ISBNs will generate a link to
"/wiki/Special:Booksources?isbn=XXXXX", and that special page
will have links to Pricescan, AddAll, Amazon, or whatever else
we feel like adding, and even text explaining the different
benefits of each site.