Over these last few months, it has been frustrating when GFDL righteous wikipedians nix each
others images because of fear of copyright violation. This respect for the GFDL which is extremely
vigorous, but I feel it is also very harmful to wikipedia.
To alleviate some of this, we should allow the inclusion of offsite images. This is perfectley
acceptable. Take http://news.google.com for example, which is greatly improved by the addition of
any image seen fit, also note that not a single image there is hosted on google. I emailed them,
and they said that what they do eg: <img src="http://anotherserver/file.jpg"/> is completely
within the realm of copyright policy.
There would be no violation of GFDL here. As some people already suggested. And the jumbo about it
being bad netiquette is a weak argument against all thats just been laid out.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
>> To alleviate some of this, we should allow the inclusion of offsite images. This is perfectley
>> acceptable.
>No, that's not acceptable at all. If you want something to appear inline,
>mixed into the page in Wikipedia, it should be *part* of Wikipedia. That
>means it should be hosted on the Wikipedia server, and be easily packaged
>with backups, distributions, and alternative published formats.
>If you'd like to *link* to external images, just like any other external
>resource, that's A-OK, fine and dandy.
<img src> *is* simply linking the images, and you get the benefit of inlining any image on the
internet seen fit without having to go through the process of fumbling around for days and weeks
about copyrights which is too slow, non reliable, and rigorous compared with the option being
argued for.
The above arguments lack any support besides opinion and reptition ("No...it should"), then
counterpoints with more explatives, obnoxious posture, and more opinion.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Hello,
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Toby Bartels wrote:
> I can see the argument that the GFDL requires that we keep track of
> every contributor -- I buy that "the Wikipedia community" is
> insufficient. What I don't understand is the difference between a
> pseudonymous ID like "maveric149" and a pseudonymous ID like
> "12.246.119.xxx" (which is not *anonymous* either).
The difference is that a user name identifies a user, while an IP address
only identifies the computer they happen to be working on at the time, or,
worse, only what ISP they are using. The IP address is therefore not an
identifier of a person, because many different people can use the same IP
address at different times. Of course, the same applies to the user name
if someone allows their account to be used by someone else, or if their
account is hacked, but this only happens very rarely.
> Your contribution will be logged under the identifier ~~~. Depending on
> how your Internet service provider works, future contributions by you
> may or may not have this same identifier, and future contributions
> logged under this identifier may or may not always be from you.
That last point is important. If contributions with this "identifier" may
be from different people, then by definition it is not an identifier at
all. As a mathematician, you should know this. :)
I'm going to ask something terribly controversial now. What sort of
serious encyclopaedia allows anonymous contributions anyway?
As far as I know, none. Okay, so the fact that nobody else has done it
before is not itself a strong argument. We're *supposed* to be pioneers
here, after all! But I think that a lot of people are put off the
Wikipedia because of a perception (partly justified, I think) that if
people can just drop in at any time, post something, and then slink away
again without anyone seeing who they are, then it's going to end up
containing a lot of nonsense. If we made people give their real names,
then I think people would be less inclined to post incorrect information.
I think people would take the project more seriously, and although we
would lose a few contributors, I think we would gain just as many by
appearing to be a more serious project. And for the same reason, the new
contributors would largely be terribly sensible people who had previously
dismissed the project as being too silly for them. So quite likely they
would, on average, be better contributors.
Okay, I do have sympathy with those who argue that people who post
political information that their government might not approve of should be
free to do so without fear of being harassed by their government. But I
think that the aim of the Wikipedia should be to become a serious
encyclopaedia more than a refuge for political dissidents. Since we are
only supposed to be adding verifiable information, anything which an
oppressed person in one country could add should also be available in
other countries, and so could easily be added by someone in another
country who is less fearful of their government.
Oliver
P.S. - Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are entirely those of section
346 subsection 8730-a of my brain, and do not reflect the views of any
other sections thereof, some of which are far more liberal and/or
paranoid, but I like to give them all an airing from time to time. ;)
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
Hello Ed,
I'm posting your message (see below) here on the main list as well, since
you said it should be there...
But I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the idea that someone should
become a sysop just from having the right number of supporters. I can
easily imagine that a large enough group of sysops could support one
person who is not trusted by the rest of the sysops. Would there be an
"Oppose user for sysop" button as well? Both buttons could update counts
without displaying the names of the people who have voted, so people would
feel free to express their lack of trust in a nominee without anyone
(apart from the developers) finding out and subsequently holding a grudge
against them...
Ah, I'm being very evil today, aren't I? ;)
Oliver
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Actually, sysops can query the server; they are limited to "read-only"
> queries, however.
>
> What I was suggesting was that some Wikipedians other than the
> Developers have the technical ability to:
> * grant "sysop rights" to users
> * block a signed-in vandal
>
> I don't think a sysop blocking a signed-in vandal should need to see
> their IP address. Even I as a developer never bothered to look up the IP
> of the half-dozen or so users I've been told to block. I just ran an
> UPDATE query in the database.
>
> Similarly, with promoting a contributor to sysop, I think Brion or
> Magnus could add a page called "Nominate user for sysop". After enough
> sysops nominated a user, they would automatically get sysop rights.
>
> The point is, I don't want to do Gatekeeper Functions any more. Not only
> is it time-consuming (up to 10 minutes per operation), but the task of
> determining whether a person is a foe or a friend should not be
> centralized on 4 or 5 people.
>
> And, yes, mav, I know I should put this on the main list, but I only
> subscribe to this one, so I hope anyone who responds will cross post
> back to wikien-l. And yes, Brion, I know you made a meta-page, but...
>
> lazily, but non-hierarchically,
>
> Ed Poor
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
On 4/4/03 5:27 PM, "Axel Boldt" <axelboldt(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 13:52, Axel Boldt wrote:
>
>>> In order to be allowed to distribute a modified version of a
>>> GFDL document, you have to list the person responsible for
>>> the modification (section 4B).
>>
>> No; the GFDL states you have to list "one or more persons or entities
>> responsible for authorship of the modifications".
>>
>> Note: "entity". "The Wikipedia Contributors" is such an entity.
>
> No. If Helga makes an edit somewhere, then the vast majority of the
> "Wikipedia Contributors" won't even know about it, and even if they
> did, they certainly have never agreed to be "responsible" for her work.
The point is that they have, by agreeing to submit to Wikipedia. The
warning/disclaimer makes it pretty clear (and if necessary, could be more
explicit) that your contributions may be changed out of recognition by
someone else.
> You might just as well use "Humanity" as the entity. Clearly, that's
> trying to circumvent the intended meaning of clause 4B.
>
>> Note also "one or more persons". Not "every person".
>
> If Helga makes a modification, then there is only one person, Helga,
> responsible for it. "Every person" and "one or more persons" is the
> same in this case.
Your interpretation depends on an unusual parsing of the relevant phrase.
You're interpreting the quotation as
one or more (persons or entities responsible for authorship of [all]
the modifications)
in which case "one or more" == "every", leaving nothing to the discretion of
the original authors, whereas a more logical interpretation (because it
allows "one or more" to have meaning) is
(one or more persons or entities) responsible for authorship of the
modifications
in which case it just means that you need to credit at least <someone> as
the author, to the discretion of the original authors.
>> There is nothing in the GFDL that makes anonymous edits problematic.
>
> There sure is.
Again, there isn't. There may be something about anonymous edits that upsets
you (and others), but that's a different story.
On Monday 07 April 2003 02:43 pm, Poor Edmund wrote:
> How about creating a Button that sysops can use to promote
> other sysops? I'm getting tired of writing and checking SQL queries. Also,
> I don't want to become a gatekeeper :-(
This is how it was in phase II. I liked it since I could promote somebody soon
after they posted a request for Adminhood on the mailing list. Right now
there is a bottleneck at the developer level that IMO simply should not exist
and is limiting the growth of the Admin ranks.
> We could (maybe?) hash out some rules, like:
>
> 1. Must be nominated and seconded (i.e., takes N votes where N >= 2? or N
> >= 3?). 2. Can't nominate or second anyone till you've been a sysop
> for N days (N > 30 days? N > 90 days? N > 12 months?)
I don't think we need hard and fast rules on this yet - our informal process
of people asking for the upgrade on the language-specific mailing lists to
ask for the upgrade seems to work. Most requests are accepted without worry
but some are rejected (like TMC or a ultra green newbie that nobody knows).
We just need to get rid of the bottleneck at the developer level. IMO there is
no need to leave people in suspense after asking to be an Admin - this gives
the impression that Adminship is something special and tightly restricted to
a very select few. I can only imagine that such a perception would tend to
make people think twice before asking. The only non-newbie users who should
think twice before asking are users who tend to get into more than their fair
share of edit wars and POV disputes or who are otherwise not viewed as being
trustworthy.
Oh and automatically sysoping users based on some computational criteria such
as age of user account and/or number of edits made would be like handing out
hand guns to everybody on their 18th birthday. Cry havoc!
At one time I was an advocate of auto-sysoping but my views on this have
changed. I now think that human judgment should be filter at this level.
Otherwise we might find ourselves with TMC, Clutch and Two16-like Admins.
True these users are now banned and would also have been banned if they were
Admins, but as Admins they would have done far more damage before getting
banned.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[April 2]]
On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 09:51, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> How about creating a Button that sysops can use to promote
> other sysops? I'm getting tired of writing and checking SQL queries. Also, I don't want to become a gatekeeper :-(
Comments please to:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_details_special_page
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
The "wikidown" address just got spammed. Since there's no way
to get off of spammers' lists once on, that pretty much demands
that we change it. Further, whatever means we are using to
announce that address to human beings should probably be fixed
to make it less friendly to address-sucking bots.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
If you read this, I guarantee you will be entertained. I don't
guarantee much in this world, but I'll stand behind this one.
----- Forwarded message from legal services division <pdqbanker(a)justice.com> -----
From: "legal services division" <pdqbanker(a)justice.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 00:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: jwales(a)bomis.com, brion(a)pobox.com
Subject: SECOND NOTICE - VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT - BOMIS.COM DBA WIKIPEDIA.ORG
ATTENTION: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN [Associates, Courts, &c]
ATTENTION: Jimmy Wales, Bomis.com [purports Wikipedia]
ATTENTION: Brion Vibber, USC [purports Wikipedia.org]
[We apologize to those only now being notified of this]
[Ombudsman, note: We will need interState cooperations]
YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE, BECAUSE:
1.
Wikipedia.org has failed to remove all public remarks
on all its websites purporting its public encyclopedia
abusive of the author, his article, submittal thereof,
American Standard Metric Time, his legal copyright to
have published only correct renderings, his supply of
further required submittal of information, his right to
supply that information by the route preferred by said
Wikipedia.org itself (over contentious Editors), his
reports of abuse of said article and rights, and his
right as a decent citizen and peer, to not be slandered
and scurrilously characterized and assaulted in public,
to not be irreverently insinuated with the commanders
in chief of the war between the USA and Iraq, for the
purpose of the same said article;... UNDER THE LAWS OF
CALIFORNIA, OF THE INTERNET, THE USA AND PER THE FIRST
NOTICE (COPY ENCLOSED, EXPANDED).
EG: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_in_Progress
PRESENT: "... He has also vandalised the Talk:American
Metric Standard (an already fictional page ...".
(It is recognized that many other items have dropped
off for time and length but the above webpage remains
evident that required corrections were not completed,
maybe were not possible in the system built for said
Wikipedia.org and its "public" "encyclopedia".)
2.
Furthermore, during this same interval that Wikipedia
abuses remained published (on-web), just two days ago
the author survived murderous assassination in public
(at night) by two unknown thugs bludgeoning his head
with laden beer bottles (illegal in the place; and he
does not eat alcohols nor associate), 10-20 contusions
and one bulbous laceration, and falsely accusing him by
sexual slur essentially that of Wikipedia Editors'
falsity and slander published by and on Wikipedia.org,
and discussing that they did not find his wallet.
(It may be excessively coincident, the Wikipedia.org
web-server was solidly crashed or hacked the same day:
This reeks like a mafia operation balance of payments,
albeit Wikipedia Editors are world wide and the most
culpable in this incident in terror-prolific Ireland;
Also, the Wikipedia parent includes babes.bomis.com.)
Whereas Wikipedia.org failed to comply with the listed
demands to remove said published malicious and sexual
slanders, under timely notice, Wikipedia and bomis.com
and collaborative institutions, can and shall therefor
be entertained as complicit and potentially accessory.
Such magnitude of assault has not happened prior upon
the author, and there was no instigation here. As this
occurred in Honolulu, the trial shall commence here in
Honolulu, not California, at the perpetrators' expense.
We append note that the author is presently of sound
mind and body despite the duress in injuries sustained.
IN SUMMARY: Wikipedia.org is not a public encyclopedia
but an encyclopedic adult forum of topical discussions.
/rkp
Lanthus Corporation legal division
_______
FOREWORD EXPANSION TO FIRST NOTICE:
Whereas: Official Wikipedia editing member "STÓD/ÉÍRE"
AKA "User:Jtdirl" (having a personal page pretending a
doctor's degree as well as numerous other perniciously
suspect credits) deliberately vandalised, initially by
insertion into said submitted article, his impertinent
gibberish for the rotations and revolutions of Earth
and Sun, equating 1 centigrad of Earth rotation to 1
Km, without recognition of the solar meridian in the
author's explained equations of daytime (Jtdirl failed
to see the Earth going around the sun additionally to
rotating on its axis, or significantly differentiate
365.25 solar days from 366.25 sidereal rotations per
year---if there exists even reason to compare). Jtdirl
then appended unconscionable remarks for ridicule: eg.
on sphericity of the Earth being a "false assumption",
which the author then pared for clarity of statement.
Whereas: Subsequently two official Wikipedia editing
members "User:Mintguy" and said prior "User:Jtdirl",
further vandalized said article (of Jtdirl's already
vandalised form), by its deletion, false assertion of
violation of copyright, and invitations by redirection
of public "encyclopedia" readers to their explanations
rife with slanders, sexual slurs, rantings against the
author, and other barratries, and especially to their
one combined paragraph of ribaldry (unlike members who
post their own separate paragraphs these two posted one
indistinguishable paragraph, the second linking also to
his personal page interest in "gay rights"). The author
returned to Wikipedia to view changes and adjust said
impertinent mistaken insertion to minimal correctness
if yet irrelevant, but found this barratry committed by
now-several editing members.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST NOTICE: [EDITED]
From: "legal services division"
<pdqbanker(a)justice.com>
Date: Mon Mar 24 15:01:46 2003 (PST)
To: jwales(a)bomis.com
Cc: brion(a)pobox.com, license-violation(a)gnu.org,
support(a)sourceforge.net, reception(a)sandiego.gov,
legal(a)Lanthus.net
Subject: FIRST NOTICE - VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT -
BOMIS.COM DBA WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Message-Id:
<20030324150148.11881.h015.c014.wm(a)mail.justice.com.criticalpath.net>
X-Mailer: Web Mail 5.2.3-0_sol28
Received: (cpmta 24998 invoked from network); 24 Mar
2003 15:01:53 -0800
Received: from 216.148.221.135 (HELO mx.mailix.net)
by smtp.c014.snv.cp.net (209.228.35.96) with SMTP; 24
Mar 2003 15:01:53 -0800
Received: from [209.228.35.75] (helo=c014.snv.cp.net)
by mx.mailix.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 18xawv-0000Qj-00
for legal(a)Lanthus.net; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:01:49 -0800
Received: (cpmta 1932 invoked from network); 24 Mar
2003 15:01:48 -0800
Received: from 209.228.35.89 (HELO
mail.justice.com.criticalpath.net)
by smtp.justice.com (209.228.35.75) with SMTP; 24 Mar
2003 15:01:48 -0800
Received: from [128.171.106.205] by mail.justice.com
with HTTP;
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:01:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Sent: 24 Mar 2003 23:01:48 GMT
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sent-From: pdqbanker(a)justice.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Received: 24 Mar 2003 23:01:53 GMT
Return-Path: <pdqbanker(a)justice.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear [...]
Whereas: Purported "wikipedia" "public" "encyclopedia"
website content misrepresents and misinterprets the
content of the reference source website: [by following]
Whereas: Your official members (those with personal
pages: "Jtdirl, JohnOwens, Salsa Shark") repeatedly
removed the copyright notice-information, supplied by
the article author per your website request;
Whereas: Your members repeatedly libeled said posting
of said required copyright information, labeling that
specifically as, "Jtdirl (removing garbage vandalism by
[IP of the author]...; JohnOwens (Reverting; personal
threats? Tsk tsk.); JohnOwens (There's a "history", you
know....); Salsa Shark (Revert barratry & vandalism)";
Whereas: You are in violation of said US copyright;
Whereas: You have refused---and notified us that you
are, refusing---ordinary submitted corrections thereto
and therewith;
Whereas: You are prohibited from referring in violation
thereto and thereof, whether by name or linkage;
Therefor: You are required to remove and delete and
expunge, every of your links to the website: This
includes every article, every page, every paragraph,
every comment, every phrase, every reference by name or
by number, that is exposed to the public Internet; And
not make these public again:
This includes (per your purported "wikipedia"):
1. your encyclopedic articles pages,
2. your "Older versions" pages,
3. your "Discuss this page" pages,
4. your "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" pages AKA
<a
href="http://mail.justice.com/jump/http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_…">http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion</a>
5. your "Talk" pages,
6. your "Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress" pages,
7. your "Older versions" of these above said pages,
8. your other encyclopedic articles pages that link to
the same, wherever you have persistently kept abusive
content, or not removed it upon first notice,
9. and any other comments and references thereto pages,
10. In all languages; on all servers;
As these are public.
Furthermore, we are reviewing the legality of your
specific statement regarding the author, wherein your
publication states, "this unfortunate soul wears
himself out adding to these pages on the hour, every
hour. (Every friggin' hour!) STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:55 Mar 15,
2003 (UTC)". We believe the word infracts the Internet
Children Protection provisions (which are not all Law
at this time) as it is not kept locked from public view
but was in fact pointed-to by your posted primary
redirect reference replacing the author's article; and
that it was not given in the interest of your Internet
services to the public. Yet it persists despite prompt
notification of your abuse; the verbage is "flaming"
irrelevant to the discussion of deletions; and your
publication chose to link the author's and thirty or so
other encyclopedic articles to the same "flames",
viewable by children and adults---many of whom do not
hold your views on what is ethical on the Internet.
[NB: We believe that the word, friggin', as such, is
the same as the word, frigging, especially in the light
of the data on the said "STÓD/ÉÍRE" personal page
averring "Interests: ... gay rights,..."]
We also found that your tracker (sourceforge.net) is
crude: Several days ago I clicked on a link purporting
as having been submitted by "Salsa Shark"---but found
in its stead, the content of our client: Thus you have
rife misattribution errors through your use of said
tracker. (We reported it promptly, and your webmaster
did adjust it to present separate links, though his
comments pretended "un-refreshed history" which could
not have caused a mis-linkage, unless technically, we
suspect, your system relates links "relatively" via
multiple databases, thereby miscorrelating history.)
If you do not have control of purported "wikipedia"
then [the] remarks just e-mailed (ENCLOSED) shall be
considered legal harassment via the Internet.
You were given ample information, responses, necessary
warnings, each step along the way---the author himself
posted his article and copyright-information correctly
and prominently---we are sorry that you did not heed
any of the warning signs, but chose to abuse the author
and his rights repeatedly each step of the way [...].
[We also note that Wikipedia.org does not maintain
listed contacts and addresses with netsol.com WhoIs]
/rkp
_____
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:11:00 -0800 (PST), Jimmy Wales
wrote:
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Message-Id: <20030324062810.D4855(a)joey.bomis.com>
> In-Reply-To:
<20030321133214.4825.h013.c014.wm(a)mail.justice.com.criticalpath.net>; from pdqbanker(a)justice.com on Fri, Mar
21, 2003 at 01:32:11PM -0800
> Subject: Re: flames against "American Metric Time"
> X-Received: 24 Mar 2003 14:46:34 GMT
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
> References:
<20030321133214.4825.h013.c014.wm(a)mail.justice.com.criticalpath.net>
> Delivered-To: justice.com%pdqbanker(a)justice.com
> Return-Path: <jwales(a)bomis.com>
> Received: (cpmta 2017 invoked from network); 24 Mar
2003 06:46:34 -0800
> Received: from 130.94.122.196 (HELO joey.bomis.com)
> by smtp.c014.snv.cp.net (209.228.35.69) with SMTP;
24 Mar 2003 06:46:34 -0800
> Received: from joey.bomis.com
(jwales(a)localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
> by joey.bomis.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id
h2OESABC005212
> for <pdqbanker(a)justice.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2003
06:28:11 -0800
> Received: (from jwales@localhost)
> by joey.bomis.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id
h2OESA6t005211
> for pdqbanker(a)justice.com; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:28:10
-0800
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:28:10 -0800
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: pdqbanking division <pdqbanker(a)justice.com>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
>
>
> You are banned from wikipedia. If you post anything
> further, I will
> vigorously pursue legal action against you.
>
> --Jimbo
_____________REFERENCE (netsol.com)___________
Registrant:
Bomis (BOMIS-DOM)
4455 Lamont St, Suite 3
San Diego
CA,92109
US
Domain Name: BOMIS.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Wales, Jimmy (JW13135) internic-mgr(a)BOMIS.COM
Bomis, Inc.
4455 LAMONT ST STE 3
SAN DIEGO, CA 92109-4516
US
619-273-9361 619-273-9363
Record expires on 16-Nov-2003.
Record created on 15-Nov-1996.
Database last updated on 24-Mar-2003 15:08:10 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
JOEY.BOMIS.COM 130.94.122.196
S.NS.VERIO.NET 192.67.14.15
____________OTHER ADDRESSES GIVEN_______________
Registrant:
Bomis, Inc. (3APES-DOM)
3585 Hancock St. Ste. A
San Diego
CA,92110
US
Domain Name: 3APES.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Wales, Jimmy (JW13135) internic-mgr(a)BOMIS.COM
Bomis, Inc.
4455 LAMONT ST STE 3
SAN DIEGO, CA 92109-4516
US
619-273-9361 619-273-9363
Record expires on 06-May-2003.
Record created on 06-May-1999.
Database last updated on 24-Mar-2003 17:36:47 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
JOEY.BOMIS.COM 130.94.122.196
ZUUL.BOMIS.COM 130.94.121.27
____________________# # # #___________________
Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry, Director
pdqbanking legal services division of Lanthus
Corporation
Lanthus Surrogate Executive Accessions Management
1-8019982364 1-2063507450
1-206-350-7450
------- End of forwarded message -------
Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry, Director
pdqbanking legal services division of Lanthus Corporation
Lanthus Surrogate Executive Accessions Management
1-8019982364 1-2063507450
1-206-350-7450
_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
----- End forwarded message -----
Hello list,
This chap David Goldman has a website called copyrightexpired.com, where
he has some old images that he has scanned. I'm forwarding our
correspondence to the list, just to clutter it up and annoy everyone.
*cough* I mean, because I'm not sure about copyright laws, and would like
to get the opinions of people here just to make sure his pictures are all
right to release under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:40:21 -0400
From: David Goldman <dgoldma2(a)twcny.rr.com>
To: Oliver Pereira <omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: copyrightexpired.com
That would all be fine. Let me know if you need exact publication dates for
any certain image. They are all published before 1922. The only ones that I
don't have documentation on are the Tiere der Urwelt cards from Germany
(some of the color images). There appearance suggests pre WWI but no date
has been confirmed.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oliver Pereira" <omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "David Goldman" <dgoldma2(a)twcny.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: copyrightexpired.com
> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for replying to my question about your website,
> copyrightexpired.com. I'm sorry that I've taken so long to reply. I was
> wondering, since neither of us is a lawyer, would it be all right for me
> to quote your message on the Wikipedia mailing list, so that someone there
> with more legal expertise can check if our using your images in the
> Wikipedia would be all right? There are some complications in the GNU Free
> Documentation License which I don't fully understand, so I'd feel more
> comfortable if we could get another opinion.
>
> If we did use your images, we would credit you in the associated image
> information page, and put a link back to your website there. We don't
> generally put credits in the article pages themselves, where the images
> are shown, for space reasons. However, clicking on an image takes you to
> the associated image information page, where the credit would be given.
> Does that sound all right to you?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Oliver Pereira
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, David Goldman wrote:
>
> > Hi, the images at that web site are found in books and magazines old
enough
> > to be considered in the public domain. But it is merely my understanding
and
> > not based on any formal legal research. I like the idea of the Wikipedia
and
> > welcome you to use any of the images on my site that you find useful.
Since
> > I have other sites that show pictures belonging to practicing artists,
I
> > thought it prudent to try and have people contact me before using any
images
> > in general. I would appreciate a reference back to my website on any of
the
> > illustrations that you use.
> > Best regards,
> > David Goldman
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Oliver Pereira" <omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > To: "David Goldman" <dgoldma2(a)twcny.rr.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:06 PM
> > Subject: copyrightexpired.com
> >
> >
> > > Dear Mr. Goldman,
> > >
> > > I have just discovered your website, copyrightexpired.com, and have
some
> > > questions about it. You say on your main page that the site contains a
> > > "sampling of my collection of Prehistoric Animal images published
prior to
> > > 1923", and the domain name suggests that the images are no longer
> > > copyrighted. However, you then go on to state conditions under which
users
> > > may or may not use the images. Presumably you would only be able to do
> > > this if you owned the copyrights. Is this the case?
> > >
> > > I would be interested in using the images in an online collaborative
> > > encyclopaedia, called the "Wikipedia". Ideally, images included in the
> > > Wikipedia should be released under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation
> > > License by the copyright holder, if there is one. If you are the
copyright
> > > holder, would you consent to do this?
> > >
> > > Thank you for your help in answering my questions,
> > >
> > > Oliver Pereira
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > See:-
> > >
> > > copyrightexpired.com:
> > > * http://www.copyrightexpired.com/
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:
> > > * http://www.wikipedia.org/
> > >
> > > +-------------------------------------------+
> > > | Oliver Pereira |
> > > | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
> > > | University of Southampton |
> > > | omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
> > > +-------------------------------------------+
> > >
> >
> >
>
> +-------------------------------------------+
> | Oliver Pereira |
> | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
> | University of Southampton |
> | omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
> +-------------------------------------------+
>
