SV wrote:
Speaking of media -- we *need* a news wiki. No joke.
Already a very active one at [[Current events]]. Which, BTW, helps keep the /encyclopedia/ up-to-date. Wikipedia would be harmed by diverting that effort into a different project - it is simply way too similar to just updating the encyclopedia to reflect current events.
Besides, there is already Indymedia.
Oh and I like the Wikimedia logo /exactly/ the way it is. The only thing I would change on the MediaWiki logo is to obtain a photo of a more perfect and healthy flower (unless that is supposed to be somehow symbolic ;).
The PM logo was a wonderful concept but PM's specific implementation of that idea was a monster that needed refinement. The runners up did not need such refinement (as always, IMO).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Oh and I like the Wikimedia logo /exactly/ the way it is. The only thing I would change on the MediaWiki logo is to obtain a photo of a more perfect and healthy flower (unless that is supposed to be somehow symbolic ;).
I uploaded a sunflower photo intended for the logo a while ago: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sonnenblume.jpg
It's from my parents' garden.
Kurt
Kurt Jansson wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Oh and I like the Wikimedia logo /exactly/ the way it is. The only thing I would change on the MediaWiki logo is to obtain a photo of a more perfect and healthy flower (unless that is supposed to be somehow symbolic ;).
Were IS the wikimedia logo? I can't see it anywhere :( , eg http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
On Thursday, Oct 23, 2003, at 02:19 US/Pacific, tarquin wrote:
Were IS the wikimedia logo? I can't see it anywhere :( , eg http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
http://wikimediafoundation.org/
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Thursday, Oct 23, 2003, at 02:19 US/Pacific, tarquin wrote:
Were IS the wikimedia logo? I can't see it anywhere :( , eg http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Or if you meant the mediawiki logo, http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
On Thursday, Oct 23, 2003, at 02:19 US/Pacific, tarquin wrote:
Were IS the wikimedia logo? I can't see it anywhere :( , eg http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Or if you meant the mediawiki logo, http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/
I did. Sorry, I got mixed up! Very nice! Can we put it on the http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki page too?
Is there any reason why one couldn't use pictures from http://www.sxc.hu/ for wikipedia?
Jurriaan
Jurriaan-
Is there any reason why one couldn't use pictures from http://www.sxc.hu/ for wikipedia?
Nice find! Using these photos should be no problem if there are no individual usage restrictions on the photo in question. The only problematic part of their Terms of Use which I can see is the following:
--- 3.) You are not allowed to use any of the images found herein for the purpose of spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures.
from http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=terms ---
However, this is from the Terms of Use of the website itself, and not a required condition for uploaders, but for downloaders. So I doubt it has any real legal effect.
Regards,
Erik
On Nov 2, 2003, at 03:35, Jurriaan Schulman wrote:
Is there any reason why one couldn't use pictures from http://www.sxc.hu/ for wikipedia?
<IANAL>
http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=terms
"1.) You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified restrictions concerning each photo you download."
The license terms for individual pictures will vary, so be careful to check them.
"2.) Selling these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling."
This sounds kind of vague, but the GNU Free Documentation License does *not* prohibit selling works, and *does* prohibit further restrictions. Wikipedia articles or derivatives of them may be printed, pressed, or taped and sold (in addition to being given away for free or cost of reproduction). Just something to consider.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I wonder if one person could volunteer to email them and sell them on using the GNU FDL for their images.
Brion Vibber wrote:
On Nov 2, 2003, at 03:35, Jurriaan Schulman wrote:
Is there any reason why one couldn't use pictures from http://www.sxc.hu/ for wikipedia?
<IANAL>
http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=terms
"1.) You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified restrictions concerning each photo you download."
The license terms for individual pictures will vary, so be careful to check them.
"2.) Selling these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling."
This sounds kind of vague, but the GNU Free Documentation License does *not* prohibit selling works, and *does* prohibit further restrictions. Wikipedia articles or derivatives of them may be printed, pressed, or taped and sold (in addition to being given away for free or cost of reproduction). Just something to consider.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Nov 2, 2003, at 03:35, Jurriaan Schulman wrote:
Is there any reason why one couldn't use pictures from http://www.sxc.hu/ for wikipedia?
<IANAL>
http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=terms
"1.) You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified restrictions concerning each photo you download."
The license terms for individual pictures will vary, so be careful to check them.
I have already downloaded several pictures from the site to Wikipedia. Most do not have extra restrictions, but some do. Extra restrictions can be: * notification of the author is required * notification of the author and attribution are required * permission of the author is needed
In general I have preferred to use pictures without further requirements, but when none available, the first two have been used too, with a "this picture does not fall under the GNU/FDL" added.
Also, I think it is considered good manners on the site to notify the author that you have used their picture on Wikipedia even if such is not explicitly requested.
"2.) Selling these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling."
This sounds kind of vague, but the GNU Free Documentation License does *not* prohibit selling works, and *does* prohibit further restrictions. Wikipedia articles or derivatives of them may be printed, pressed, or taped and sold (in addition to being given away for free or cost of reproduction). Just something to consider.
On the other hand, the GNU/FDL does require that the source is also available, and that people are allowed to download and further spread it. Under such conditions, it will be hard to effectively sell the pictures - especially since any selling of 'picture in a special form' seems ok.
In general, I would say it's strange to skim such licences for every small thing that would make them non-GNU/FDL compliable, and at the same time happily leave pictures that are much more suspect on our server.
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org