Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would strongly prefer that people not post images to wikipedia
with permission *just* for Wikipedia. We're a GNU-free project, and we will always remain such.
Special:Upload should have a much more obvious statement of this than merely a checkbox for "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia copyright]]." It ought to have a warning similar to what shows up below the box on an editing page, without the stuff specifically oriented to text. Like this:
"All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for details). If you do not want your contribution to be modified and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. By submitting your work you promise you created it yourself, or copied it from [[public domain]] resources--this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"
Can we get this change made, please?
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would strongly prefer that people not post images to wikipedia
with permission *just* for Wikipedia. We're a GNU-free project, and we will always remain such.
Special:Upload should have a much more obvious statement of this than merely a checkbox for "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia copyright]]." It ought to have a warning similar to what shows up below the box on an editing page, without the stuff specifically oriented to text. Like this:
"All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for details). If you do not want your contribution to be modified and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. By submitting your work you promise you created it yourself, or copied it from [[public domain]] resources--this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"
Can we get this change made, please?
I think this change should be made together with the change to categorize images, because with that change it'd be impossible to upload fair use images without lying when you click the box. I'd certainly support a change that had:
[] This image is in the public domain [] I am the copyright holder and license this image under the GFDL. [] This image is licensed under the GFDL by ___ [] This image is licensed by ___ under the following more-permissive-than-the-GFDL conditions: ____ (e.g., BSD-style license or something) [] This image is claimed to be fair use, with the following rationale: ___
And then a warning that if your image does not fall under one of these options, you cannot upload it.
-Mark
Salve,
Am Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2004 08:46 schrieb Delirium:
[] This image is licensed under the GFDL by ___
How do we archive this licence? Some idees - Hash code for the images - Unic ID numbers to be able to have a black list of withdrawn (deleted pictures) because of invalid licences - Paper contracts with people which put this pictures under the GFDL with the Hash code of the pictures, description of it and discription of his source and history - This paper contracts should be made in three exemplars, one for the contributor, one for the national Wikipedia organisation and one for the international foundation
Why so much bureaucracy? When the director of one museum give us verbally the rigth to use this a photo of one modern work of art - what is when his successor do not like us to use this photo with GNU-FDL and he would prefer to make money with picture agency like Corbi$?
This paper contracts should be archivated at two places, because one place could mabe burn down.
If we agree for more wather proof GNU-FDLs contributions, the question is would it be necessary to do this for every photo?
When someone contribute a photo of a public building, a tree or so, I don`t think that paper licences would be neccessary. In this case personal PGP-Keys with real names and a ring of trusted Keys like the Debian.org people do would be perfekt.
But for pictures of art from museums, pictures from famos people and pictures from films should have conservative, signed, paper lizences.
Otherwise oure picture collection could grow fast, but with some cuckoo's eggs, changed mind of contributors or changed laws it could be that we lose many important pictures.
IMHO it`s better to have view, good documentated pictures with water-profe licences than many pictures and negativ news press about us in short time for sure.
Greetings from the [[de:Karneval|carnivalistic]] Aachen: °</:o)x rob
PS: I can hear music from the marketplace, close to my room. Every year the crasy carneval weekend starts on Thursday (Weiberfastnacht, Fettdonnerstag) morning 11:11h when the broads (Weiber) conquer the town hall and takeover symbolicly the key of the town hall from the burgomaster (mayor) for one day. From time to time I can hear the carnevalistic battle call and "Alaaf" cried by everbody: "Oche?" - "Alaaf", "Oche?" - "Alaaf", "Oche?" - "Alaaf" or "Oche?" - "Alaaf", "Prince Michael I.?" - "Alaaf", "Oche?" - "Alaaf" But this discribe only the impression of carneval when you sit at your desktop. Carneval is realy a great fun, when you join the big party on the streets ;)
Oche=local dialect for Aachen
Robert Michel wrote:
Why so much bureaucracy? When the director of one museum give us verbally the rigth to use this a photo of one modern work of art - what is when his successor do not like us to use this photo with GNU-FDL and he would prefer to make money with picture agency like Corbi$?
I don't think that's entirely necessary. With the increasing use of email, emails are not entirely inadmissable in court these days. I think an unambiguous email from, say, the copyright office of a museum saying that a work is licensed under the GFDL would be sufficient to defend us against a copyright-infringement lawsuit.
We don't, after all, require contributors such as myself to mail paper contracts to Wikipedia authorizing our article contributions to be GFDL'd, so I don't see why image-licensing should be much different.
-Mark
Salve Mark,
Am Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2004 23:44 schrieb Delirium:
Robert Michel wrote:
Why so much bureaucracy? When the director of one museum give us verbally the rigth to use this a photo of one modern work of art - what is when his successor do not like us to use this photo with GNU-FDL and he would prefer to make money with picture agency like Corbi$?
I don't think that's entirely necessary. With the increasing use of email, emails are not entirely inadmissable in court these days. think an unambiguous email from, say, the copyright office of a museum saying that a work is licensed under the GFDL would be sufficient to defend us against a copyright-infringement lawsuit.
I only talk about pictures with an hight financial interest, like Mona Lisa or others. Even when the court accept emails - how can we trust that one anonymous is not faking the email from this museum?
For the wikipedia seems paper licences in special cases like more work, but in the end, it could be less work to know that 500 very famos pictures has an waterproof licence. Some people could missuse wikipedia with such pictures.
We don't, after all, require contributors such as myself to mail paper contracts to Wikipedia authorizing our article contributions to be GFDL'd, so I don't see why image-licensing should be much different.
Maybe it is more easy to find Copy&pasted text. Even when three sentences are copied word by word (I hope we will avoid this too) from one book, three sentences are only a few comparing with 300 pages. Whith a photo is this different.
When people do not make money with their esprit or hands, they go to court to get someones money. The wikipedia does not make money, but could reduse the win of others. So especialy for en.wikipdia I fear the first lawsuit inbetween the next 12 month.
The main owner of the picture agence Corbi$ is Bill Gate$.
Do you want to know how far the expansion for the rightholders is already "at work" take a look to the EU, the media lobbiest want to skip the discussion of the parlament and to get this into law: http://www.ipjustice.org/CODE/021604.html
" (13) It is necessary to define the scope of this Directive as widely as possible in order to encompass all the intellectual property rights covered by Community provisions in this field and/or by the national law of the Member State concerned. Nevertheless, that requirement does not affect the possibility, on the part of those Member States which so wish, to extend, for internal purposes, the provisions of this Directive to include acts involving unfair competition, including parasitic copies, or similar activities."
UNFAIR COMPETITION, PARASITIC COPIES OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.
And your are still discussion "Fair use" - the Wikipedia has a finantial dimension, it reduse the win of rightholders = Parasitisc.
Der Ko-Autor des Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Bob Goodlattee, hat seine EU-Kollegen bei einem Treffen der European Internet Foundation in der vergangenen Woche in einem harten Kurs gerade auch gegen die privaten Filesharer bestätigt. Goodlattee stellte dabei die Verhältnisse in den USA, wo den Rechteinhaber selbst eine Art polizeirechtlicher Status zugebilligt werde, als beispielhaft dar.
The co-author of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Bob Goodlatte was last week in Europe and he motivated members of the European parlament to go a tough course against people who share files. Goodlatte sees the situation in the USA, where right holders has police-like rights is exemplary.
When we do not lobby to save the status quo, and do not take care, that all pictures has waterproof licences, we go into deep truble in very close future.
Paper licences could be a way, and some of you should start to think about them, and start to use them, as good exampel.
Greetings form Aachen, Europe rob
On Thursday, 19th February 2004, at 07:46 (GMT), Delirium wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would strongly prefer that people not post images to wikipedia with permission *just* for Wikipedia. We're a GNU-free project, and we will always remain such.
Sadly, this ideological point of view, though it I would like to follow, is sadly a rather unworkable one, as SecretLondon and others have pointed out, as most of the useful images (for a small cross- section, at least) we have are unusable.
Special:Upload should have a much more obvious statement of this than merely a checkbox for "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia copyright]]." It ought to have a warning similar to what shows up below the box on an editing page, without the stuff specifically oriented to text. Like this:
[Snip]
Can we get this change made, please?
Sounds like a good idea, certainly.
I think this change should be made together with the change to categorize images, because with that change it'd be impossible to upload fair use images without lying when you click the box. I'd certainly support a change that had:
[] This image is in the public domain [] I am the copyright holder and license this image under the GFDL. [] This image is licensed under the GFDL by ___ [] This image is licensed by ___ under the following more-permissive-than-the-GFDL conditions: ____ (e.g., BSD-style license or something) [] This image is claimed to be fair use, with the following rationale: ___
And then a warning that if your image does not fall under one of these options, you cannot upload it.
I think we should also have an option of:
[] This image is otherwise licensed for Wikimedia by ____ under the following terms:
... possibly with a set of sub-options, like: [] non-distributable [] sub-distributable [] non-commercial [] non-profit sales only [] licenser credited [] image unchanged ... &c.
A point that seems to be being ignored is that fair use is not at all applicable outside of the US; given that a major reason that we're doing this is in preparation for Wikipedia 1.0 for **international** release, I think that we should bear in mind that we'll have to junk every such-sourced image for it anyway - we will be required to carry different flavours of the release depending on use and territory; having another category, such as this one, is not a significant further burden, IMO.
Yours,
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org