Currently, on many projects, we allow three kinds of multimedia content : 1) content in the public domain 2) content available under "free" licenses (with our own definition of "free"; some people disagree with GFDL being a free license) 3) content available under the "fair use" clause of US copyright law.
1) and 2) are easily reusable by third parties, while 3) is not (each use of a "fair use" document must be justified).
Clearly, these rules were set with the view of the US law : we put stringent rules on allowing only "free" content, and then we opened a whole boulevard with the US-specific "fair use" clause. I might even go as far as to say that our stringent rules are acceptable only because we have this "fair use" allowance.
Now, fair use does not exist in the legislation of many countries; or, rather, it exists in a weaker or different form ("right of citation"). As a consequence, many wikipedias, targetting citizens of countries other than the US, have decided to prohibit fair use content or at least severely restrict it.
This proves a problem with some providers of content (companies, government administrations, etc.) who would gladly provide e.g. photographs usable for any informational or educational purpose, but that they do not want to appear in advertisements (especially for products unrelated to their activities).
An example is the European space agency (ESA) and the French space agency (CNES) : they would gladly allow their photographs to be used for any educational or informational purpose (including commercial, e.g. DVDs, paper encyclopedias, textbooks etc.) but they do not want their material to appear in e.g. advertisements for supermarkets or, worse, political advertisements, because in such cases some idea of endorsement of the product on their part is implied. They cannot use trademark legislation to fight such abuse, in most cases.
Note that, in the US, NASA, whose photographs are in the public domain, is protected from abusive by specific US laws prohibiting misuse of some symbols of the US government, including the NASA logo (the same applies for e.g. military insignia). The photo may well be termed "public domain", but they can actually prosecute you if you use it in an advertisement.
Note also that the Wikimedia Foundation also copyrights its logos in order to prevent abuse. We should not be hypocrites and deny to others what we do for the same purpose (especially since the Foundation grants individual authorizations, not a blanket "for education or information").
In addition, the legislation of some countries may not allow blanket licenses for any use (considered as clauses abusing the rights of the authors, and thus null and void).
A solution would be to create a new category of content allowed on Wikimedia projects : 4) Content available for use for any purpose, commercial or non commercial, as long as it is informational or educational.
I see only advantages : * This would enable us to counter systemic bias ; that is, allow content from some providers from countries where "fair use" does not apply (we for instance currently totally unbalance the portrayal of space programs by having 7000 photos from NASA and hardly any from ESA/CNES). * This would enable us to attract interesting content from providers who do not want their work to be used in advertisements, for questions of corporate or institutional image. * This would be coherent with the goals stated in the bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, that is, distribute informational content.
Common objections are : * Jimbo said he would not longer allow content restricted to "non commercial" usage. => This does not apply here, since the above mentioned content would be usable for commercial uses.
(Non-commercial only licenses would be an annoyance for people willing to distribute DVDs or in case we lack funds and we're forced to put up advertisements. Neither would be hampered by the above mentioned conditions.)
* Such content would be "unfree". => Then ban all fair use from all projects, since "fair use" content is considerably more unfree. "Fair use" content is usable for educational/informational use only for narrow cases, and is only usable by US residents.
In short, this objection is US-centric. :-)
* ESA and CNES should do like NASA does.
ESA and CNES operate under different laws and rules than NASA. NASA employs many of its photographers, whose work is in the public domain as work of US government employees ; ESA and CNES have to buy many photographs from non-employees, typically under conditions allowing any educational or informational use but disallowing uses in commercial advertisements.
Again, US-centric objection. :-)
To summarize my point of view: to be coherent, we should * either allow such content usable for any educational or informational uses, including commercial: * either prohibit "fair use" content from all projects (and perhaps also content constrained by laws other than copyright, e.g. insignia of US government administrations).
Regards, --DM
On 11/21/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Note that, in the US, NASA, whose photographs are in the public domain, is protected from abusive by specific US laws prohibiting misuse of some symbols of the US government, including the NASA logo (the same applies
[snip]
Note also that the Wikimedia Foundation also copyrights its logos in order to prevent abuse. We should not be hypocrites and deny to others what we do for the same purpose (especially since the Foundation grants
[snip]
As far as I can tell your argument is seriously lacking in internal consistency.
There are two primary areas where I find your argument completely unconvincing at first glance:
You make an argument that we should permit logos which are encumbered by copyright related restrictions, because non-copyright methods are insufficient to protect the logos in some jurisdictions outside of the US. However, you fail to describe the nature of this failure and the jurisdictions where it is material. Although the law differs from place to place, trademark is a powerful and well established concept in most of the places I suspect matter to you. Without a specific argument related to the insufficiency of trademark protection outside of the United States, I can not measure the importance of your concerns.
- This would enable us to counter systemic bias ; that is, allow content
from some providers from countries where "fair use" does not apply (we for instance currently totally unbalance the portrayal of space programs by having 7000 photos from NASA and hardly any from ESA/CNES).
[snip]
More importantly, in my mind, is that while you might have an argument related to the protection of logos and identifying marks for the purpose of avoiding confusion and false associations, you then take the unexplained leap to non-identifying images.. Things like scientific phenomena, rather than logos.
Images of research are best held in the public domain, they are things which should be "free", as they are the result of the culmination of work from generations of people. It would be fundamentally inconsistent for us to profess a commitment to Free Knowledge and then endorse discriminatory restrictions on that knowledge.
"You may use this for educational purposes" is a false offer: for what use is material that you may learn from, but may only put to use so long as you can sufficiently hide the origins of your knowledge?
So argue to me that we should allow unfreely copyrighted images of trademarked logos, and I will agree with you, for I support that policy on the English Wikipedia (where such logos are used as 'fair use' consistent with both US code and with established public practices). But I can not see how you can paint informative content with the same broad brush.
If the European Space agency is so paranoid and so afraid to share, that they will adopt a copyright policy which keeps their work from the public eye then it is by their own choice. The historical memory of man is not always kind to those who wish to shroud their work in secrecy, and no policy of Wikimedias will change that.
I would support this proposal if there is a lot of content which would fall under the new category.
Despite being hosted in the US, Wikipedia is one of the most international sites, and its policies should not be US-centric.
On 11/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/21/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Note that, in the US, NASA, whose photographs are in the public domain, is protected from abusive by specific US laws prohibiting misuse of some symbols of the US government, including the NASA logo (the same applies
[snip]
Note also that the Wikimedia Foundation also copyrights its logos in order to prevent abuse. We should not be hypocrites and deny to others what we do for the same purpose (especially since the Foundation grants
[snip]
As far as I can tell your argument is seriously lacking in internal consistency.
There are two primary areas where I find your argument completely unconvincing at first glance:
You make an argument that we should permit logos which are encumbered by copyright related restrictions, because non-copyright methods are insufficient to protect the logos in some jurisdictions outside of the US. However, you fail to describe the nature of this failure and the jurisdictions where it is material. Although the law differs from place to place, trademark is a powerful and well established concept in most of the places I suspect matter to you. Without a specific argument related to the insufficiency of trademark protection outside of the United States, I can not measure the importance of your concerns.
- This would enable us to counter systemic bias ; that is, allow content
from some providers from countries where "fair use" does not apply (we for instance currently totally unbalance the portrayal of space programs by having 7000 photos from NASA and hardly any from ESA/CNES).
[snip]
More importantly, in my mind, is that while you might have an argument related to the protection of logos and identifying marks for the purpose of avoiding confusion and false associations, you then take the unexplained leap to non-identifying images.. Things like scientific phenomena, rather than logos.
Images of research are best held in the public domain, they are things which should be "free", as they are the result of the culmination of work from generations of people. It would be fundamentally inconsistent for us to profess a commitment to Free Knowledge and then endorse discriminatory restrictions on that knowledge.
"You may use this for educational purposes" is a false offer: for what use is material that you may learn from, but may only put to use so long as you can sufficiently hide the origins of your knowledge?
So argue to me that we should allow unfreely copyrighted images of trademarked logos, and I will agree with you, for I support that policy on the English Wikipedia (where such logos are used as 'fair use' consistent with both US code and with established public practices). But I can not see how you can paint informative content with the same broad brush.
If the European Space agency is so paranoid and so afraid to share, that they will adopt a copyright policy which keeps their work from the public eye then it is by their own choice. The historical memory of man is not always kind to those who wish to shroud their work in secrecy, and no policy of Wikimedias will change that. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
You make an argument that we should permit logos which are encumbered by copyright related restrictions,
No.
- This would enable us to counter systemic bias ; that is, allow content
from some providers from countries where "fair use" does not apply (we for instance currently totally unbalance the portrayal of space programs by having 7000 photos from NASA and hardly any from ESA/CNES).
[snip]
More importantly, in my mind, is that while you might have an argument related to the protection of logos and identifying marks for the purpose of avoiding confusion and false associations, you then take the unexplained leap to non-identifying images.. Things like scientific phenomena, rather than logos.
No. I'm discussing images of satellites, space launchers, astronauts, inside of spacecraft, and other similar content that carries the image of the launching institution.
Research images (e.g. images of phenomena) are another issue. However, ESA does not own the copyright to such images ; because of ESA's nature as a consortium, images from such or such instrument may be copyrighted by whichever institute provided the instrument. You will learn more about it by reading m:ESA_images
"You may use this for educational purposes" is a false offer: for what use is material that you may learn from, but may only put to use so long as you can sufficiently hide the origins of your knowledge?
I don't see what you mean. Such material could be used for any purposes of information or education, including informing other people, as opposed to, say, doing advertisements for a supermarket chain or a politician.
If the European Space agency is so paranoid and so afraid to share, that they will adopt a copyright policy which keeps their work from the public eye then it is by their own choice.
There's apparently a big misunderstanding here ; please consider reading m:ESA_images .
On 11/21/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote: [snip]
No. I'm discussing images of satellites, space launchers, astronauts, inside of spacecraft, and other similar content that carries the image of the launching institution.
Then why do you cite identifying marks, and our handling of our own logos as justification for your arguments?
You seemed to be arguing that there was a material difference between US protection for the purpose of mischaracterization and the protection provided in Europe. But I don't see how that would at all apply to pictures of spacecraft. (...and in fact I feel fairly confident that the protection provided in the EU in most cases is not only more comprehensive than the US protection, but is more comprehensive to the point of obnoxiousness in some instances, but I don't think we even need to get into that argument)
Research images (e.g. images of phenomena) are another issue. However, ESA does not own the copyright to such images ; because of ESA's nature as a consortium, images from such or such instrument may be copyrighted by whichever institute provided the instrument. You will learn more about it by reading m:ESA_images
Much (a majority? I think so, but I don't have a cite... )of NASA's work is executed by a consortium of contractors called "USA" you can read more about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Space_Alliance .
NASA contracts are negotiated so that the work of these contractors can be released as public domain. Perhaps the ESA could learn a thing or two from us greedy Americans who insist that our public money be spent to create public resources. ;)
"You may use this for educational purposes" is a false offer: for what use is material that you may learn from, but may only put to use so long as you can sufficiently hide the origins of your knowledge?
I don't see what you mean. Such material could be used for any purposes of information or education, including informing other people, as opposed to, say, doing advertisements for a supermarket chain or a politician.
You're producing a strawman, ... I did too.. The problem with strawman arguments is that they aren't all that informative.
"For educational use" has a lot of problems. It's not possible to define "educational use" in a way which achieves your desired outcome without also impeding a lot of other uses which you would probably agree should not be denied.
There's apparently a big misunderstanding here ; please consider reading m:ESA_images .
I have read it, and the biggest misunderstanding I see here is a mistaken idea the the situation in the US is different from the rest of the world.
In any case, the proposal the ESA opt-in for free images will increase the pool of free images available, and I strongly believe a sudden loss of commitment to free content on our part will remove the incentive.
On 11/21/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote: [snip]
There's apparently a big misunderstanding here ; please consider reading m:ESA_images .
I responded to your in depth on wikipedia-l, hopefully to reduce the forest fire...
I wanted to comment publicly, however, that I think it is very unfair of you to respond twice to me... One, your public reply, is more friendly and the second your private reply far more aggressive.
I would not deny you the opportunity to respond with at least as much intensity as I directed towards you, but if you maintain politeness in public while making personal attacks my response will be to simply begin forwarding your private messages to the list(s) prior to reading them so the other parties will not fault me for being the more aggressive party in the discussion.
Allow me to apologise for jumping right in with strong words after your first message. I understand this is a matter which you have spent much on, and I do appreciate much of the work you have done. I hope you can understand why I might respond harshly to someone I've previously debated on the importance of keeping our content free, when he posts to the lists making what I saw to be a terribly unfair argument.
Do you agree that it is unfair to compare the protection of our trademarked logo to images of astronauts at work?
Do you agree that it is unfair to claim that the ESA is different from NASA because the ESA uses contractors, when NASA also extensively uses contractors?
I wanted to comment publicly, however, that I think it is very unfair of you to respond twice to me... One, your public reply, is more friendly and the second your private reply far more aggressive.
Ok, just so that everyone is informed. I wrote to Greg, after his answer to my first message, which I considered insulted my intelligence :
< Apart from that, I would be glad if you would not use formulas such as "your argument is seriously lacking in consistency". Given that you have attacked essentially a straw man throughout your message (from lack of knowledge of the issues), this sounded like a rather pretentious judgment. Richard Stallman can get away with that kind of things because he's Richard Stallman, but you're not. >
I may have been excessive here, but let me tell you an anecdote.
I've done political... let's say, lobbying, for lack of better words, on questions of copyright and computing. I've had to deal with people in my own camp (those supporting free software and the like) whose intellectual rigidity, in my view, really hampered our final goals.
I remember for instance a guy (whom I'll leave unnamed) that interrupted me when I was talking with a member of the board of administrators of [[SACEM]] (the French society of authors and composers) and proposed to the guy that artists, authors etc. should be funded by worldwide sponsoring and that copyright should be abolished. He then went on to quote Richard M. Stallman.
Regardless of whether abolishing copyright is a good idea, this means of action was stupid: * Very few artists know RMS. Citing him won't help one bit, or, rather, it conveys the idea that he is some kind of guru of a cult. * Proposing radically different things to people just frightens them and then shuts their mind to some intermediate proposals going in the right direction.
End of the anecdote, which I think makes for an interesting parallel:
Most people we're dealing with in the "real world" don't know what "free" as in "free software means". What we propose to them is radically outside their frame of mind.
Some of these people are willing to take steps in our direction (we may even get help... er.. prodding them in the right direction). If we rigidly refuse to take some steps on our own, I think everything will fail : we will not get free content, and we won't even get nearly free content.
-- DM
On 11/21/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote: [snip]
Most people we're dealing with in the "real world" don't know what "free" as in "free software means". What we propose to them is radically outside their frame of mind.
[snip]
But I'm talking to *you* and the members of the various lists copied... Not to the general public, I would use different language and perhaps a different argument altogether with a differing audience.
When I pointed out that material related to the ESA should be Free I wasn't attempting to make some grand argument about freedom, but rather a more pragmatic reflection on the nature of space programs: They aren't in business to generate pretty pictures, their work is done (largely) with public monies, and as part of science the entire world should be able to learn and benefit from their work in many ways without discrimination. This is the same line of thinking which has inspired statements like Jimmy's ten things that should be free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_movement#Wikimedia which, btw, is an article that needs help.. that whole section is out of place).
I would have elaborated more on my perspective, but from prior discussions with you I didn't expect to sway you... rather I just wanted to respond quickly before people were swayed by your comparisons of logos to informative images, and claims that the US is worlds apart from the rest of the world.
...I was honestly quite insulted by your off-list email, but I understand what drove it, and I forgive you.
Thanks
Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
When I pointed out that material related to the ESA should be Free I wasn't attempting to make some grand argument about freedom, but rather a more pragmatic reflection on the nature of space programs: They aren't in business to generate pretty pictures,
That's exactly one of the problems. Since their line of work is building launchers and the like, they've largely off-loaded the tasks of taking pictures and maintaining pictures databases to external contractors. Also, since their job is not to provide a database of pictures free for advertisers to use, they buy the rights to these pictures from the external contractors only for information and education purposes. Buying them for all possible commercial uses, even if possible, would be more costly and wouldn't be in their scope of work.
David Monniaux wrote:
Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
When I pointed out that material related to the ESA should be Free I wasn't attempting to make some grand argument about freedom, but rather a more pragmatic reflection on the nature of space programs: They aren't in business to generate pretty pictures,
That's exactly one of the problems. Since their line of work is building launchers and the like, they've largely off-loaded the tasks of taking pictures and maintaining pictures databases to external contractors. Also, since their job is not to provide a database of pictures free for advertisers to use, they buy the rights to these pictures from the external contractors only for information and education purposes. Buying them for all possible commercial uses, even if possible, would be more costly and wouldn't be in their scope of work.
What are the odds of getting interested Wikipedians in to take the pictures instead? Contractors cost money, getting pictures taken for free in exchange for free licensing seems like a better deal for ESA. Lest one is concerned about amateur-quality work, I suspect that if ESA were to publicly announce inside access for ten photographers, unpaid but credited by name, they would have more than enough applications to be able to accept only the best.
I also think WP could do more to cynically play on European chauvinism than it has so far. 1/2 :-) A public statement by Jimbo, saying something like "we will not accept unfree ESA images in WP, and while we don't want WP to present a US-only view of space exploration, it's up to the Europeans to fix this", would likely get reported widely, and hopefully put some pressure on ESA to change what is at best a sloppy practice.
Stan
On 21/11/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
I also think WP could do more to cynically play on European chauvinism than it has so far. 1/2 :-) A public statement by Jimbo, saying something like "we will not accept unfree ESA images in WP, and while we don't want WP to present a US-only view of space exploration, it's up to the Europeans to fix this", would likely get reported widely, and hopefully put some pressure on ESA to change what is at best a sloppy practice.
Yes. The reason Wikipedia is full of NASA and CIA World Factbook images is because those resources are public domain. That's not US-centrism - it's using images because they are free content. If there's a problem with not enough ESA images, it's up to the ESA to fix that; somehow NASA has survived.
I understand this is pretty much what Anthere said to a group of French government figures - if you want to compete with the flood of US imagery, make it just as available.
- d.
On 21/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The reason Wikipedia is full of NASA and CIA World Factbook images is because those resources are public domain. That's not US-centrism - it's using images because they are free content. If there's a problem with not enough ESA images, it's up to the ESA to fix that; somehow NASA has survived.
I understand this is pretty much what Anthere said to a group of French government figures - if you want to compete with the flood of US imagery, make it just as available.
Mmm. You want a startling demonstration of the effect? Look at our articles on major humanitarian relief operations. US medics, equipment and supplies flown in by US helicopters from US carriers and US airbases... a reader would be forgiven for wondering if France or Germany ever goes anywhere. It's not a deliberate propaganda move - it's just that there's a lot of good people with cameras alongside the planes and helicopters and trucks, making photos of everything... and releasing them with no conditions.
On 11/21/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
What are the odds of getting interested Wikipedians in to take the pictures instead? Contractors cost money, getting pictures taken for free in exchange for free licensing seems like a better deal for ESA. Lest one is concerned about amateur-quality work, I suspect that if ESA were to publicly announce inside access for ten photographers, unpaid but credited by name, they would have more than enough applications to be able to accept only the best.
Right, I am not soooo sure that the ESA (or any other organisation, NASA included, for that matter) will let any random Wikipedian hop on the next satellite to take pictures of <insert name of planet here>. I'd love too, but hey, I don't think this is going to happen any time soon.
I believe you will also understand the importance of monitoring what pictures get in and out concerning satellites, space shuttles and other highly technological objects.
I also think WP could do more to cynically play on European chauvinism than it has so far. 1/2 :-) A public statement by Jimbo, saying something like "we will not accept unfree ESA images in WP, and while we don't want WP to present a US-only view of space exploration, it's up to the Europeans to fix this", would likely get reported widely, and hopefully put some pressure on ESA to change what is at best a sloppy practice.
Let us not jump to conclusions too fast here. :-) What you call "European chauvinism" I will rather call "lack of means", "lack of human ressources to write the right contracts with the n number of national laws involved in the launching of this or that satellite and the building of this or that camera" etc. There are reasons for the ESA and other organisations not being able to release their pictures under a free license and they go far beyond a manichean "good people who release in the public domain what they produce with public money" vs "bad people who want to keep stuff for themselves". I don't think "pressure" as you put it, is the way to go.
Let me also try to maybe tone down the questions that David was trying to get through here and give a different angle.
The question is not that the ESA or these other organisations *do not* want to release their pictures for a wider use. As a matter of fact, it is the ESA who came to us (Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikimedia France) and asked us for advice on how to go about this, and how they could make their pictures (more) freely available. However, they have some conditions.
Some of our licenses (the one I use, for example) also add conditions (CC-BY-SA - share alike is a pretty drastic condition, when you think about it).
One of their condition is that those images can't be used for political propaganda, for example.
Now let me try and shift the debate a little here. Let us consider that the ESA, or whatever other organisation, comes up with a licence of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in our free sense) *except* for political propaganda. Would that in any way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about this.
To bounce on something David said, there is much work to do in the evangelisation of those organisations, and a lot to explain about the pros and the cons of "free material". Most of their objections need to be understood in the light of what these organisations can do (with the restrictions that apply to them) and what they want to do. My take is that what they "want to do" can easily be changed, by patient, pedagogic and comprehensive explanations. What they "can do" is then another story altogether.
What I understand David was trying to say here is that maybe there is a mid-term agreement that can be reached, somewhere along the path. Are the Organisation X images worth us being just a tad less free (no political use of the images), are they not? It's a difficult question, but one that is worth debating.
One thing I am certain of is that saying "Organisation X must change their ways" is definitely not the right answer. I'd much rather have a stance that goes "How can we make organisation X change their way for everyone's best interest?"
Delphine
2006/11/21, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
Now let me try and shift the debate a little here. Let us consider that the ESA, or whatever other organisation, comes up with a licence of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in our free sense) *except* for political propaganda. Would that in any way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about this.
We are trying to forget (maybe even successfully) that even our free licenses have some exceptions: * things like COAs which are in most countries PD, aren't 100% free - eg. local government can make their own restrictions about their COA on their territory which reduces freedom :) * If I put someones photo on CC-BY-SA (and he has given me right to do it) it doesn't mean that this image can be used eg. for advertising anti conception pills, because this person has still rights to protect his image..
So if ESA has only this problem, I think, that ''special'' license compatible in every other aspect with PD, or CC-BY-SA is acceptable, but if ESA wants as stated some posts earlier any special treatment (educational use only, etc.) it's killing idea of freedom and I don't know how about other wikimedians, but I will leave projects, because I'm not worse than ESA so I want same treatment!
AJF/WarX
On 11/21/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
2006/11/21, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
Now let me try and shift the debate a little here. Let us consider that the ESA, or whatever other organisation, comes up with a licence of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in our free sense) *except* for political propaganda. Would that in any way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about this.
We are trying to forget (maybe even successfully) that even our free licenses have some exceptions:
- things like COAs which are in most countries PD, aren't 100% free -
eg. local government can make their own restrictions about their COA on their territory which reduces freedom :)
- If I put someones photo on CC-BY-SA (and he has given me right to do
it) it doesn't mean that this image can be used eg. for advertising anti conception pills, because this person has still rights to protect his image..
So if ESA has only this problem, I think, that ''special'' license compatible in every other aspect with PD, or CC-BY-SA is acceptable, but if ESA wants as stated some posts earlier any special treatment (educational use only, etc.) it's killing idea of freedom and I don't know how about other wikimedians, but I will leave projects, because I'm not worse than ESA so I want same treatment!
I think you're pointing out exactly what I tried to explain in David's reasoning, which I believe he probably expressed the wrong way around. Or which I am twisting to my way around ;-).
My take is that these organisations need to be taught that it's better to make a licence with two exceptions (advertisement and political purposes, for example) rather than try the broader and anyway, in my opinion, non enforceable way of "educational and informational use only". And I may be dreaming, but I am pretty sure that with time and patience we can bring these organisations to something like that and end up with free-er images and material than an "educational use only" type thing.
Thanx also for bringing up the COA question, because I had that in mind as I wrote my post, but don't know enough about it to use it as an example.
Delphine
Delphine Ménard wrote:
My take is that these organisations need to be taught that it's better to make a licence with two exceptions (advertisement and political purposes, for example) rather than try the broader and anyway, in my opinion, non enforceable way of "educational and informational use only". And I may be dreaming, but I am pretty sure that with time and patience we can bring these organisations to something like that and end up with free-er images and material than an "educational use only" type thing.
One thing I wonder - if US govt images are PD, then theoretically they could be misused for advertising or political purposes; but does that actually happen now? Are we talking about neo-Nazis using the "big blue marble" Apollo photos in their propaganda, or what?
Stan
Stan Shebs a écrit :
One thing I wonder - if US govt images are PD, then theoretically they could be misused for advertising or political purposes; but does that actually happen now? Are we talking about neo-Nazis using the "big blue marble" Apollo photos in their propaganda, or what?
No. Where did you fish this neo-Nazi idea? Reality is far more prosaic.
We're talking of Mr Jean Dupont, member of Parliament from a pro-Europe party, waging a reelection campaign on a theme of "with Europe, we go beyond" using photos of ESA rockets, and ESA getting an angry complaint from Dupont's euroskeptic opponent and his party. (Apparently, this has happened, and of course they were at least able to say that this happened in violation of their policies. It would be more difficult for them to deal with people acting within their policies.)
Similarly, if a supermarket chain uses photographs of a spacecraft, be sure that there will be complaints that the agency favors such or such company.
The big problem is that, as things are now, if A uses photos from B in an advertisement, it is generally interpreted as B endorsing A.
(Again, I think that in the US, law outside of copyright law prohibits using certain government symbols from being used in advertisements. As far as I understand, it is illegal, for instance, to take a photo of an astronaut with a NASA logo and stick it in an advertisement.)
David Monniaux wrote:
Stan Shebs a écrit :
One thing I wonder - if US govt images are PD, then theoretically they could be misused for advertising or political purposes; but does that actually happen now? Are we talking about neo-Nazis using the "big blue marble" Apollo photos in their propaganda, or what?
No. Where did you fish this neo-Nazi idea? Reality is far more prosaic.
We're talking of Mr Jean Dupont, member of Parliament from a pro-Europe party, waging a reelection campaign on a theme of "with Europe, we go beyond" using photos of ESA rockets, and ESA getting an angry complaint from Dupont's euroskeptic opponent and his party. (Apparently, this has happened, and of course they were at least able to say that this happened in violation of their policies. It would be more difficult for them to deal with people acting within their policies.)
Heh, clearly a cultural divide - somebody making that kind of complaint in the US would be regarded as a lunatic. We stick to weightier issues, like what the word "macaca" might mean. :-)
Similarly, if a supermarket chain uses photographs of a spacecraft, be sure that there will be complaints that the agency favors such or such company.
The big problem is that, as things are now, if A uses photos from B in an advertisement, it is generally interpreted as B endorsing A.
That's really a big difference in attitude, and helps explain some of the confusion in this discussion. In any randomly-chosen US newspaper, if you looked through all the ads, chances are you'd find at least one using a NASA image, and it wouldn't occur to anyone to think of it as endorsement. Those images are simply part of the library of stock imagery stitched into the overall design.
Stan
On 21/11/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
We're talking of Mr Jean Dupont, member of Parliament from a pro-Europe party, waging a reelection campaign on a theme of "with Europe, we go beyond" using photos of ESA rockets, and ESA getting an angry complaint from Dupont's euroskeptic opponent and his party. (Apparently, this has happened, and of course they were at least able to say that this happened in violation of their policies. It would be more difficult for them to deal with people acting within their policies.)
So the problem here is that the euroskeptic opponent thinks this is ESA's problem, and that ESA feels it has to go along with this idea. That is: the problem you're describing is local politics rather than that open content licences are problematic.
What ill effects have befallen NASA from its works being public domain? I still eagerly await your and ESA's answers to this question.
Again, I fail to see what Wikipedia gains from appeasement on this point. It won't stop politicians acting like politicians and will only damage our own position.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 21/11/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
We're talking of Mr Jean Dupont, member of Parliament from a pro-Europe party, waging a reelection campaign on a theme of "with Europe, we go beyond" using photos of ESA rockets, and ESA getting an angry complaint from Dupont's euroskeptic opponent and his party. (Apparently, this has happened, and of course they were at least able to say that this happened in violation of their policies. It would be more difficult for them to deal with people acting within their policies.)
So the problem here is that the euroskeptic opponent thinks this is ESA's problem, and that ESA feels it has to go along with this idea. That is: the problem you're describing is local politics rather than that open content licences are problematic.
The significant point is that the complaint was taken seriously by anybody at all. If somebody in the US complained about a NASA photo in a supermarket ad, even the most timid NASA bureaucrat would feel safe in showing the letter around the office for a laugh, and then pitching it into the trash. The bureaucrat knows that even if the complainer somehow got the attention of a news reporter, it would be for a segment on all the nutjobs who waste NASA's time.
Stan
On 21/11/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
So the problem here is that the euroskeptic opponent thinks this is ESA's problem, and that ESA feels it has to go along with this idea. That is: the problem you're describing is local politics rather than that open content licences are problematic.
The significant point is that the complaint was taken seriously by anybody at all. If somebody in the US complained about a NASA photo in a supermarket ad, even the most timid NASA bureaucrat would feel safe in showing the letter around the office for a laugh, and then pitching it into the trash. The bureaucrat knows that even if the complainer somehow got the attention of a news reporter, it would be for a segment on all the nutjobs who waste NASA's time.
FWIW, NASA take it seriously enough that they explicitly prohibit it:
"If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services."
(extract from the copyright notice on nix.nasa.gov, their main public photograph archive)
They don't make any statements about political usage, but I suspect they would be v. cagey were it used to "convey endorsement" in a similar manner.
I assume the issue is not that Americans don't care about such things, but rather that what is considered implying endorsement in the US and in France are quite different things...
Andrew Gray wrote:
They don't make any statements about political usage, but I suspect they would be v. cagey were it used to "convey endorsement" in a similar manner.
I think this is a bootstrapping issue.
It is well known that NASA photographs are available for everybody, so a normal person should not construe that their being used in an advertisement implies that NASA supports the product unless other factors weigh in.
However, photos by CNES and other agencies in France have traditionally been available on request. This means that if that photo is used in a political or commercial campaign, assuming that traditional way of doing things, then it is either used illegally (then the agency should sue, and if it doesn't then it is to blame) or the agency agreed to the deal (then the agency is to blame).
This means that if they were to free everything at once, during a transition period (that is, until everybody gets used to their new way of doing things, which can take a while) they would be exposed to blame.
(An interesting parallel: ever since Wikipedia was created, people not used to Wikipedia's openness have blamed it continuously and said the project would fail miserably. Only recently have people changed their attitude and started to take Wikipedia's openness as a fact of life. There's a transition period, which is not finished yet.)
David Gerard a écrit :
So the problem here is that the euroskeptic opponent thinks this is ESA's problem, and that ESA feels it has to go along with this idea. That is: the problem you're describing is local politics rather than that open content licences are problematic.
What ill effects have befallen NASA from its works being public domain? I still eagerly await your and ESA's answers to this question.
NASA and ESA operate in different political and legal climates. That's a fact of life. Telling people that in order to do business with you they'd have to transform their legal and institutional framework, straight up front, is a sure road to disaster.
Bah. I'm proposing them CC-BY-SA as a solution. Though the license is deemed "free", the -SA clause probably precludes most uses in advertisement. (If it's not sufficient, I'll propose GFDL, which we consider "free" even though it de facto prohibits many uses, e.g. postcards.)
On 11/21/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Bah. I'm proposing them CC-BY-SA as a solution. Though the license is deemed "free", the -SA clause probably precludes most uses in advertisement. (If it's not sufficient, I'll propose GFDL, which we consider "free" even though it de facto prohibits many uses, e.g. postcards.)
You could probably manage a GFDL postcard from a couple of different angles.
#You could have a funny postcard which folds out with the license in small print. ;) .. Okay, only good for making fun of the GFDL.
#You could recognize that the protected acts that the GFDL controls are acts which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder: copying, *public performance*, derivative works... and then sell your GFDLed postcards in a package which provides N postcards, 1 copy of the GFDL, and where the postcards themselves do not include the GFDL. Buyers of the cards can now send out the postcards without the GFDL because since they are not executing any of the protected rights, they need not even read the GFDL, it doesn't matter what it says.
Really I think the idea of licenses that make some kinds of uses impossible are bad, while making some kinds of use somewhat less easy can be acceptable. GFDL actually prohibits far less then some folks involved with our projects think (heck, many people think that if you put a dozen GFDL images in a book then the book must have a dozen copies of the GFDL!).... and this may become more clear in future versions of the GFDL, so be sure to keep your eyes on the draft process.
David Monniaux wrote:
The big problem is that, as things are now, if A uses photos from B in an advertisement, it is generally interpreted as B endorsing A.
If they really wanted to release an image, they could find a way. They have solved more complicated problems than this, things that really are rocket science. Therefore, if they don't release any images, this must be interpreted as a lack of will. And so be it. We cannot force them. All we can do is to leave their articles without proper illustrations.
Let me tell an odd story from Sweden: The website of the Swedish parliament provides portrait photos of all 349 members. These photos are free for any use, and are now at Commons, e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gunilla_Carlsson.jpg But the website of the Swedish government provides portrait photos that are free for any use *until* the next election in 2010, after which the full copyright returns to the photographer! So the government didn't buy the photos of themselves, they just rented them for four years, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2000 Again, if they really wanted they could of course get photos without this strange time limit. It's a simple contract with the photographer. It's not rocket science.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
If they really wanted to release an image, they could find a way. They have solved more complicated problems than this, things that really are rocket science.
It's a simple contract with the photographer. It's not rocket science.
This is, I'm afraid, a rather naive point of view. :-)
First hand experience with such projects (I've done some work with aerospace people, that is, on jetliner avionics, see my professional page for details) has showed me that red tape (bureaucracy, lawyers, executives) is far more difficult to solve than technical issues.
On 22/11/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
If they really wanted to release an image, they could find a way. They have solved more complicated problems than this, things that really are rocket science. It's a simple contract with the photographer. It's not rocket science.
This is, I'm afraid, a rather naive point of view. :-) First hand experience with such projects (I've done some work with aerospace people, that is, on jetliner avionics, see my professional page for details) has showed me that red tape (bureaucracy, lawyers, executives) is far more difficult to solve than technical issues.
You're still not convincing us that Wikimedia needs to change its policies here, rather than waiting for them to realise that it's not us nastily keeping them out. There's a world outside France.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
You're still not convincing us that Wikimedia needs to change its policies here, rather than waiting for them to realise that it's not us nastily keeping them out. There's a world outside France.
I understand that this is a US-centric project, yes, and I'll advertise it as such.
On 22/11/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
You're still not convincing us that Wikimedia needs to change its policies here, rather than waiting for them to realise that it's not us nastily keeping them out. There's a world outside France.
I understand that this is a US-centric project, yes, and I'll advertise it as such.
Yes, because I'm an American writing from America. Don't be ridiculous. The world doesn't divide into France and America either. I realise there's a perennial France vs America attitude in WM France, but that doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
realise there's a perennial France vs America attitude in WM France,
In your imagination, there is.
I'm just stating the obvious: if we allow "fair use" content (an exception specific to the United States and thus possibly only valid for contents from US providers directed towards the US public) while at the same time having "holier than thou" policies on "free content", we're incoherent.
Our licensing position would be more coherent if we banned "fair use" content from en:.
David Monniaux wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
You're still not convincing us that Wikimedia needs to change its policies here, rather than waiting for them to realise that it's not us nastily keeping them out. There's a world outside France.
I understand that this is a US-centric project, yes, and I'll advertise it as such.
What's this I hear about fr: Wikiquote being closed down?
Some guy added a bunch of copyvios to French Wikiquote. WMF got a cease-and-desist. It was so bad they had to tear the whole thing down.
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
David Monniaux wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
You're still not convincing us that Wikimedia needs to change its policies here, rather than waiting for them to realise that it's not us nastily keeping them out. There's a world outside France.
I understand that this is a US-centric project, yes, and I'll advertise it as such.
What's this I hear about fr: Wikiquote being closed down?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 11/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
What's this I hear about fr: Wikiquote being closed down?
That was in March. There's a statement about it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Press/2006/03/28...
Angela.
Angela Beesley wrote:
On 11/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
What's this I hear about fr: Wikiquote being closed down?
That was in March. There's a statement about it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Press/2006/03/28...
Angela.
And soon starting again: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiquote_French
with a brand new charter: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charte_Wikiquote_FR
Funnily enough, it seems there is a new process to ask for new languages, and though this re-opening is currently under process, it has been removed from valid requests...
Anyone has an explanation about that ?
Ant
On 11/21/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Delphine Ménard wrote:
My take is that these organisations need to be taught that it's better to make a licence with two exceptions (advertisement and political purposes, for example) rather than try the broader and anyway, in my opinion, non enforceable way of "educational and informational use only". And I may be dreaming, but I am pretty sure that with time and patience we can bring these organisations to something like that and end up with free-er images and material than an "educational use only" type thing.
One thing I wonder - if US govt images are PD, then theoretically they could be misused for advertising or political purposes; but does that actually happen now? Are we talking about neo-Nazis using the "big blue marble" Apollo photos in their propaganda, or what?
The fun part is that I totally agree with you. This is exactly where the whole pedagogic(al?) bit comes into play. Ask for a few images, make them free (as in, real free, our accepted licences) see how that goes, and go on from here. Releasing material under a "Free" licence is all about teaching people that it is not evil, that it will not prevent them from selling them to whomever, that it will not necessarily be used to nasty political ends. There are many ways to go about this. The first one is making sure we talk to these organisations in a civilized manner. Step by step. Go a bit in their direction, to show them the light...
That is why I am always wary of radical speeches that say "tell them to free their images". On the contrary to national libraries that are keeping works effectively in the public domain as hostages in their dark and dusty back chambers, these organisations, which are not *only* state funded, but also partially privately funded, or funded by countries with very different cultures/laws have a real "right" to their copyright, if that makes sense. We just need to teach them about making the better use of it.
Ya know, it's like telling Mr. S. to "go and edit his own article". Doesn't work all that well. :-) You gotta take them through the process.
Again, screaming at them and saying "make all Public domain, you thieves!" is, in my opinion, a shortcut that simply shows a lack of understanding on our part. And one which I personally find a very poor move if we're going to <s>take over the world</s> (errr...) make all of these things free and available to the greater number.
Delphine
On 21/11/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Again, screaming at them and saying "make all Public domain, you thieves!" is, in my opinion, a shortcut that simply shows a lack of understanding on our part.
I believe you are unfairly maligning the people you are describing here. Would you care to rephrase this less obnoxiously?
- d.
On 11/21/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
- If I put someones photo on CC-BY-SA (and he has given me right to do
it) it doesn't mean that this image can be used eg. for advertising anti conception pills, because this person has still rights to protect his image..
This is because of publicity rights, it has nothing to do with the license, it's another whole chunk of law... In fact, you can us that image for such purposes so long as you either get the subjects consent, sufficiently obscure his identity, or are just willing to deal with the consequences (which are different and perhaps more acceptable (well, not if you're in France perhaps!) to you than the ones provided by copyright law).
So if ESA has only this problem, I think, that ''special'' license compatible in every other aspect with PD, or CC-BY-SA is acceptable, but if ESA wants as stated some posts earlier any special treatment (educational use only, etc.) it's killing idea of freedom and I don't know how about other wikimedians, but I will leave projects, because I'm not worse than ESA so I want same treatment!
If as the special terms are acceptable enough that we could offer them to everyone, and even accept a fairly large portion of our content under those terms... and still be confident that we wouldn't be failing at our mission.... then I agree completely.
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 11/21/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
What are the odds of getting interested Wikipedians in to take the pictures instead? Contractors cost money, getting pictures taken for free in exchange for free licensing seems like a better deal for ESA. Lest one is concerned about amateur-quality work, I suspect that if ESA were to publicly announce inside access for ten photographers, unpaid but credited by name, they would have more than enough applications to be able to accept only the best.
Right, I am not soooo sure that the ESA (or any other organisation, NASA included, for that matter) will let any random Wikipedian hop on the next satellite to take pictures of <insert name of planet here>. I'd love too, but hey, I don't think this is going to happen any time soon.
But those external contractors aren't on the satellite either - I suppose there is an interesting legal question as to ownership of the raw bits coming from an onboard camera, vs the final processed image. My guess is that it simply may not have occurred to anyone in the bureaucracy that there might be plenty of talented people who could do the processing themselves, in much the same way that open-source software projects, SETI@home, etc, are already doing successfully.
I believe you will also understand the importance of monitoring what pictures get in and out concerning satellites, space shuttles and other highly technological objects.
You mean to filter out the photos of alien spacecraft? :-)
I also think WP could do more to cynically play on European chauvinism than it has so far. 1/2 :-) A public statement by Jimbo, saying something like "we will not accept unfree ESA images in WP, and while we don't want WP to present a US-only view of space exploration, it's up to the Europeans to fix this", would likely get reported widely, and hopefully put some pressure on ESA to change what is at best a sloppy practice.
Let us not jump to conclusions too fast here. :-) What you call "European chauvinism" I will rather call "lack of means", "lack of human ressources to write the right contracts with the n number of national laws involved in the launching of this or that satellite and the building of this or that camera" etc. There are reasons for the ESA and other organisations not being able to release their pictures under a free license and they go far beyond a manichean "good people who release in the public domain what they produce with public money" vs "bad people who want to keep stuff for themselves". I don't think "pressure" as you put it, is the way to go.
Certainly there are plenty of cultural and historical issues involved. The PD-ness of the US govt material has always seemed to me a little bit accidental, starting from the logical principle of not making taxpayers pay twice for things they already bought, but it they had really thought through all the possible consequences, they might have introduced some kind of a special license at some point. But the ESA really does risk their legacy vanishing in the same way that much copyrighted material from the 20th century is vanishing - would European taxpayers be OK with that if they knew it was going on?
Now let me try and shift the debate a little here. Let us consider that the ESA, or whatever other organisation, comes up with a licence of their own. Let us imagine they allow free use of their images (in our free sense) *except* for political propaganda. Would that in any way be an acceptable thing to go by? Or is that definitely something we can't accept? It's a real question, I have no real opinion about this.
An interesting point! I think you'd have a tough time bounding "political propaganda" in a globally-satisfactory way. After all, in the US almost any climatological or meteorological data is now being employed in the intense political debate on global warming. Even the most evenhanded of WP articles on the subject is accused of promoting one or another agenda, so with an ESA limitation on political propaganda, satellite-produced maps of ocean temperature and such would have to come from NASA - and in these partisan days, would you want to trust them as a sole source?
Free licenses generally steer clear of trying to place limits on the purpose of an image's use, because it's just so hard to define precisely.
What I understand David was trying to say here is that maybe there is a mid-term agreement that can be reached, somewhere along the path. Are the Organisation X images worth us being just a tad less free (no political use of the images), are they not? It's a difficult question, but one that is worth debating.
I'm a little skeptical of the interim agreement idea, because that's exactly how we got so infested with bogus fair use images. The original "Salinger is too hard to get a photo of" policy somehow got twisted into acceptance of unfree high school photos because the uploader was too lazy to go outside and take a picture with his camera phone - and now anybody enforcing the original policy is met with howls and wailing and predictions of doom.
A fun idea might be to accept them for one year on a trial basis. If the ESA bureaucracy hasn't made any visible effort on their side in that time, do a mass-deletion.
Stan
Stan Shebs a écrit :
But those external contractors aren't on the satellite either - I suppose there is an interesting legal question as to ownership of the raw bits coming from an onboard camera, vs the final processed image. My
There's also a question of the ownership of the raw bits from some particularly complex instruments. The researcher or institute who made the instrument may have rights.
kind of a special license at some point. But the ESA really does risk their legacy vanishing in the same way that much copyrighted material from the 20th century is vanishing - would European taxpayers be OK with that if they knew it was going on?
European taxpayers have more urgent issues, like crime, unemployment and the like. Expect nothing grassroot.
one or another agenda, so with an ESA limitation on political propaganda, satellite-produced maps of ocean temperature and such would have to come from NASA - and in these partisan days, would you want to trust them as a sole source?
It's not so much political propaganda that they don't want, but political *advertisements*. Things like using images of Ariane rockets during the campaign for the proposed European constitution.
This is very different from using photos in a biased article. The difference is that in the article, at least they try to base themselves on the fact, and that with the advertisement they want to use the *image*.
ESA and CNES simply don't want their image associated with partisan politics, or with any brand name, because taxpayer-funded institutions cannot appear to advertise in favor of brand names nor, worse, in a partisan way in politics.
(We may have got an interesting case of false cognate here - in French, "propagande électorale" is the legal term for the leaflets and other documents that are officially sent by all parties before elections.)
I'm a little skeptical of the interim agreement idea, because that's exactly how we got so infested with bogus fair use images.
The problem, I think, is that fair use is very vaguely defined and that use of fair use images doesn't require the agreement of the publishers of the image, but only the legally creative mind of an uploader.
What I suggest is drafting a license, CC-like, with very specific conditions. We would accept such kinds of licenses only in cases where there's a rationale for it (by mail to OTRS). This should prevent spurious use.
Regards, -- DM
Allowing ''educational purposes only'' licenses?
I can say only one thing:
Liberum veto!
Why? Couse it's simple cheating thousands of authors, who has already published their work on CC-BY-SA or GFDL. I have made some images (schemes) and I released them as free content and now you try to say, that some time in the future I will be allowed to publish it as fully copyrighted except of free educational use ? No way!
If someone doesn't like our licenses he doesn't have to publish anything!!
Don't dig grave to OUR IDEAS in the name of collecting more materials!
AJF/WarX
On 22/11/06, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
Artur Fijałkowski a écrit :
copyrighted except of free educational use ?
Er... Free or commercial, I said.
Also, then, again, why not prohibit "fair use" content?
...But many of us would like to prohibit "fair use" content...unfortunately our edicts don't have as much impact as other people's. :)
Brianna user:pfctdayelise
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org