[Wikitech-l] help

-- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:37:05 +0200 From: Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] License status of MW screenshots. To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 45B809C1.2080107@vyznev.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:45:51PM -0500, Anthony wrote: >>> To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing >>> next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description >>> there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not >>> *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to >>> *anything*. >>> >> Whether or not it's a derivative work is largely irrelevant, because a >> photograph of a painting definitely *is* a copy. > > Well, that's largely a strawman, since 3 lines earlier I made it clear > that I was *not* discussing merely "a photograph of a painting" in the > Bridgeman sense. The way I see it, Bridgeman vs. Corel is pretty much irrelevant here. A work can be subject to multiple copyright claims. Bridgeman is about whether a person making a copy gets to claim copyright on it. The issue we're discussing is whether the person who made the original gets to enforce their copyright on the derivative work. The two issues are more or less orthogonal -- all the four possible combinations can and do occur. Examples: 1. Person A paints a picture. Person B scans it. Per Bridgeman, the copyright on the scan belongs to person A only. 2. Person A paints a picture. Person B takes it to their studio and photographs it in a carefully chosen artistic setting. The photograph incorporates creative work by both A (the painting) and B (the scene it is set in), and both thus have copyright on it. 3. Person A paints a picture and makes posters of it. Person B takes a photo of a busy street where one lamppost in the background happens to have one of A's posters glued to it. Since the inclusion of A's picture in the photo is incidental and quite insignificant, it counts as fair use and/or _de minimis_. Even if the photo technically counted as a derivative work (which is a matter of definition), A would not be able to enforce their copyright on it. 4. Person A paints a picture. Person be uses a spectrometer to analyze a spot on the painting and to determine the chemical composition of the paint there. Since the resulting dataset bears no traces of creativity by either A or B, it is ineligible for copyright. -- Ilmari Karonen ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:38:45 +0200 From: Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] KILL THIS THREAD (was Re: License status of MW screenshots.) To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 45B80A25.6020901@vyznev.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Brion Vibber wrote: > > Guys, can we please take it off-list or find an amateur legal arguments > list to duke it out in? > > Thanks. Oops, sorry, didn't notice this sooner. Will stop. -- Ilmari Karonen ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:38:09 +1030 From: "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] MD5 Password Encryption To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 45B802F9.6030500@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Edward Z. Yang wrote: > Aw, come on, why is there so much contention about such a simple issue? > And yes, I did slip when I started talking about birthday attacks. Sorry > about that. > I find it interesting that you're advocating moving away from MD5 in a situation where the known collision weaknesses aren't relevant, yet you personally are still using SHA1 (which was broken about two years ago) in a situation which *is* susceptible to collision - and your signature didn't verify on that message (ep65i0$496$1@sea.gmane.org). -- 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