Does a species list meet the threshold of originality? I'm dubious that it qualifies for copyright protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
I think it may be appropriate for a Wikipedia project. The only object that occurs to me is notability, but in my opinion, a location specific plant list, if published, is notable. -- Walter Siegmund On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > On 2/24/2011 10:07 AM, Stan Shebs wrote: >> To take an example from my activity, much of my plant photography is >> motivated by checking off a published list of the thousand-odd taxa >> recorded in the Spring Mountains west of Las Vegas. I've been doing >> penciled annotation of the physical list, partly because I don't >> want to >> have to fight over having a WP or commons version of the list. It >> would >> be very convenient to have it in commons to track what pics we are >> still >> looking for, and be able to point my fellow Vegas plant people at it, >> but I just know that there would be a nonstop parade of busybodies >> arguing that the list (full of redlinks ZOMG!) is inappropriate for >> commons. > Actually, the real problem is that presumably the list is not freely > licensed. Even though your annotation of it makes a pretty good case > for > transformative fair use, that doesn't help you with Commons policy. > Maybe there's too strong of an expectation that Commons is only for > finished products and not intended to be a workspace, notwithstanding > that it is still a wiki. > > --Michael Snow > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
