Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
2009/9/30 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk: David Gerard wrote: But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats. Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public, they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian, Spanish, or American public either. And limiting them is to the benefit of ... ? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
Make the following experience: Go to Gmail and create a new account on Gmail. Does Google tell you after you have created your new account : We are ready to have a conflict relationship with YOU ? We have an Abuse Log ready for YOU ? Now go to meta.wikimedia.org (1), create a new account there and click on your My contributions link. And see what you see on the top line of Special:Contributions : Abuse Log. My preference on meta is French, and it reads (Journal des abus). In French Journal means both Log and Newspaper. It sort of says you are already making headlines in newspapers for abuse. It means Wikimedia users are considered as suspects from the first time they set foot into the wiki. It means that the climate there is a climate where everyone suspects everybody else, where you are guilty until proven innocent, and where bad faith is assumed (3). Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow want to attract new volunteers (2) in these conditions ? Can anybody show me the page on meta.wikimedia.org, which shows that a consensus was reached prior to implementing this Special:AbuseLog software ? It is almost the same problem on Commons (my user preference there is English) where the AbuseLog has been pudically renamed filter log (but the wording with Abuse is still used in the URL). The French Language Wikipédia is still unaffected by this Abuse thing. I hope the virus of suspicion will not infect her. (1) http://meta.wikimedia.org (2) http://volunteer.wikimedia.org (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago. In 2005, the Government-owned Guimet museum in Paris, which is famous for its Chinese and Japanese art collections, asked for 50€ for each non-commercial-purpose photographic shot and 5000€ for a commercial-purpose shot (1). Telling the Museum administrators that we want to use their pictures taken by their photographers is not the best message. The best message is : allow every camera carrying citizen to take his own pictures. If they want to contribute to Wikipedia with photographs taken by their photographers, it is OK but it is not a priority. (1) http://web.archive.org/web/20050305062057/www.museeguimet.fr/homes/home_id20392_u1l2.htm 2009/9/28, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/9/28 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk: From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible. That sets it out as a goal, not a demand. But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
That was not the right link. Good link : http://web.archive.org/web/20050208203749/http://www.museeguimet.fr/pages/page_id18315_u1l2.htm 2009/9/30, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com: (1) http://web.archive.org/web/20050305062057/www.museeguimet.fr/homes/home_id20392_u1l2.htm ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago. I partly agree, but keep in mind that the reason why some museum do not let visitors take photos is not necessarily copyright. For example, flashes can damage paintings, and I wouldn't like to visit a crowded museum slaloming between hundreds of photographers with tripods trying to take a picture of every single work of art present. In 2005, the Government-owned Guimet museum in Paris, which is famous for its Chinese and Japanese art collections, asked for 50€ for each non-commercial-purpose photographic shot and 5000€ for a commercial-purpose shot (1). Interesting. However, I'm not sure whether it refers to a (semi)professional shot which may require using tripods, maybe closing the room for some time to allow taking pictures and maybe use the museum as the stage for something else, or this is what they charge a visitor which wants to take a photo of his son next to a Japanese dragon. Anyway, it is interesting to see that art editors are considered as non-profit. Telling the Museum administrators that we want to use their pictures taken by their photographers is not the best message. The best message is : allow every camera carrying citizen to take his own pictures. What we want to say is that they or their photographers do not have the right to claim copyright on the photos, and that they have to rethink this business model. Of course it is a wrong message from their point of view, and of course they have every right not to publish the high-resolution image their photographer took (in the old days you could read it as they don't have to let you access the negative), but if they choose to publish them they cannot stop people making their own copies and using them for whatever reason. (I'm assuming PD-art applies to France, otherwise it's only a matter of good will) Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office hours
There are people living in Asia and Australia as well actually ... you know! Oh wait they aren't Western people so why bother .. W Best option would be to have two sets, one for Europe and one for the Americas. From: Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:38:12 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Office hours -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It seems that I've gotten complaints that both sets of office hours times are difficult for Europeans. However, in the interest of having the broadest participation possible, I'm interested to know how people feel about one of the following: 1) Have the Friday office hours one hour earlier (from 21:30-22:30 UTC) 2) Have the Thursday office hours one hour later (from 17:00-18:00 UTC) 3) Keep two sets of office hours the same, we cannot please everyone possible! - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrBLMAACgkQyQg4JSymDYnDcgCePVl4xtOW9DyWPKr7GETgkd8B ElwAn3zXiBebDJSFySML11qxIAL4BYsp =uuz/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office hours
2009/9/30 Waerth wae...@asianet.co.th: There are people living in Asia and Australia as well actually ... you know! Oh wait they aren't Western people so why bother .. I am well aware of the existence of Asia and Australia. I have been to several Asian countries - I definitely remember seeing people there. The time of 2130-2230 was proposed explicitly for the benefit of Europeans (see Cary's first email in this thread), so I pointed out that it actually doesn't work well for Europeans. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
sure it would, and maybe it would be an improvement. But the mere fact that the log is there, I don't see as a problem. Also, realize that the average newbee will not even look at the contributions page... 2009/9/30 Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 17:22, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not transparant about it. Being transparent is nice and important, but being it is just as important to be nice. Filter log is just as correct and transparent as abuse log, but doesn't make a newbie feel that he's accused of abuse. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office hours ... the concept of time zones
Basically if there is room for two sets of office hours it should still be possible to please most of the world. There are times when Europe/Africa and the Americas overlap. And there are times when East Asia/Australia and the Americas overlap There are no hours that all 3 of these rough zones would overlap really and West Asia/Middle East would be a bit tricky to fit in with these zones. Basically office hours for an Americas/East Asia/Australia zone would overlap best from 0300 to 0500 UTC (Evening Americas, Morning/afternoon East Asia/Australia and even west Asia could fit in) Office hours for an Americas/Europe zone could be something like 1900 UTC till 2100 UTC (Afternoon/morning Americas, Evening Europe) When you plan round and bout these hours most of the world would be satisfied and able to participate in either one or the other set of office hours! W I think having the thursday meeting one or two more hours later would work fine for Europe, so if that works also better for Australia... Not sure about the Friday one, although the next day is weekend. 2130 UTC sounds like a good time though. 2009/9/29 Angela bees...@gmail.com 1) Have the Friday office hours one hour earlier (from 21:30-22:30 UTC) 2) Have the Thursday office hours one hour later (from 17:00-18:00 UTC) 3) Keep two sets of office hours the same, we cannot please everyone possible! If you make the Friday one earlier, it becomes more inaccessible to people in Asia and Western Australia who will likely be sleeping through the Thursday one. What about making both of them a couple of hours later? Angela ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office hours ... the concept of time zones
Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/9/30 Waerth wae...@asianet.co.th: Basically if there is room for two sets of office hours it should still be possible to please most of the world. There are times when Europe/Africa and the Americas overlap. And there are times when East Asia/Australia and the Americas overlap There are no hours that all 3 of these rough zones would overlap really and West Asia/Middle East would be a bit tricky to fit in with these zones. Basically office hours for an Americas/East Asia/Australia zone would overlap best from 0300 to 0500 UTC (Evening Americas, Morning/afternoon East Asia/Australia and even west Asia could fit in) That's 8pm to 10pm in San Francisco (daylight saving time, 7pm to 9pm otherwise), I think this really needs to happen during business hours in SF, otherwise staff have to give up their free time for it. If they are willing to do that, then great, but we shouldn't expect them to. That is true ... but it would be awfully nice if they would do ... maybe change their hours for those particular days (instead of 9 to 17 work from 14 to 22?) otherwise it would be difficult to fit Asia/Australia in in any schedule really. The other option would be something like 0200 utc (though very early for India) or 1400/1500 utc (but this would be very late for Japan and Australia/New Zealand). Personally I would opt for 0200 utc then as that would squeeze by best I guess . I know I was being a tad aggressive but I get pretty upset when people plan things conveniently for the Europeans and Americans and forget that there are 3.5 billion people on other parts of the planet out there some of whom do participate . W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office hours ... the concept of time zones
Really, this all feels very simple to me. You take the earliest time in the morning and the latest time in the afternoon that people working in an office in San Francisco are will to accommodate. Will that satisfy everyone? No. However picking times at the start and the end of the business day is probably the most that it is reasonable to ask of the staff as an ongoing commitment. -Robert Rohde On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Waerth wae...@asianet.co.th wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/9/30 Waerth wae...@asianet.co.th: Basically if there is room for two sets of office hours it should still be possible to please most of the world. There are times when Europe/Africa and the Americas overlap. And there are times when East Asia/Australia and the Americas overlap There are no hours that all 3 of these rough zones would overlap really and West Asia/Middle East would be a bit tricky to fit in with these zones. Basically office hours for an Americas/East Asia/Australia zone would overlap best from 0300 to 0500 UTC (Evening Americas, Morning/afternoon East Asia/Australia and even west Asia could fit in) That's 8pm to 10pm in San Francisco (daylight saving time, 7pm to 9pm otherwise), I think this really needs to happen during business hours in SF, otherwise staff have to give up their free time for it. If they are willing to do that, then great, but we shouldn't expect them to. That is true ... but it would be awfully nice if they would do ... maybe change their hours for those particular days (instead of 9 to 17 work from 14 to 22?) otherwise it would be difficult to fit Asia/Australia in in any schedule really. The other option would be something like 0200 utc (though very early for India) or 1400/1500 utc (but this would be very late for Japan and Australia/New Zealand). Personally I would opt for 0200 utc then as that would squeeze by best I guess . I know I was being a tad aggressive but I get pretty upset when people plan things conveniently for the Europeans and Americans and forget that there are 3.5 billion people on other parts of the planet out there some of whom do participate . W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not transparant about it. Being transparent is nice and important, but being it is just as important to be nice. Filter log is just as correct and transparent as abuse log, but doesn't make a newbie feel that he's accused of abuse. Filter in current German discussions /can/ allude to the semi-governmental content filters deployed by most major German ISPs to deny users access to child pornography web- sites. So, should we find a term that is suitable for all six billion people on this planet, or should we covertly prefer users who are curious enough to just click on that link to find out what's behind it? Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tim Landscheidt t...@tim-landscheidt.de wrote: So, should we find a term that is suitable for all six billion people on this planet, or should we covertly prefer users who are curious enough to just click on that link to find out what's behind it? Obviously we should replace the text messages with the ulitmate wiktionary Defined Meaning numeric identifier! or… you know… just submit a new translation. (but… I for one welcome the ultimate conlang lexicon overloards!) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
Marco Chiesa wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Teofilo wrote: I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago. I partly agree, but keep in mind that the reason why some museum do not let visitors take photos is not necessarily copyright. For example, flashes can damage paintings, and I wouldn't like to visit a crowded museum slaloming between hundreds of photographers with tripods trying to take a picture of every single work of art present. Of course, photo technology has developed to a point where flash or tripods are no longer necessary for getting a decent picture. As I have understood it tripods are banned because some can damage museum floors, or leave ugly black streaks on the floor that are difficult to clean. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: [...] Most importantly, don't forget that you know what the abuse log is and you know that it's harmless, but newbies don't know it. Many newbies got really scared when they saw Windows 95's error messages about applications that performed illegal actions. (I actually saw it myself.) I gave several classes of basic Wikipedia editing to groups of newbies. The misunderstandings of the technical terms - and they do encounter these technical terms - are most unexpected. Actually, until today I did not even know what the abuse log was. But I would have treated it the same way as the block log: Oh, it's empty, can't be that bad then! Your experience with Windows users seems to differ vastly from mine though. I do not know of even a single one who was scared to play Minesweeper. On the other hand, they grasp in microseconds what a friend in a social network is, how a politician tweets without opening his mouth and that not all blackberries are edible. So if, as you say, newbies could be frightened off by /seeing/ an abuse log (or a block log) link, we should not try to find a short term that could explain to someone with no insights whatsoever in Wikipedia's inner workings what the link contains, but we should hide the link (if the log is empty). But personally, I would ask new users to endure that sight because if they want to participate in the community, there will be lots of other terms, rules and habits that they did not know beforehand. Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... David Gerard wrote: 2009/9/28 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk: From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible. That sets it out as a goal, not a demand. There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need to change a single word from the current French copyright law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand. But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats. Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public, they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian, Spanish, or American public either. The public doesn't have national boundaries. The public means all of the public, here there and elsewhere. You are confused. Lets parse the quote shall we? Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. would be the digitization of the images that the French taxpayers have paid for. The following sentence: They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats. refers to the digitizations that the public (the French taxpayers) have paid for. It can't possibly refer to the images themselves because in most cases those images were either given to the Nation by their owners in lieu if taxes, confiscated, or stolen during periods of war and colonialism. As such we aren't taking about 'The public' means all of the public, here there and elsewhere. but a specific set of national taxpayers. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
-Original Message- From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:58 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... David Gerard wrote: 2009/9/28 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk: From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible. That sets it out as a goal, not a demand. There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need to change a single word from the current French copyright law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand. But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats. Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public, they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian, Spanish, or American public either. The public doesn't have national boundaries. The public means all of the public, here there and elsewhere. You are confused. Lets parse the quote shall we? Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. would be the digitization of the images that the French taxpayers have paid for. The following sentence: They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats. refers to the digitizations that the public (the French taxpayers) have paid for. It can't possibly refer to the images themselves because in most cases those images were either given to the Nation by their owners in lieu if taxes, confiscated, or stolen during periods of war and colonialism. As such we aren't taking about 'The public' means all of the public, here there and elsewhere. but a specific set of national taxpayers. -- Okay let's parse the meaning. Once an image has been paid for and is in the public domain, that means that anyone, in this country, the next, or on Venus can use the image. Whether or not the person who said paid for by the taxpayers was being specific to a certain country or using a loose phrase, isn't really relevant. The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain country might be today. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
Teofilo wrote: I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago. I was in the Loire-et-Cher region a couple of weeks back and photography was allowed in nearly all the locations we visited. In the places which did have signs up saying No photography no one was taking any notice at all, not even the staff. In addition I had the Mairies open up the churches to record medieval frescoes, monuments, baptismal fonts, stained glass, paintings, stone carvings, etc. No problem at all. Most of them seemed genuinely pleased that someone was taking an interest. In a couple of places, as I was finishing a local dignitary would turn up to point out something I might have missed. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Reminder, office hours at 1600 UTC tomorrow (10/1/09).
Hi all, this is a reminder that office hours will be tomorrow, Thursday, October 1, at 1600 UTC (9:00 AM PDT) and feature Rand Montoya. The IRC channel that will be hosting Rand's conversation will be #wikimedia-office on the Freenode network. If you do not have an IRC client, you can always access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning. Go ahead. The channel is also available through the Wikizine site at http://chat.wikizine.org/ and picking one of the two gateways, while choosing wikimedia-office from the dropdown on the next page. -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
-Original Message- From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain country might be today. Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right. Same with the digitization of a painting. Are you believing that I'm stating there is a right to claim anything? Because if you are, I never did. I stated quite the opposite. Once something is in the public domain in any country, then you can use it. That is what I stated, and nothing more. Turning a 3-d statue into a series of computer data files is quite a different animal from turning a 2-d painting into a exactly reproduced photograph. A photographic copy, adhering to the original painting, does not enjoy a new copyright. A photograph of a painting which is in the public domain does not enjoy any new rights. Once that photograph is posted online, anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it. To prevent that, all you have to do, is take a photograph of the Mona Lisa and include your girlfriend standing next to it. That would make it unique and not merely an exact copy of the painting. I have never stated that you have a right to demand the photograph. I've only stated, that the photographer does not have a right to order you to cease. Quite a different animal. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain country might be today. Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right. Same with the digitization of a painting. Are you believing that I'm stating there is a right to claim anything? Because if you are, I never did. I stated quite the opposite. Once something is in the public domain in any country, then you can use it. That is what I stated, and nothing more. Once an image has been paid for and is in the public domain, that means that anyone, in this country, the next, or on Venus can use the image. This entire discussion is concerned not with the work per se but with particular digital encodings of the work. Where some seem to think that just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that work. If that isn't what is being claimed here then there is no problem, the museums are under no obligation to provide any digital representation. Turning a 3-d statue into a series of computer data files is quite a different animal from turning a 2-d painting into a exactly reproduced photograph. It is exactly the same thing. The CNC files are exactly equivalent to a jpeg. So I can't quite see why you'd consider them different. A photographic copy, adhering to the original painting, does not enjoy a new copyright. A photograph of a painting which is in the public domain does not enjoy any new rights. Once that photograph is posted online, anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it. The posited CNC files do exactly the same thing: they adhere to the original statue. In all probability they encode the reproduction of the original object more exactly then a jpeg encodes the reproduction of a painting. Logically under this doctrine that the digital encoding is the work if say some disgruntled employee were to post them online then anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
I think everyone is probably a bit tired of this topic so this will be my last response. You keep positing that someone is espousing that the museums have to actively participate in providing copies of something to someone.? Has somebody claimed that?? If they did, it wasn't me.? I have never claimed, and wouldn't claim, under any sort of copyright issue, that the holder of anything is required to do anything at all.? Or has any obligation, legal or moral to do anything.? The doing on their part is an active participation and I've never claimed that the museum has to be active in any regard in this issue. What I have claimed is that the purported claimant, cannot stop a seizure.? If I take, without permission, without asking, without requiring anything from you.? Just take, you cannot claim that I've in violation of some perceived copyright.? That is quite different from stating that they must provide the material to anyone, or are required to, or should feel required to. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
