Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
There's an important point in what you say, though it is difficult to avoid sarcasm when feeling a Google spider creeping up one's back. In many of these cases there is the legal analysis and there is the pragmatic analysis They do not bear identical results. The legal analysis could conceivably lead us to a serious criticism of the Israel Museum's protectivism. In a pragmatic analysis my first piece of enlightenment would be with the fact that I don't know a word of Hebrew. If that is the case, what am I doing copying many many pages of Hebrew texts? If there is a copyright fight over this materiel would it not be better to leave that fight to those who are interested in and understand the texts? That leaves only a rare few people in a position to pursue the argument. And those few will still have an opportunity to come to an understanding with the IMJ. The NPG and JSTOR made targets of themselves by taking a stupid position publicly. We also have individuals who allow themselves to be overcome by an excess of indignation. In dealing with them it's probably good if IMJ is made aware that these individuals are a minority. Ray On 09/26/11 9:26 PM, Harel Cain wrote: We can have our fresh and promising Wikimedian-in-Residence there raise the issue with museum staff. This news took us by surprise. Apparently, the Google-IMJ project is quite a bit more than simple scanning of the material, it involves more hypertextual contextual work. Please, a more friendly and less sarcastic attitude will certainly help here. The museum has been showing a great deal of good faith in its GLAM cooperation with us, and doesn't deserve this kind of attitude. We certainly don't want to run into a collision course with the Museum over this thing. The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the museum's most important item on display, and a world-class cultural heritage item. Which means that as much as it matters to us, it will matter greatly to the museum, this is not some secondary work of art which they might turn a blind eye to copyright infringement on. We (WMIL) will look into the matter. Harel Cain Secretary, Wikimedia Israel On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 02:40, Liam Wyattliamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Wikimedia Israel and I met with the Israel Museum in the days immediately following Wikimania. The specific purpose of that event was to set up a 'Wikipedian in Residence' position at their research centre, starting with a project to create articles about Israeli artists in English and Hebrew Wikipedias. This is described in the August This Month in GLAM report: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/August_2011/Contents/Israel_report Unsurprisingly, when we were giving our introduction presentation about what Wikimedia does, what we stand for and how we operate, the issue of Copyright-in-scans-of-Public-Domain-work was raised. Quite directly actually. We informed the museum on no uncertain terms that Wikimedia's policy is to follow the Bridgeman v. Corel precedent. They responded that it is standard practice of the museum industry worldwide to claim copyright in scans and that Bridgeman is not a precedent in Israel. All of which is true and correct. Which brings us back to the same position we have with every museum that makes these copyright claims. We must stand by our principles and provide our readers with access to digitised versions of public-domain cultural heritage (such as the dead sea scrolls) when we have access to them. The museums must realise this is a key point of both principle and law for us. However, we must also try to politely stand by these principles in a way that is not deliberately antagonistic towards the museum - especially towards museums that are willing to work with us like the Israel Museum is. We are on the same side when it comes to sharing knowledge and public education, we just go about it in different ways. We cannot expect museums to arrive at free-culture-compliant policies in one day. It will take time to make them comfortable with it. In the mean time it is our duty to demonstrate the value and advantages of sharing their content whilst (politely but firmly) criticising the current policies. Maybe one day our productive relationship with the Israel Museum will eventuate in them *inviting* us to have an editing-day dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls and will proactively *share* their own multimedia. Who knows? In the mean time, if you would like to get involved with the Israel Museum project you can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/IMJ -Liam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Three short films about Wikipedia
Hi Lennart, On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wikihanni...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you for your input. They are not late at all. I have worked with writing and films for about ten years now, so I do not take your comments personally. The only comment that is new is that I should leave the director's chair to someone else. If you could be more specific about that, I would be grateful. It's a very fair question and I think you've exposed that my comment where I sort of blame it on the director wasn't thought through or was just a bit woolly. You listed a number of things wondering whether I would criticise those and I am pleased to say, no, I didn't think those things were wrong. I suppose I felt it would have been the director who would have made the decision to have in the videos speaking parts that would be rendered in silence. But I guess that may have been a decision a *writer* would have made. So, sorry, I should not have made the director comment. What we were after were not only that people would stand and watch the entire films - it was to make the stand more lively than with only text, or worse, with computer code. Human movement on screens at the back of the stand were very effective at getting people to stop, OK. Yes, I can see how that would work. I'm sure they worked well for that. So please feel free only to take my comments as far as you find them useful and discard anything you feel missed the point. To reiterate, I thought the videos looked very polished and professional. Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an original photograph? The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative. Yes. The photograph is not the first instance. The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This definition doesn't mean the first instance of anything. If that were true then *nothing* would be original. I'd say by this definition in particular it is quite clear that there was an original photograph. A photo of an object is the first instance of a new thing, it is not a copy of the object itself. The photograph is not independent or creative. Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile together, etc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Three short films about Wikipedia
Okay. I hope that I didn't stifle your comment, though. One idea: Feel free to dub in your own voices if you want voices. That could be very cool! Best wishes, Lennart 2011/9/28 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com Hi Lennart, On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wikihanni...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you for your input. They are not late at all. I have worked with writing and films for about ten years now, so I do not take your comments personally. The only comment that is new is that I should leave the director's chair to someone else. If you could be more specific about that, I would be grateful. It's a very fair question and I think you've exposed that my comment where I sort of blame it on the director wasn't thought through or was just a bit woolly. You listed a number of things wondering whether I would criticise those and I am pleased to say, no, I didn't think those things were wrong. I suppose I felt it would have been the director who would have made the decision to have in the videos speaking parts that would be rendered in silence. But I guess that may have been a decision a *writer* would have made. So, sorry, I should not have made the director comment. What we were after were not only that people would stand and watch the entire films - it was to make the stand more lively than with only text, or worse, with computer code. Human movement on screens at the back of the stand were very effective at getting people to stop, OK. Yes, I can see how that would work. I'm sure they worked well for that. So please feel free only to take my comments as far as you find them useful and discard anything you feel missed the point. To reiterate, I thought the videos looked very polished and professional. Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Lennart Guldbrandsson Wikimedia Sverige ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
2011/9/28 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile together, etc. True. AFAIK, the pre-production and post-production here has been huge. The project is pretty amazing. Aubrey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs wrote: The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an original photograph? Yes there is, and this isn't it. The photograph is not the first instance. The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance of the image. The photograph is not independent or creative. Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does not mean that the image itself is creative. As an extreme example, I can devise an extremely creative false backstory for me in order to gain access to a document, then photocopy it. The fact that I was creative while devising my story does not give me copyright to a photocopy. built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have How the hell is that creative? even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still are not. selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times. So I have two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not. together, etc. This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not by someone's creative decision. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Happy Rosh Hashanah and happy Dussehra
Hoi, Today it is both Rosh Hashanah and the start of Dussehra. It is also the first time that the Wikimedia Localisation team is coming together. We are still waiting for Santhosh his flight has been delayed... We will be planning what to do, when to do it and how we can get the most out of the work that we do for you. I am happy and I wish you all a joyous day wherever you are, whatever you do. Thanks, GerardM ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Three short films about Wikipedia
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 02:02:20PM +0200, Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: Okay. I hope that I didn't stifle your comment, though. One idea: Feel free to dub in your own voices if you want voices. That could be very cool! Best wishes, Lennart Actually, if this is going to be shown at conferences and such, it might be handier to add subtitles? :-) sincerely, Kim Bruning -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Three short films about Wikipedia
Kim Bruning wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 02:02:20PM +0200, Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: Okay. I hope that I didn't stifle your comment, though. One idea: Feel free to dub in your own voices if you want voices. That could be very cool! Best wishes, Lennart Actually, if this is going to be shown at conferences and such, it might be handier to add subtitles? :-) sincerely, Kim Bruning Seriously, dubbing dialogue, although *kewl*, would be a triumph of hope over experience, and technically and practically infeasible within a sensible timescale, but when it comes to subtitles, the question has to be in how many languages? A good starting point is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_languages, which has Arabic Chinese (Mandarin) English French Russian Spanish (Castilian) as core, but Bengali Hindustani Portuguese Esperanto as proposed. Of these, I would regard languages of the Indian subcontinent as being of higher priority, since (IME) speakers of Spanish can get to grips wth Portuguese at least at a basic level, and Esperanto does not seem to have had the penetration it might deserve. What is perhaps surprising is that Japanese is missing from both these lists, but then perhaps most Japanese are also pretty competent in English these days. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Meta main page
Hoi, The main page at translatewiki.net is not less complicated imho. However, it has been localised and we know quite precisely what the state of the translations is. We can pinpoint precisely what needs doing. Thanks, GerardM 2011/9/27 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Template/de http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Template/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Template/es Few examples of the new meta main page in its templated form which allows easier translation. Most translations are greatly outdated unfortunately making them essentially useless. A divide and conquer strategy was applied. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) 2011/9/27 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com Oh, I was proposing something simpler than what I had on my commons userpage. Consider something like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:White_Cat/Gen v http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:White_Cat/de Translators only /care/ about the text rather than the style issues and etc. It is difficult enough finding people who can translate but expecting them to understand complex use of html, templates and etc is just too much. The feature you mentioned would indeed be a positive thing to keep these pages up to date. We could also have generic translations. For example we expect steward elections frequently, likewise we expect a wikimania each year. It would only make sense if these current events are templated on their own. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) 2011/9/27 Mono mium monom...@gmail.com Might make sense. 2011/9/26 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com Meta main page seems to be not very multi-lingual because it appears to be difficult to update. Each translation is more or less outdated and often with an outdated/older style. I propose a template structure where style info is removed into a template and translations only deal with words. Feel free to comment at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Templates -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Meta main page
Translatewiki.net doesn't seem to be much more usable to people who don't speak English, coming at it from the front page. Imagine you don't speak English, how do you suppose you go from http://translatewiki.net/ to a page with instructions or content in your language? One needs at least rudimentary English skills to be able to figure it out, which is an unsatisfactory solution for what is supposed to be an international project. 2011/9/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com Hoi, The main page at translatewiki.net is not less complicated imho. However, it has been localised and we know quite precisely what the state of the translations is. We can pinpoint precisely what needs doing. Thanks, GerardM 2011/9/27 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Template/de http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Template/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Template/es Few examples of the new meta main page in its templated form which allows easier translation. Most translations are greatly outdated unfortunately making them essentially useless. A divide and conquer strategy was applied. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) 2011/9/27 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com Oh, I was proposing something simpler than what I had on my commons userpage. Consider something like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:White_Cat/Gen v http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:White_Cat/de Translators only /care/ about the text rather than the style issues and etc. It is difficult enough finding people who can translate but expecting them to understand complex use of html, templates and etc is just too much. The feature you mentioned would indeed be a positive thing to keep these pages up to date. We could also have generic translations. For example we expect steward elections frequently, likewise we expect a wikimania each year. It would only make sense if these current events are templated on their own. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) 2011/9/27 Mono mium monom...@gmail.com Might make sense. 2011/9/26 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com Meta main page seems to be not very multi-lingual because it appears to be difficult to update. Each translation is more or less outdated and often with an outdated/older style. I propose a template structure where style info is removed into a template and translations only deal with words. Feel free to comment at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Templates -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) ___ 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 ___ 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] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs wrote: The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an original photograph? Yes there is, and this isn't it. Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to whatever this photograph is? The photograph is not the first instance. The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance of the image. Sure it is. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. And if it isn't (which, you'll have to explain), can that be said about *any* photograph? The photograph is not independent or creative. Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does not mean that the image itself is creative. No, it doesn't. However, I am contending that creativity most likely *did* go into creating the image. As an extreme example, I can devise an extremely creative false backstory for me in order to gain access to a document, then photocopy it. The fact that I was creative while devising my story does not give me copyright to a photocopy. True. built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have How the hell is that creative? Have you ever converted a raw image into a jpeg? If you have, then I would think you'd know how the hell it is creative. For one thing, you're converting 12 or 14 bits of color data per pixel into 8. So you have to select what information to lose, and what information to keep. even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still are not. The original photographs (*) are not what are displayed on the website. (*) I thought you said these weren't original photographs. selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times. You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument. So I have two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not. And I didn't say they were. together, etc. This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not by someone's creative decision. Our choices are always limited by the technical possibilities of the devices we are using. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to conversation about the image filter. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
