[Wikimedia-l] WCA: a short update
Dear friends, The last weeks, Fae and I had some conversations about the WCA and the following steps. While he concentrated on the committees, I wrote to the chapters and explained about the procedure to join. We would like to issue an official report soon, but other duties in life have prevented us from doing so. It would be good to have good reports on a regular basis, summarizing what is going on. But we don't want to wait longer with the announcement that Wikimedia Ukraine joined the WCA. It is the first chapter to become a part of our new INGO since the meeting in Washington. Head of Board Yevhen Buket and Executive Director Yuri Perohanych send us a signed letter (in PDF form) in which they confirmed that WMUA wants to join and that Andriy Bondarenko is appointed as WCA Council Member. WMUA did so on August 2nd, and on August 15th WCA received and accepted it. We are very proud to see that the WCA attracts the chapters and would like to see more of them knocking at the door. Welcome to WMUA, and more about the WCA follows soon. Kind regards Ziko van Dijk Deputy Chair of the WCA Council ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On the other hand, if probably no one will sue is good enough for you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first place. That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an argument which I did not make and do not support! It was an argument that I made and which I do support. I'm not going to make a detailed legal analysis every time I copy or distribute something. If it isn't obviously infringing, and if probably no one will sue, sometimes that's good enough. Other times it isn't. For example, I've never done a detailed legal analysis of what the limits are (if any) to quoting people in an email sent to a mailing list. It isn't obviously infringing, and probably no one will sue, so that's good enough. On the other hand, if I were going to run a business redistributing mailing list emails, I'd pay for or do some legal analysis first. By you I wasn't referring to you in particular, I was referring to anyone considering the matter. Sorry if I was confusing by using the word you. Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic images are not copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that are equally not copyrighted. Right, you've pretty much already said that. I have no idea how you're defining diagnostic images such that this is true, though. And I've pretty much already said that. And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. _ Yes there are many such images. These types of images are called utilitarian images. Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic choices. So when a photojournalist takes a picture to objectively depict reality, it's a utilitarian image? In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking aesthetic choices also lack copyright. I don't make aesthetic choices when I write backend server software. But my software is copyrighted. Maybe this wasn't the intent of the legislators when they codified US copyright law. I'm personally of the opinion that software probably should have been protected by patents rather than copyright. But the de facto state of the law is almost the opposite of this - that software is copyrighted, and maybe patented. So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled to put on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but please . . . for the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking out the weakest snippets of writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus on the heart of the positions to explore the issue in way that allows us to both improve our understandings? I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make such sexist comments, and if you wouldn't impute on me such motives. I think you're abusing the terms art and aesthetic. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. _ Yes there are many such images. These types of images are called utilitarian images. By the way, who calls them this? I tried to look up the term utilitarian image and couldn't find much of anything. I've heard of the term utilitarian object. But never utilitarian image. At this point I'm starting to doubt whether or not Meshwerks even applies. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: At this point I'm starting to doubt whether or not Meshwerks even applies. Heh, I'm reading Meshwerks (which I believe can be easily distinguished from X-ray images for many reasons, not the least of which is that it wasn't about a photograph, but about digital wire-frame computer models), and I came across this gem: In addition, the work must possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity, Feist, 499 U.S. at 345; see also William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright ยง 3:27 (both independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity are required), though this is not to say that to count as containing a minimal degree of creativity a work must have aesthetic merit in the minds of judges (arguably not always the most artistically discerning lot). There's also this: But what can be said, at least based on received copyright doctrine, to distinguish an independent creation from a copy? And how might that doctrine apply in an age of virtual worlds and digital media that seek to mimic the real world, but often do so in ways that undoubtedly qualify as (highly) original? which pretty much directly counters the claim that an image made to objectively depict reality is not copyrightable. Here's another distinguishing feature of Meshwerks, from Meshwerks itself: the facts in this case unambiguously show that Meshwerks did not make any decisions regarding lighting, shading, the background in front of which a vehicle would be posed, the angle at which to pose it, or the like -- in short, its models reflect none of the decisions that can make depictions of things or facts in the world, whether Oscar Wilde or a Toyota Camry, new expressions subject to copyright protection Meshwerks is not applicable case law. I based my earlier comment about it on the summary at https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Radiograph_.28X-Ray.29 , which I have now found is not what the case actually says. I thought that there is no copyright protection when the purpose is to faithfully represent the underlying object was a quote from the case. It isn't, and in fact the case doesn't say that at all. I very much appreciate that people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool for making those decisions. That's why I think it is important to point out flaws in the reasoning of posts made here, even if I do agree with their ultimate conclusion. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
X rays are never created with the primary purpose of publication in mind. That would be unethical (especially as X rays can cause harm). They are created with the primary intent of helping patients. Interesting ones are than collected after the fact and published by people involved in the persons care. After all identifying information is removed concerns of patient confidentiality are no longer an issue (we have both publications on ethics and the advice of legal counsel here in Canada to support this concern thus do not need to discuss it further). James Heilman On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM, wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.orgwrote: Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Copyright on Xrays (birgitte...@yahoo.com) 2. Re: Copyright on Xrays (birgitte...@yahoo.com) 3. Re: Copyright on Xrays (Anthony) 4. Re: Copyright on Xrays (Anthony) 5. Re: Copyright on Xrays (Anthony) 6. Re: Copyright on Xrays (Anthony) 7. Re: Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,... (James Heilman) -- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:20:59 -0500 From: birgitte...@yahoo.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays Message-ID: 67becce0-3a2c-4f4c-88c4-e1d38d0ff...@yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere I'm not sure what you mean by non-artistic, but if you mean purely utilitarian, as that term is interpreted by the court, then this is a good point. I was going to suggest UK, but a quick search suggests that you *can't* copyright purely utilitarian works in the UK. (I wouldn't use the term non-artistic though. There are plenty of works that are copyrighted in the US and all over that I wouldn't consider art, and while an argument could be made that such works shouldn't be copyrightable, court precedent is clearly adverse to that argument.), I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is artistic, literary, dramatic, or musical works. The rules can change a bit as you change mediums, so when we are talking about an image I am talking about copyright wrt to images. Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more normal problem with this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the few clear-cut situations. How do you distinguish whether or not it is a diagnostic image, and what makes it clear-cut? Even using the term utilitarian rather than artistic I can still come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty clear-cut as utilitarian to me, but yet which receive copyright protection. gzip, for instance. I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't clarify, ask again and explain what gzip is. And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on diagnostic images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation. Do you have a citation for this? Also, is it where the image is created, or where it is first published, or something else? Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere. It would be based on the jurisdiction of creation. Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware. Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at fixation. Birgitte SB -- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:34:14 -0500 From: birgitte...@yahoo.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays Message-ID: c73b3cfb-5d65-48a4-95ce-80fb3e516...@yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas
[Wikimedia-l] Tech-related lists you might not know about
I've just updated https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview#Mediawiki_and_technical . Sorry for the spam, but you may want to skim that and see whether there are lists there you should join. I especially want to single out: mediawiki-i18n -- localisation and internationalisation wikitech-ambassadors analytics wikitext-l -- the new Visual Editor parser wikidata-l -- Sumana Harihareswara Engineering Community Manager Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
