On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Most of that is the sale of contemporary copyrighted photographs (by
living photographers earning money from their trade). But some of that
will be the commercial sale of scans of PD stuff
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:23 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete
surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council,
House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based
upon US law.
Are UK legal rulings public domain? Or just US rulings?
FT2
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:23 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete
surprise, though heard in
2009/7/20 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
Are UK legal rulings public domain? Or just US rulings?
I understand that Wikisource treats all laws everywhere as public
domain; don't know about court rulings.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
I enjoy writing a lot on US and UK law, on wikipedia over the years, so I've
had cause to notice that UK laws claim crown copyright (same as normal
copyright but more extravagant title?) so it might not be correct that it's
PD. But I don't know about the full text of legal case rulings. Does
On checking, of course Wikipedia would have an article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright
!!
FT2
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I enjoy writing a lot on US and UK law, on wikipedia over the years, so
I've had cause to notice that UK laws
In another thread, Will Johnson (I think) argued that activity levels
(new articles, in particular) would continue to decline rapidly in the
next few years and that by Christmas we would have fewer than 1000 new
articles per day. Looking at the new stats, I'm more confident that
en-wiki can
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie. But hopefully it will
encourage more people to contribute photos.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:29 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:55 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
Are UK legal rulings public domain? Or just US rulings?
I understand that Wikisource treats all laws everywhere as public
domain; don't know about court rulings.
David is correct.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up
your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have
the right effect in terms of
Many professional photographers have older work whose commercial value is
almost nil. In fashion photography, for instance, the commercial lifespan
of a photograph is extremely short.
Here's a featured picture of that type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gotsiy3edit2.jpg
These types of shots
Yes, that's how we got the featured picture of Michele Merkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg
Would you like to follow up on that idea?
-Durova
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.comwrote:
Has there ever been a concerted effort to
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity
agents and suggest picture submissions?
Agents sometimes send photos via OTRS, and are usually ok with
licensing them freely. I don't think we have
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK
here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional
photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery
(where the underlying works are public
Yes, I think that's what Videmus Omnia was doing. He used to have a subpage
in userspace to explain it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Michele_Merkin_1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Videmus_Omnia/Free_Imagesaction=editredlink=1
-Durova
Here's an example of what we could be showing the professional photographer
community about how they can do well by doing good.
The WP article is getting 30,000 page views per month:
http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Sound%20card
Plus another 12,000 views at two other articles:
2009/7/19 Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org:
- Candidacies will be accepted through July 27th at 23:59 (UTC)
- The period for questioning candidates begins immediately.
Candidates that are late to the party will, no doubt, be scrutinized
by the community. The
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK
here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional
photographer, but not in the case of the
Geni is right; professional photographers who own an uncontroversial
copyright over an image are completely within their rights to relicense and
upload a low resolution version. That's what the Bundesarchiv did with
100,000 images last December.
It doesn't really facilitate those negotiations,
You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there.
Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free
pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of
them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can
happen with sports stars and
How many people click through to the image itself? That is where the
credit is, and the link onwards to the source. Would it help if the
source (if it was an institution, rather than an individual
photographer) was automagically credited in the articles, not just on
the image page? Or would that
I like having credit right at the article level. This is the typical
thing I see in print media (obviously as there is no other level). Are you
stating that this was discussed before and rejected? It's what I was thinking
might be a good way of getting more photo contributions. Just
It has been discussed before. Can't remember where or the verdict.
Hopefully someone else will find the debate, and the latest form of
it.
OK, here are some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_25#Photograph_attribution_in_image_captions
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
I would suggest looking in the talk page archives for more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Captions#Credits_of_photos.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Click-throughs are much lower, often on the level of 15,000-30,000 during
main page time. Yet remember these are also generating a steady stream of
attention on the articles themselves. The one amateur photo of a sound
The Cunctator wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie.
Was it? It rang perfectly true to me.
Our de-facto policy is that we utterly prefer having no photo at
all to having an improperly licensed one, and we utterly reject
any of the opportunities that fair-use law would easily
You might be surprised. The biggest obstacle is that most of the people who
own copyrights simply don't understand wikis and free culture. They're used
to thinking in terms of reproduction permission, which presupposes an older
type of static publication. That can change; what we need to do is
The premise that the only photos on Wikipedia are absolutely awful. E.g.
exaggerating how bad the photos of Janney, Bonds, and Beckham are.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie.
Was it? It
Durova wrote:
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would
publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that
doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their
eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't
Policy changes are usually slow and difficult. Right now we have the
public's attention. Wikipedians, collectively, have a habit of responding
to real world attention with onsite process and discussion. That can be
useful up to a point, but it fails to appreciate two factors:
1. There are
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Don't write that as an essay on Wikipedia; write it as an article for a
photography trade magazine.
Exactly. Might be worth seeing if anyone on Commons has contacts in these areas.
Carcharoth
31 matches
Mail list logo
