A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can hold
focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base
knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring
concerns to a wider forum the discussion usually gets derailed.
Not derailed
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can hold
focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base
knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring
concerns to a wider forum the
David, please reread the entire thread and view the eBay store of this
vendor. It's quite obvious that this vendor does violate copyrights: in the
middle of a section of mostly public domain NASA shots, a publicity portrait
of Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura. And a 1930s portrait of Walt
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in
search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers
over license violation problems.
That's a large statement, and it needs substantiation to convince.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in
search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers
over license violation
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
No David, I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is
step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread
nonproductive. My previous attempts to clarify matters with specific
examples led to accusations that I
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
...I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is
step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread
nonproductive.
On that note, you stated in the second post of the thread that The
During this thread things could have spun off in many more directions than
they did. Mainly because the assumptions of most posters were at odds with
my firsthand experience on multiple points. So I picked out a couple of the
most important ones and attempted to address them, but that turned out
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
Am wrapping up a Google Document on another topic and planning a draft
outline right now. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses;
multitasking isn't one of mine. David's posts really looked like a bizarre
attempt to bait me into a flame war
Durova wrote:
David's posts really looked like a bizarre attempt to bait me
into a flame war just as the thread had reached its natural end.
As in: 'No no, you can't walk away. You started this thread and
I don't like what I think I understand and I'm angry at you about that.'
I'd
Durova wrote:
...But David, to construct a cherry picked insult is beneath you. With your
long
commitment to free culture, I really expected better.
Alright, enough.
Durova, your complaints about lack of literacy or comprehension appear
somewhat disingenuous, given that you very well know
Carcharoth wrote:
If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you
truly restored it? Or have you created something new?
Aren't we in the my grandad's had the same broom for twenty years
territory? (He's replaced the head four times and the handle twice.)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations
for sale, all without credit. Other featured picture contributors may want
to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also
That question has already been answered several times, in several ways. I
am at a loss for how to restate it, and the insinuation posed alongside the
question discourages further attempt.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. -
Louis Armstrong
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
That question has already been answered several times, in several ways. I
am at a loss for how to restate it, and the insinuation posed alongside the
question discourages further attempt.
Ok, I've read through all your
Durova wrote:
Restoration is inherently interpretive. Consider something simple: a
newspaper cartoon in black and white. There are many possible whites; which
do you select?
The reasonable assumption is that the background white is an unprinted
area; the white is a function of the paper
So which path would you follow?
1. Eliminate the paper texture during restoration because a textureless
background facilitates physical printout?
2. Convert to vector graphics?
3. Remain in raster grahics and keep the paper texture to preserve the look
and feel of a period document?
All three
Durova wrote:
A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath the
Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in
choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork.
No, the copyright is not generated until the
Durova wrote:
You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors
have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of
discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that
restoration and creative input are mutually exclusive
David Gerard wrote:
I suspect (as you've noted) that copyright may not be the right tool
for the job. (It would undoubtedly encourage restorations, but the
cultural price may not be appropriate. But that's getting more to the
philosophical.)
Copyright law is already pretty screwed up;
Carcharoth wrote:
Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done.
It's not a black-and-white copyright-only issue. There are other laws
and other ethical and moral concerns beside US copyright laws. If you
look at everything only through the lens of US copyright law, you
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done.
It's not a black-and-white copyright-only issue. There are other laws
and other ethical and moral concerns beside US copyright
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done.
It's not a black-and-white copyright-only issue. There are other laws
and other ethical and moral concerns beside US
Thanks for the kind words, David.
With digital restoration, often one encounters elements about the original
that are unknowable. A couple of examples follow.
Segregated drinking fountain, North Carolina, 1938:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938.jpg
Here's the after link for the second example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching2.jpg
After all the work was done it was startling to pull back and view at
thumbnail. It's possible to look at the unrestored file and seek visual
reminders of this was long ago; restoration takes away that
On 19 Sep 2009, at 21:47, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Credit to Wikipedia is about as much as you can realistically
expect.
For the many who don't even realize that they can edit themselves
Wikipedia is only one monolithic entity. The thought process that
distinguishes individual Wikipedia
I agree from this, and your previous post, that restoring historical images
can be a difficult process, particularly when the images themselves may have
originally been pure factual journalism rather than having a polemical
purpose, although in my experience, that is more allied to the
Restoration is inherently interpretive. Consider something simple: a
newspaper cartoon in black and white. There are many possible whites; which
do you select? Do you retain or eliminate paper grain? Older illustrations
are often imperfect by a few tenths of a degree, so when the border isn't
Image uploads have a broad range of license options. Over the last year
several knowledgeable people have approached me and advised that I assert
copyleft over restorations due to the amount of creative input involved.
The principal argument against that advice has not arisen in this
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
If I were to place restorations under copyleft license it would backfire.
Not necessarily backfire against me personally, but against the free
culture
movement. Look at the paint by numbers analogies within this list
thread:
many people cannot
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
If I were to place restorations under copyleft license it would backfire.
Not necessarily backfire against me personally, but against the free
culture
movement. Look at the
A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath the
Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in
choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork.
Creative copyright also attaches when the same tourist heads over to
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Compare that creative effort to--for example--the creative intuition of
reconstructing Admiral David Farragut's eyes.
Some would say that any attempt to recreate the eyes and present it as
a restored photograph is
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath
the
Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in
choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork.
Creative copyright
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you
truly restored it? Or have you created something new?
For that matter, what about the restoration of the Dresdner Frauenkirche?
You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors
have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of
discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that
restoration and creative input are mutually exclusive concepts.
-Durova
On
Let's set the Sistine Chapel example to rest: physical restoration and
digital restoration are so different that it clouds the discussion to
compare them.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Carcharoth
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
Let's set the Sistine Chapel example to rest: physical restoration and
digital restoration are so different that it clouds the discussion to
compare them.
I could not disagree more. But I get the impression this is a discussion
that would be a lot
Then let's take a better example. The dilemma with this restoration on an
architectural design is easy to explain.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concourse_Singapore_compressed.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Concourse_Singapore2_courtesy_copy.jpg
Normally I wouldn't nominate a
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors
have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of
discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that
restoration and creative
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay
seller did. It even says The right to use this work is granted to
anyone for any purpose, without any
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
..
A number of our featured picture photographers have been complaining for a
long time. Recently Wikipedia's most prolific FP photographer retired after
five years' and 164 featured pictures' service, due in part to the
2009/9/17 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor. Extensive staining and
chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
his face. It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an
arbitrator no less--who
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/9/17 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor. Extensive staining and
chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
his face. It is,
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way
to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries
paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.
Even if you can't do that, then the time involved
2009/9/17 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu:
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay
seller did. It even says The right to use this work is granted to
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way
to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org
wrote:
I personally think image restoration is more like painting by numbers
than
creative work.
It's like creating an Ikea bookcase: there is some *skill* involved but
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
snip
And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly
the ones that involve filling in missing material), but those can be
controversial.
Matter
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
A depressing number of people trying to argue their way around the
creativity requirement in US copyright.
Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done.
It's not a black-and-white copyright-only
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org
wrote:
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
snip
And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly
the ones that involve filling in
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
snip
Thanks for those examples. An excellent restoration. I'd love to
discuss the missing hand in more detail some time, as that is a good
example of something I think
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Really, there should be a section for restoration notes. Shoehorning
them into the Other versions field doesn't really work for the cases
where you want to make clear what the work done was. Either it is
routine enough not to need crediting,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. Even though a restoration may not create a new copyright, it is
absolutely relevant to have full details on the restoration, and to
suggest reusers note the restoration (e.g. Sir James Foo, 1875,
photographed by Fred
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The eBay reseller named at the top of this thread may (or may not)
have done something morally questionable, but I think it's a major
I'm not seeing it. They're printing public domain images sourced from
an open source
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do
not have
A strawman argument occurs when a response attempts to redefine a statement
into something it isn't--something simpleminded and easier to rebut--and
then pokes at the holes it created.
Note the actual statement:
The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.
And the
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
A strawman argument occurs when a response attempts to redefine a statement
into something it isn't--something simpleminded and easier to rebut--and
then pokes at the holes it created.
Note the actual statement:
The
Have you identified any items for sale which are from Wikimedia
projects and not clearly marked as being in the public domain?
Part of the reason for notifying the list was to alert other Wikimedians to
that possibility.
Luckily the ebay items have sufficient metadata that we should be
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
and no share of authorship. If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the
matter certainly would be taken seriously.
Do you think? Based on past experience, the reaction is usually to
laugh at the offending party for a)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Restored:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg
Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Several months ago I wrote to this list after discovering that my
restoration of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was being used
uncredited by *Time* magazine. To date, no one has joined my letter
writing
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rich Holton richhol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that Time magazine and the eBay culprit(s) *should* have given
Durova credit for the restoration. But the should I'm using has to do with
common decency--something that is becoming rather uncommon.
As that page
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rich Holton richhol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that Time magazine and the eBay culprit(s) *should* have given
Durova credit for the restoration. But the should I'm using has to do
An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.
Another volunteer at Commons first spotted it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Photo_on_ebay
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
eBay:
On 15 Sep 2009, at 23:05, Durova wrote:
An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.
They are profiteering off public domain material (at least in the
case of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). As it's public domain, there's no
actual legal requirement to provide
The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
In particular, though, it happens to be useful that along the line they're
selling Walt Disney's portrait with Mickey Mouse.
Cheers,
Durova
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009
67 matches
Mail list logo
