I think the high resolution helps forgers and impersonators argument is
spurious.
Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't know
what the right logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) would
fool most people if it looked professional whether technically
You may be right. Changing subject slightly, does that argument apply
with currency counterfeiting laws? I know this thread isn't about
currency images, but Commons does actually pay a fair amount of
respect to concerns that currency could be counterfeited, which has
always surprised me somewhat,
A few differences on currency (and some other items).
Making copies of currency is often explicitly a crime. So there is a legal
obligation to be clear that what is presented is not currency regardless
of whether it would help criminals or not. This doesn't appear to be the
case for most logos
Well, I tried that and quickly found
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg
That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike and
the FBI are discussing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0701000-.html
I've nominated this for
Commented. The main question is that not being lawyers, most users are
unqualified to assess whether it falls into an exception under 18 U.S.C §
701.
Mike's input is really needed, as genuine matters of US legality cannot be
agreed by mere consensus. If he says it's okay then we're okay, if not
Not to be too cynical, but I hope that doesn't get speedy kept as
well. I *had* mentioned that image of the badge earlier, at the
Commons Village Pump, but no-one seemed to be that bothered. I also
suggested adding the restrictions note that Fred also added to the
image, but again, the response I
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
This whole debate makes the point that when the WMF legal counsel gets
involved because some outside organisation has sent him a letter, and
this debate between lawyers then becomes public, the community
sometimes
Well,
All of us who are or have been arbitrators are pretty much in the
anti-cynicism business. Nothing the Commons administrators do would
surprise me, but it's time we grappled with them. I'm not an active
uploader of images but I do edit there.
Fred
Not to be too cynical, but I hope that
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The FBI Seal / Badge issue is a pretty good example of why we actually
need Mike's opinion to limit the risk posed by the overly cautious or the
overly incautious.
Possibly. In this case it might be simpler. The first question to
On 9 August 2010 12:15, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
You may be right. Changing subject slightly, does that argument apply
with currency counterfeiting laws? I know this thread isn't about
currency images, but Commons does actually pay a fair amount of
respect to concerns that
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will
do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images
hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by
impostors with obviously fake badges only because it's impossible to
determine what the real ones
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will
do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images
hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by
impostors with obviously fake badges only because it's impossible to
determine what the real
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will
do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images
hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by
impostors with obviously fake
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
That would be an interesting conundrum, if only official sources will
do as confirmation but the FBI has a practice of keeping the images
hidden. Sets up the ironic situation of people being fooled by
impostors with
But really, I'm sure the FBI do have images of their badges somewhere
on their website.
Why aren't we finding it?
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Now this is fascinating:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Q-clearance_badge.jpg
That image deletion debate appears to be over some security badge. The
debate started in February 2007 and was closed in June 2007 (deletion
debates were closed faster back then). But
Now this is fascinating:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Q-clearance_badge.jpg
That image deletion debate appears to be over some security badge. The
debate started in February 2007 and was closed in June 2007 (deletion
debates were closed faster back
If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I wouldn't
rely on a badge. Waving round a badge, no matter the design, proves
nothing - any more than waving round a badge would prove the person or
people who ring the bell, have a nice uniform, and want to enter your home,
are
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Now this is fascinating:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Q-clearance_badge.jpg
That image deletion debate appears to be over some security badge. The
debate started in February 2007
Well, you know, I think there is a duty of care involved. If a genuine
badge can be purchased along with a genuine identification card and
uniform there is an obvious danger to the public. Even to the agency
itself.
Fred
If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I
Duty of care is a legal term.
I think more to the point an expectation of commonsense applies to those
having a random badge waved at them, to verify it and not merely take it on
trust.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, you know, I think
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Duty of care is a legal term.
But I note no-one has been able to refute the argument that we don't
know who took the photograph and thus the photograph has not been
freely licensed and hence should be deleted. What is needed is a way
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
What is needed is a way
to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it
and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who
took
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Shane Simmons avicenna...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
What is needed is a way
to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it
and
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Actually if the FBI approached me I would know them by their manner,
which is quite distinctive, although not impossible to mimic.
{{citation needed}}
:-)
Carcharoth
___
http://www.google.com/images?num=100hl=enoe=UTF-8um=1ie=UTF-8q=badge%20site%3Afbi.gov
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Shane Simmons avicenna...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Duty of care is a legal term.
But I note no-one has been able to refute the argument that we don't
know who took the photograph and thus the photograph has not been
freely licensed and hence should be deleted. What is needed is a
On 8/9/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
What is needed is a way
to find a genuine FBI badge and find someone willing to photograph it
and release that photograph under a free license, or to identify who
took
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/images?num=100hl=enoe=UTF-8um=1ie=UTF-8q=badge%20site%3Afbi.gov
The point, FT2, is that those images should be used, not the one being
debated. Delete the current one, upload a new one. Problem solved as
far as
2010/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Actually if the FBI approached me I would know them by their manner,
which is quite distinctive, although not impossible to mimic.
{{citation needed}}
:-)
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From the FBI media gallery: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/photos.htm
I assume {{PD-USGov-FBI}} applies here.
-User:Avicennasis
Explicit permission is given:
FBI Photos
High Resolution Photographs
These materials
I don't believe an encyclopedia has what is meant by a legal duty of care
(all deference to the lawyers among us).
Duty of care is usually a term in civil law relating to a case where someone
may be expected to rely on a statement or representation to the point that
the statement should not be
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether
we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good
educational value image, in preference to a poor and dubious one, if we keep
any.
FT2
The permission given seems to invite use of the badge and gun image. If
permission was improvidently given, it is up to them to withdraw it.
Fred
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of
whether
we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:20 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether
we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good
educational value
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:20 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of
whether
we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good
educational value
On 9 August 2010 20:26, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and
sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
The obvious steps would be:
1. Upload the best quality imagery you can from there,
On 9 August 2010 20:37, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The not-so-good articles can then be removed at leisure, without gaps
in the articles.
not so good images.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
On 9 August 2010 20:37, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2010 20:26, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and
sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
The obvious steps would be:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2010 20:26, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and
sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
The obvious steps
On 9 August 2010 20:44, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
There are similar issues with some other US government imagery - no
copyright restrictions per se, but using it in a misleading fashion is
explicitly illegal. The first example I can think of is the NASA logo,
which we mark
On 9 August 2010 20:49, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Noting this here because it seems impossible to ever find out where
images were used in the past once they are removed from articles,
unless you have a list to go back and check.
There's gotta be a MediaWiki bug to this
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached
an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited
in increasingly
On 9 August 2010 21:29, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you have to have delusional ideas about article perfection
to understand that at as article quality increases, the chance that any
individual edit will improve it decreases.
Not at all. The leap from is to
On 9 August 2010 21:34, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all. The leap from is to ought, however, is fallacious and
an important and damaging error. [1] It's the something must be done,
this is something, therefore this is a good idea fallacy.
[1]
I'm working on a blog post about this, but here's an infographic from David
McCandless (who does some nice work, i.e. Information is
Beautifulhttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/)
about Wikipedia edit wars. Full thing
On 9 August 2010 21:34, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all. The leap from is to ought, however, is fallacious and
an important and damaging error. [1] It's the something must be done,
this is something, therefore this is a good idea fallacy.
[1]
On 10/08/10 03:01, Carcharoth wrote:
And if you stand your ground, they will give you all the time you
need to read their ID's, make your calls (while they wait outside),
and verify who they are. If they don't, most likely, they are not real
Feds.
If they are armed, and you don't have several
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
...
Oh wait, I found a page here:
http://www.fbi.gov/priorities/priorities.htm
That would be a better source for images, but the images don't seem to be
there.
Older revisions have the image:
49 matches
Mail list logo
