Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:41 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: You must live in a very simplistic world, but I am afraid it does resemble reality very well. Here are how some various types of things and people are funded. Tool server=chapter. Developers= Mostly WMF but some chapter. Marketing professionals=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal professionals=WMF and chapter. Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF and chapters. You will not find any bright lines in reality. Indeed. And given the magnitude and multitude of problems we are trying to solve as a movement, I think it's absolutely appropriate and desirable for chapters to undertake, for example, software engineering projects (I have reservations about infrastructure-hosting projects). One of the advantages of our open source model is that we already have to operate under a standard assumption that others may want to make significant contributions without centralized management thereof, so we _should_ be able to accommodate chapter-driven software engineering work. The Wikidata project is an example of this. What's notable about Wikidata is not just that it's a very significant scale project ($1.5M in funding), but also that the funding doesn't come from the classic contribution streams (online donations) but from a network of funders that Wikimedia Germany brought together. The project would not have been started or funded without Wikimedia Germany, which really validates the importance of chapters. Chapters indeed have the potential to build out a significant presence to advance engineering and product development, and I'd love to see more of that in future with regard to underrepresented technical priorities (e.g. geo-data related functionality, quality management tools, ProofreadPage style functionality, etc.). In addition to adding to our overall ability to fund and manage projects, they have the ability to recruit and build offices in their geographies, potentially at a much lower salary cost than we do in the SF Bay Area as our primary HQ. The one caveat I have is that, if chapters don't contribute, as part of this process, fully by means of participating in code review and general MediaWiki development, there's a risk that any such chapter-driven engineering work contributes to the overall backlog, and requires adding to a centralized pool of resources. Moreover, a short term project with limited funding has the potential to also add to the long term maintenance/improvement burden for WMF. We're trying to manage this balance very carefully with the Wikidata project, and we'll draw a lot of lessons from the project as it continues. All best, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On 07/26/12 3:51 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take. Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), or as a work of joint authorship. And joint works in the UK are quite different from joint works in the US. To grant a license on a UK joint work, you need the permission of all the joint owners. (It's also possible that you don't own the copyright at all in a picture you take, because you didn't contribute anything copyrightable, but that's unlikely to be the case in this sort of scenario. I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos. From the IOC's perspective the presence of a joint owner is marginal. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On 27/07/12 03:47, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC. This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this contract in a commercial manner. However the IOC cannot possibly extend the contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police third-parties. Let's run a few possibilities: Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook. It goes viral across the Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace. IOC wishes to end poster sales. Your position that this the contract must be effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work. If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing. TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the photo to Sis to use in advertising. The IOC does not even have the standing to discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the creator's copyright. Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of their work. IOC can do nothing. TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's Olympics. IOC can do nothing. TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC can do nothing. An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing. Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On 07/26/12 6:47 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Sources for the restrictions: * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited I really can't figure out the difference between your example about personality rights and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying that the above approch could not work, but IANAL. As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to some extent. So may you clarify? There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC. This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this contract in a commercial manner. However the IOC cannot possibly extend the contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police third-parties. Let's run a few possibilities: Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook. It goes viral across the Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace. IOC wishes to end poster sales. Your position that this the contract must be effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work. If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing. TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the photo to Sis to use in advertising. The IOC does not even have the standing to discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the creator's copyright. Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of their work. IOC can do nothing. TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's Olympics. IOC can do nothing. TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC can do nothing. The only reason the IOC was even able to make the empty threats it did about the Usain Bolt photo is that the photographer and licensing were all easily tracked down on Commons. This issue (limits of contract law vs. copyright law) has been well hashed over in the past. The IOC cannot do what it seems to claim on this issue. I have actually dug around for the links to past discussions of contracts for access used in attempt to control copyright, but sadly no luck. (I did however find useful links on three other issues sitting at the back of my mind!) Really the IOC, whatever it wishes, cannot control the licensing, much less the actual usage, of photo taken at the Olympics. It has no right to do so, not under copyright, not under contract law. It can in a very limited way exert control over individuals who voluntarily entered into binding contracts *with the IOC*. It cannot exert control over the photographs themselves nor any other individuals. The IOC has shown a willingness to harass and threaten people into a level of compliance that it has no right to demand. We can offer a shield from harassment to photographers, if any exist, who would like to offer their work to the common cultural landscape without being credited. Through pseudo-anonymity we can offer photographers a way to attribute their works to an account that cannot be identified today but can be repatriated tomorrow when the heat has cooled off. However, we probably should refrain from encouraging easily identified Flickr users to relicense their work in a way we now know will likely bring the IOC to their doorstep. Birgitte SB In general terms I think that a lot of these contracts on the back of a ticket, Terms of Use, and End User License Agreements may have a very limited enforceability. How many people really read, understand and agree to what they say? How do they know if the often lengthy legalese violates rights that they have under the law? In the case of software updates where the terms must be agreed to again there is great opportunity to quietly and subtly introduce new terms that won't be noticed except by careful comparison of the old and new versions. Ray
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: The point really is who actually cares about ArbCom decisions I am really surprised to see a former member of ArbCom say this. Everybody on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so does the entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For the record, ArbCom members derive their authority from 300 to 600 supporters' votes. Wikimedia UK board members, from 40 or 50. ArbCom had a number of reasons for their decision to ban Fae. These included that he operated about a dozen different accounts, refused to disclose all of them to ArbCom, and had in their view attempted to deceive both the Wikipedia community and ArbCom itself. Fae used commercial porn sites as biographical sources in Wikipedia. In one case in June last year, he linked directly to a video clip showing the biography subject, a black woman author, having sex (these were scenes from a video she had tried to suppress), and vigorously defended that BLP sourcing. He has since apologised for this error in judgment, but this must be seen against the backdrop that it was Fae who, only a few weeks later, told Parliament and the Charity Commission that the English Wikipedia had an effective BLP policy, which was being effectively maintained by the site's administrators, such as himself. Refusing to acknowledge any problem, and beating up on ArbCom instead, really is the least well advised strategy to deal with this situation. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair
Irrespectively of the en.wp Arbcom decision (which I do not want to discuss and I am not qualified to discuss) I think it is a very good thing that wm.uk issued a statement. I wish other Chapters would follow the lead, if needed. When Vladimir Medeyko, the president of wm.ru, and, I believe, at the time the Chapter Council member, was banned by Arbcom from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space, nobody cared to issue any public statements. We know that some people may be troublemakers on some projects and marvellous on other projects or in other Wikimedia activity, but I believe if troubles come statements should indeed be issued by relevant authorities. Cheers Yaroslav On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:54:52 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: The point really is who actually cares about ArbCom decisions I am really surprised to see a former member of ArbCom say this. Everybody on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so does the entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For the record, ArbCom members derive their authority from 300 to 600 supporters' votes. Wikimedia UK board members, from 40 or 50. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos. Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter. My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect. Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was originally recorded. Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown. Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-) Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos. Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter. My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect. Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was originally recorded. Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
Sounds like you're prepared for some flash photography. Ahem. On Jul 27, 2012 8:08 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown. Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-) Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos. Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter. My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect. Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was originally recorded. Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
Even for the east end of London, I got some odd looks. Video was a but rubbish, but I tried! Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 27, 2012 8:12 PM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Sounds like you're prepared for some flash photography. Ahem. On Jul 27, 2012 8:08 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown. Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-) Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos. Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter. My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect. Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was originally recorded. Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos. Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter. My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect. To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to say that at the point someone clicked the shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright. Considering just this moment in time, it is far, far more likely that there is no copyright created at all than that a joint authorship situation is created. However, many things can occur after this point in time which will result in a work with joint authorship. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect. To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to say that at the point someone clicked the shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright. Well, no, I disagree. It is not at all safe to say. Would you also say that whoever presses record on a tape player is the sole owner of the copyright of the recording? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Survey, Feedback requested, and Office Hour
*Hi everyone, It's been a bit since I last emailed this list (or any list, for that matter!)... you may remember me, I worked at the Foundation last year in the Community Department, working with Philippe on any number of issues, as well as with the OTRS team. I've come back to work on a short term project with the Foundation, and I have to say it's great to be back! (and a great break from my Master's thesis!) We're getting ready to run the next version of the Editor Survey, for August 2012. This will be the third incarnation we've run since 2011. As with the prior incarnations of the survey, we'll be looking at a variety of topics, this time with the goal of not only understanding your needs and pressing issues while interacting with fellow editors, but also focusing on editors' satisfaction with the work of the Foundation. The last time we ran an editor survey, it was completed by over 6,000 respondents. When you break that down, it means that each minute of time demanded by the survey corresponds to 100 hours of Wikipedians' time. We want to make sure that this time is spent wisely, ensuring that the questions we have are worded clearly, don't cause confusion, and will generate meaningful answers. So we'd like to ask you to take a look at the survey, and give us feedback on the questions. You can find them here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_August_2012/Questions https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_August_2012/Questions ... and please leave your feedback on the talk page there so we can keep the discussion in one place :) You can find out more information about the survey here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_August_2012 Also, we are planning an IRC Office Hour on the survey, this **Tuesday, July 31 at 1700 UTC.** (See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hoursfor general information about IRC Office hours) I know there has been some discussion about offering Office Hours in a broader range of times, and I know this time may not be the greatest for some... but this was the best time we could find currently. Thanks everyone!! -Christine Wikimedia Foundation* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
