For those interested, a quick reminder:
The travel guide RFC will (soft) close in 1 hour, 17 minutes as of the
moment this mail is sent. (At 0:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC))
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
__
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wrote:
>>> It possibly has a very thin copyright.
>>
>> Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.
>
> Incorrect. In some
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
>
On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wrote:
> It possibly has a very thin copyright.
Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
> better example.
>
> There's a good chance that wouldn't be
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
better example.
There's a good chance that wouldn't be considered copyrightable under US law.
__
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
>
> That photo, according to the licenses on that page, has copyright. Do
> you disagree?
It possibly has a very thin copyright. And even that very thin
copyright would be unlikely to hold
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM, geni wrote:
> In the case of the US we can consider the constitutional basis of
> copyright "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
> securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
> Right to their respective Writings and Discover
On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
> In most cases ( Covering the significant majority of all x-rays existing, but
> not ruling out the possibility of rare uses of X-ray photography as an
> artistic medium) . . .
>
> 7 None of the above
>
> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
http://commons.wikim
On 22 August 2012 14:14, wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni wrote:
>>> On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
>>>
Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
>>>
>>>
>>> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
>>>
>>>
>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, wrote:
>> 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
>> situati
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, 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
On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:02 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> There are two things if the images are not copyrightable:
>
> 1) If users add images from lets say a textbook. Will someone on commons
> simply delete them and thus it would be a waste of time.
>
> 2) Do we exposure either ourselves or the
Heya folks :)
The next Wikidata office hours are coming up. You're invited to come
and ask your questions - technical or non-technical. Some of the
things to talk about are for example the things listed in the "This
needs your input" box on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata but
other topics
On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
>>
>>> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
>>
>>
>> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
>>
>>
[[ciatation needed]]
I really doubt non-arti
There are two things if the images are not copyrightable:
1) If users add images from lets say a textbook. Will someone on commons
simply delete them and thus it would be a waste of time.
2) Do we exposure either ourselves or the WMF to legal problems. And if so
is this important enough to warran
2012/8/21 Delphine Ménard :
> If, however, we're going to mix editor's experience and satisfaction
> about Wikimedia, I am cruelly missing any kind of feedback question
> about the work of the chapters and/or other organisations or groups in
> the Wikimedia Universe that would give people the right
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
>>
>>> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
>>
>>
>> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
>>
>> --
>> geni
>>
>> ___
18 matches
Mail list logo
