Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protest against ACTA/Mexico in Spanish Wikinews
On 07/24/12 4:32 PM, Juergen Fenn wrote: FYI: Spanish Wikinews today bears a site notice in protest against the Mexican government signing the ACTA agreement. It says: The internet must remain free. The Freedom of the internet is in peril. The Spanish Wikinews community has issued a press release on the matter: https://es.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinoticias:Comunicado_de_prensa_acerca_de_la_firma_de_ACTA_en_México I think we should express our solidarity with Spanish Wikinews editors. The signing of ACTA is seen as a precondition for Mexico's participation in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). This was despite warnings from the Mexican Senate that it should be studied before being signed. The Senate still has to ratify it before it is passed, and that is probably where the Mexican battle needs to be waged. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly
On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy* for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials. The paid chapter officials are employees of the chapters themselves. The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more deserving than another. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly
On 07/26/12 4:41 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbejayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy* for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials. The paid chapter officials are employees of the chapters themselves. The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded from the same donations as the Foundation. The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more deserving than another. Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development staff, and it's not a choice of either/or. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings 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. To this must be added work with the GLAM community. This is largely driven by the chapters. Their ability to contact these institutions is likely key to opening up access to large stores of material. It would be far more difficult to do this as a foreign organization. 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 07/26/12 9:31 AM, Peter Coombe wrote: Unfortunately people will still be bombarded with coverage of it from everywhere else, so probably a futile gesture. We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc. ;) It would be a great reflection on the Olympic movement if the only pictures in Wikipedia were of security and gridlock, with nothing about the athletic events. :-) 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 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 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] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On 07/27/12 7:15 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@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. I suppose that, like any good Wikimedian, we like to balance ourselves on the edge cases. We can imagine many. The underlying case would be IOC vs. Uploader. These other points about joint authorship and photo editing really have more bearing on the identity of the defendant. They could possibly arise, but at this stage they just obscure the main issue. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On 08/20/12 12:17 PM, geni wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever anywhere on the topic that might give real-world pointers? It's a question of fact, not a question of law. Then any real-world examples of the question arising. I doubt it. Most X-rays aren't worth enough to be worth suing over and the handful that are mostly derive for the scientific community who tend not to sue people over the issue of copyright. This certainly sums it up. Personality rights are a separate issue, and in most cases it should be easy to separate them except maybe conjoined twins and people who have swallowed a charm bracelet with their name clearly exposed. Breach of contractual rights and employment contracts are also a separate matter. It's actually easier to deal with these because something is spelled out. Our concern is more with situations where nothing is expressed before the problem comes up. My basic view is that the X-ray is copyrightable with the ownership of the copyright vesting in the person who invested most of the originality. If that person is bold enough to be the *first* person to put that image in fixed form there will be a presumption that he has a right to do so. Who is going to challenge him? A DMCA takedown order won't work, because it must reference the work that was infringed as well as the infringement. To get any more than provable damages the copyright must also be registered. It may give comfort to owners to know that copyright in a work is automatic without registration, but the down side of this is a huge assortment of material is copyright where the true owner has neither the knowledge or desire for this kind of protection. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands
On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter. Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...). I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued. Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of the legal points that will be clarified. It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has tortuously caused injury. (Para 1). Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party to it? Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copy and paste
On 10/17/12 10:26 PM, James Heilman wrote:
We really need a plagiarism detection tool so that we can make sure our
sources are not simply copy and pastes of older versions of Wikipedia.
Today I was happily improving our article on pneumonia as I have a day off.
I came across a recommendation that baby's should be suction at birth to
decrease their risk of pneumonia with a {{cn}} tag. So I went to Google
books and up came a book that supported it perfectly. And than I noticed
that this book supported the previous and next few sentences as well. It
also supported a number of other sections we had in the article but was
missing our references. The book was selling for $340 a copy. Our articles
have improved a great deal since 2007 and yet school are buying copy edited
version of Wikipedia from 5 years ago. The bit about suctioning babies at
birth is was wrong and I have corrected it. I think we need to get this
news out. Support Wikipedia and use the latest version online!
Further details / discuss are here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Can_we_still_use_books_as_refs.3F
This situation was entirely predictable, even if its particular
circumstances weren't. I ran into something of the sort as far back as
2003. I have long since lost track of references to the incident; it had
to do with literary biographies of long dead authors, and thus much less
critical than in a medical article. The broader question goes well
beyond simple matters of plagiarism or copyright infringement. The
passages will often be short enough that a fair dealing claim is
available, and the moral right to be credited for one's work has no
meaningful legal enforcement to back it up. To those familiar with these
things that right isn't even controversial.
The disputed version in this case is a mere five years old. Over a
longer time that could encompass the entire validity period of a
copyright we could easily see such a thing bounce back and forth many
times over without ever being discovered. A bot could do some of the
search for infringing material; it may even look through archived and
archaic versions of a document. I believe that at some point any such
processes reach a limit. That broader solution will need to be more
imaginative than more police work.
Ray
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
