Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protest against ACTA/Mexico in Spanish Wikinews

2012-07-25 Thread Ray Saintonge

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

2012-07-26 Thread Ray Saintonge

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] photography restrictions at the Olympics

2012-07-26 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 07/26/12 2:23 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.


Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures 
you take.


Athletes in the performance of their sport are public figures so the 
personality rights are more limited. This may be more of a concern in 
selecting which pictures to publish, and avoiding anything indiscrete.


The enforceability of those lengthy so-called contractual terms may be 
unrealistic. I do understand that there may be some justification in 
section 19.2.3 for a ban on refrigerators.


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

2012-07-26 Thread Ray Saintonge

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

2012-07-26 Thread Ray Saintonge

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

2012-07-27 Thread Ray Saintonge

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

2012-07-27 Thread Ray Saintonge

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

2012-07-28 Thread Ray Saintonge

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

2012-08-20 Thread Ray Saintonge

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] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-20 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/20/12 2:01 PM, Michael Peel wrote:

OK, so the moderation of this mailing list appears to be broken (surely such 
emails should at least be held for approval by a moderator?). But please see my 
previous email (which I sent after hitting the 'reply' button)…

Thanks,
Mike


It seems like a perfectly valid topic for this list.

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

2012-08-20 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/20/12 10:27 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:

In the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA) governs release of medical information, which includes any medium,
including spoken, written, or electronically stored. This includes videos,
photographs, and x-rays. The only person legally entitled to release this
information is the patient or individual holding medical power of attorney.
You can find more information here: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/


On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:


As I'm running out the door, two things to point out factually:

1) people who work in U.S. hospitals are very often independent
contractors, especially physicians.
2) much medical diagnostic imaging is done on an outpatient basis at an
independent imager. Even if the imager has copyright, there's no way to
know whether there is a standing assignment agreement or not.

Additionally to confuse things, HIPAA mandates access to (but not
necessarily copyright in, though I haven't really looked at it) medical
records, as well as disclosure and protection requirements.

Dan Rosenthal



This US law won't apply if the X-rays are taken at a facility outside og 
the United States.


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

2012-09-12 Thread Ray Saintonge

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

2012-10-20 Thread Ray Saintonge

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