Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

2012-12-30 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Dec 30, 2012, at 3:40 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC.
 
 I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Where are plans for the
 April fundraiser being discussed?

It means multivariate testing in X languages is siginificantly more resource 
intensive than A/B testing in one language. Impractibly so for the fundraising 
team, IMHO. At least that is what I meant with that plus the following 
statement that you removed. The meaning required both to be read together.

You are subscribed to the same mailing list I am, yet you have been regularly 
asking people to dig out information that I myself am well aware of. And I do 
not get any information any place else than this list (except maybe wikitech-l 
which I am currently months and months behind on). Pay attention or search your 
own emails. 

You may not realize this, but your recent messages seem rather disingenuous. Do 
your own research. Reply individually to others with the full context intact. 
Actually address the points of the message you reply to straight on, instead of 
sending the thread on a tangent. Or else, accept that you will be judged 
insincere and do not be surprised when people largely stop responding to your 
emails. I am done myself, unless you alter your approach.

Birgitte SB

(who really hates when people over-snip)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

2012-12-29 Thread Birgitte_sb
The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. Your suggestion is not at 
all practical for the fundraising team to implement. 

Also it is terrible idea, which ignores the high costs of planning to hold 
deliberations in a few months which is designed to nullify the results of 
recently concluded deliberations. People have work to do in January, February, 
and March. No sane person can be expected to be put in a holding pattern for 
three months before an organizations STARTS to decide what internal projects 
will be supported. If you think there is a talent retention problem now, well 
if you had your way the current numbers would be blown out of the water by the 
coming stampede of departures.

BirgitteSB


On Dec 28, 2012, at 3:45 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value
 goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to
 optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run
 the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use
 the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be
 competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be
 jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and
 engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low
 risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
 
 ___
 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] If I could talk to the wiki folks...

2012-12-29 Thread Birgitte_sb
I am not affiliated with Wiki Med. However as an American, Health to my ear 
means scammy quacky bullshit that wants to pretend it is medicine for the $$$.  
There are real reasons NY does not let an organization use the title Medicine 
without approval from the medical board. And all those reasons use the title 
Health or Healing  instead. I imagine the members of an organization like 
Wiki Med are more than normally aware of this and would be more than normally 
distressed to be associated with this. After all, the majority of Wikipedian 
medical editors seem dedicate a good portion of their time to keeping the 
scammy quacky bullshit out of the medical articles.

Birgitte SB

On Dec 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Leinonen Teemu teemu.leino...@aalto.fi wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I think the thematic organizations are good for the movement. Could the 
 naming of the affiliated thematic organizations be primary based on the 
 Wikipedia Portal namespaces (from all the Wikipedia's in different languages)?
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Portals
 
 With this logic the Wiki Med could be Wikimedia Health.
 
 - Teemu
 
 On 28.12.2012, at 19.29, Ziko van Dijk 
 vand...@wmnederland.nlmailto:vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
 
 Dear James,
 
 My sincere congratulations for this important step, and I am really
 very happy with a Wikimedia Medicine. But the name Wiki Med
 Foundation - I find the choice for that name just strange (I saw the
 discussion on Meta too late). Wikimedia Health, by the way, would be
 as great as Wikimedia Medicine. I understood that there problems in
 the State of New York to use medicine in the title. So, Wiki
 Health could have been an alternative until recognition from the
 AffCom.
 
 Kind regards
 Ziko
 
 
 2012/12/29 James Heilman jmh...@gmail.commailto:jmh...@gmail.com:
 Yes so Wiki Med Foundation Inc incorporated Dec 19, 2012 and we had our
 first official board meeting Dec 26, 2012. We have had expressed interest
 from 57 people from more than a dozen countries with a large group of
 interested members from India. Our 9 board members are from 7 different
 countries.
 
 Our first official event is being held January 7-11th at the University of
 California San Francisco in collaboration with Wikimedia Canada. We have
 been invited by the college of medicine to give a half dozen lectures on
 Wikipedia and Medicine and a few editing sessions where students and staff
 can try their hand at editing themselves. This is in preparation for an
 elective for 3rd and 4th year medical students which will resolve around
 contribution to Wikimedia projects hopefully to launch in the spring.
 
 Of course we are a new corporation, however our membership is composed of
 people who have extensive experience within the Wikimedia movement. Once we
 have had a chance to prove ourselves over the next 6 month we will re
 approach the aff com / Wikimedia movement to determine if an official
 association is desired. Currently as stated by Bence we are not officially
 associated.
 
 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
 
 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.comhttp://www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 
 
 --
 
 ---
 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
 http://wmnederland.nl/
 
 Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht
 ---
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto: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] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-23 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM,  birgitte...@yahoo.com 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
 situations.
 
 How do you distinguish whether or not it is a diagnostic image, and
 what makes it clear-cut?
 
 If you define diagnostic image as an image created solely for the
 purpose of making a diagnosis, then I suppose you've got a clear-cut
 utilitarian work.  On the other hand, this wouldn't include an X-ray
 which was made by someone who knew the X-ray was going to be used in a
 medical book.
 
 

If any such images exist where the technician knew to aim for something more 
than a mere depiction, I would agree that things become more questionable. if 
the technician is actually credited by the textbook I personally would find a 
different image to use, because why bother about it? But just the fact that the 
technician knew something might it be used in a larger work (x-rays don't have 
preview), wouldn't flip the copyright switch all by itself. Presumably the 
textbook in question is for instructing someone on how to interpret a 
diagnostic image. Presumably an actual diagnostic image would be selected for 
inclusion in such a textbook.  Now if a technician, while working to create 
diagnostic images, aimed to create an image that might *also* be displayed in 
an art gallery, then I wouldn't include that image in my general conclusion. 
But the image has to stand on its own; either was never copyrightable wherever 
it might be used, or it has always been copyrighted since the moment it was 
created until the copyright is waived or expires.

To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence are 
diagnostic images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays 
that might land in some grey area.  If something makes a particular X-ray 
really stand out from the vast majority, something about that makes an editor 
want to use *that* one instead picking another from the mountain on diagnostic 
images. I would suspect that in such a case the uncopyrightable conclusion 
would be less certain than it is for the vast majority. We are never going to 
be able to actually determine the copyright on every single image uploaded. 
Never. Not even with infinite resources. The unknowable category wrt copyright 
is significant. It is just tiny subset of all works existing, but not so tiny 
that you will fail to come across it now and again. If an image is borderline 
and easily substituted; please refrain from wasting the communities' time and 
energy on it.  Substitute it with an equivalent image with superior provenance. 

Rule of thumb (that I haven't thought about very long and may later disagree 
with): If a specific image truly is uncopyrightable as a utilitarian image, 
then it should be very easy to replace with another equivalent image. If a 
specific image doesn't seem to have any *possible* equivalents, it probably 
isn't a utilitarian image.

Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* 
to be pleasing to human aesthetics. That is usually the part that creates the 
copyright, the choices that are made to produce a certain aesthetic. When an 
image is designed without any consideration for aesthetics at all (i.e. an arm 
is placed on a plane and arranged at a certain angle in order to best diagnose 
any possible damage to the elbow joint), then it is a very good candidate to be 
considered a utilitarian image. Consider any stock story with a comic and a 
tragic version, consider all the reinterpretations that have been done of 
Shakespeare's plays. The new derivative is copyrighted on the weight of the 
aesthetic choices. Not idea of boy meets girl. Copyright is about how something 
is expressed.  The harder it is to express the same information with different 
aesthetics, whether it is the phone numbers for businesses in a list or the 
soundness of a joint on an image, the harder it is to attach copyright to any 
particular expression of this information.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-23 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM,  birgitte...@yahoo.com 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 UK, but a quick search suggests that you
 *can't* copyright purely utilitarian works in the UK.
 
 (I wouldn't use the term non-artistic though.  There are plenty of
 works that are copyrighted in the US and all over that I wouldn't
 consider art, and while an argument could be made that such works
 shouldn't be copyrightable, court precedent is clearly adverse to that
 argument.),  

I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is 
artistic, literary, dramatic, or musical works. The rules can change a bit as 
you change mediums, so when we are talking about an image I am talking about 
copyright wrt to images.
 
 
 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
 situations.
 
 How do you distinguish whether or not it is a diagnostic image, and
 what makes it clear-cut?
 
 Even using the term utilitarian rather than artistic I can still
 come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty
 clear-cut as utilitarian to me, but yet which receive copyright
 protection.  gzip, for instance.

I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't 
clarify, ask again and explain what gzip is.
 
 And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright 
 on diagnostic
 images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.
 
 Do you have a citation for this?  Also, is it where the image is
 created, or where it is first published, or something else?
 
Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in 
the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere.  It would be based on 
the jurisdiction of creation.  Publication has had nothing to do with the 
creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware.  Before 1976, in 
the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright 
protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at 
fixation.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-23 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 
 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.
 
 Even if it is, I think an X-ray would be quite different. In taking a
 photo of a subject's arm, the photographer must consider lighting,
 angle to which the arm is turned, the proper camera settings, how to
 find the exact arm that suits the purposes of the intended photo, etc.
 
 Heh, I'd argue that the photo in question shows that the photographer
 obviously does *not* have to make these considerations.  Looks like a
 random arm in a random position against a plain white wall (hardly
 creative), with auto everything.
 
 I think there would be just enough creativity in that arm shot, but
 it'd be close.
 
 Yeah, I agree it'd be close.  I think it'd come down to the testimony
 of the photographer.  If he claimed oh, I chose a hairy arm because
 X, and I opened my thumb because Y, maybe I'd buy it.  So if you're
 feeling particularly copyright-paranoid, it's best to get explicit
 permission.
 
 An X-ray, on the other hand, is made by a technician according to
 documented procedures. The arm is turned to the proper angle to see
 what the doctor wants to see, not to an angle that's aesthetically or
 artistically pleasing.
 
 I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's a requirement for aesthetic
 or artistic purpose.  Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc.,
 all have been held to be copyrightable.

I think you are overestimating the very minimal amount of creativity that is 
required to here. The aesthetic choice between noting a pause as a period vs. a 
dash vs. a semi-colon has been upheld as copyrightable. There is aesthetics 
within non-fiction and legal documents, whether or not they are primary 
consideration.

 
 The image is taken according to standard and inflexible procedures.
 The technician is not exercising a bit of
 creativity in taking the image. In fact, the tech would likely get in
 trouble if (s)he DID decide to get creative with it.
 
 That, on the other hand, is a very important point.
 
 On the other other hand, it's not true of all X-ray images.  It's
 certainly possible, for instance, to create an X-ray image with the
 explicit purpose of putting it in an encyclopedia, or a journal, or
 even a book of artwork.
 
 Where it gets into grey area would be if the person created the X-ray
 image knowing that it would be used in a book, but that it would also
 be used for diagnostic purposes.
 
 Either way, it's a question of fact what instructions were given to
 the X-ray tech, as well as whether or not the tech followed them.
 

I disagree here, the intention of the creator has no more to do with copyright 
than effort expended. It all hangs on whether the work as executed contains 
some newly created creative expression of the information. Whether it resulted 
from purposeful or subconscious choices do not matter. 

 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 It possibly has a very thin copyright.
 
 Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.
 
 Incorrect.  In some works, some aspects are copyrighted, and some
 aspects are not.
 
+1

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Uncopyrightable works and cross-jurisdictional protections was Re: Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-23 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Snip
 
 And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize 
 copyright on diagnostic
 images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.
 
 Do you have a citation for this?  Also, is it where the image is
 created, or where it is first published, or something else?
 
 Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected 
 in the US, it cannot
 demand bilateral protection elsewhere.  It would be based on the 
 jurisdiction of creation.
 Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 
 1970's as far as I
 am aware.  Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for 
 determining
 copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is 
 automatic at fixation.
 
 Are you sure, or are you guessing?
 
 What about all that country of origin stuff in the Berne Convention?
 That certainly suggests to me that the location of first publication
 matters.
 

Publication shortens the copyright term that was enjoyed by the unpublished 
work. That is the only significance I am aware that the first publication has 
since the 1970's.

However, the Berne Convention is insane.  It is not set up as a bilateral 
treaty like I had thought. (Some of the other relevant agreement are.) It 
reads: 

 [the enjoyment and exercise of copyright] ... shall be independent of the 
 existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, 
 apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as 
 well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, 
 shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is 
 claimed. — Berne Convention, article 5(2).


Here is an example of how insane that is.  In the US edicts of government are 
uncopyrightable. A few years ago Oregon forgot about this; they notices on 
their website and actually attempted to enforce copyright on the statues of 
Oregon. I am not sure how far this went in litigation before they were educated 
about copyright law. Now in the UK, edicts of government are copyrightable. The 
UK recently switched its license on the local statute from Crown Copyright to 
some new Free Government license. One way that Berne can be read is that if 
you had printed a copy of the Statues of Oregon from their website in Oregon; 
you were not infringing on copyright.  However if you had printed a copy of the 
Statues of Oregon from their website *in the UK*; you were infringing on the 
copyrights owned by the State of Oregon.  And if Oregon had sought to enforce 
these rights in the UK, they would have been able to.  

Now this is the really insane part. The US policy relies on common law, so 
there isn't a quotable  statue.  The summary is such material as laws and 
governmental rules and decisions must be freely available to the public and 
made known as widely as possible; hence there must be no restriction on 
reproduction and dissemination of such documents. Now imagine the US federal 
government passed a law stating that in order allow for the widest 
distribution possible, all edicts of government are to be protected by 
copyright for a term of 1 minute. If that were to happen then Oregon would no 
longer be able to enforce copyright on the Statutes of Oregon in the UK or any 
other Berne signatory that does not explicitly revoke the rule of the shorter 
term (one the provisions of the Convention that can invalidate the the quoted 
idea above).

Obviously, I just pulled all this together. And I am just guessing, as you 
might say, about how it would actually play out. And while it is a crazy corner 
of international copyright, it is not an issue I am concerned with about the 
diagnostic images. I do not believe such images are copyrighted anywhere. Until 
someone cites some copyright law that is profoundly differently from generic US 
basis for what copyright is about, I am will remain confident that mere 
diagnostic images are universally without copyright protection.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-23 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence 
 are diagnostic
 images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that 
 might land in some
 grey area.
 
 One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most
 likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the
 intention of being distributed.
 

I don't understand why intention to distribute would be relevant.


 On the other hand, if probably no one will sue is good enough for
 you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first
 place.

That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an 
argument which I did not make and do not support!

Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic 
images are not copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that 
are equally not copyrighted. If one of these interchangeable images credits 
someone as a creator, and you are worried they probably will sue, then use 
another interchangeable image. Unless, of course, one purposefully wishes to be 
a jerk about their understanding of copyright.  And while I am sure someone 
will, I wound prefer not to put any more effort in considering the situation. 
(So please don't misquote me on this issue!)

 
 Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also 
 *designed* to be pleasing
 to human aesthetics.
 
 I don't understand that.  What are you using the term human
 aesthetics to mean?

I meant when creating a common photo no consideration is given to composition 
of the infrared wavelengths. However, whether the photographer is very aware of 
it or not, aesthetic choices are being made as the overall composition is 
selected. It is really outside this topic, but I think the aesthetics which 
happen please/disturb us are often evolutionary. I tend to always be connecting 
things in my thinking, I didn't mean to have it spill over and muddy things 
here.  Don't read too much into and pretend I just wrote aesthetics.  I doubt 
any one but me would be reading that sentence and wondering whether non-humans 
would find most pictures to be pleasing. Sorry for confusing the issue.

 And even if you're truer about most, that still leaves a great number
 which were not.  Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically
 displeasing.

I also wrote a sentence about copyrightable images being designed for 
aesthetic effect. While I think the statement you quoted works as *a rule of 
thumb*, I purposefully did not limit the statement that followed to only 
*pleasing* aesthetic effects.


 
 And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively
 depict reality.
 
 _

Yes there are many such images.

These types of images are called utilitarian images. 

Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic 
choices. In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking 
aesthetic choices also lack copyright. I was very aware there are many such 
images. I labeled my statement a rule of thumb not a universal rule. 

I know this all sounds like I am very annoyed.  I am really just slightly 
annoyed ;)

Look copyright is really tough. Really.  And most people, probably everyone to 
some degree, misunderstands copyright. I honestly am happy to see you smack 
down some of my statements, like you did about all the international agreements 
working as bi-lateral treaties. I learned that Berne is different today, and 
frankly I think that is awesome. I ran out of low hanging fruit wrt to 
copyright a long time ago. I really appreciate the opportunity this thread has 
offered me to gain a nuance to my understanding.  Seriously.  

But I don't appreciate the rhetorical twists that, instead of clarifying the 
discussion, muddy things by making our that a sentence or two that wrote 
support a position that I never took. Not that it bothers me personally. But it 
confuses the discussion immensely for people who may have been struggling to 
follow it in the beginning. A long time ago, when I knew *nothing* of 
copyright, this list is where I managed to gather most of the low hanging 
fruit. Eventually I had to search for understanding elsewhere, but I know 
people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool 
for making those decisions. At one time, I was such a person.

So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled 
to put on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but 
please  . . . for the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking 
out the weakest snippets of writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus 
on the heart of the positions to explore the issue in way that allows us to 
both improve our understandings?

At least about 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 21 August 2012 19:44,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
 Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
 
 
 Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
 
 

[[ciatation needed]]

I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere (. 
. . but I have been wrong before).

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 situations.

And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on 
diagnostic images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:02 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com 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 WMF to legal problems. And if so
 is this important enough to warrant.
 
 -

If they are not copyrightable, they will qualify a free content.  However, I 
would imagine we could obtain better quality images than those from textbooks. 
There may legal ramifications that have nothing to do with copyright, but 
(assuming all identifiable information is removed) I cannot think of any 
myself. Using images that are in anyway identifiable without permission of the 
person, is of course  bad in numerous ways.  Besides the various privacy laws, 
it would be in violation of the Nuremberg Code.  And any editors who may be 
connected, or wish to be connected in the future, to academic research will not 
want to be associated with such a thing even though it does exactly apply to 
Wikipedia.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-21 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:08 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
 even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
 the answer. I guess the options would be:
 
 1) They are in the public domain
 https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Radiograph_.28X-Ray.29 and
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Works_eligible_for_protection
 
 2) The X ray tech who took the image
 3) The person / institution who paid to have the image taken
 a) The HMO or patient if in the USA
 b) The government if in many parts of the world
 4) The doctor who ordered the image
 5) The doctor who read the image
 6) The hospital / shareholders of the hospital who owns the equipment
 7) All of the above / some of the above / none of the above
 
 Would be good to have a legal position on this.
 -- 
 

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 

BirgitteSB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-02 Thread Birgitte_sb
Seriously stop hijacking this thread. Let MZMcBride have a chance at some 
discussion on his question.

This below is just not cool. Have some respect for MZMcBride. He didn't write 
out his thoughts or concerns with idea that the first reply would turn it all 
into snip fodder. That seems beyond demoralizing to me.

I know I am as guilty of a tangent as anyone, but can't we all, at the very 
least, agree to let one another's sincere *questions* stand without being 
twisted beyond all recognition. We need to insist on there being some lines in 
respect for the other person's voice, or else we are all better off to just 
write a blogs. The only point to joining a mailing list is so you might hear 
what others wish to say. As a sort of pact. This mailing list, I like it as a 
mailing list; I think it sucks as a blog.

Birgitte SB

On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 
 What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
 
 
 You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
 before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
 Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
 
 Good question.
 ___
 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

2012-07-27 Thread Birgitte_sb




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] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

2012-07-26 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@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.

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

2012-07-26 Thread Birgitte_sb




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



___
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 Birgitte_sb




On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@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), snip

I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the 
rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that 
is a derivative works. For a photo to be a derivative work you have to really 
go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.

This claim of photographs as derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in 
the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during that 
discussion While I felt certain at the time, there was some error in this 
claim. I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came 
across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and 
don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were is explained 
in lay terms instead judicial terms.

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html

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

2012-07-26 Thread Birgitte_sb
The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.


On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

 
 
 
 
 On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 
 On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@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), snip
 
 I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring 
 the rest.

 Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is 
 a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really 
 go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
 
 This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago 
 in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during 
 that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I 
 could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came across 
 the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't 
 forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were it is all 
 explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms.
 
 http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
 http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
 
 Birgitte SB
 ___
 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

2012-07-26 Thread Birgitte_sb

And here is the correct second link:

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-works.html

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:13 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

 The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
 struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.
 
 
 On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 
 On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@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), snip
 
 I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and 
 ignoring the rest.
 
 Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is 
 a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to 
 really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
 
 This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks 
 ago in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue 
 during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the 
 claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just 
 came across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links 
 follow, and don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually 
 were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial 
 terms.
 
 http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
 http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
 
 Birgitte SB
 ___
 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] Fwd: Geolocalization improvement proposal

2012-07-23 Thread Birgitte_sb
Somehow this only replied to Nemo



Begin forwarded message:

 From: birgitte...@yahoo.com
 Date: July 23, 2012 12:27:56 PM CDT
 To: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
 
 
 
 
 
 On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 14:28:
 I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where 
 any improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm 
 opinion of the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what 
 exactly are the problems people are having with the current geolocation 
 system?
 
 As the page tries to prove, looks like the current system is completely 
 unreliable and therefore useless for most geonotices in Italy and probably 
 other places.
 
 I think it would be useful to have a wider study of the accuracy of the 
 current system. Privacy issues are always a concern.  I am not certain I 
 could support gathering more exact information on users who are well-served 
 by the current system. It would be more supportable, I think, if there were a 
 way to turn on the browser-based system only for those who are in areas that 
 are known to be poorly served by the current system. Or if you were to ask 
 those who geolocate to known ambiguous areas to opt-in to browser-based 
 geolocation. There is obviously a benefit for some people, but a cost to 
 everyone if we were to switch wholesale. Further study to determine exactly 
 how widespread and how significant the benefit would be is something that I 
 think might be useful.
 
 Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-08 Thread Birgitte_sb
The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled 
here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are 
trademarks.

It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask 
again in the way you did. It a debatable point, not an obvious one. None of us 
who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree 
about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if 
they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true 
availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category 
apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be 
happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project 
is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for 
each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There 
is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally. 

In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other 
situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You 
mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality 
releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized 
with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have 
different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most 
important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear 
out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a 
perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when 
I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have 
been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue 
again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I 
do not understand at all.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:

 As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and
 no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, 
 with
 the trademark rights guaranteed.
 
 Again why is not free?
 
 -- 
 Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
 rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
 +55 11 7971-8884
 ___
 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] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Birgitte_sb
I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however 
this not a very commonly understood nuance.  Many people, when seeing the logo 
listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as 
any other copyleft or PD image.  They will not necessarily understand that 
trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the 
symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the 
required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was 
listed as free of copyright.  However strictly accurate the plan to treat the 
two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those 
people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws 
achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. 
They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed 
messages. 

It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To 
maintain a consistent message of Do not use. 

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 
wrote:

 You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both 
 concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are 
 not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on 
 country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of 
 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos 
 and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true 
 reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark 
 laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image.
 
 I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in 
 another website also commercial.
 
 So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the 
 repository may be not free.
 
 Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
 should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
 
 
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law 
 then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but 
 protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is 
 something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly 
 after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially 
 with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This 
 is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the 
 point that Rodrigo put up as well.
 
 Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 A mark is not a simple image.
 
 A mark it's a symbol.
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
 So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a
 picture?
 
 And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of
 checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our
 volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
 source?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Birgitte_sb
That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make 
an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic 
reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully 
communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an 
unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to 
argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these 
practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no 
exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it 
seems to make practical sense?

Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a 
copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to 
unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no 
practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining 
copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on 
non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as 
it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do 
not find that consistency is inherently desirable.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 
wrote:

 We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user 
 that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due 
 to additional trademark restrictions.
 
 This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public 
 domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries 
 (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright 
 laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local 
 law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the 
 German Recht am eigenen Bild is very restrictive and does not allow any 
 usage of a free image from any person.
 
 What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our 
 collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside 
 the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a 
 template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting 
 images with no free license is actual exception.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:
 I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however 
 this not a very commonly understood nuance.  Many people, when seeing the 
 logo listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the 
 same as any other copyleft or PD image.  They will not necessarily 
 understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually 
 being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the 
 symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel 
 betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright.  However strictly 
 accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it 
 cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor 
 understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar 
 results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become 
 convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.
 
 It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To 
 maintain a consistent message of Do not use.
 
 Birgitte SB
 
 On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  
 wrote:
 
 You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both 
 concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that 
 are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending 
 on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of 
 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this 
 logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a 
 true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while 
 trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image.
 
 I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content 
 in another website also commercial.
 
 So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the 
 repository may be not free.
 
 Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
 should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
 
 
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law 
 then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but 
 protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is 
 something to protect while 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Birgitte_sb
No  that is not a fair characterization. Risker explained that these things are 
handled by each project, not hide her true intentions toward your campaign, but 
because it ii the way things are.  And it is not at all particular to CU 
issues. What really reeks of obfuscation is using words and phrasing that 
requires native level English skills to campaign for a policy that you wish to 
impose on the Tosk Albanian, and all other, projects.

Self-governing communities work for the most part.  Which is more than can be 
said about the alternatives, and there are ghost wikis all over the Internet to 
prove the point.

BirgitteSB


On Jun 13, 2012, at 8:30 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Risker comment was basically lets not set a global accountability and
 ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take
 it to each project and fight it out there to me that reeks of obfuscation.
 Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy
 is. Why shouldnt users know when they have been checkusered and why?
 
 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation 
 pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 
 I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that
 mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent.
 
 As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place.
 First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured
 they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue.
 Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with
 a fine toothed comb.  They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the
 sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an
 ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board.
 Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine
 privacy concerns can contact the WMF:  me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or
 community advocacy department.
 
 Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior?  Probably not, and we will
 continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being
 pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they
 err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world,
 and they have my respect.
 
 Best, PB
 ---
 Philippe Beaudette
 Director, Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
 
 
 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
 
 -Original Message-
 From: John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com
 Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09
 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
 
 Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and
 ensuring our privacy more difficult.
 
 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may
 be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy.
 These standards vary widely.  So, the correct place to discuss this is on
 each project.
 
 Risker
 
 On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software
 automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply
 whether you have an email address attached to your account or not.
 
 This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being
 done
 with their data.
 On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user
 has
 been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed
 it
 and
 why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU
 action
 as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around
 for a
 period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are
 CU'ed
 and
 any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to
 themselves
 (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to
 provide
 information to the accused.
 
 See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious
 fishing,
 where
 the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it
 would
 be
 a
 violation of the privacy policy to release the
 time/reason/performer
 of
 the
 checkuser.
 
 This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know
 the
 ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before
 something
 can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed.
 Ergo
 Catch-22
 
 I know checkusers  keep a private wiki
 https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know
 according
 to
 our
 privacy policy we are supposed to purge our 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-02 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 
 
 
 Moving towards full IPv6 support is part of our responsibility as a
 good Internet citizen, and this has been in the works for a long time.
 It's never been an option not to do this as IPv4 addresses are being
 exhausted.
 
 

This is the relavent point.  For what it is worth I, who am less inclined to 
follow technical discussions than other kinds, remember that there was enough 
talk about approaching IPv6 day last year to feel it was settled that WMF was 
unprepared to participate at that time would make it happen in 2012.  It was 
either here or on wikitech-l.

I am not sure how someone who has strong opinions on the subject would be left 
unable to follow this when I followed with no such interest.  Moe importantly, 
I don't understand what exactly the objectors see as a better option.  No one 
will fix the scripts until they are broken, it is just the nature of the beast. 
 It seems the whole point of IPv6 day is that no one is very confident about 
level of breakage of things with IPv6 and no one will be able to gain this 
confidence until a significant number of sites turn it on and there is not 
another choice on the matter. Objecting to turning on IPv6 because things will 
break does not seem to be very informed. This is the point. If anyone doesn't 
trust that WMF will only make a day of it if the breakage is unmanageable, then 
they've bigger issues than IPv6.  And even still, the sun will rise and we will 
have a few less IPv4 addresses everyday; there are much better battles to pick.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use

2012-05-03 Thread Birgitte_sb




On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Richard, you removed some relevant language:
 
 Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other
 users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to
 liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, 
 *you
 may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include:
 [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable
 law.
 
 
 I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in
 some way anti-freedom is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult
 to craft language to do that well.
 
 ~Nathan
 
 Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does
 not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are anti-freedom?
 
 -- 
 --
 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
 
 

It seems to be that the point of this section is that WMF does not condone 
users to use the sites in a fashion which breaks their local laws; therefore 
WMF itself may not be procesuted for conspiracy nor will WMF be liable civilly 
to users who were prosecuted locally and wish to recieve compensation.  If the 
WMF did not disavow an intention to promote locally illegal things (like 
Germans printing Swatika images found on Commons), they would be open to 
liability that would result money going to lawyers.  Really very, very few 
countries have a right to free speech as strong as the US, including countries 
were WMF actually has significant assets.  China is not the issue here. 
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it, is 
neither wise nor ethical.

BirgitteSB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use

2012-04-27 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Philippe Beaudette
 phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
 
 Hi everyone,
 
 As you may be aware, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use.  This updated
 version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed
 herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en.[1]
 A short overview of some of the changes is set out
 herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use.
 [2]
 
 Best wishes,
 Philippe
 
 
 Terms of use are boring, and most of us are pretty jaded by how
 impenetrable, legalistic and, well, awful, most terms of use are on the
 internet.
 
 I want to congratulate you and your department on NOT doing this. The new
 terms of use are written in clear English, well set out, and cover what
 seem to be the appropriate bases without being overly verbose and cautious.
 
 Well done, Philippe, Geoff, and everyone else.
 
 

I am also impressed. It actually ends up being the best one piece introduction 
to what Wikimedia *is* that I have ever read.  A lot of thought and 
consideration were soundly invested in that document. Clarity on that level is 
HARD, but well worth the effort. I also am thinking that the staff have just 
set a rather high bar for the board. Imagine if all board resolutions were 
written with as just as much focus on clarity and as on circumspection. These 
terms of use show it is possible.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l