I and others have added some more arguments to the Meta page which
addresses the points made by the proponents of 'non-commercial' only
harmonisation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA_GESAC#Comment
To widen our statements in support of full freedom, it would be
These are excellent points raised by Michael Maggs. The bit about
non-commercial licenses in particular. That has always been difficult
to explain to people who are quite happy for Wikipedia to use their
images or images of their works, but don't want people to profit
commercially from those
On 23 June 2015 at 09:00, Petr Kadlec petr.kad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Under this new law, would images already uploaded to Commons under FOP
actually have to be deleted? Surely the new law wouldn't apply
retrospectively, but
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Under this new law, would images already uploaded to Commons under FOP
actually have to be deleted? Surely the new law wouldn't apply
retrospectively, but would just affect future uploads of photos?
Retroactively as in
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
(for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered
building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the
U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at
the site, or kept on
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
(for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered
building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the
U.S., would it
On 2015-06-22 19:07, Gergő Tisza wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
(for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered
building in Europe and posted it when he or
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be
in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:17 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
tags?
It could be quite hard to figure out what exactly is affected (which is one
of the
You could find candidates in the most popular images and tag them by hand.
If it seems /possible/ that the image is affected, it could be faded out.
As you say, that might be enough for it to be removed. If it is /likely/
that it is affected, it could be lightboxed or replaced.
Julia Reda, the
FWIW, today WIkimedia Italia had a Barcamp at the Italian Parliament to
talk about Wiki Loves Monuments, FOP (which we already don't have) and
related stuff.
Several politicians were present and we discussed also this matter.
They already alerted their MEPs.
Hopefully this will contribute to the
Under this new law, would images already uploaded to Commons under FOP actually
have to be deleted? Surely the new law wouldn't apply retrospectively, but
would just affect future uploads of photos?
Personally, I view this as a much more direct threat to our content than SOPA
was. I found it
I introduce you FopThreat.js
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ricordisamoa/FopThreat.js, which
blackens Commons files whose description pages include one of the FoP
templates https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:FoP_templates.
It uses Tool Labs so it may not be properly suitable for
Owen is one of the folks who is helping to draft the letter we're writing
here in the UK (and ORG will be one of the co-signatories).
On 22 June 2015 at 10:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Owen Blacker (Wikipedian, and Open Rights Group board member) has a
blog post on the subject:
Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be
in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a java
Pinging Mark H. in the Multimedia Team to ask about the feasability of
Jane's clever suggestion.
Pine
On Jun 22, 2015 12:21 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
another action based on the most prominent images we stand
Really like the idea of flagging certain images with a light box, I think
it's very clever.
I know that some chapter staff and volunteers are working really hard to
get some traction on this important issue Wikimedia UK is leading on a
letter to the press which will be signed by other cultural
Owen Blacker (Wikipedian, and Open Rights Group board member) has a
blog post on the subject:
https://medium.com/@owenblacker/freedom-of-panorama-is-under-attack-6cc5353b4f65
On 22 June 2015 at 09:46, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Really like the idea of flagging certain
This has been mentioned before by Dimi, but bears repeating.
While we may all think it's *outrageous* that tens of thousands of
images may have to be deleted from Commons, we do have to make sure we
have messages that will resonate with those who don't agree with us or
who don't care. If our
On our Village pump a not so active user states he called the office of
Monsiuer Cavadas and talked with his secretary. And that she said the
aim of the proposal is to keep status as it is today. That in France and
Belgium they will keep restrictions for commercial use of panorama
images, but
On 22 June 2015 at 13:17, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
tags?
Geotags on their own would be haphazard apart from certain types of
Wikipedia articles,
Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
tags?
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Starting July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
My emails; however, do not represent the
Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue?
If so, what are they doing?
Thanks,
Pine
On Jun 21, 2015 6:03 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
This concerns all the editors and readers in the European Union and those
in other European
Hi all,
This concerns all the editors and readers in the European Union and those
in other European countries as well (copying is possible).
*Subject*
Copyrights reform in Europe going in the wrong direction, damaging
Wikipedia.
*What is going on?*
In the European Parliament currently a
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue?
The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue. It is eligible
to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying. But I don't believe it
has
25 matches
Mail list logo
