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,

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,

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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:

[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

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

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

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

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