body:
Salve Mark,

Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 22:17 schrieb Delirium:
> However, it may not be impossible to acquire one eventually.  As
> Wikipedia gets more famous, the estates of famous people may start to
> dislike the fact that that person's biography has a conspicuous lack of
> an image, and consent to GFDL-licensing an image to fill the gap.  If we
> fill it in with a fair use image, that removes the incentive.

This is right, but with the "easygoing" way of "fair use" I fear that many
wikipedianer would ask only for "fair use" to be more sure to get this
pictures - and of course it is more easy to argue and to explain than with
the GNU-FDL ;)

For example:
"Image:Marymca.jpg
An image of Irish President Mary McAllese which states "I would like to advise
you that there is no objection to the reproduction of the President's
official portrait in a non-profit encyclopaedia article." "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use

I guess the wikipedianer hasn`t tried to ask for a GNU-FDL use. This is the
quick and dirty way - and Wikipedianer from non US countries has to ask
again, this is unproductive.

-We need good a tutorial "HowTo ask effective for the use of pictures with the
condition of the GNU-FDL"
-well written examples for letters to potential contributors
-and a culture to celebrate every successfuly "acquisition".

And we should create reasons why a donator could feel good to has supported
the wikipedia. When he would like it, he should get a visible thanksgiving
inside the wikipedia. And when we get the support from NGO for history,
ornithology or what ever, they should get publicity for their organisation.

"Charity business" is the art of collect and giving ;) we should learn this
trade/soft skill.

The border case would IMHO be this:
Imagine we would have tried over 2 years to get one picture of one famous
person, but this person hasn`t lived in public, so pictures of this person
are realy rare. But we are in contact with one author of a biography about
this person and this biography is realy god. Should we accept to place his
biography in this article for getting one GNU-FDL picture?
I think not, because when his biography is realy a good one, it have been
already mentioned in this article. *g*

So the strategie will be more a noncommercial one:
trying to find friends for the wikipedia with our enthusiasm.

Gruss
rob

PS: BTW commercial - would it match to write out donation receipts that one
picture donator could save some of his tax?


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] re: Let's go slow

body:
> So there's no need to urgent go around deleting things.

In any case, no tagged image should be deleted until we have deleted the ~36,000
images that have no tags on them, and about which we have precisely zero
information.

If we start deleting images because people do the *right* thing by correctly citing their
sources and providing information, then we'll be setting entirely the wrong precedent.

> There are no legal problems with what we're doing

For now, let us just say that there are two schools of thought on that matter, as it relies
on the interpretation of the meaning of "seperate and independent" in the section on
aggregation. A matter for wikilegal-l, of course (and thusly cc'd).

-Martin


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] What would Richard Stallman say?

body:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 02:09:36PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Maybe, maybe not - a site that wants to drive traffic will have an
> incentive to
> keep the pics out, and readers unaware of all this will just go to the site
> directly, blow off WP.

When did the aim of Wikipedia changed from producing free, neutral and high quality
content to getting as much traffic as possible to certain website ?


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What would Richard Stallman say?

body:
Michael Snow wrote:
>Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are
>combining an article with an image into a single document
>under GFDL, downstream users have to be able to use the
>image alone. We are licensing them to modify the document,
>and potential modification includes stripping out all the text
>and just leaving the image. We cannot restrict downstream
>modification--that's essential to copyleft.

Sorry but fair use exists outside the concept of copyright and thus a fair use
but otherwise non-FDL image in an article can no more become copyrighted under
the GNU FDL than a quote in the same article can (fair use is essentially a
grant into a type of public domain for limited uses). In short, no license can
affect whether or not something is fair to use since it is the *use*, not the
license terms, that determine fairness.

Fair use heavily depends on *use* - illustrating an article would be fine in
many cases (same as using a quote in the text of the article), but once you
strip the article away then the use has changed and the photo (and quote in the
case of text) could not be used in many cases since its use would no longer be
fair.

We just need to tag images used under the various types of fair use. Stuff that
would be fair use for non-commercial and commercial downstream users should
have one tag and stuff that would be fair use for non-commercial use  but not
downstream commercial users should have a different tag.

We could then make things easy for commercial downstream users by offering a
different download dump. IMO, that should be of the printable versions of
articles - which would automatically not display images marked with the second,
more restrictive, fair use tag (nor would the images be in the dump). Printable
versions of articles also already have the GNU copyright info and link-back to
the Wikipedia article.

Also remember this (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use )
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

Everybody should also read
[[Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation

In that case the Court ruled that the displaying of thumbnails by a search
engine was fair use. This, even though the use was commercial and really wasn't
educational (at least not nearly as educational as using an image to illustrate
an article). It was also substantial in regards the amount of work used (but
not substantial in relation to the quality of images served - since they were
only thumbnails).

So there may be only a handfull of fair use images that we use that would not
also be fair use for commercial downstream users (assuming they use the images
the way we do - to illustrate articles).

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>Well, I've got the page histories imported (not the
>actual text, but the author "names" and dates).

Thank you. :)  OK - here it goes. I am sorry I depicted your actions before as
trolling.

>As for the  ===References=== section, that's
>somewhat temporary.  Right now I only link to Wikipedia
>in general rather than the original article.

IMO direct links to each article would be overkill - you already have the
author info and the diffs. The link to wikipedia.org takes care of the
disclaimer. And the mention of Wikipedia is appreciated.

>I still haven't figured out mediawiki enough to get it
>the way I want it through that, and I haven't gotten to
>writing a perl script to go through the whole db yet.

Which reminds me - it would be great to have a command like {{pagename}} output
the page name of the MediaWiki page it is on. Then linking to every Wikipedia
article directly would be super easy for you (if you still want to do that) so
long as {{pagename}} replaced spaces with underscores. This would also be very
useful for MediaWiki messages (such as the copyright infringement notice).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/{{pagename}} is all you would need to have on
every page.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikistats (to Brion)

body:
Brion,

Camille Constans is taking care of running the wikistats on the server now,
which is very kind of him, and one less burden for you.

Two questions:

A
Could you cast the magic spell on http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/csv/
again?
"Access is forbidden."

B
Webalizers pages have not been generated after January 23

Is this because all Wp's are now accessed through several web servers, and
the access logs each tell an incomplete story?
If so, is it an option to run Webalizer job on each server.
I might then merge the page request/visits per day figures for each web
server in my script.
If so what url's/folders do I use to access the data?

Erik Zachte


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

body:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:42:02AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>   The Foobar company stands in the way of our including a picture of this.
>
> This text, with no link and no details about the image, would name and
> shame the Foobar company, but would not help Foobar sell copies of the
> image.

Bad idea. Maybe if they try to sue use for no good reason or violate
the license, but any other offence is not in the free spirits I have.

BTW: What is your opinion on who manages the copyrights of IP-users?
Whe had an discussion on de: where I argued that Wikimedia Foundation
manages the rights.

--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

body:
If each wikipedian took 10 pictures of the interesting things he visits, I'm
sure we would not need nonfree pictures any more.

Aoineko


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikistats (to Brion)

body:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 12:33:52AM +0100, Erik Zachte wrote:
> Is this because all Wp's are now accessed through several web servers, and
> the access logs each tell an incomplete story?
> If so, is it an option to run Webalizer job on each server.
> I might then merge the page request/visits per day figures for each web
> server in my script.
> If so what url's/folders do I use to access the data?

How about a cronjob to cat them together every night?
Webalizer should be smart enough to do the correct date sorting itself

Putting them onto a NFS would be a second method

Squid can do Apache-compatible logs, so they won't be lost.

And last but not final, can you add some more SearchEngine to make
sure that non-en: Wikipedias know some more stuff about the
popular search strings (I hate to have Adolf H. in the
top10 just because Americans hit it via google.com)

ciao, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


from_name: Allan Crossman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.

body:
Plautus says:

> Evercat is insisting that I must preserve all the context in every
> message on every talk page when I insert material

I recall complaining about something like this precisely once, on
[[Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster]]. I may have forgotten some
other incident? Anyway, I'm certain I've not made an issue of this on
many occasions. Perhaps you're thinking of Raul654.

By the way, it's not "breaking up" posts that's the problem - this
can be legitimately done if one wants to respond in detail to
different parts of a user's post. The one incident I recall
complaining about was when you actually changed the text above my
comment, a different thing entirely.

Evercat

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikistats (to Brion)

body:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:33:52 +0100, Erik Zachte wrote:

>
> B
> Webalizers pages have not been generated after January 23
>
> Is this because all Wp's are now accessed through several web servers, and
> the access logs each tell an incomplete story? If so, is it an option to
> run Webalizer job on each server. I might then merge the page
> request/visits per day figures for each web server in my script.
> If so what url's/folders do I use to access the data?

There are two Squids that create a lot of logs, those can be fed to
webalizer. Squid 2.5 is limited in that it doesn't include the referrer
and the user-agent in the log. We have a separate ua.log running, only the
referrers are missing. Squid 3 supports proper logs, but it wasn't ready
when we tested it.

I can try to set up some stats scripts in the next days. We have one log
for all domains, so we need multiple webalizer configs that only include
one domain for each report.

There should be some Apache logs left for analysis for the period between
Jan 23 and Feb 5. The post- 5th logs are on coronelli & browne.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
Well, I've got the page histories imported (not the actual text, but the
author "names" and dates).  As for the ===References=== section, that's
somewhat temporary.  Right now I only link to Wikipedia in general
rather than the original article.  I still haven't figured out mediawiki
enough to get it the way I want it through that, and I haven't gotten to
writing a perl script to go through the whole db yet.  Plus I just found
Fred Bauder's port of mediawiki which apparently handles this
automatically.  Oops, wish I had known about that before.

Anyway, I'm probably not going to be working on this over the weekend,
so if the link to the main wikipedia page isn't enough for you, you're
just gonna have to wait a little longer.

Anthony

>>I'm in the process of adding the full page histories to the
>>McFly page. I'm also going to add a ===References===
>>section pointing to the wikipedia article.  I've downloaded
>>the huge (16 gigs uncompressed) history file.  This should
>>be finished by the end of the week.  Hope this alleviates
>>everyone's concerns.
>>
>>


from_name: Optim

body:
Wikimedia Foundation can have two versions of the
English Wikipedia: One with fair use and one
without.

I am sure if we ban fair use material in
Wikipedia, someone will start a fork. Let's
prevent that by "forking" our current
encyclopedia first under control of Wikimedia
Foundation, and then we ban all fair use images
from the original Wikipedia.

In this way, those who like viewing fair use
images will be able to work on the "Fair Use
English Wikipedia" version.

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
"Sean Barrett" <sean at epoptic.org> schrieb:
> > If we have to completely gut our encyclopedia by removing a
> > large percentage of its images....
>
> I hardly think removing even "a large percentage" of our images
> constitutes "gutting" our encyclopedia.  And even if it did, no one is
> suggesting removing "a large percentage," just a handful of "fair use"
> borderline cases.

Well, let me make that suggestion then. I would like to remove all
pictures for which:
1. no author or source is known, and
2. there is no good reason to believe they are public domain

>From my own sample, which unfortunately did not get posted on the list
yet (I sent it from another email address, and it is waiting moderator
approval because it is from a non-subscribed address), I think that
this might include as many as 20% of our current images.

Andre Engels


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: European Wikipedia-meetings this summer :-)

body:
Hi Fantasy,

I think it would be a good idea.
It is not very problematic for me to go in Paris,
though it would be best that it be a monday or friday
because of my job :-) (there is about 3 1/2 hours
train between my city and Paris). But I guess it
should be no later than mid july in that case. If I
remember well, Yann lives in Paris. So, he would
likely be ok as well.

It is very good that you take care of these matters
for us Fantasy :-)

My best to all

ant

--- Fantasy <Fantasy at joachim.net> wrote:
> (testo in italiano sotto / Text in deutsch unten)
>
> Am Mi, 2004-02-18 um 19.13 schrieb
> antonio_bz at yahoo.com:
> > ...Se possibile eviterei di sovrapporre
> > (anche perch con un po di fortuna vorrei andare
> > prendere pi piccioni andando nei giorni giusti sia
> a
> > Berlino che a Genova)
>
> Antonio writes, that he would like that someone
> could make sure, that
> this summers Wikipedia meetings in Europe are not
> overlapping, because
> - Jimbo should have the posibility to be present, if
> he wants to.
> - Antonio would like to be in Genova and Berlin at
> the meeting
>
> My reply:
> I am happy, that there are others than me that will
> also try to be at
> many of the european Wikipedia-meetings this summer.
>
> To make sure that nothing overlaps, here the dates
> that are known to me
> till now:
>
> - 10.-12. of June in Berlin (Jimbo will be present)
> - 26. or 27. June in Genova (Jimbo will try to be
> present)
> - ???? in Munich (Jimbo mentioned, that he wants to
> visit Munich)
> - ???? in Paris (Anthere, what do you think about
> this ;-)
> - ???? London would also be nice, wouldn't it?
> - any other proposals/ideas?
>
> I look forward to meet you all,
> Fantasy :-)
>
> PS: Should we create a meta-page on this?
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Un breve sommario:
>
> Mi piace leggere che non solo io ma anche Antonio (e
> forse altri) che
> cercheranno di essere a piu' Wikipedia meetings
> questa estate. Per
> questo trovate sopra la lista delle date che so fino
> a adesso.
>
> Ci vediamo, Fantasy :-)
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Kurze Zusammenfassung:
>
> Es gibt inzwischen schon ein paar Leute, die mehr
> als nur ein
> Sommer-Wikipedia Meeting mit Jimbo besuchen
> m??chten. Um
> Termin??berschneidungen zu vermeiden, oben die
> bisher bekannten Termine.
> Wir sehen uns, Fantasy :-)
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I think a little courtesy would go a long way. If you have a fork you can
make different rules especially with respect to images but please respect
Wikipedia's rules too.

Fred

> From: Bjorn Lindqvist <bjrn.lindqvist at telia.com>
> Reply-To: bjrn.lindqvist at telia.com, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:48:27 +0100
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] I don't care what Richard Stallman would say
>
>> Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race.  Sure, we'd like
>> people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going
>> to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there
>> really is no competition.  Already most people I know IRL turn to
>
> How about I fork Wikipedia. And while you suckas scramble to try to
> get permission from the probably dead photographer who took the Che
> Guevara-face photo MY fork has more pictures than playboy. Would your
> friends still prefer Wikipedia??
>
> I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
> (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
> Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
> stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
> them.
>
> Be reasonable.
>
> BL
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
Is this what we really want and require?

Fred

> From: Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:33:03 -0500
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright
>
> Well, I've got the page histories imported (not the actual text, but the
> author "names" and dates).


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: nonfree.wikipedia.org

body:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:44:00PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
> From a legal standpoint, a separate site might be okay. To be safe, I
> would avoid anything that allows non-GFDL images to be printed or
> downloaded together with GFDL text.
>
> It probably satisfies most moral concerns, but some purists might still
> say we're being intellectually inconsistent by promoting free content
> and using non-free images in any form.
>
> From a practical standpoint, shouldn't our energies be focused more on
> finding images that qualify as free content, rather than keeping images
> we can't use right now? Also, I doubt the site would get used much at
> all. Many users would continue with the default of uploading directly,
> even if we decide to segregate fair use images elsewhere.
>
> Why not just tell people that if they have non-GFDL images, use an
> external link? We already have quite a few of these for paintings and
> other museum-type content. A lot of the pictures are from the Internet
> anyway, and there are other places to host stuff besides Wikipedia.

Having non-free images (and other content) on separate server, and only
for linking seems like nice Debian-style compromise solution.


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

in_reply_to:
<4036E3BF.7030700@earthlink.net> (Michael Snow's message of
	"Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:51:11 -0800")

body:
Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> writes:

> Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are combining an
> article with an image into a single document under GFDL, downstream
> users have to be able to use the image alone.

Sure, but they are responsible for actions they are doing.  It is okay
to take pictures of public buildings with logo for big companies
attached.  Readers are allowed to modify those pictures--but they are
surely not allowed to cut out the logo and use it at will.

The same is valid for copyrighted texts everybody is allowed to
cite--again, this does not mean readers are allowed to rip off the
surrounding sentences and republish the cited texts as a standalone
work.

> We are licensing them to modify the document, and potential
> modification includes stripping out all the text and just leaving the
> image. We cannot restrict downstream modification--that's essential to
> copyleft.

If "they" create something new, they must check carefully whether they
still comply with the law.  IANAL.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

> Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are combining an
>>article with an image into a single document under GFDL, downstream
>>users have to be able to use the image alone.
>>
>>
>
>Sure, but they are responsible for actions they are doing.  It is okay
>to take pictures of public buildings with logo for big companies
>attached.  Readers are allowed to modify those pictures--but they are
>surely not allowed to cut out the logo and use it at will.
>
Use of the logo is really a trademark issue, not copyright. GFDL allows
people to modify, but it doesn't mean they can create modifications that
are illegal for other reasons.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040221/4b458c33/attachment.htm


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are
>>combining an article with an image into a single document
>>under GFDL, downstream users have to be able to use the
>>image alone. We are licensing them to modify the document,
>>and potential modification includes stripping out all the text
>>and just leaving the image. We cannot restrict downstream
>>modification--that's essential to copyleft.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry but fair use exists outside the concept of copyright and thus a fair use
>but otherwise non-FDL image in an article can no more become copyrighted under
>the GNU FDL than a quote in the same article can (fair use is essentially a
>grant into a type of public domain for limited uses).
>
Totally wrong. The entire basis for fair use is Section 107 of the
Copyright Act. Fair use has no existence outside the concept of
copyright. It is a defense that may be claimed if the user is accused of
copyright infringement. It is not in any sense a grant into the public
domain, it's merely a limitation on the copyright owner's ability to
prevent certain uses. The work used remains copyrighted, only the
particular use is allowed. Any material we use under fair use is
copyrighted, but because we don't own the copyright, we don't really
have the ability to properly grant GFDL on it, because we can't restrict
downstream users to the particular use that was *fair*.

> In short, no license can
>affect whether or not something is fair to use since it is the *use*, not the
>license terms, that determine fairness.
>
This statement is much closer to the truth.

>We just need to tag images used under the various types of fair use. Stuff that
>would be fair use for non-commercial and commercial downstream users should
>have one tag and stuff that would be fair use for non-commercial use  but not
>downstream commercial users should have a different tag.
>
Every case that claims fair use has to be considered separately. The
question of whether the use is commercial is a factor, but you can't
simply classify everything into commercial and non-commercial to decide
whether it is okay. Tagging images would be of very little help to
someone deciding whether their use of our images would be fair or not.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040221/2d9c788e/attachment.htm


body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:49:05PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>May I suggest that we ask ourselves a different kind of question. All
>>the countries in question are parties to the Berne Convention for the
>>Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, including the US. It has much
>>wider acceptance, and only a few countries have not signed on. No issues
>>with a US-centric fair use doctrine.
>>
>>Article 10 of the Berne Convention states, "It shall be permissible to
>>make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made
>>available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with
>>fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the
>>purpose...." This can be a basis for any of us, even outside the US, to
>>quote text when necessary. Perhaps we could also consider images in this
>>context.
>>
>>
>[...]
>
>No you can't. The Polish law is specificaly about text and I don't have
>any reason to believe it's any different in other countries.
>
I'll take your word for what Polish law says. But Poland is also a
signatory to the Berne Convention. If we can get WIPO or WTO to
determine that the Berne Convention is about more than just text, then
they have to abide by that.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040221/13f81e7e/attachment.htm


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
> Well, let me make that suggestion then. I would like to remove all
> pictures for which:
> 1. no author or source is known, and
> 2. there is no good reason to believe they are public domain
>
> From my own sample, which unfortunately did not get posted on the list
> yet (I sent it from another email address, and it is waiting moderator
> approval because it is from a non-subscribed address), I think that
> this might include as many as 20% of our current images.

If so, then I'm wrong and will immediately change my position.  If 20%
of our images are from questionable sources, we are in a bad position
and need to correct it quickly.  Given the large number of images that
have no provenance information, perhaps we should rearrange the
image-upload process to require uploaders to click through a "where
did you get this image" page before they enter the file name.  Of
course that won't force anyone to enter anything, but it will make it
more obvious that they should.

--
 Sean Barrett     | When nine hundred years old you reach,
 sean at epoptic.com | look as good you will not, hmm? --Yoda


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I don't care what Richard Stallman would say

body:
> I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
> (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
> Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
> stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
> them.

Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the
violator from court costs and penalties.

> Be reasonable.

It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving
into bankruptcy on your whim.

And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result
in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of
Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.


from_name: Bjorn Lindqvist

body:
> Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race.  Sure, we'd like
> people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going
> to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there
> really is no competition.  Already most people I know IRL turn to

How about I fork Wikipedia. And while you suckas scramble to try to
get permission from the probably dead photographer who took the Che
Guevara-face photo MY fork has more pictures than playboy. Would your
friends still prefer Wikipedia??

I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
(provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
them.

Be reasonable.

BL


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and hard drive

body:
Wow, John. Sounds really weird. What OS / browser are
you using?

-Rich Holton (aka Anthropos)

--- John Knouse <jaknouse at frognet.net> wrote:
> There's something wrong with Wikipedia or my
> connection with
> it.  All of a sudden, starting Friday, Feb. 20,
> whenever I
> log onto Wikipedia it fails to respond, and all the
> free
> space on my hard drive suddenly disappears.  This
> does not
> happen with anything else on-line.  Anybody know
> what's
> going on?
>
> --
> John Knouse
> jaknouse at frognet.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:49:05PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
> May I suggest that we ask ourselves a different kind of question. All
> the countries in question are parties to the Berne Convention for the
> Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, including the US. It has much
> wider acceptance, and only a few countries have not signed on. No issues
> with a US-centric fair use doctrine.
>
> Article 10 of the Berne Convention states, "It shall be permissible to
> make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made
> available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with
> fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the
> purpose...." This can be a basis for any of us, even outside the US, to
> quote text when necessary. Perhaps we could also consider images in this
> context.
[...]

No you can't. The Polish law is specificaly about text and I don't have
any reason to believe it's any different in other countries.


from_name: Fantasy

subject: [WikiEN-l] European Wikipedia-meetings this summer :-)

body:
(testo in italiano sotto / Text in deutsch unten)

Am Mi, 2004-02-18 um 19.13 schrieb antonio_bz at yahoo.com:
> ...Se possibile eviterei di sovrapporre
> (anche perch con un po di fortuna vorrei andare
> prendere pi piccioni andando nei giorni giusti sia a
> Berlino che a Genova)

Antonio writes, that he would like that someone could make sure, that
this summers Wikipedia meetings in Europe are not overlapping, because
- Jimbo should have the posibility to be present, if he wants to.
- Antonio would like to be in Genova and Berlin at the meeting

My reply:
I am happy, that there are others than me that will also try to be at
many of the european Wikipedia-meetings this summer.
To make sure that nothing overlaps, here the dates that are known to me
till now:

- 10.-12. of June in Berlin (Jimbo will be present)
- 26. or 27. June in Genova (Jimbo will try to be present)
- ???? in Munich (Jimbo mentioned, that he wants to visit Munich)
- ???? in Paris (Anthere, what do you think about this ;-)
- ???? London would also be nice, wouldn't it?
- any other proposals/ideas?

I look forward to meet you all,
Fantasy :-)

PS: Should we create a meta-page on this?

--------------------------------------------------
Un breve sommario:

Mi piace leggere che non solo io ma anche Antonio (e forse altri) che
cercheranno di essere a piu' Wikipedia meetings questa estate. Per
questo trovate sopra la lista delle date che so fino a adesso.

Ci vediamo, Fantasy :-)

--------------------------------------------------
Kurze Zusammenfassung:

Es gibt inzwischen schon ein paar Leute, die mehr als nur ein
Sommer-Wikipedia Meeting mit Jimbo besuchen m??chten. Um
Termin??berschneidungen zu vermeiden, oben die bisher bekannten Termine.
Wir sehen uns, Fantasy :-)


from_name: Viajero

subject: [WikiEN-l] Page preview considered beneficial

body:
A rather extreme example of a user (apparently first anon, then
registered) hitting the save button too often:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Icke&action=history

More than 100 times over a period of six hours!

V.


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hector vs. VV/RickK proxy flame wars

body:
This is not true, as I've repeatedly said, and you are hardly one to be impartial on the subject, since you're one of the biggest POV-inserters on all of Wikipedia.  As I have said, again and again, there were several HectorRodriguez edits which I did not revert, because they were not POV insertions.  But when he goes on and on about the evils of the US in so many edits, without putting anything in context and without any substatiation, then of course he's going to be reverted.  I mean, come on, are we really supposed to believe that the only reason why millions of Cambodians died is because of Western oppression?

RickK

Abe Sokolov <abesokolov at hotmail.com> wrote:
In effect, RickK and VV have been automatically (and arbitrarily) reverting
every single edit by Hector, subjecting him to a policy of auto revert
reserved only for hard-banned trolls - a recipe for edit wars. On a positive
note, RickK showed signs of agreeing to change his tactics in a recent edit
to the Saddam page, which addressed content issues without the ad hominems.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040221/68da7e9a/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

body:
Actually I protected [[Talk:Nick Griffin]] Thursday night after yet again another Wik/Anthony DiPierro edit war.

RickK

"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

@page Section1 {size: 612.0pt 792.0pt; margin: 72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin: 35.4pt; mso-footer-margin: 35.4pt; mso-paper-source: 0; }P.MsoNormal {	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"}LI.MsoNormal {	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"}DIV.MsoNormal {	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"}A:link {	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single}SPAN.MsoHyperlink {	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single}A:visited {	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single}SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline;
 text-underline: single}P {	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0cm; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto}SPAN.EmailStyle18 {	COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply; mso-style-noshow: yes; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Arial; mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial}SPAN.SpellE {	mso-style-name: ""; mso-spl-e: yes}SPAN.GramE {	mso-style-name: ""; mso-gram-e: yes}DIV.Section1 {	page: Section1}I protected that talk page. I think this is the first time a talk page has been protected.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040221/bb2b7ea5/attachment.htm


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Press release time on Monday: Need some quick advice
	on coodination

body:
I thought we might have another week but according to the last wikistats update
we had 495K articles on the 20th. That means we should distribute the press
release on Monday.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia's_first_press_release

My question is this: Should the non-English versions of the press release be
distributed first (followed by the English one that Wednesday), or can the
English one be distributed at the same time? Can the severs handle it?

I assume it doesn't really matter now, but I still would like to have
confirmation on that point.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: John Knouse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and hard drive

body:
There's something wrong with Wikipedia or my connection with
it.  All of a sudden, starting Friday, Feb. 20, whenever I
log onto Wikipedia it fails to respond, and all the free
space on my hard drive suddenly disappears.  This does not
happen with anything else on-line.  Anybody know what's
going on?

--
John Knouse
jaknouse at frognet.net


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 7, Issue 36

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>  quotation
>      n 1: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a
>           quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list
>           several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are
>           usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article
>           includes mention of similar clinical cases" [syn:
>           {citation}, {acknowledgment}, {credit}, {reference},
>           {mention}]
>      2: a passage or expression that is quoted or cited [syn:
>         {quote}, {citation}]
>      3: a statement of the current market price of a security or
>         commodity
>      4: the practice of quoting from books or plays etc.; "since he
>         lacks originality he must rely on quotation"
>
>I don't have any reasons to believe that Berne Convention meant "quotation"
>in any wider meaning.
>
The intention of the drafters of a law is often ignored by the courts.
They read the law itself and apply generally accepted, sensible
meanings. I'm not saying my interpretation of Article 10 is definitely
correct; I'm saying it's a reasonable argument we can use in our favor.

>
>And it's more likely that we'll see peace in the Middle East, than WTO/WIPO
>limiting scope of the copyright.
>
It may be unlikely, but I don't think it's quite that unlikely. If the
free content movement becomes influential enough, we may be able to push
these institutions to recognize legitimate free uses.

--Michael Snow


body:
(Ach, getting sloppy about intelligible subject lines. Sorry for the
repeat.)

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>  quotation
>      n 1: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a
>           quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list
>           several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are
>           usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article
>           includes mention of similar clinical cases" [syn:
>           {citation}, {acknowledgment}, {credit}, {reference},
>           {mention}]
>      2: a passage or expression that is quoted or cited [syn:
>         {quote}, {citation}]
>      3: a statement of the current market price of a security or
>         commodity
>      4: the practice of quoting from books or plays etc.; "since he
>         lacks originality he must rely on quotation"
>
> I don't have any reasons to believe that Berne Convention meant
> "quotation"
> in any wider meaning.
>
The intention of the drafters of a law is often ignored by the courts.
They read the law itself and apply generally accepted, sensible
meanings. I'm not saying my interpretation of Article 10 is definitely
correct; I'm saying it's a reasonable argument we can use in our favor.

>
> And it's more likely that we'll see peace in the Middle East, than
> WTO/WIPO
> limiting scope of the copyright.
>
It may be unlikely, but I don't think it's quite that unlikely. If the
free content movement becomes influential enough, we may be able to push
these institutions to recognize legitimate free uses.

--Michael Snow


body:
Caroline Ford wrote:

>I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
>
>
>
> Copyrighted 43
> Fair use 186
> GFDL 1714
> Noncommerical 26
> Public Domain 369
> Unverified 273
>
> Total images tagged so far:  2611 (approx total images 40,000)
> Percentage unverified (images with no info):  10.4%
>
> However: the figures have a bias as we have been tagging our own
> images. I have uploaded 193 images, Morwen has uploaded 1224 (a
> thousand of which are her GFDL maps). When I was tagging yesterday's
> image upload log over 50% had no info.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Caroline / Secretlondon

Those numbers compute to almost exactly 20% questionable (everything but
public domain and GFDL), without taking into account the selection bias.
I see Martin beat me to that barnstar I was going to give you.

--Michael Snow


body:
Michael Snow wrote
>Totally wrong. The entire basis for fair use is Section 107
>of the Copyright Act. Fair use has no existence outside
>the concept of copyright. It is a defense that may be
>claimed if the user is accused of copyright infringement.

I was talking about the *use* of fair use materials. It can therefore be used
more freely - the generic definition, not legal one, of 'public domain' (Alex
and I got into a fight over this very issue). Fair use let's people use small
parts of content owned by others in their own works. The copyright on the
larger work does not affect the copyright of the fair use selection. Therefore
the fair use work exists outside the framework of whatever copyright terms the
larger work is under. Is that clear? I think we failed to communicate on that
point.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
>If so, then I'm wrong and will immediately change my position.
>If 20% of our images are from questionable sources, we are
>in a bad position and need to correct it quickly.  Given the
>large number of images that have no provenance information,
>perhaps we should rearrange the image-upload process to
>require uploaders to click through a "where did you get this
>image" page before they enter the file name.  Of course that
>won't force anyone to enter anything, but it will make it more
>obvious that they should.

We can force them to enter something by not allowing any blank fields. In fact
each upload should have a form to fill out.

Can we all agree on enforcing a policy that each image needs to indicate
ownership, copyright terms (or 'fair use' claim), and where it was obtained?

I'm sure it would be fairly easy to create a form with those three fields.

But yes - this is a big problem that needs to be fixed fast. Perhaps we could
have a week-long freeze on uploads to kick-off an effort to fix the problem.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 500,000 milestone is here!

body:
I hereby suggest that we start to distribute the press release versions on
Monday (at least for the non-English versions that are ready).

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia's_first_press_release

I'm going to create the English Wikipedia version now (based on the Meta
version).

Sorry for the late note - I thought we had another week.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
"Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net> schrieb:
> Is this what we really want and require?

The GNU/FDL requires copying author and version information.
The latter I don't worry about personally, to me it's enough
to say "this is a Wikipedia article from such-and-such date".
Wikipedia is willing to use a backlink instead of the first,
but we cannot stop and should not want to stop mirrors who
solve this requirement differently.

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikitech-l] Why is cur_restrictions so hard?

body:
Trying to keep [[en:Wikipedia:Protected pages]] up-to-date, I want to run
the SQL query

SELECT cur_namespace,cur_title FROM cur WHERE cur_restrictions="sysop"

However, this gets hit by the 30 seconds limit, even with a LIMIT as low as 30.
Which I find strange as it seems to be a rather simple search, not more or
less complicated than, say:

SELECT cur_namespace,cur_title FROM cur WHERE cur_namespace=9

for which the complete results (ca. 50 items) appear 1 second or so.

Is cur_restrictions for some reason so very hard to reach? And if so, why is
it, and what can be done about it?

Andre Engels


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Everybody should also read
>[[Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation]]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation
>
>
One of the points in that ruling was that the full-sized originals were
unavailable. Something we should consider in our rush to switch images
to use the new auto-thumbnailing feature.

"Once the thumbnails are created, the program deletes the full-sized
originals from the server. Although a user could copy these thumbnails
to his computer or disk, he cannot increase the resolution of the
thumbnail; any enlargement would result in a loss of clarity of the image."

The court did not say thumbnail images are *per se* fair use. It made a
limited claim on the specifics of the use by Arriba. Other major
differences between Arriba and Wikipedia:

"As the district court found, while such use of Kelly?s images was
commercial, it was more incidental and less exploitative in nature than
more traditional types of commercial use."

The use in Wikipedia is intentional, and not incidental.

"Arriba?s use of Kelly?s images in the thumbnails is unrelated to any
aesthetic purpose."

Wikipedia's use of the "fair use" images is closely related to an
aesthetic purpose.

---
And remember, one of the goals of Wikipedia is to make a print
encyclopedia which will be sold. So it's not just third parties who need
to worry about obtaining images which may be used commercially.


body:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 02:39:00PM +0000, Andre Engels wrote:
> Trying to keep [[en:Wikipedia:Protected pages]] up-to-date, I want to run
> the SQL query
>
> SELECT cur_namespace,cur_title FROM cur WHERE cur_restrictions="sysop"
>
> However, this gets hit by the 30 seconds limit, even with a LIMIT as low as 30.
> Which I find strange as it seems to be a rather simple search, not more or
> less complicated than, say:
>
> SELECT cur_namespace,cur_title FROM cur WHERE cur_namespace=9
>
> for which the complete results (ca. 50 items) appear 1 second or so.
>
> Is cur_restrictions for some reason so very hard to reach? And if so, why is
> it, and what can be done about it?

>From indexes.sql:
    ALTER TABLE cur ADD INDEX cur_namespace (cur_namespace).

But no index on cur_restrictions. So finding all pages with cur_restrictions='sysop'
requires checking whole database. And if there are 300 protected pages,
LIMIT 30 means 10% of the database needs to be checked, what's still extremely heavy.

We really need to change database structure a bit.

I'd suggest:
    CREATE TABLE cur2 (cur_id, cur_text) ;
    ALTER TABLE cur DROP COLUMN cur_text;
    ALTER TABLE cur ADD COLUMN cur_text_length;
    increase mysql buffer sizes if they aren't big enough (standard sure aren't,
    I'm not sure what are current sizes)

With this, the queries would have to load only much smaller cur, not huge cur2.

(of course I'm not sure whether it will be any better, but it seems worth testing)


subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia and hard drive

body:
I'm using Netscape 4.7 and the dreaded Windows 98 first ed.  I'm going to try redownloading and reinstalling netscape to see if that makes a diff.

John Knouse
jaknouse at frognet.net

>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:56:25 -0800 (PST)
> From: Rich Holton <rich_holton at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and hard drive
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040221185625.82021.qmail at web60304.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Wow, John. Sounds really weird. What OS / browser are
> you using?
>
> -Rich Holton (aka Anthropos)
>
> --- John Knouse <jaknouse at frognet.net> wrote:
> > There's something wrong with Wikipedia or my
> > connection with
> > it.  All of a sudden, starting Friday, Feb. 20,
> > whenever I
> > log onto Wikipedia it fails to respond, and all the
> > free
> > space on my hard drive suddenly disappears.  This
> > does not
> > happen with anything else on-line.  Anybody know
> > what's
> > going on?
> >
> > --
> > John Knouse
> > jaknouse at frognet.net


subject:
[WikiEN-l] The 500,
	000 milestone will be reached by Monday! Press release time.

body:
I've adapted the press release on Meta for use on the English Wikipedia. The
results are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/February_2004

I think that a release date of Wednesday the 25th would be good.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: I don't care what Richard Stallman would say

body:
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:45:12 +0100
> From: Bjorn Lindqvist <bjrn.lindqvist at telia.com>
> Mail-Followup-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Reply-To: bjrn.lindqvist at telia.com, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Sender: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on
> 	orwen.epoptic.com
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SORBS
> 	autolearn=no version=2.61
>
> > > I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
> > > (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
> > > Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
> > > stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
> > > them.
> >
> > Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the
> > violator from court costs and penalties.
> >
> > > Be reasonable.
> >
> > It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving
> > into bankruptcy on your whim.
> >
> > And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result
> > in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of
> > Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.
>
>
> Your argument fails on that noone has yet figured out whether
> including Fair Use content in Wikipedia is illegal or not.

Wrong.  You said nothing about Fair Use.  You said "[t]he copyright
laws are stupid."  You advocated not obeying the law.


subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia & hard drive

body:
Oh, and when I use the Bomis browser to try to edit
articles, I can't insert carriage returns -- what happens is
that the edit screen reverts to a blank screen!
--
John Knouse
jaknouse at frognet.net


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Proposed freeness test

body:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:18:15AM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
> Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>
> >Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> >>Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are combining an
> >>article with an image into a single document under GFDL, downstream
> >>users have to be able to use the image alone.
> >
> >Sure, but they are responsible for actions they are doing.  It is okay
> >to take pictures of public buildings with logo for big companies
> >attached.  Readers are allowed to modify those pictures--but they are
> >surely not allowed to cut out the logo and use it at will.
> >
> Use of the logo is really a trademark issue, not copyright. GFDL allows
> people to modify, but it doesn't mean they can create modifications that
> are illegal for other reasons.

The point of the Free content is to make available something that is as
legal as if it was created by the receiver. It's impossible to be more
legal than that. The patent, trademark, libel, censorship and other laws
may make it impossible to use Free content in some situations, but equivalent
content created by user would be equally affected.

Example 1:
    You can't take a logo from a GFDL photo of Coca Cola headquarters and
    put it on soft drinks you're producing, but you couldn't if you made
    the photo yourself. Therefore it still qualifies as Free.

Example 2:
    You can't take "fair use" Britney Spears picture and put it into a book
    about Britney Spears. But if you made the photo yourself, you could.
    Thus, not Free.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Proposed freeness test

body:
"Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <taw at users.sf.net> schrieb:

> The point of the Free content is to make available something that is as
> legal as if it was created by the receiver. It's impossible to be more
> legal than that. The patent, trademark, libel, censorship and other laws
> may make it impossible to use Free content in some situations, but equivalent
> content created by user would be equally affected.
>
> Example 1:
>     You can't take a logo from a GFDL photo of Coca Cola headquarters and
>     put it on soft drinks you're producing, but you couldn't if you made
>     the photo yourself. Therefore it still qualifies as Free.
>
> Example 2:
>     You can't take "fair use" Britney Spears picture and put it into a book
>     about Britney Spears. But if you made the photo yourself, you could.
>     Thus, not Free.

But if you created the work that used the "fair use" Britney Spears you still
could not.

Andre Engels


from_name: Peter Jaros

body:
On Feb 21, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> I hereby suggest that we start to distribute the press release
> versions on
> Monday (at least for the non-English versions that are ready).

How *does* one go about distributing a press release?  Is this info on
the site somewhere?

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] User-agent block list & Netscape 3

body:
In addition to the Safari fiasco a couple days ago, I've recently
received a complaint that Wikipedia blocks Netscape 3.0. The last entry
in the block list was for "^Mozilla/3.0", which blocks Netscape 3.0 and
some WebTV and similar browsers.

Now, I seem to remember blocking "Mozilla/3.01 (compatible;)" back in
the day, but never just plain "Mozilla/3.0". I've changed it for now to
that...

Incidentally, I managed to get Netscape Gold 3.04 up and running... It
does sort of work on Wikipedia. Sort of. :)

It gives a JavaScript error on every page view; a syntax error for a
regexp used for the toolbar code I believe. It doesn't support PNG
images, and the sidebar shows at the bottom of the page... also it
doesn't grok UTF-8. It seems to have caching problems on default
settings and doesn't reload pages automatically after edit. But, pages
(in English at least) are legible and it understands virtual hosts.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040221/83a524df/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:55:38AM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
> >No you can't. The Polish law is specificaly about text and I don't have
> >any reason to believe it's any different in other countries.
> >
> I'll take your word for what Polish law says. But Poland is also a
> signatory to the Berne Convention. If we can get WIPO or WTO to
> determine that the Berne Convention is about more than just text, then
> they have to abide by that.

>From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:

  quotation
      n 1: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a
           quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list
           several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are
           usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article
           includes mention of similar clinical cases" [syn:
           {citation}, {acknowledgment}, {credit}, {reference},
           {mention}]
      2: a passage or expression that is quoted or cited [syn:
         {quote}, {citation}]
      3: a statement of the current market price of a security or
         commodity
      4: the practice of quoting from books or plays etc.; "since he
         lacks originality he must rely on quotation"

I don't have any reasons to believe that Berne Convention meant "quotation"
in any wider meaning.

And it's more likely that we'll see peace in the Middle East, than WTO/WIPO
limiting scope of the copyright.


body:
Peter Jaros wrote:
>How *does* one go about distributing a press release?

Submit the story to as many press outlets in your language as you think are
appropriate (starting as early as Monday - but do make sure your version of the
press release is ready first). Use the talk page of your version of the press
release to coordinate this.

>Is this info on the site somewhere?

Nope - not yet at least.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Yann Forget

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] European Wikipedia-meetings this summer
	:-)

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Le Saturday 21 February 2004 11:34, Fantasy a ?crit :

> Antonio writes, that he would like that someone could make sure, that
> this summers Wikipedia meetings in Europe are not overlapping, because
> - Jimbo should have the posibility to be present, if he wants to.
> - Antonio would like to be in Genova and Berlin at the meeting
>
> My reply:
> I am happy, that there are others than me that will also try to be at
> many of the european Wikipedia-meetings this summer.
> To make sure that nothing overlaps, here the dates that are known to me
> till now:
>
> - 10.-12. of June in Berlin (Jimbo will be present)
> - 26. or 27. June in Genova (Jimbo will try to be present)
> - ???? in Munich (Jimbo mentioned, that he wants to visit Munich)
> - ???? in Paris (Anthere, what do you think about this ;-)

Sometimes in June in Paris would be very nice. Preferably a week-end.

> - ???? London would also be nice, wouldn't it?
> - any other proposals/ideas?

- From 6th to 10th of July, there is World Meeting on Free Software in Bordeaux.
cf. http://lsm2004.abul.org/
I think several of the French Wikipedians will be there.
Jimmy said that he could be there eventually for a talk.

> I look forward to meet you all,
> Fantasy :-)

Me too.
Yann

- --
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAN5PYm4KYjQo0y9oRArJtAJ9AYtojsNWw7Ybz14zEaED34QpuCwCZAc0r
AAqBK1XTk7SdbP2x0l+EYR4=
=tQdu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikipedia-l] free maps?

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Le Friday 20 February 2004 11:50, Andre Engels a ?crit :

> Although for Cook the map I want is not there - I need one of the whole
> Pacific, or a world map with the split in the Atlantic or in the Indian
> Ocean/Asia.
>
> Also, a version without borders would be nice for historical maps, and a
> version with less or no text as a base map in general. But I have
> bookmarked this one, thanks!
>
> Andre Engels

I have an old German atlas (1907). I can scan it if needed.
I have put some examples here:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Yann/Atlas

And an announce in the German WP without answer so far.
If you need a map, just ask.
Yann

- --
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAN6YWm4KYjQo0y9oRAs4xAJ9d06Qh5RmQd1sG/AVkwK9B0lBQkwCfU+Bx
UK8U8ZiS81nL2nPuIFsQ7gs=
=IA4z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 10:48:27AM +0100, Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
> > Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race.  Sure, we'd like
> > people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going
> > to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there
> > really is no competition.  Already most people I know IRL turn to
>
> How about I fork Wikipedia. And while you suckas scramble to try to
> get permission from the probably dead photographer who took the Che
> Guevara-face photo MY fork has more pictures than playboy. Would your
> friends still prefer Wikipedia??
>
> I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
> (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
> Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
> stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
> them.
>
> Be reasonable.

There are people who want to use Wikipedia only online. Lots of them.
And they may not care much about non-free images. But there are also
people who want to use Wikipedia's content offline - in books, magazines,
CDs, etc. Some may even want to print portions of the Wikipedia and sell them.

The problem is - these people can't legally do it if the Wikipedia contains
such images.

These people wouldn't be able to use your fork.

Are you able to see the issue now ?

PS. I think that the latter group is far more important than the former.


from_name: Mark Gerdes

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikinfo-Wikipedia-User pages

body:
Hey folks, I am just a contributor on Wikinfo and
don't speak for Wikinfo in any way but want to point
out something.

Some Wikipedia folk have gotten the impression that
Wikinfo has "stolen" the Wikipedia user pages.

This is not true.  Wikinfo has a feature that allows
importation of Wikipedia pages that Wikipedia provides
via XML export.

When Wikipedia users go over there to look for their
user page they are presented with what Wikipedia
exports.  Its not actually in the database at Wikinfo,
its just presented for them in their browser so they
can save it IF THEY WANT.  Some Wikipedia users seem
to be seeing this and thinking that Wikinfo has
"stolen" it.  They then edit the page (usually
blanking it) which saves a user page under their name
where none had existed before.

Wikinfo ONLY imports what Wikipedia exports and
Wikipedia exports user pages.

I am mentioning this to lessen the confusion and maybe
lessen any mistaken hard feelings.  Thanks for listening.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fair use

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

What about this image (screenshot of MS Windows by a Wikipedian)?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

And about this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Winxp_rc1_rev_02.gif

Thanks,
Yann
- --
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAN7Plm4KYjQo0y9oRAj6mAJkBdB1hnZIbA/Csaj0w3wCZGozkMwCfdRJd
kbcO+xzc+RQNzxdUlX793VU=
=j3p0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Till Westermayer

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

>> I know that we carefully say that "All text is available under
>> the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License", without saying
>> anything about the images.

>I also see another reason why I want to get rid of this: I see
>several copiers who copy Wikipedia articles, keep them under
>GNU/FDL, but copyright their layout. Whether this goes against the
>GNU/FDL or not, it certainly goes against the _spirit_ of the
>GNU/FDL. I would like to speak up against it, but currently I feel
>we are very weak there, because we do something very similar
>ourselves. I would want to change this text to "This article is
>available..."

Why not put some automagicality in it? I'm not sure if this is feasible,
but a combination of Fair use / GFDL / Other radio buttons for
submitting images (flag saved with the image in the db) and a simple
copyright notice algorithm:

Plain text article: "Text is available ..."

Text with GFDL image: "Article is available ..."

Text with Non-GFDL-image or both: "Text is available ..."

?

 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


from_name: Caroline Ford

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>>Well, let me make that suggestion then. I would like to remove all
>>pictures for which:
>>1. no author or source is known, and
>>2. there is no good reason to believe they are public domain
>>
>>From my own sample, which unfortunately did not get posted on the list
>>yet (I sent it from another email address, and it is waiting moderator
>>approval because it is from a non-subscribed address), I think that
>>this might include as many as 20% of our current images.
>>
>>
>
>If so, then I'm wrong and will immediately change my position.  If 20%
>of our images are from questionable sources, we are in a bad position
>and need to correct it quickly.  Given the large number of images that
>have no provenance information, perhaps we should rearrange the
>image-upload process to require uploaders to click through a "where
>did you get this image" page before they enter the file name.  Of
>course that won't force anyone to enter anything, but it will make it
>more obvious that they should.
>
>
>
I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.

Copyrighted 43
Fair use 186
GFDL 1714
Noncommerical 26
Public Domain 369
Unverified 273

Total images tagged so far:  2611 (approx total images 40,000)
 Percentage unverified (images with no info):  10.4%

However: the figures have a bias as we have been tagging our own images.
I have uploaded 193 images, Morwen has uploaded 1224 (a thousand of
which are her GFDL maps). When I was tagging yesterday's image upload
log over 50% had no info.

I hope this helps.

Caroline / Secretlondon


from_name: Eike Frost

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikistats (to Brion)

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

On Saturday 21 February 2004 01:10, Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> How about a cronjob to cat them together every night?
> Webalizer should be smart enough to do the correct date sorting itself

It isn't, sorry. One could however funnel them through a perlscript or some
such that "cats them together" in order (provided the timestamps in all files
are reasonably close) and then let webalizer have a run at it. Should there
be need, I'll dig up mine; I'm sure I wrote something for that at some point.

ttyl,
  Eike (first time post here :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAN756qG/WOFm4sRURAut0AKDVtx/VTXr7A0HrNAtRbkuhcZhalQCg1r9J
F2NEL9ciGjg5K/qYG3rLXAQ=
=zPd/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia and hard drive

body:
The following brief conversation took place on
WikiEN-l. Seems like someone here would know what's
going on, if anyone does.

-Rich Holton (aka Anthropos)

--- John Knouse <jaknouse at frognet.net> wrote:
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:42:07 -0800
> From: John Knouse <jaknouse at frognet.net>
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] wikipedia and hard drive
>
> I'm using Netscape 4.7 and the dreaded Windows 98
> first ed.  I'm going to try redownloading and
> reinstalling netscape to see if that makes a diff.
>
> John Knouse
> jaknouse at frognet.net
>
>
> >
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:56:25 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Rich Holton <rich_holton at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and hard drive
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> <20040221185625.82021.qmail at web60304.mail.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > Wow, John. Sounds really weird. What OS / browser
> are
> > you using?
> >
> > -Rich Holton (aka Anthropos)
> >
> > --- John Knouse <jaknouse at frognet.net> wrote:
> > > There's something wrong with Wikipedia or my
> > > connection with
> > > it.  All of a sudden, starting Friday, Feb. 20,
> > > whenever I
> > > log onto Wikipedia it fails to respond, and all
> the
> > > free
> > > space on my hard drive suddenly disappears.
> This
> > > does not
> > > happen with anything else on-line.  Anybody know
> > > what's
> > > going on?
> > >
> > > --
> > > John Knouse
> > > jaknouse at frognet.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikinfo-Wikipedia-User pages

body:
I have saved a few user pages on Wikinfo. The usual boilerplate I put at the
top of the page is "This is the user page of a Wikipedia editor who does not
edit on Wikinfo" Certain user pages are of interest to Wikinfo readers and
have been imported, notably those of Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger and a few
others. Most Wikipedia user pages are of little interest except to someone
who is actively editing on Wikipedia and there is no reason to import them
by saving them although it is possible to read them from Wikinfo as indeed
it is from any location on the internet.

Fred

> From: Mark Gerdes <ark30inf at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:36:00 -0800 (PST)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikinfo-Wikipedia-User pages
>
> Hey folks, I am just a contributor on Wikinfo and
> don't speak for Wikinfo in any way but want to point
> out something.
>
> Some Wikipedia folk have gotten the impression that
> Wikinfo has "stolen" the Wikipedia user pages.
>
> This is not true.  Wikinfo has a feature that allows
> importation of Wikipedia pages that Wikipedia provides
> via XML export.
>
> When Wikipedia users go over there to look for their
> user page they are presented with what Wikipedia
> exports.  Its not actually in the database at Wikinfo,
> its just presented for them in their browser so they
> can save it IF THEY WANT.  Some Wikipedia users seem
> to be seeing this and thinking that Wikinfo has
> "stolen" it.  They then edit the page (usually
> blanking it) which saves a user page under their name
> where none had existed before.
>
> Wikinfo ONLY imports what Wikipedia exports and
> Wikipedia exports user pages.
>
> I am mentioning this to lessen the confusion and maybe
> lessen any mistaken hard feelings.  Thanks for listening.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Imran Ghory

references:
<1AuNCU-1Bdo3c0@fwd07.sul.t-online.com>
	<200402211823.i1LINqsT008314@orwen.epoptic.com>
	<4037CB8C.2030903@secretlondon.me.uk>
	<20040221215554.GA24077@wroclaw.taw.pl.eu.org>

body:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 09:20:12PM +0000, Caroline Ford wrote:
> > I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
> >
> > Copyrighted 43
> > Fair use 186
> > GFDL 1714
> > Noncommerical 26
> > Public Domain 369
> > Unverified 273
>
> What does "copyighted" mean ?

Allowing any usage, but retaining copyright.

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


body:
Imran Ghory wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 09:20:12PM +0000, Caroline Ford wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
>>>
>>>Copyrighted 43
>>>Fair use 186
>>>GFDL 1714
>>>Noncommerical 26
>>>Public Domain 369
>>>Unverified 273
>>>
>>>
>>What does "copyighted" mean ?
>>
>>
>
>Allowing any usage, but retaining copyright.
>
>Imran
>
>
copyrighted tag is for ones that we have specific permission to use.
CopyrightedFreeUse is for ones that aren't specifically GFDL but they
don't mind who uses them and for what purpose.

They may need renaming

Caroline


references:
<1AuNCU-1Bdo3c0@fwd07.sul.t-online.com>
	<200402211823.i1LINqsT008314@orwen.epoptic.com>
	<4037CB8C.2030903@secretlondon.me.uk>

body:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 09:20:12PM +0000, Caroline Ford wrote:
> I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
>
> Copyrighted 43
> Fair use 186
> GFDL 1714
> Noncommerical 26
> Public Domain 369
> Unverified 273

What does "copyighted" mean ?
Everything on this list except PD is copyrighted.


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote
>
>>Totally wrong. The entire basis for fair use is Section 107
>>of the Copyright Act. Fair use has no existence outside
>>the concept of copyright. It is a defense that may be
>>claimed if the user is accused of copyright infringement.
>>
>>
>
>I was talking about the *use* of fair use materials. It can therefore be used
>more freely - the generic definition, not legal one, of 'public domain'
>
It seems that you're talking about fair use more as an abstract idea. I
have no problem with that, it was just difficult to recognize when the
terms being used also have well-established legal significance, and much
of the discussion has revolved around legal ramifications. My criticism
was primarily out of concern that people might read your statement as
reflecting the actual state of the law, especially coming from such a
widely respected source. If considered in those terms, I felt it was
dangerously misleading.

> (Alex
>and I got into a fight over this very issue).
>
I noticed that.

> Fair use let's people use small
>parts of content owned by others in their own works. The copyright on the
>larger work does not affect the copyright of the fair use selection. Therefore
>the fair use work exists outside the framework of whatever copyright terms the
>larger work is under. Is that clear? I think we failed to communicate on that
>point.
>
It does make it more comprehensible to me. If I understand correctly,
you're talking about whether Wikipedia articles have their own
copyright, even if they incorporate other copyrighted materials under
fair use. They do, and if Alex was suggesting that they don't, I
consider that a purely theoretical argument with no practical significance.

My point is that Wikipedia's copyright, when it incorporates fair use
materials, is limited to uses that qualify as fair under copyright law.
This does not affect our ability to protect the copyright in Wikipedia
content. However, it does severely limit our ability to license other
people to use that content. When we use material under fair use, the
GFDL does nothing to force downstream users to stick to the same use. In
fact, the GFDL clearly allows them to make many other uses of the
material, quite a few of which are highly unlikely to qualify as fair
uses. Ultimately, the GFDL and fair use are incompatible.

I hope that explains where I'm coming from. We probably have been
talking past each other to some extent, and I apologize for any
miscommunication.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040221/1549122f/attachment.htm


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Sorry but fair use exists outside the concept of copyright

In Swedish medieval law, I could borrow my neighbor's harrow without
asking, provided I returned it before sunset and replaced any pins
that were broken.

This text is just as hard to understand whether you speak Swedish or
not:

  XLIX. Vm ?n man tak?r haruu manzs ?lla tinda

  Nu tak?r man harw annars ok haru?r m?? um dagh; f?re at?r firi sola
  s?t?r ok uari sakl?s. Tak?r ur tinda, gialdi firi fiura p?nninga;
  tak?r ur atta, gialde firi huarn sua; tak?r ur ??n niunda, gialde
  firi niu ?rtugh?r. F?rir han harvu iuir upgangxs ak?r, ?a skal han
  haua haruv kialka; hau?r han egh haruv kialka, ?a b?te at?r spi?llin
  ok m?? siax ?ra.

Rough translation:

  49. If a man takes another man's harrow or pins

  A man takes another's harrow and harrows with it during the day;
  brings it back before the sun sets and is free of guilt.  Takes out
  a pin, yield four pennies; takes out eight, yield for each so;
  takes out the ninth, yield nine ?rtug (a larger coin).  If he brings
  the harrow across a sown field, then he shall have a sleigh
  underneath; if he has no sleigh, then pay for damages and six ?re
  (another coin).

Not that this information helps the discussion in any way...
Perhaps it illustrates that "fair use" rights have gotten smaller and
smaller with time.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se/


body:
Michael Snow wrote:
>My criticism was primarily out of concern
>that people might read your statement as
>reflecting the actual state of the law,

Well IANAL but I do often agree with them and their reasoning.

>especially coming from such a widely
>respected source.

I wish everybody would just take my statements at face value and not add
special significance (good or bad) to what I say just because I said it.  It
would make life much easier - especially when I happen to be wrong.

>My point is that Wikipedia's copyright, when it
>incorporates fair use materials, is limited to uses
>that qualify as fair under copyright law.  This does
>not affect our ability to protect the copyright in
>Wikipedia  content. However, it does severely
>limit our ability to license other people to use
>that content.

Not if their use would also be considered fair.

>When we use material under
>fair use, the GFDL does nothing to force downstream
>users to stick to the same use. In fact, the GFDL
>clearly allows them to make many other uses of
>the material, quite a few of which are highly unlikely
>to qualify as fair uses.

Which uses? If they change the article in a substantial way, then they will
have to make an assessment on whether or not those changes changed the fair use
status of the content we marked as fair use. We do not need to be overly
concerned by the *possible* violation of the law by third parties.

Saying 'all content is available under terms of the GNU FDL' affects the
copyright status of a fair use thumbnail the same way as it affect the
copyright status of a fair use quote: not at all.

If the article we give them is legal for them to use as-is, then that is all we
should be concerned about. Thus the need to tag images based on their status
and to provide different database dumps.

>Ultimately, the GFDL and fair use are incompatible.

No they are not - not any more than any other set of license terms. It doesn't
matter what license terms you have on a work - if you strip away everything but
the fair use content then the use is no longer fair (whatever the license). The
fact that the GNU FDL is involved is irrelevant.

Otherwise we could not even have small quotes from copyrighted works. That is
an absurd notion, IMO.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Bjorn Lindqvist

body:
Ok, I'll admit. I have no intentions whatsoever to make a fork at this
time. But what is to say that someone else wouldn't make a fork that
becomes a real competitor to Wikipedia?

It wouldn't be the first time disagreement over copyright has
splintered an "open source" project.

The English Wikipedia might sail safe because duplicating the
productivity and massive size of it is hard. But what about the
smaller languages? In a way that has already happened to the Swedish
Wikipedia. One of the reasons why susning.nu has more than double the
amount of articles that the Swedish WP has is because of their
different licensing.

I'd love to respect Wikipedia's rules. But right now, I don't think
anyone can claim that the rules aren't extremely diffuse. Does WP
allow fair use images? The answers: Yes, No, Maybe, Sometimes.

Maybe if Jimmy Wales does not want any non-GFDL compliant images it is
time for him to put his foot down?
Very hard.

BL

> I think a little courtesy would go a long way. If you have a fork you can
> make different rules especially with respect to images but please respect
> Wikipedia's rules too.
>
> Fred
>
> >> Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race.  Sure, we'd like
> >> people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going
> >> to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there
> >> really is no competition.  Already most people I know IRL turn to
> >
> > How about I fork Wikipedia. And while you suckas scramble to try to
> > get permission from the probably dead photographer who took the Che
> > Guevara-face photo MY fork has more pictures than playboy. Would your
> > friends still prefer Wikipedia??
> >
> > I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
> > (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
> > Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
> > stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
> > them.
> >
> > Be reasonable.


from_name: Nick Pisarro

subject: [Wikitech-l] Should give some credit to the software

body:
Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org> writes:
>I thought we might have another week but according to the last wikistats
>update
>we had 495K articles on the 20th. That means we should distribute the
>press
>release on Monday.
>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia's_first_press_release

A lot of credit for the growth of Wikipedia has to go to the fantastic
quality of the software that you guys have created.

Hypermedia has been around since the late 60s, but because of the
difficulty of creating and maintaining it, its use has always been
restricted in many ways. Even World Wide Web, a form of hypermedia, is
difficult to create and maintain except by "Geeks".

The MediaWiki software is the best solution yet, to the problem of easily
creating and maintaining hypermedia. In addition to the wiki markup and
the ease of editing, creating links, and other formatting, the additional
tools for looking at the work being done, such as the page history, recent
changes, archived revision and comparison pages, solve the whole problem
of creating a Hypermedia knowledge base.

I think this has played a key roll in its rapid growth.

Using MediaWiki, we have set up an internal wiki site here at Aperture
Technologies, Inc. for gathering and disseminating knowledge about
technical development and other issues. In the six weeks since it has been
made available internally, it has already become an indispensable part of
our development department's operation. We expect to expand its use into
other departments of the company fairly soon.

Again, I consider this "killer app" quality software.

Nick Pisarro, Jr.
Aperture Technologies, Inc.


body:
> > I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
> > (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
> > Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
> > stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
> > them.
>
> Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the
> violator from court costs and penalties.
>
> > Be reasonable.
>
> It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving
> into bankruptcy on your whim.
>
> And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result
> in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of
> Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.

Your argument fails on that noone has yet figured out whether
including Fair Use content in Wikipedia is illegal or not.

The whole argument seems to be based on the assertion that someone
someday will copy Wikipedia content that includes copyrighted Fair Use
material (i.e. a photo of Stalin). Put that content in a context in
which it is no longer Fair Use. Then whoever owns the copyright, who of
some reason has not already sued all other companies who has
distributed content in which that photo of Stalin appears, will sue
the downstream user. Who in turn will claim that they relied on WP's
promise that all content is GFDL. Then the court will decide that WP
not only has to remove all fair use images but also that they have to
pay lots of money to the suer. IANAL...

BL


body:
> There are people who want to use Wikipedia only online. Lots of them.
> And they may not care much about non-free images. But there are also
> people who want to use Wikipedia's content offline - in books, magazines,
> CDs, etc. Some may even want to print portions of the Wikipedia and sell them.
>
> The problem is - these people can't legally do it if the Wikipedia contains
> such images.
>
> These people wouldn't be able to use your fork.

They would be able to use my fork as long as their use of my fork's
Fair Use material also is Fair Use. Take the Stalin photo. Despite
that in all certainity someone owns that photo's copyright that has
not stopped hundres of book publisher to use it. I therefore don't
understand why they wouldn't be able to use my fork.

> Are you able to see the issue now ?

Let see. The issue seem to be that in theory, someone can be sued for
using Wikipedia material. In reality, that risk seem to be so
infinitely small that all publishers are prepared to take that risk.

BL


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Nick-
> A lot of credit for the growth of Wikipedia has to go to the fantastic
> quality of the software that you guys have created.

Thank you, Nick! I have added a couple of quotes from your email to our
press release:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/February_2004

It's always great to see open source software being adopted. I hope that
if you make custom changes to MediaWiki which might be useful to us, you
will send us a patch. :-)

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

> Incidentally, I managed to get Netscape Gold 3.04 up and running... It
> does sort of work on Wikipedia. Sort of. :)

Obviously for good reason.  If it is unblocked by now, print a warning
if a reader tries to access WP with this browser:

    You are using Netscape 3.x, this is last century software and as
    such it does not support today web technologies.  Consider
    switching to a more recent browser.

I guess nobody wants to write NS 3.x compatibility code.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>My criticism was primarily out of concern
>>that people might read your statement as
>>reflecting the actual state of the law,
>>
>>
>Well IANAL but I do often agree with them and their reasoning.
>
Well, you've had disagreements with at least two so far. Though of
course, lawyers frequently disagree with each other, too. It's sort of
an occupational requirement.

>>especially coming from such a widely
>>respected source.
>>
>>
>I wish everybody would just take my statements at face value and not add
>special significance (good or bad) to what I say just because I said it.
>
I doubt that's completely possible for you anymore here. You're not
Jimbo, but most regular users probably know who you are. I expect Jimbo
probably avoids expressing his personal opinions in some situations,
just because people might attach too much weight to them.

>>Ultimately, the GFDL and fair use are incompatible.
>>
>>
>
>No they are not - not any more than any other set of license terms. It doesn't
>matter what license terms you have on a work - if you strip away everything but
>the fair use content then the use is no longer fair (whatever the license). The
>fact that the GNU FDL is involved is irrelevant.
>
I consider it both relevant and different from other licenses. The GFDL
is a form of copyleft, and in my opinion, you can't copyleft something
if you don't own the copyright. We don't own the copyright to our fair
use materials (not when considered separately), yet we appear to be
licensing their use under copyleft. It's quite different than if we were
licensing our content under terms that were designed to limit everybody
else to fair use as well. However, if you feel that our disclaimer of
warranties shifts the obligation to downstream users, making it their
job to determine what they can legally copy, that's a reasonable
position to take.

>Otherwise we could not even have small quotes from copyrighted works.
>
As I have pointed out in some of my other posts, there are other legal
justifications for quotation besides fair use under US copyright law. I
believe we should shift our reliance to Article 10 of the Berne
Convention, which specifically allows quotation of published works. We
would have to make sure we mention the source and the name of the
author. I think this can pretty much resolve the issue for text, and an
argument can be made to apply it to images and sounds as well. In any
case, the Berne Convention has much wider international acceptance than
fair use.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040222/c9d47dd5/attachment.htm


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] What would Richard Stallman say? (fwd)

body:
"Caroline Ford" <caroline at secretlondon.me.uk> schrieb:

> I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
>
> Copyrighted 43
> Fair use 186
> GFDL 1714
> Noncommerical 26
> Public Domain 369
> Unverified 273
>
> Total images tagged so far:  2611 (approx total images 40,000)
>  Percentage unverified (images with no info):  10.4%
>
> However: the figures have a bias as we have been tagging our own images.
> I have uploaded 193 images, Morwen has uploaded 1224 (a thousand of
> which are her GFDL maps). When I was tagging yesterday's image upload
> log over 50% had no info.

It was definitely more than 20% untagged. My own number was 25-30% untagged,
but I had _not_ included the following in the untagged percentage:
* Drawings which clearly seemed to have been made 'for the occasion' and
  thus would be own work
* Material that was clearly older than 1900
* Flags, logos and weapons

After this, I had rounded down the number even further to allow for images
that were not tagged, but for which the origin was clear fromt the image
itself (my sample included for example two magazine covers).

Andre Engels


subject:
Picture copyright check (was: Re: [Wikipedia-l] What would Richard
	Stallman say?)

body:
"Caroline Ford" <caroline at secretlondon.me.uk> schrieb:
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> >>Well, let me make that suggestion then. I would like to remove all
> >>pictures for which:
> >>1. no author or source is known, and
> >>2. there is no good reason to believe they are public domain
> >>
> >>From my own sample, which unfortunately did not get posted on the list
> >>yet (I sent it from another email address, and it is waiting moderator
> >>approval because it is from a non-subscribed address), I think that
> >>this might include as many as 20% of our current images.
> >>
> >
> >If so, then I'm wrong and will immediately change my position.  If 20%
> >of our images are from questionable sources, we are in a bad position
> >and need to correct it quickly.  Given the large number of images that
> >have no provenance information, perhaps we should rearrange the
> >image-upload process to require uploaders to click through a "where
> >did you get this image" page before they enter the file name.  Of
> >course that won't force anyone to enter anything, but it will make it
> >more obvious that they should.
> >
> I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
>
> However: the figures have a bias as we have been tagging our own images.
> I have uploaded 193 images, Morwen has uploaded 1224 (a thousand of
> which are her GFDL maps). When I was tagging yesterday's image upload
> log over 50% had no info.
>
> I hope this helps.

Here are my results (the original email is still waited to be accepted).
My sample were the first 100 images (alphabetically) of which the name
starts with E, removing images that were different format copies of one
already in the set, and removing all but one images from two series.

Of these 100:
GNU/FDL: 18 images (6 photographs by uploader, 4 drawings by uploader, 8
    drawings obviously by uploader though not so tagged)
Public domain: 37 images (19 US government, 3 clearly US government though
    not so tagged, 8 public domain because of age, 4 public domain because of
    age though not so tagged, 1 mentioned as 'free of copyright' with source,
    2 no copyright mention, but source site mentions, which says its material
    is PD unless explicitly stated differently)

==making 55 images clearly without problem==

Fair use: 4 images (only images counted which were explicitly tagged as
    'fair use')
Non-commercial: 2 images
Specific permission for Wikipedia: 2 images
Possibly free of copyright: 9 images (1 logo, 2 coats of arms, 4 flags, 1
    Go position, 1 very basic outline-style map)
Uncategorizable: 1 sound file (work played is out of copyright, but nothing
    was stated about the probable copyright on the recording itself)

==making 18 images with possible problems==

Untagged, but possibly ok: 6 images (1 might be an unmarked own photo, 2
    an unmarked own drawing, 2 likely to be from NASA, 1 possible not
    copyrightable)
Untagged, no reason to believe ok for any reason other than fair use: 21
    images

==making 27 untagged images, obvious own drawings not included==

Andre Engels


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: 500,000 milestone is here!

body:
You go to meta where the official press release is.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia%27s_first_press_release

Copied the text, put it in your emailer, preferably in html encoding

Select the media you want to sent it to (usually, websites provide pages
to clarify who to send what).

Add a toping in your mail. Perhaps only hi, perhaps a bit more :-)

As the object of the email, put "PRESS RELEASE WIKIPEDIA"

Do not forget to provide your references for contact

Send.

:-)

Peter Jaros a ?crit:
> On Feb 21, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>> I hereby suggest that we start to distribute the press release versions on
>> Monday (at least for the non-English versions that are ready).
>
>
> How *does* one go about distributing a press release?  Is this info on
> the site somewhere?
>
> Peter
>
>                                  -- ---<>--- --
>                        A house without walls cannot fall.
>           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
>                                  -- ---<>--- --