Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
preferred format. Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as boneheaded as suing
a party who reprints public domain material, as was the case in Feist v.
Rural (the supreme court case you mention.)
Sent from my portable e-mail unit
On Jun 20, 2009 3:23 PM, "Geoffrey Plourde" <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
For some reason, I am reminded of a Supreme Court case about the information
in telephone directories. Maybe because of the insanity of trying to put
public domain material under copyright.
________________________________
From: Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:47:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an
Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship
That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS. I'm mostly complaining
that Google is being Ver...
There are some posts about a new video solution, and even more posts
that ... err ... isn't quite correct, but without any official news
about it its impossible to tell the newspapers whats correct and whats not.
I especially like an article saying "from Wikimedia Foundation who made
Wikipedia". I was under the impression that Wikipedia started as a quick
fix for Nupedia, and that WMF was created to support the growing
community. ;)
John
http://beta.technologyreview.com/web/22900/page1/http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/2211229/Wikipedia-To-Add-Video?art_…
<subject line changed>
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I suggest you take a look at a few of the DJVU files provided by
> >> Internet Archive. Then you can point out real faults that you see.
> >
> >
> > I will. My apologies for misunderstanding your email.
> >
>
> Okay, http://www.archive.org/details/catholicencyclo16herbgoog happened to
> be the first book I randomly picked from Google Book Search. There's no
> text version.
Lucky you. Most of the other CE1913 volumes on Internet Archive have
a DJVU file.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=The%20Catholic%20Encyclopedia%20AND…
> And the text version I find of other editions seems to be much much worse
> than the google OCR results.
The OCR engines, especially tesseract which Google uses, have only
recently started to handle multiple columns well, so old OCR output
are of lesser quality. If an old DJVU has been copied over to
Internet Archive, Google Books may have reprocessed that book
resulting in better OCR being available that way. Internet Archive
also reprocesses its DJVU files, and Wikisource has its own "OCR"
button which allows per-page reprocessing to be done by an OCR bot in
the background.
However, CE1913 is not a good example as it would be a bit silly to
use OCR from _anywhere_: there are multiple complete proof-read
editions on the web, including on Wikisource ;-)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/CE1913
Also note that Google Books shows the volumes of CE1913 as mostly "No
preview available" to me, probably because I am in Australia, and only
one or two are "Snippet view".
http://books.google.com.au/books?q=intitle%3A"Catholic+Encyclopedia"
--
John Vandenberg
Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology to
help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in multiple
languages in order to bootstrap their automated system.
This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help
people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce high
quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse.
We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
licensed.
/Brian
OK, the question has popped up so many times, that I think it would only be
fair to give it a separate topic on this list :)
Now I'd like to have a discussion about this, and not just assumptions.
Let's not be childish and say "yes it is, no it's not" (which some of the
discussion comes down to) but lets play around a bit with arguments.
This discussion is btw not new at all, I remember to have discussed over it
several times, and I've had both opinions probably in time. Mostly this
discussion comes up when a project (in the past at least several times this
was the Dutch Wikipedia, as some might remember) felt that the commons
community was damaging the content they uploaded there without them having a
say over it. The even more important question is, however, when comes the
moment when the two are in conflict?
I doubt any project actually cares whether commons has out of scope images
(well, a few might, but that is actually commons people then imho, not
wikipedians/wikisourcians etc), not what the categorization is like. As long
as it works, they can upload their stuff, it is safe, and they can use it.
The problems often came when a few "bad people" (paraphrasing it as it was
received by the Dutch Wikipedians at the time, no insult intended) were
damaging their content (at the time, it was for example about Coat of
Arms-png's being deleted) and they felt not heard or helped by others.
I think that is currently a repeating pattern in some way. A smaller group,
with all best intentions, decides to "harm" a collection of content, and
people feel attacked by that, and react in a not-so-positive way.
That is where the service project and the independent project clash. Were it
merely service, the commons would abide the wish of the wikipedians
(wikisourcians etc), were it independent, the Wikipedians would have bad
luck and live with it.
So now please share with me, in those conflict situations, which should it
be, and, most importantly, why? I'll believe service project is great in
ideal situations, as would be independent, as long as everything goes fine.
But in these border cases?
eia
Hello everybody,
I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed
the Commons added following text under the edit window:
"Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or
URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such
credit is sufficient in any medium."
I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan of
this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.
It is true, a similar statement is present at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not
discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I
can see (it was shortly discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Oppos… ).
Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be
advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for
an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the
end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.
Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the business.
Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be in
troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be
enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just
published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The
publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed.
Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then Wikimedia
should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license
could be enough.
Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article which
was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will be
lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down
completely.
Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into
financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen
soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was
sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be
blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your
business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."
And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues
his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia
projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original
attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the
works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would
explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the
third party have chosen.
What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It is
not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia
projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do
not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing to
continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy
there.
I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image
descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The
media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of
the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major
problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.
I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if the
attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a
challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get
appropriate credits.
Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a face
of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so much
anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can
mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It
can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.
Best regards,
Jiri Hofman
2009/6/15 Rama Neko <ramaneko(a)gmail.com>:
> The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many
> articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to
> find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our
> content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and
> categories.
> Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
> Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return
> of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the
> service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are
> copyright violations.
> In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very
> caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots
> of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
- d.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Stan Shebs<stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/6/15 Rama Neko <ramaneko(a)gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>> Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
>>> Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return
>>> of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the
>>> service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are
>>> copyright violations.
I don't have this feeling. There's some misunderstanding, though,
with different conversations happening on different wikis. A better
facility for discussion pages that are not tied to a particular wiki
(or are replicated on more than one) would help mediate this.
>>> In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very
>>> caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots
>>> of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
Fuzzy party pictures are an icon of the times.
David Gerard writes:
>> Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
Yikes. I find the Commons community to be rewardingly inclusive...
> I don't know if this makes me insular and derisive, but as a casual
> onlooker to the Pikiwiki episode, I do worry that there is an attempt to
> strongarm Commons into accepting material that would not normally be
> able to get in. It worries me because if Commons loses its reputation as
> a reliable source of free media, the that loss effectively contaminates
> everything in the project - potential users will be unsure if my own
> photos were really self-made, or I'm putting free licenses on material
> that is not mine to give away.
Absolutely. This is a contamination problem that affects most online
media sites. (Jamendo is one I can think of off-hand that does the
cleanest job of trying to confirm licensing of its free works)
> For projects that have committed to only using Commons for media, the
> pressure to accept borderline material is going to be intense, and it's
> always going to be a secondary concern that the files are going to be a
> problem for other clients of Commons. Projects experiencing that kind of
> pressure should maybe consider re-instituting local uploads, which
Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not
suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one
Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure
to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki.
The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from
multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong
pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while
releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.
In a similar vein, I'd like a wiki quarantine where I could post
material that is mostly free but contains some non-free parts (a logo
or something that needs removal) -- to allow a community of editors to
see and revise it to make it freely available, without reinventing
tools such as revision control, RC, &c.
The idea of all of this would be to move towards 100% free projects
and contents, but without the strain imposed by the current sharp
edge.
> allows for more gradual migration of material as it is determined to
> meet Commons' standards, and takes away the pressure on Commons admins
> to make snap decisions on tricky copyright issues.
Right. Except there's no need to tie the advantages of gradual
migration tot eh dsiadvantages and duplicated effort of local
upload...
SJ
Dear all,
I would like to use this opportunity to say "Goodbye" to all of you,
because my involvement with Wikimedia is now coming to an end. I could
make this a long email, taking about my time here and giving my
opinion and advice about the state and future of the Wikimedia
movement, but I'd like to keep this fairly short and simple -- many of
you have already received epic emails from me, you don't need another
one ;-)
Suffice to say, that the slightly more than 5 years that I have now
been involved as non-anonymous participant in Wikipedia and Wikimedia
have been very interesting to say the least - certainly a personal
benefit for me, albeit one with ups and downs. In this comparably
short time span, I saw the foundation mature from a rather abstract
concept to a working and professionally staffed NGO with a broad
networks of chapters all around the globe and I have learnt a lot in
this process. I have thought long about whether I should remain
involved with Wikimedia (I originally only resigned from Wikimedia CH
because I am no longer in Switzerland since April and do not foresee
being there other than for vacation in the next couple of years), but
I decided in the end that I prefer a clear cut from everything, rather
than just somewhat reducing my activity, and this year being for me
personally the start of a new era anyways (new university, new country
of residence etc.), it seems quite fitting to move on and start new
pastimes, spend my time on new things.
The little formalities: My tenure with Wikimedia CH ends on Wednesday,
May 27th - my ChapCom and list admin positions end at the end of May
and in general, I am fine with having all my access privileges
(accounts on non-public wikis, list subscriptions etc.) removed or
closed per the end of May.
I wish you all the best -- from now on, I will again rely on what I
read about Wikimedia's fate in the media, albeit taking it with a
pinch of salt...
Goodbye!
Yours truly,
Michael
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com