Well perhaps I didn't state that in that particular post, but I have stated
it a number of times.
People who make a living *by* writing and creating web pages, would often be
mollified by being given credit.
I don't consider crediting someone the same as stealing the image. It's
really a grey area. Some people don't want you even linking-in their images
with or without credit. Many sites will block that, even for photographs of
things in the public domain. So consider how they would feel if you simply
print-screened the photo, and then uploaded it to commons.
By the way, the example doesn't actually *prove* that she didn't ask for
consent, but that's a side issue.
The main issue is really to test the theory by using an image from a site
where we *know* they will complain isn't it? I mean there's not much point in
testing this by stealing someone's photo who doesn't even notice or care.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
<<In a message dated 1/16/2009 11:49:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
It would be legitimate if copyright law permitted it. In that case it
likely does not. What case law we have suggests that photographing a
three-dimensional object requires a sufficient amount of creativity to
be a copyrightable work. >>
Fine. I take a photograph of a page from an old book and post it to my own
web site.
You take my photograph and post it to commons.
Now you can't use the 3d argument, so is that a legitimate thing to do?
Should you be able to take my photograph (without my consent) and post it to
Commons?
Answer that.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
<<In a message dated 1/16/2009 11:32:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
We will deal with that if it happens. For various reasons I strongly
suspect it won't.>>
And yet we already know that you are not willing to do this yourself.
You just want to convince others to do it :)
Not really a very defensible position is it?
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
The sweat-of-the-brow case
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service)
is actually a rather specific and technical exception to the general rule of
"minimal spark of creativity".
This was a telephone book, which one company took, and *did not copy* the
pages, they copied the *content* of those pages, and then inserted that content
into a broader database of similar content i.e. the listings for all of
Kansas, instead of just the one town.
The ruling, writen I think by O'Connor was fairly narrow and not as extreme
as some are implying.
The ruling did *not* repeal sweat-of-the-brow. What it did was state that
your work must have some creativity, some originality, some non-obvious
content in order to enjoy copyright protection.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
There's recently been a change to the naming disambiguation guideline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Common_subsets_versu…
I'm interested in whether that is considered a good idea or not.
For example the term 'internal combustion engine' usually refers to
piston engines and wankel engines, but the term technically actually
covers gas turbines and jet engines as well, in a less common sense.
This is actually the way the Encyclopedia Britannica defines the term,
it defines it in the most general sense. If you try to define the
everyday sense you end up with an arbitrary definition that is
difficult to defend, it's this or that only. Presumably that's why the
EB does it the general way.
Another example is jet engine, again, it normally covers turbojets and
turbofans, but also ramjets, and in the most general (less common
sense) it covers rockets and water jet powered boats. That's the way
the jet engine article currently goes.
The term 'aircraft engine' very often refers to, in aviation usage,
just piston engines and Wankel engines used for aircraft, but not to
jet engines, however it's easy to find jet engine manufacturers that
refer to their jet engines as 'aircraft engines' as well, and the term
would lead you to expect it to be more general than just piston
engines.
The same discussion has in the last two weeks or so recently cropped
up in 'glider'. A lot of people use the term to refer to what can be
termed sailplanes, and some don't even really consider, for example,
'hang gliders' to be gliders. I agree that people will usually imagine
a sailplane when they are asked what a glider is, but I find that they
will also usually agree that other things are gliders also.
I'm not sure there's a right or a wrong exactly, but the wikipedia is
probably a general publication and therefore, it seems to me, gets
forced in a lot of cases to use general terms, (and this is the catch)
even if they're somewhat less common, because the general term is
synonymous with the specific term but a superset and usually easier to
define.
I'm just wondering what people here think about this issue in general
and the ongoing 'glider' one in particular. Is 'glider' more or less
anything/an aircraft that glides, or is it specifically a (for want of
a better name) a sailplane.
(FWIW if you want to see how 'glider' used to be see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unpowered_aircraft&oldid=256711991
I'm not convinced I understand what that version is doing there
specifically, but that's where it currently is.)
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be very much better.
In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:31:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com writes:
What studies? I'm aware that Britannica did a study, but it was my
understanding that they focused mainly on topics in the hard sciences.
There may have been studies done that I was unaware of, though.
---------------
Brittanica financed a study?
I was under the impression the study was done independently *comparing* us
to Brittanica.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
<<In a message dated 1/16/2009 11:49:35 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
It could be but you would have to overturn a fair bit of caselaw. The
second part of you email however shows that you are either illiterate,
lying or an idiot. It has been explained to you many times that I
answer to UK law which is different in this area.>>
And now we see the argument descend into this sort of attack.
So evidently Geni has nothing left except personal insult. Nice.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
<<In a message dated 1/16/2009 11:39:42 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
Will, that's quite an unreasonable thing to say. Geni is a UK
resident. He must obey UK laws. Whether or not he agrees with them.
Just because he must obey the laws of the country in which he lives
does not impose on him a moral imperative to never advocate that
people in the US should do things that are legal in the US but not in
the UK.>>
Well it could be that what Geni is advocating is not legal in the US and the
fact that Geni is not willing to do it Geni-self might be a good indication
of that.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
<<In a message dated 1/16/2009 11:33:42 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
I think you've failed to demonstrate that our taking a copy of things
we're legally allowed to take a copy of is actually harming any of
these organizations, quite apart from any argument about whether we
should actually care.>>
The question again is not taking a copy of things. It's taking a copy of my
photograph.
I photograph the Taj Mahal and put it on my own web page.
You take my copy and post it to Commons.
That's what you want? That seems legitimate?
Answer that question.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
<<In a message dated 1/16/2009 11:33:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
If you buy an expensive first edition public domain book (hundreds of
years old and thousands of US dollars), what do you say to someone who
turns up on your doorstep saying that the book is part of the
collective heritage of humankind, and that they have a right to look
at it and scan it, and that you have no right to keep the item locked
up in a display cabinet for only you to look at?>>
Your particular item is not PD. It's the general item, the Socratian item,
that is PD.
Your specific item is not. No one can force you to let them view your item.
If to take an extreme vase, the only versions of the item are privately
held, and no one has ever photographed it, or if they have all the photographs
are unpublished etc etc, then right, you can't get the item.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)