Hoi,
When I talked to the Tropenmuseum about licensing their material, I asked
Mike Godwin about this and I put this scenario explicitly to him. Material
is licensed by a copyright holder, he can do it repeatedly in different ways
for different levels of quality.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 February 2011 14:10, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> If that is the case (As I understood this has never yet been tested in
> court, but I would appreciate any links to any jurisprudence, although we
> probably should start a new thread) then the point I tried to make still
> stands: a license should work in every medium. Whether the uploader makes
> restrictions to the applicability of the license does not matter, we should
> just avoid that merely because of the license the work cannot be used in a
> certain medium. I hoped to direct the discussion a bit into a helpful
> direction, but I guess my email is only leading to different side tracks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2011/2/23 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
>
> Hoi,
>> If a copyright holder makes something available under a particular
>> license,
>> it is made available in a particular way. Yes you can for instance print
>> or
>> do whatever with what is provided, but you cannot claim the same right on
>> the same object in a higher resolution.
>>
>> A license is given for what is provided in the way it is provided. What
>> you
>> can or cannot do with is depends on the license.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> On 23 February 2011 11:08, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Just to make a clarification:
>> >
>> > If you have copyright on a "thing" (with the lack of a better word) in
>> one
>> > medium, you also have it in another. If a text or image is copyrighted
>> in
>> > print, it is copyrighted online. That is what I meant with universal in
>> > this
>> > context, sorry if I was confusing.
>> >
>> > Therefore, a license should apply to all mediums to make the content
>> truly
>> > re-usable. It should not matter what you do with the content to
>> "publish"
>> > it
>> > - print it, shout it on the street or for all I care you take an
>> airplane
>> > and draw it in the air: the same free license should apply.
>> >
>> > Of course I am aware of all kinds of problems in copyright legislation
>> and
>> > how it sucks, I know that countries have different laws, one worse than
>> the
>> > other. But solving that would probably be slightly over
>> > stretching ourselves.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Lodewijk
>> >
>> > 2011/2/23 Birgitte SB <birgitte...@yahoo.com>
>> >
>> > > I don't want get into the splitting hairs on licenses that is the rest
>> of
>> > > this
>> > > thread.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal.
>> > > Copyright
>> > > is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal
>> > work-a-day
>> > > copyright world people just take for granted that it would all make
>> sense
>> > > if
>> > > they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright
>> world
>> > > people
>> > > pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid
>> having
>> > to
>> > > face
>> > > how ugly it is under the microscope.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people
>> > with
>> > > narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient traditions that
>> translate
>> > > poorly
>> > > into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not
>> > internationally
>> > > speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums.
>> > >
>> > > Birgitte SB
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message ----
>> > > > From: Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
>> > > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > > > Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 5:02:05 AM
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big
>> > disagreement
>> > > with
>> > > >the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't get it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Copyright is universal, so should copyright licenses be. There are
>> > > numerous
>> > > > exceptions to come up with, and we can discuss on this list into
>> > > eternity
>> > > > about those where Geni can come up with wonderful examples and
>> Teofilo
>> > > will
>> > > > come up with reasons why they fall outside his scope. Doesnt the
>> whole
>> > > fact
>> > > > that we have this discussion proof the point already and remove the
>> > > > necessity of such?
>> > > >
>> > > > The point is that GFDL has impracticalities to some people. Whether
>> > you
>> > > also
>> > > > have these impracticalities does not really matter, as long as some
>> > > people
>> > > > experience them as such, because it limits re-use.
>> > > >
>> > > > The question is, should Wikimedia Commons favor one license over
>> the
>> > > other,
>> > > > or even discourage the use of some subset of free licenses?
>> > > >
>> > > > I think that offering a default license is great - it is a major
>> > > > simplification of the upload process and increases the odds that
>> > someone
>> > > > will make an upload. Because be honest: most authors don't care,
>> they
>> > > want
>> > > > their content uploaded to Wikipedia. If that requires them to
>> release
>> > > some
>> > > > rights they won't commercialize anyway, they are likely willing to
>> do
>> > > so. No
>> > > > matter the conditions. If they would be required to make a silly
>> dance
>> > > > through walkthrough license schemes, they will just get frustrated
>> and
>> > > cut
>> > > > off the process.
>> > > >
>> > > > Of course we can have an advanced upload scheme where people like
>> > > Teofilo
>> > > > can pick all complicated licenses they like or even type their own
>> > > personal
>> > > > release which then can be judged by the community - but please
>> don't
>> > > bother
>> > > > the regular uploader with that.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > >
>> > > > Lodewijk
>> > > >
>> > > > 2011/2/21 Teofilo <teofilow...@gmail.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > > 2011/2/21 geni <geni...@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > (...)
>> > > > > >> I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Well yes thats rather the problem. There are also slideshows
>> with
>> > > > > > actual physical slides. I've got some around somewhere.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > geni
>> > > > >
>> > > > > People who work with actual physical slides are unlikely to
>> > > > > incorporate contents from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is online. If they
>> > > > > bother to create a physical slide out of content from Wikipedia,
>> > they
>> > > > > must have a computer with an internet connection, so it is not
>> > > > > difficult for them to upload the equivalent of the slide they
>> > created
>> > > > > at Wikimedia Commons, or on imageshack if it is not an
>> educational
>> > > > > content.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
>> > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > > Unsubscribe:
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> > > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > foundation-l mailing list
>> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > foundation-l mailing list
>> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
