Sam;
I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much
of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires
more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of
requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under pe
2009/1/30 Peter Jacobi :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
>> reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
>> Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this
>> is inadequate.
> I don't s
On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like preview
pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some of
those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole
would not fall ,at least IMHO, under "Must be realistically useful for
educ
Delirium wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>> My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the
>> moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
>> rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
>> do.
>>
> The problem is
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Requirements like that (the US used to
>> require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
>> burden on authors.
>>
> I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
> ones to make sure that the no
Michael Snow wrote:
> Requirements like that (the US used to
> require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
> burden on authors.
I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
ones to make sure that the notice was there anyway. Like abandoning the
On Friday 30 January 2009 01:02:41 Chad wrote:
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me
> >_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg
> >
> a usage for the first of the two images, but the latter holds
> no educational merit whatsoever (and the page title is hard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> Obviously I like it that my picture of a wild boar is used on a
> Russian website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING
> this than in having my name on their website.
This point brings to mind my early days on
Hoi,
So you are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is the license
and the uploader AND it may be PD. The cost of adding this is not calculated
as there is no functionality (as far as I know) that does it. When I print
at my copy shop, I get a prestine copy. Remeber these are typical
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be
> printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This
> would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be
> practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information
try
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.pdf
regards
mark
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, effe iets anders
wrote:
> that gives a 404
>
> 2009/1/30 Michael Bimmler
>
> > The silently stripped PDF is a
that gives a 404
2009/1/30 Michael Bimmler
> The silently stripped PDF is at (English version)
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.PDF
>
> Sorry about that!
>
> M.
>
> On 1/30/09, Michael Bimml
The silently stripped PDF is at (English version)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.PDF
Sorry about that!
M.
On 1/30/09, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Michael Bimmler
>> Date: 30
Sam Johnston hett schreven:
> Is it ever clear "that the depicted person agrees to the depiction"?
Well, it's not, but that's actually not a very useful point. I was never
in Cameroon. I have never met anybody from Cameroon. I have never seen
any obvious evidence that Cameroon really exists. And
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Michael Bimmler
> Date: 30 January 2009 16:38:29 GMT+01:00
> To: memb...@wikimedia.ch, wikimediac...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia CH Members] General Assembly and guided tour /
> Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss National Library)
>
> Dear m
David Gerard wrote:
> At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
> reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
> Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this
> is inadequate.
I don't see this tag at
http://commons.wik
2009/1/30 Marcus Buck :
> The issue is pictures of genitalia, isn't it? So "NoGenitalia" *could*
> be the thing you two are searching for...
>
> Marcus Buck
Breasts are also something on an issue. It would also be somewhat
tricky to make a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nopenis.svg
style i
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM, geni wrote:
>
> Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have
> articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images
> of faces.
>
> In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same
> providence issues.
>
> Oh yea
geni hett schreven:
> 2009/1/30 Chad :
>
>> Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than
>> going through all of the human anatomy.
>>
>> -Chad
>>
>
>
> Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have
> articles on means that we should have several hu
2009/1/30 Chad :
> Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than
> going through all of the human anatomy.
>
> -Chad
Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have
articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images
of faces.
In addition
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth :
> > I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any
> > nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions
> > about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of
> > c
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth :
> I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any
> nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions
> about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of
> consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM, David Moran wrote:
> I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
> idea that sexual images equal "harm".
>
> FMF
The two are not necessarily equal. There are plenty of people who,
upon finding a nude picture of themselves on Wikipedia, wo
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Buck wrote:
> David Moran hett schreven:
>> I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea
>> that sexual images equal "harm".
>
> Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
> far as I have understoo
David Moran hett schreven:
> I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
> idea that sexual images equal "harm".
>
> FMF
>
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about
delet
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal "harm".
FMF
On 1/29/09, Nathan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of
> any
> > sort o
Hoi,
What is the point of off list communication when you quote from these
communications ?
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier >wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > > ... now the French chapter
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/30 Sam Johnston :
>
> > I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now
> the
> > French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing
> it's
> > probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is eno
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston :
> I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the
> French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's
> probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images
> lacking releases accordingly, with a v
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> >
> > ... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
> publishing...
>
> As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is
> blatantly fals
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
>
> ... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
> publishing...
As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is
blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate
misinforma
> Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their
photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to
knowledge?
Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free
if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether
2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton :
> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
> book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license w
Hoi,
I could not disagree more with you. People who work on Wikipedia do this
because they make a difference. This making a difference is what I think is
of paramount importance, what makes people proud of this endeavour. When
people use my pictures and my ,it makes a difference how they use it. Bu
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I selected a great picture from Commons. I loaded it on my memory stick. I
> went to a copy shop and had it printed in poster format for little money. No
> fuss. I did not even need to bring it on a memory stick, I could have
> downloaded the picture at the copy shop
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>
>>> But I am sure there are no applicable moral rights
>>> to let's say correcting missing space around punctuation.
>>>
>> I have made some studies, a
36 matches
Mail list logo
