On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:49 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com >
Additionally there is a video talk from the SoTM 08 from Ed Parsons on
> this topic
> http://vimeo.com/6751141
> Ed Parsons: "What Map Maker is / is not" at SOTM08
Additionally, please see this blog post , it is even more relevant to
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my
> perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not
> compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming
> or impossible for some O
Mike,
Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my
perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not
compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming
or impossible for some OSM editors to use.
We should certainly see how we can align pol
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big
> issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many
> people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The
> locations themselv
Hello,
Recently a friend noticed a sudden improvement at Translate.wiki,
concerning Wikipedia in Limburgish (li.WP). All remaining untranslated
items (28,18%) have been translated in one time. This is quite
unusual.
When he told me about, I looked up again what I had written about
(small) Wikiped
>>
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in
>> question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map
>> is "absurdity" is itself wrong.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
> If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of
> maps themselves, but the copyrigh
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
>> The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high
>> quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those
>> posit
In a message dated 3/31/2010 2:08:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org writes:
> I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :) >>>
> --
You are *taking* the picture however, with a mechanical device while you
are excersizing creativity over it's co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, wrote:
>> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or
David Castor writes:
The use of these logos are thus the only thing standing in the way of
> stating that all material from Swedish Wikipedia can be freely reused,
> without any further permission.
Is there any obvious legal problem with stating that (for example) "All
material from Swedish Wiki
On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:04 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't
> own their own satellites. So from where did they get them?
I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :)
___
fou
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high
> quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those
> positions for many of the locations and they are only av
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
>> (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person
>> access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but
>>
The use of the google maps (and other copyrighted maps) are restricted and
derivatives of those maps similarly restricted. However what the actual geo
points that you may get from those systems are not restricted (because they
are not copyrightable).
It is an understandable confusion to be honest,
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person
> access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but
> not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coor
Now some background :
Today, I found a map of Albania with no sources mentioned , and
currently I am working on mapping Albania. That is why I bring this
up. With all these maps in wikipedia, how can the authors possible be
the creators of the whole map, there are very few cases of maps that
are us
Hoi.
The facts harvested from Wikipedia have to be compiled in order to be used
in an overlay. The format of the overlay may be determined by the
application that uses such an overlay. The process of creating such an
overlay however is mechanical, slavish, it has no relation whatsoever with
the map
Sorry. they are facts and therefore NOT copyrightable.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big
> issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many
> people use google maps or another
I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big
issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many
people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The
locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore
copyrightable a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson)
>
> Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated
> significantly differently from the act of creation and
> determination of a map, particularly one that invo
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 19:30, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
>
> I invite you to read
> http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:About for a summary. All
> the documentation is published on the usability wiki, so you can dive as
> deep as you like from the Multimedia hub:
> http://usability.wikim
(This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson)
Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly
differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly
one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic nature".
"It is true that maps a
Hoi,
In Wikipedia we have many subjects that have geo coordinates associated with
them. They are facts. Facts cannot be copyrighted. When these facts are
harvested by data mining Wikipedia, you do not have a derived work from what
is the origin of these facts, you have a new collection of facts and
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items
> based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from
> geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a r
I was notified that this discussion was taking place via the Swedish village
pump at a rather late state, not previously being signed up for this list.
After reading all previous posts I posted mine as soon as I had time to do
it properly.
/David Castor
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: fo
Hi there,
I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big
difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia.
In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and
they are not checked.
People can just upload any and all maps that they someho
Mariano Cecowski hett schreven:
> Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send
> this some 50 messages ago. :|
>
I doubt that that would have spared you from receiving the 50 messages.
Almost all of the facts presented by David were known right at the start
of t
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, David Castor wrote:
> My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known
> but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the
> user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change
> in the
Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send
this some 50 messages ago. :|
MarianoC.-
--- El mié 31-mar-10, David Castor escribió:
> De: David Castor
> Asunto: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish
> Wikipedia
> Para: foundation-l@lis
2010/3/31 Petr Kadlec :
> On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation
>> Board of Trustees (
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy )
>> specifically permits project communities to develop exempti
My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known
but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the
user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change
in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarif
Greetings,
Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :*
>
> If i understand correctly - and please correct me if i'm wrong - the current
> big Usability project is essentially a rather cosmetic change of the default
> skin. It is not really bad and i'm not really opposed to it, as many other
> users are, but it se
Hoi,
I am quite pleased to correct you because you are wrong. The usability
initiative is based on the findings of usability tests that indicated many
issues with the old user interface. Some of these are cosmetic but that does
not make the change any less effective.
The objective of the usability
Hi.
If i understand correctly - and please correct me if i'm wrong - the current
big Usability project is essentially a rather cosmetic change of the default
skin. It is not really bad and i'm not really opposed to it, as many other
users are, but it seems that it doesn't address a very big usabil
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six
>> copies of the
>> foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the
>> content of the reply to the previous message.
>>
>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> > This post below, I've pretty much ignored
> > because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
>
> Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
>
Correct. It
On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board of Trustees (
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy )
> specifically permits project communities to develop exemptions, with
> logos being listed
MZMcBride wrote:
This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of
the
foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the
content of the reply to the previous message.
I've pretty much be ignoring this thread, and mark everything as read on
On 31 March 2010 14:43, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> This post below, I've pretty much ignored
>> because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
>
> Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
I am still uncertain wheth
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> This post below, I've pretty much ignored
> because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com
__
Was that supposed to be an example of a terrible use of inline posting? If
so, ha, great job, I couldn't even figure out what was written by you and
what was written by Mr. McBride.
BTW, this is supposed to be an example of a good use of top posting.
But in the end, you're just not going to forc
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> >>Hello --
>
> >>Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand
> how
> to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread.
Yes, but the opinion on what makes a readable reply may differ from person
to person
yup, especially John Doe!
On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> I agree top posting tends to be the most effective method for handling
>> mailing lists
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:5
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on
>>> Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cat
44 matches
Mail list logo
