Дана Monday 30 March 2009 19:37:08 geni написа:
> 2009/3/30 Milos Rancic :
> > * Logos and other trademarks at one place.
> > * Strictly defined fair use images (like on en.wp) at one place.
>
> This wouldn't be legal.
Why not?
___
foundation-l mailing
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> A low resolution version is in essence a derivative of the original.
In a related discussion, if I release a low resolution image under
GFDL (or GPL), could my high resolution original be considered to
be the "source code" (as defined in GPL) that I would also have to
The image was deleted prior to the PD-Art policy change on Commons.
Kaldari
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> You just posted what is generally believed to be the position of the WMF.
> You did not answer the question. What picture is referred to? Where are the
>
>> The real issue is about how to cooperate with
>> archives and museums.
>
>
>
> I can only underline this point of Gerard. In the end, it is always about
> cooperating with other people, trying to find out what are our common
> interests. Maybe those of us who are experienced with these cooperat
2009/3/30 Milos Rancic :
> Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise
> rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy
> of Commons prohibits:
> * Orphan works.
Strictly speaking no it doesn't. For example it would allow images
that used the "the
> The real issue is about how to cooperate with
> archives and museums.
I can only underline this point of Gerard. In the end, it is always about
cooperating with other people, trying to find out what are our common
interests. Maybe those of us who are experienced with these cooperations
could
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> There is a very dangerous opinion that "work" according free licenses
> means "work in any resolution" and thus low-resolution pictures
> licensed under a free license could be replaced by high-resolution
> pictures.
As long as this remains a
Hoi,
You just posted what is generally believed to be the position of the WMF.
You did not answer the question. What picture is referred to? Where are the
discussions about this picture? Is this the picture believed to be the bard
as he really looked like ??
If this is indeed the picture that is t
Hoi,
Public Domain is a side issue. The real issue is about how to cooperate with
archives and museums. The fact that something that is in the public domain
can be used in any which way is true but largely irrelevant when you
consider that only a fraction of the material that is in archives and
mus
If a museum or archive asserts copyright on a PD work or art, we
ignore such claims. The WMF has stated they are willing to go to court
to defend the public domain status of historic artwork (and
photographic reproductions thereof).
See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> I am not sure I understand the issue.
>
> If we are talking about PD material, whether it is hosted on Flickr, on
> the website of the museum or elsewhere, we can still use it and upload on
> Commons (possibly by a bot). Example: Finnis
> Hoi.
> I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are
> interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time
> they are also considering Flickr.
>
I am not sure I understand the issue.
If we are talking about PD material, whether it is hosted on Flickr, o
Hoi,
A low resolution version is in essence a derivative of the original. It is
the prerogative of a copyright holder to license as he sees fit. The notion
that a copyrighted work includes right to other manifestations of the same
work is flawed. It is like saying that because you have bought a pic
Hoi,
A low resolution version is in essence a derivative of the original. It is
the prerogative of a copyright holder to license as he sees fit. The notion
that a copyrighted work can
2009/3/30 Klaus Graf
> Unfortunately Schindler doesn't take into account the very long
> discussion at de:WP:UF
Unfortunately Schindler doesn't take into account the very long
discussion at de:WP:UF
http://tinyurl.com/fdld4
There is a very dangerous opinion that "work" according free licenses
means "work in any resolution" and thus low-resolution pictures
licensed under a free license could be replaced by
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise
> rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy
> of Commons prohibits:
... we would be able to have some kinds...
__
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are
> interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time
> they are also considering Flickr.
>
> The issue they have with Commons is its restrictions. One
Hoi.
I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are
interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time
they are also considering Flickr.
The issue they have with Commons is its restrictions. One of the museums
said it like this: "We have done our best to a
18 matches
Mail list logo
