headers
Cary Bass | 1 Oct 01:11
Picon

Reminder, office hours at 1600 UTC tomorrow (10/1/09).

Hi all, this is a reminder that office hours will be tomorrow, Thursday,
October 1, at 1600 UTC (9:00 AM PDT) and feature Rand Montoya.

The IRC channel that will be hosting Rand's conversation will be
#wikimedia-office on the Freenode network.  If you do not have an IRC
client, you can always access Freenode by going to
http://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the nickname of your choice and
choosing wikimedia-office as the channel.   You may be prompted to click
through a security warning. Go ahead.

The channel is also available through the Wikizine site at http://chat.wikizine.org/ 
and picking one of the two gateways, while choosing "wikimedia-office" from the dropdown on the next page.

--

-- 
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
wiki | 1 Oct 01:17
Picon
Picon

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

wjhonson@... wrote:
> 
> The image is in the public domain.  That's the point.
> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain
> country might be today.
> 

Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser
scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into
surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally
they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact
copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on
the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.

Same with the digitization of a painting.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
wjhonson | 1 Oct 01:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...


 -----Original Message-----

From: wiki-lists@...
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@...>
Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

wjhonson@... wrote:
> 
> The image is in the public domain.  That's the point.
> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a 
certain
> country might be today.
> 

Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser
scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into
surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally
they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact
copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on
the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.

Same with the digitization of a painting.>>
--------------------

Are you believing that I'm stating there is a right to claim anything?
Because if you are, I never did. I stated quite the opposite.
Once something is in the "public domain" in any country, then you can use it.
That is what I stated, and nothing more.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
wiki | 1 Oct 02:22
Picon
Picon

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

wjhonson@... wrote:
>  -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: wiki-lists@...
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@...>
> Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wjhonson@... wrote:
>> The image is in the public domain.  That's the point.
>> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a 
> certain
>> country might be today.
>>
> 
> 
> Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser
> scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into
> surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally
> they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact
> copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
wjhonson | 1 Oct 03:27
Picon
Favicon

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

I think everyone is probably a bit tired of this topic so this will be my last response.

You keep positing that someone is espousing that the museums have to actively participate in providing
copies of something to someone.? Has somebody claimed that?? If they did, it wasn't me.? I have never
claimed, and wouldn't claim, under any sort of copyright issue, that the holder of anything is required to
do anything at all.? Or has any obligation, legal or moral to do anything.? The "doing" on their part is an
active participation and I've never claimed that the museum has to be active in any regard in this issue.

What I have claimed is that the purported claimant, cannot stop a seizure.? If I take, without permission,
without asking, without requiring anything from you.? Just take, you cannot claim that I've in violation
of some perceived copyright.? That is quite different from stating that they must provide the material to
anyone, or are required to, or should feel required to.

W.J.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Liam Wyatt | 1 Oct 04:02
Picon

Re: Office hours

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>wrote:

> 2009/9/30 Waerth <waerth@...>:
> > There are people living in Asia and Australia as well actually ... you
> > know! Oh wait they aren't "Western" people so why bother ......
>
> I am well aware of the existence of Asia and Australia. I have been to
> several Asian countries - I definitely remember seeing people there.
> The time of 2130-2230 was proposed explicitly for the benefit of
> Europeans (see Cary's first email in this thread), so I pointed out
> that it actually doesn't work well for Europeans.
>

I think it's fair to say that no matter what time is selected for anything
then it is going to be inconvenient for some people - that's just a fact.
Furthermore, what might be a good time of day or day of the week for one
person will not be a good time of day/day of week for another person (even
if they are in the same timezone).
Live with it.
I live in Australia and I've never been able to make it to an 'office hours'
sometimes because it's in the middle of the night sometimes because I'm at
work. But, that's my problem not the WMFs.

The WMF have already offered to do it at two timeslots and if these are
sufficiently different from each other then that's about all that can be
done. You're never going to be able to please everyone in this issue.

-Liam [[witty lama]]

wittylama.com/blog
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jim Redmond | 1 Oct 04:15
Favicon

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:22, <wiki-lists@...> wrote:

> Where some seem to think that
> just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that
> work.
>

To use an extreme hypothetical example: The novel "Pride and Prejudice" is
in the public domain.  It will take me a long time to retype the entire
thing into a text file.  If my copy is verbatim - that is, if I have
faithfully transcribed the original manuscript - then has the sweat of my
brow earned me the right to claim copyright on my text file?

Under US case law, the answer is pretty clearly "no".  Jane Austen did the
actual writing, and I was just making a copy (albeit in a different
format).  Copyright only applies to new creative works, and here I have not
done anything creative, so no new copyright applies.  I can only claim my
own copyright in this case if I contribute some creativity of my own - for
example, by adapting the novel into a screenplay, or by reworking the plot
to include zombies.  (Unfortunately, somebody has already beaten me to the
zombie bit.)

UK law is a little fuzzy here, but presumably my text file would not merit
its own copyright there.  (If I am wrong, and it would, then somebody please
let me know - I'll need to book a flight right away.)

Now, I'll admit, this example is ridiculous compared to a JPEG of a
public-domain painting, laser scans of a public-domain sculpture, or an Ogg
Vorbis clip of a public-domain sound recording.  However, the fundamental
argument remains: the act of *creation* is what earns copyright, not the act
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nikola Smolenski | 1 Oct 08:14
Favicon

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

wiki-lists@... wrote:
> wjhonson@... wrote:
>> The image is in the public domain.  That's the point.
>> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain
>> country might be today.
> 
> Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser
> scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into
> surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally
> they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact
> copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on
> the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.

If the original statue is in public domain, then its digital 3D copy is 
in public domain too. Some person may have physical ownership of the 
copy and you can not legally compel the person to give a copy to you. 
But were you somehow to obtain this digital copy, even by illegal means, 
there is nothing the person could legally do to prevent you or anyone 
else to copy it further. Physical ownership of an actual work 
(electronic or physical) is completely independent to copyright 
ownership of the work.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Nikola Smolenski | 1 Oct 08:15
Favicon

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

wiki-lists@... wrote:
> This entire discussion is concerned not with the work per se but with 
> particular digital encodings of the work. Where some seem to think that 
> just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that 
> work. If that isn't what is being claimed here then there is no problem, 

Not to all encodings, only to non-creative encodings.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Liam Wyatt | 1 Oct 10:11
Picon

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...> wrote:

> wiki-lists@... wrote:
> > wjhonson@... wrote:
> >> The image is in the public domain.  That's the point.
> >> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary
> of a certain
> >> country might be today.
> >
> > Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser
> > scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into
> > surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally
> > they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact
> > copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on
> > the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.
>
> If the original statue is in public domain, then its digital 3D copy is
> in public domain too. Some person may have physical ownership of the
> copy and you can not legally compel the person to give a copy to you.
> But were you somehow to obtain this digital copy, even by illegal means,
> there is nothing the person could legally do to prevent you or anyone
> else to copy it further. Physical ownership of an actual work
> (electronic or physical) is completely independent to copyright
> ownership of the work.
>
> This is the difference between *copyright* and *access-right. *The latter
refers to *physical property*. Given that we in Wikimedia-land only deal
with digital copies we are very adept with copyright (and copyright
edge-cases). But since we do not own any physical objects and therefore have
no "stuff" we do not have any experience in managing access-rights.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane