Mailing List Archive

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. This is the real world. There is
> nothing stopping anyone from printing one of the great pictures from
> Commons.
>

I think this is the great thing about our emerging age. You
don't need to own a printing press to be able to make a book.
(of course before the printing press you needed to have a
scribe to make a book, but that it very much by the by)


> With all the talk about the French chapter's cottage village solution to
> printing, the reality is that printing a poster is not a problem anyway.
> Given this reality, what are we talking about. What do we think we
> realistically achieve. You have to appreciate that the poster has to be
> shipped, there has to be something for the French chapter and all the
> overhead you think up has to be paid.
I don't think it is at all a bad thing that wikimedias chapters
would have to face all the same obstacles as other re-users,
and of course the obstacles are all there for a reason, and
traditional copyright would not only be worse, but would make
production of something like wikipedia essentially impossible.

> In another thread all kinds of
> difficult theories are discussed about atribution. The more complicated it
> is in the real world, the more likely it is that the chapter will end up
> with very little indeed and that all this talk will only kill a goose that
> lays "golden" eggs.
> Thanks,
>

I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped
the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel
about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to
our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs.
Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.


Yours cordially,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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. But
essentially I do not really care as long as my ideal of more and better
information or more people is realised.

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.

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 that is so dear to
you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the goose
that lays the golden eggs ?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com>

> 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. This is the real world. There is
> > nothing stopping anyone from printing one of the great pictures from
> > Commons.
> >
>
> I think this is the great thing about our emerging age. You
> don't need to own a printing press to be able to make a book.
> (of course before the printing press you needed to have a
> scribe to make a book, but that it very much by the by)
>
>
> > With all the talk about the French chapter's cottage village solution to
> > printing, the reality is that printing a poster is not a problem anyway.
> > Given this reality, what are we talking about. What do we think we
> > realistically achieve. You have to appreciate that the poster has to be
> > shipped, there has to be something for the French chapter and all the
> > overhead you think up has to be paid.
> I don't think it is at all a bad thing that wikimedias chapters
> would have to face all the same obstacles as other re-users,
> and of course the obstacles are all there for a reason, and
> traditional copyright would not only be worse, but would make
> production of something like wikipedia essentially impossible.
>
> > In another thread all kinds of
> > difficult theories are discussed about atribution. The more complicated
> it
> > is in the real world, the more likely it is that the chapter will end up
> > with very little indeed and that all this talk will only kill a goose
> that
> > lays "golden" eggs.
> > Thanks,
> >
>
> I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped
> the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel
> about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to
> our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs.
> Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.
>
>
> Yours cordially,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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 that is so dear to
> you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the goose
> that lays the golden eggs ?
It could be in a discrete line at the bottom of the poster. Just how
much information should be there remains an open question, but there
should be enough for the owner of the printed poster or successive
future owners to determine the copyright status of the picture.
Somewhere down the line an owner may want to republish the picture
(admittedly with reduced quality), but the chain of free licensing will
have been broken. Would we accept uploading such a picture with unknown
origins?

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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 typically single
copies.
Thanks,
Gerard

2009/1/30 Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>

> 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 that is so dear
> to
> > you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the
> goose
> > that lays the golden eggs ?
> It could be in a discrete line at the bottom of the poster. Just how
> much information should be there remains an open question, but there
> should be enough for the owner of the printed poster or successive
> future owners to determine the copyright status of the picture.
> Somewhere down the line an owner may want to republish the picture
> (admittedly with reduced quality), but the chain of free licensing will
> have been broken. Would we accept uploading such a picture with unknown
> origins?
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-----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 the internet in the 90s,
working side jobs creating simple websites and making ugly websites
less ugly. I had all sorts of graphics creating packages that I
somehow acquired in some fashion or another. Never having been a
professional graphic artist (nor having any ambitions as such) I
myself took pride that images I created were appearing (unattributed)
on other people's websites. I neither made money from them nor
intended to and wasn't suffering for the loss of income or attribution.

Cary

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJg1EFyQg4JSymDYkRAvS4AJ4haygNIouthlQxikypZkFADz7lyACeMrH3
VWplp2msU4qeYn5LBTVD2iY=
=MdxX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I Wrote:
>>> I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped
>>> the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel
>>> about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to
>>> our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs.
>>> Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.
>>>
And in reply Gerrard mejsen top-posted:

>>> 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. But
>>> essentially I do not really care as long as my ideal of more and better
>>> information or more people is realised.
>>>

I in fact agree with this. It can even be proven by the success of
such sites as Distributed Proofreaders, where people do not
edit as editors at all, but are merely faithfully reproducing works
to which they have no copyright (or even copyleft) that there is
no shortage of people willing to work without their contribution
being acknowledged in the finished product ; and yes, I count
myself among those who do that kind of work, and really will
never be credited for participating in creating an as faithful
reproduction as possible of for instance an early printing of William
Tyndale's translation of Genesis, in any lasting form.

No-one can deny that we would not lack in contributors if we
turned away everybody who wanted to see their name with the
work.

But human nature is such, that lots of good work can be had
from people who *do* work from completely selfish motives of
pride. Not all such work is of course of good quality. To this
effect too, proofs can be had from Distributed Proofreaders.
Some there do the work hastily, and without care, just because
they want their name to shine on the list of people who do
much work.

I do disagree that those people should be actively discouraged
from helping us.

>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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 that is so dear to
>>> you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the goose
>>> that lays the golden eggs ?
>>> Thanks,
>>>

Now this though, I cannot understand at all. How is the image
spoiled, if we know who created it?


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen








_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Two answers and a PS,

- first you do not have to actively discourage the narcissists from
contributing. But playing to their egocentric notions of copyright, notions
where the two licenses are largely the same is damaging to our objective.
The information needs to spread out, by hook or by crook.
- When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you can ignore
this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not want the
license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want a clean
picture just as it would be when I have it printed at my local copy shop.

PS forget your crusade re top posting and use a more modern approach to
e-mail or get over it.

Thanks,
GerardM



2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com>

>
> I Wrote:
> >>> I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped
> >>> the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel
> >>> about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to
> >>> our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs.
> >>> Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.
> >>>
> And in reply Gerrard mejsen top-posted:
>
> >>> 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.
> But
> >>> essentially I do not really care as long as my ideal of more and better
> >>> information or more people is realised.
> >>>
>
> I in fact agree with this. It can even be proven by the success of
> such sites as Distributed Proofreaders, where people do not
> edit as editors at all, but are merely faithfully reproducing works
> to which they have no copyright (or even copyleft) that there is
> no shortage of people willing to work without their contribution
> being acknowledged in the finished product ; and yes, I count
> myself among those who do that kind of work, and really will
> never be credited for participating in creating an as faithful
> reproduction as possible of for instance an early printing of William
> Tyndale's translation of Genesis, in any lasting form.
>
> No-one can deny that we would not lack in contributors if we
> turned away everybody who wanted to see their name with the
> work.
>
> But human nature is such, that lots of good work can be had
> from people who *do* work from completely selfish motives of
> pride. Not all such work is of course of good quality. To this
> effect too, proofs can be had from Distributed Proofreaders.
> Some there do the work hastily, and without care, just because
> they want their name to shine on the list of people who do
> much work.
>
> I do disagree that those people should be actively discouraged
> from helping us.
>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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 that is so
> dear to
> >>> you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the
> goose
> >>> that lays the golden eggs ?
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
>
> Now this though, I cannot understand at all. How is the image
> spoiled, if we know who created it?
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On 2 Feb 2009, at 07:11, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> - When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you
> can ignore
> this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not
> want the
> license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want
> a clean
> picture just as it would be when I have it printed at my local
> copy shop.

Is this full stop, or meant in a specific way? Obviously, having the
license, author list, etc. printed on top of the image is
unacceptable. However, I've seen posters with a small white space at
the bottom where the author name and copyright is given. I've also
seen posters where the information is put on the back of the page.
Would those options be acceptable?

I have made a number of images available on the Wikimedia Commons
under a CC-BY-SA license. I'm quite happy for people to print them
off, so long as my name remains attached to them (i.e. I'm
attributed, as per the license). It's easy to do this in an
unobtrusive manner. I've so far been unable to find out whether the
WMFR poster printing setup includes attribution or not; does anyone
know the answer to this?

Mike

PS: To date, I'm aware of one of my images being printed out in
poster form. In this case, I wasn't attributed - but in this specific
case I don't mind because they sent me a copy of the print (there was
a delivery mistake, and they got two copies). That was fine by me,
but it would have been even nicer if I was attributed....

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real
world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that
it will not be accepted a solution.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/3 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>

>
> On 2 Feb 2009, at 07:11, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > - When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you
> > can ignore
> > this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not
> > want the
> > license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want
> > a clean
> > picture just as it would be when I have it printed at my local
> > copy shop.
>
> Is this full stop, or meant in a specific way? Obviously, having the
> license, author list, etc. printed on top of the image is
> unacceptable. However, I've seen posters with a small white space at
> the bottom where the author name and copyright is given. I've also
> seen posters where the information is put on the back of the page.
> Would those options be acceptable?
>
> I have made a number of images available on the Wikimedia Commons
> under a CC-BY-SA license. I'm quite happy for people to print them
> off, so long as my name remains attached to them (i.e. I'm
> attributed, as per the license). It's easy to do this in an
> unobtrusive manner. I've so far been unable to find out whether the
> WMFR poster printing setup includes attribution or not; does anyone
> know the answer to this?
>
> Mike
>
> PS: To date, I'm aware of one of my images being printed out in
> poster form. In this case, I wasn't attributed - but in this specific
> case I don't mind because they sent me a copy of the print (there was
> a delivery mistake, and they got two copies). That was fine by me,
> but it would have been even nicer if I was attributed....
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
> nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real
> world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that
> it will not be accepted a solution.

Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse -
too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png

I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo
printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or
more meaningless usernames too.

Sam

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:01, Sam Johnston wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance
>> between cheap
>> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on
>> the back is
>> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is
>> that it is
>> nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the
>> real
>> world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect
>> will be that
>> it will not be accepted a solution.
>
> Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse -
> too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
>
> I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo
> printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or
> more meaningless usernames too.

You're overlooking the large range (with a high skew) of the number
of authors on images and are instead focussing on the extremal value.
For my pictures, I am currently the single author on all of them
(although that may not be the case in the future). They are released
under a license that requires attribution. If you don't like that,
use another picture.

Where larger numbers of authors for images are concerned, you're
arguing your viewpoint, not the legal situation. Unless you can argue
fair use, then you're bound by the licenses that the images were
released under originally. If those licenses say that the author must
be attributed, then you must attribute the author. You can't
whitewash over that.

Two final points. Note that all of my images (and edits) are done
under my real name; not everyone's username is meaningless. Also,
Wikimedia (inc. or exc. Commons) is not Wikipedia.

Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but for all
projects as I understand things.

When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean
print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the real
world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them if I
can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA.
Thanks,


2009/2/3 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>

>
> On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:01, Sam Johnston wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hoi,
> >> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance
> >> between cheap
> >> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on
> >> the back is
> >> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is
> >> that it is
> >> nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the
> >> real
> >> world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect
> >> will be that
> >> it will not be accepted a solution.
> >
> > Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse -
> > too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
> >
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
> >
> > I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo
> > printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or
> > more meaningless usernames too.
>
> You're overlooking the large range (with a high skew) of the number
> of authors on images and are instead focussing on the extremal value.
> For my pictures, I am currently the single author on all of them
> (although that may not be the case in the future). They are released
> under a license that requires attribution. If you don't like that,
> use another picture.
>
> Where larger numbers of authors for images are concerned, you're
> arguing your viewpoint, not the legal situation. Unless you can argue
> fair use, then you're bound by the licenses that the images were
> released under originally. If those licenses say that the author must
> be attributed, then you must attribute the author. You can't
> whitewash over that.
>
> Two final points. Note that all of my images (and edits) are done
> under my real name; not everyone's username is meaningless. Also,
> Wikimedia (inc. or exc. Commons) is not Wikipedia.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
> nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real
> world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that
> it will not be accepted a solution.
> Thanks,
> GerardM


Assuming posters are not for large scale public display sending the
credits on a separate bit of paper would probably meets the
requirements.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:39, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but
> for all
> projects as I understand things.

The change of license can only apply to wiki-created GFDL works,
which does not apply to the images. They will remain with their
current licenses.

> When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean
> print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives
> the real
> world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove
> them if I
> can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA.
> Thanks,

You still buy the jeans with labels attached; it's up to you if you
remove them later.

The RIAA's stance is completely different to mine. They want you to
pay money (preferably repeatedly); I only care about attribution.

Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
>> Hoi,
>> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
>> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
>> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
>> nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real
>> world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that
>> it will not be accepted a solution.
>
> Assuming posters are not for large scale public display sending the
> credits on a separate bit of paper would probably meets the
> requirements.

I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the
sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse
is still unnecessarily restricted.

Sam

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Your wish for attribution comes at a monetory cost so the difference is
negligible. They want their reward for the creation for IP and so do you.
Thanks,
GerardmM

2009/2/3 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>

>
> On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:39, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but
> > for all
> > projects as I understand things.
>
> The change of license can only apply to wiki-created GFDL works,
> which does not apply to the images. They will remain with their
> current licenses.
>
> > When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean
> > print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives
> > the real
> > world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove
> > them if I
> > can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA.
> > Thanks,
>
> You still buy the jeans with labels attached; it's up to you if you
> remove them later.
>
> The RIAA's stance is completely different to mine. They want you to
> pay money (preferably repeatedly); I only care about attribution.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:59, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> Your wish for attribution comes at a monetory cost so the
> difference is
> negligible. They want their reward for the creation for IP and so
> do you.
> Thanks,
> GerardmM

Huh? Where am I asking for money? Depending on the method of
attribution, there should be negligible extra cost involved with
printing the poster (i.e. < 1p)

Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> >> Hoi,
> >> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between
> cheap
> >> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back
> is
> >> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it
> is
> >> nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real
> >> world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be
> that
> >> it will not be accepted a solution.
> >
> > Assuming posters are not for large scale public display sending the
> > credits on a separate bit of paper would probably meets the
> > requirements.
>
> I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the
> sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse
> is still unnecessarily restricted.
>
> Sam
>
Unfortunately I do not understand the interface of Wikiposters, but reading
the translated English FAQ, I got the impression, that for instance if you
order a poster of a GFDL image, they will print you the text of the GFDL as
well. So I assumed Wikiposters is mindful of attribution requirements.

I guess, we would need someone, who has actually seen a Wikiposters poster,
to tell us how they handle this -- and other licences -- in practice.

Bence Damokos



> _______________________________________________
> 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

2009/2/3 Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>:
> I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the
> sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse
> is still unnecessarily restricted.
>
> Sam

That must make it rather hard to use the postal service.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
>> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
>> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
>> nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in the real
>> world. If a proposed solution adds enough overhead, the effect will be that
>> it will not be accepted a solution.
>>
> Thanks for another practical example of attribution stifling reuse -
> too bad if you ever wanted to print something like this:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png
>
> I'd be a lot more accepting of a 'Wikipedia' and/or the Wikipedia logo
> printed discretely in the bottom right corner of my poster than one or
> more meaningless usernames too.
>
I'm surprised that nobody is saying that there is nobody saying that
each individual photo in the logo collage should be attributed.

Some countries include a simple attribution on the bottom of postage
stamps. Something that size in the bottom margin of something as large
as a poster that can probably be covered when it is framed would be
sufficiently discrete.

Nevertheless, omitting attribution when the poster is solely for
personal use is not normally an enforceable violation.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean
> print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the real
> world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them if I
> can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA.

And yet you release your images under a license that requires
attribution (among other requirements). You're in no position to
complain about barriers if you put them up yourself.
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zwijntje.JPG

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
The Zwijntje picture is actually one that is rather special. I use it as an
avatar on many of my profiles. When people abuse this picture, it may hurt
me. There is another aspect as well, I am not arguing about attribution to
the nth degree of foolishness. It is also very unlikely that I will go to
court over my IP. This is where I am utterly different from the RIAA because
it is part of their business model.

So in essence, it is normal to attribute material using the best practices.
The GFDL was long considered to be a best practice by me. This is no longer
the case for the type of material that we deal with in Wikipedia and
Commons. Certainly not following the arguments that I have heard so far from
the proponents of staying with the GFDL for WMF projects. The irony is that
it iseven the FSF that agrees that we are better off with the CC-by-sa.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/4 Jesse Plamondon-Willard <pathoschild@gmail.com>

> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean
> > print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the
> real
> > world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them
> if I
> > can. In a way you take the position of the RIAA.
>
> And yet you release your images under a license that requires
> attribution (among other requirements). You're in no position to
> complain about barriers if you put them up yourself.
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zwijntje.JPG
>
> --
> Yours cordially,
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The Zwijntje picture is actually one that is rather special. I use it as an
> avatar on many of my profiles. When people abuse this picture, it may hurt
> me. There is another aspect as well, I am not arguing about attribution to
> the nth degree of foolishness. It is also very unlikely that I will go to
> court over my IP. This is where I am utterly different from the RIAA because
> it is part of their business model.
>
> So in essence, it is normal to attribute material using the best practices.
> The GFDL was long considered to be a best practice by me. This is no longer
> the case for the type of material that we deal with in Wikipedia and
> Commons. Certainly not following the arguments that I have heard so far from
> the proponents of staying with the GFDL for WMF projects. The irony is that
> it iseven the FSF that agrees that we are better off with the CC-by-sa.

You do know what the "by" in CC-by-sa means, I hope?


--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I have a bit of another view on this attribution stuff..

There are people doing great work to get permission to use pictures..
We tell the people that the name from the photographer will stay with
the image because the license says so.. Most of the time the people
say just no.

When Wikimedia has a printingservice that doesn't attribute on the
right way it will make it only harder to get permission..,

Huib

--
Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l