Mailing List Archive

Hoi,
It is a better mouse trap then the GFDL.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/4 Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com>

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

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
According to this [1], the Wikiposter service on the French Wikipedia
provides attribution by printing a separate page with the license details.

In reply to Huib Laurens: is this the/a right way to attribute?


[1]
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression/en#Frequently_asked_questions

Best regards,
Bence Damokos
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the
poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is
on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost...

Isn't it the same when a photo will be used in a newspaper but the
attribution will be send on a flyer with the newspaper...

2009/2/4, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> According to this [1], the Wikiposter service on the French Wikipedia
> provides attribution by printing a separate page with the license details.
>
> In reply to Huib Laurens: is this the/a right way to attribute?
>
>
> [1]
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression/en#Frequently_asked_questions
>
> Best regards,
> Bence Damokos
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
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

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Huib Laurens <sterkebak@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the
> poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is
> on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost...

There is nothing that says that the license and author should not get
lost. The obligation to provide author, licensing and copyright
information exists when the work is distributed or published, not
necessarily the whole time that it is in existence.

--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com

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

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Huib Laurens <sterkebak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the
> > poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is
> > on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost...
>
> There is nothing that says that the license and author should not get
> lost. The obligation to provide author, licensing and copyright
> information exists when the work is distributed or published, not
> necessarily the whole time that it is in existence.
>
> --
> André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
>

Agreed. If the license and attribution are provided to the poster-
buyer, then we (as a content provider) and the printer (as a
content distributor) have done our parts. We have facilitated the
reuse of our content in accordance with the terms of the license.

Now, if the buyer goes and loses the license and authors the next
day, that's their problem. The only exception being a poster
intended for public display and/or the buyer wanting to redistribute
it themselves, where the license/attribution would need to stay
alongside it.

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

Andre Engels wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Huib Laurens <sterkebak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the
>> poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is
>> on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost...
>
> There is nothing that says that the license and author should not get
> lost. The obligation to provide author, licensing and copyright
> information exists when the work is distributed or published, not
> necessarily the whole time that it is in existence.

My amateur legal opinion is that it's legally OK, but the question is
whether we want and can encourage further reuse by ensuring that the two
are permanently together. (For example, if source, author and licence
info could be printed on the back of the poster.)

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

Even if the buyer loses the attribution information, I'd bet that, under the
first sale doctrine, they can resell the poster. (Just not copy and
redistribute.) Right?

On Feb 4, 2009 8:24 AM, "Chad" <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 a...
Agreed. If the license and attribution are provided to the poster-
buyer, then we (as a content provider) and the printer (as a
content distributor) have done our parts. We have facilitated the
reuse of our content in accordance with the terms of the license.

Now, if the buyer goes and loses the license and authors the next
day, that's their problem. The only exception being a poster
intended for public display and/or the buyer wanting to redistribute
it themselves, where the license/attribution would need to stay
alongside it.

-Chad

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