UMP Convention

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

UMP Convention

Florence Devouard-3
Hello,

A very short word to say that yesterday I attended a convention in
Paris, organised by the UMP
(http://www.u-m-p-paris.org/article.php3?id_article=454).

UMP is the first (as far as I know) political party in France, leader
being Mr Sarkozy, current minister of interior in France and a leading
candidate for the future presidential elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarkozy

The convention was focused on education and research
(http://www.u-m-p-paris.org/article.php3?id_article=454) I was speaking
in a panel along with french internet entrepreneurs, the idea of the
panel not being to "inform" people, but rather to tell them about what
we were expecting/hoping from this party (and likely, ahum, well,
possibly, from the next government...).

After a short introduction to Wikipedia, with proper figures ("4,4
millions of french electors are visiting Wikipedia every month" - I
could see every one bending to write down the scary fact that 1/10
french electors was a Wikipedia user), I insisted on two facts.

First is the DADVSI law (which was supported by UMP - making them the
real bad guys for free software supporters) - please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI with this relevant bit

        "The law was highly controversial within France for it could
significantly hamper free software, and also may significantly restrict
the right to make copies of copyrighted works for private use.

Second was to talk about the fact USA releases information in Public
Domain, versus our government (and more generally the EU, or most public
organisations) under classical cp. I mentionned as examples
* most pictures of french politicians on wp being from the US
governement (not the french gvt)
* Spatial research images from the NASA rather than ESA
* Etc

The whole convention was *extremely* interesting (which actually amazed
me, because it is rather unusual to attend a convention and be
interested all along). I was in particular amazed at how understandable
people were (very little political talk), how specific and how ready to
state what was not working. It was very refreshing...

In terms of audience, well, I'd say a quite decent part of it was
parliament members and current or ancient ministers. Others being
typically presidents of universities etc... In short, powerful people.

I was very glad to finally meet Loic Lemeur, probably the famous blogger
in France, and who I read occasionnally but never had the opportunity to
meet. Also the creator of several internet success.

I was invited to later talk privately to the person in charge of ict et
al from the office of Mr Sarkozy. I'll try to take care of that in november.

Guys, I hope you all feel the power of what we are building. This is HUGE.


Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

David Gerard-2
On 05/10/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

> After a short introduction to Wikipedia, with proper figures ("4,4
> millions of french electors are visiting Wikipedia every month" - I
> could see every one bending to write down the scary fact that 1/10
> french electors was a Wikipedia user), I insisted on two facts.
> First is the DADVSI law (which was supported by UMP - making them the
> real bad guys for free software supporters) - please see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI with this relevant bit
>         "The law was highly controversial within France for it could
> significantly hamper free software, and also may significantly restrict
> the right to make copies of copyrighted works for private use.
> Second was to talk about the fact USA releases information in Public
> Domain, versus our government (and more generally the EU, or most public
> organisations) under classical cp. I mentionned as examples
> * most pictures of french politicians on wp being from the US
> governement (not the french gvt)
> * Spatial research images from the NASA rather than ESA


Oh, that's excellent! Well done!


> I was invited to later talk privately to the person in charge of ict et
> al from the office of Mr Sarkozy. I'll try to take care of that in november.
> Guys, I hope you all feel the power of what we are building. This is HUGE.


Indeed.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 05/10/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Second was to talk about the fact USA releases information in Public
> Domain, versus our government (and more generally the EU, or most public
> organisations) under classical cp. I mentionned as examples
> * most pictures of french politicians on wp being from the US
> governement (not the french gvt)
> * Spatial research images from the NASA rather than ESA
> * Etc

As well as being a detriment to us in that we only have a limited
amount of resources to play with, this sort of thing can lead to
interesting unintentional biases - a disproportionately high number of
images on en.wp have uniformed US servicemen in them, often in the
most unexpected contexts. I wonder if we can use this sort of thing to
our advantage? "Look how many of the freely-available images of major
humanitarian operations have American flags all over them. Yes, I know
the French government gave more aid after the tsunami than the
Americans. But they didn't release ten thousand photographs of it all
as part of their normal practice. This sort of thing can pay off."

> In terms of audience, well, I'd say a quite decent part of it was
> parliament members and current or ancient ministers. Others being
> typically presidents of universities etc... In short, powerful people.

(...)

> Guys, I hope you all feel the power of what we are building. This is HUGE.

It's very easy to forget, sometimes. Thanks for reminding us that we
get taken seriously...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

geni
On 10/5/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As well as being a detriment to us in that we only have a limited
> amount of resources to play with, this sort of thing can lead to
> interesting unintentional biases - a disproportionately high number of
> images on en.wp have uniformed US servicemen in them, often in the
> most unexpected contexts. I wonder if we can use this sort of thing to
> our advantage? "Look how many of the freely-available images of major
> humanitarian operations have American flags all over them. Yes, I know
> the French government gave more aid after the tsunami than the
> Americans. But they didn't release ten thousand photographs of it all
> as part of their normal practice. This sort of thing can pay off."
>

The problem is that most goverments hold the copyright on things of
significant value and as such are unlikely to release them directly
into the public domain. Most will consider it enough to allow use for
non comercail uses or for educational uses. Or will produce something
like the british crown copyright system.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Andrew Gray
On 05/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/5/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I wonder if we can use this sort of thing to
> > our advantage? "Look how many of the freely-available images of major
> > humanitarian operations have American flags all over them. Yes, I know
> > the French government gave more aid after the tsunami than the
> > Americans. But they didn't release ten thousand photographs of it all
> > as part of their normal practice. This sort of thing can pay off."
>
> The problem is that most goverments hold the copyright on things of
> significant value and as such are unlikely to release them directly
> into the public domain. Most will consider it enough to allow use for
> non comercail uses or for educational uses. Or will produce something
> like the british crown copyright system.

Yes, but there's no requirement for anyone to go as far as the US and
release *everything* regardless. It wouldn't be impossible to come up
with some kind of a system where copyright was disclaimed on routine
work and most publications, with the government retains the right to
assert copyright at its discretion where it felt it would be
beneficial to do so.

(I think I remember seeing a study once, prepared by HMSO, about the
amount of money made by the UK government through copyrighted
material. It'd be interesting to see what proportion of that comes in
from trivial things)

The trick is arranging a system where it isn't worth their while to
copyright all the photographs and reports churned out by government
workers ;-)

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
On 05/10/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 05/10/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Guys, I hope you all feel the power of what we are building. This is HUGE.

> It's very easy to forget, sometimes. Thanks for reminding us that we
> get taken seriously...


We're a top-20 website, and the only one that's run on a shoestring.
This is barely the beginning.

("Google? ... Oh, yes. We were going to use their ads but their
servers couldn't possibly send them fast enough.")


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by geni
On 05/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem is that most goverments hold the copyright on things of
> significant value and as such are unlikely to release them directly
> into the public domain. Most will consider it enough to allow use for
> non comercail uses or for educational uses. Or will produce something
> like the british crown copyright system.


The results of this approach was, I thought, the precise point Anthere
was making to quite a lot of the members of the very popular
centre-right political party in France. After catching their attention
with 10% of French voters being Wikipedia users. (Must find out the UK
numbers.)


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 10/5/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 05/10/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 05/10/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > Guys, I hope you all feel the power of what we are building. This is HUGE.
>
> > It's very easy to forget, sometimes. Thanks for reminding us that we
> > get taken seriously...
>
>
> We're a top-20 website, and the only one that's run on a shoestring.
> This is barely the beginning.
>
> ("Google? ... Oh, yes. We were going to use their ads but their
> servers couldn't possibly send them fast enough.")

We've leveled off in terms of growth (it's still there but not at the
rate it used to be). Unless we come up with something new (a way to
make commons effectively searchable might be one) we may have pretty
much reached our natural level of webpresence.

If that is the case it may be time to look to other areas. Mobile
phones. Book form. Provideing stock photos and information for non
profits (and to a degree profits).

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

David Gerard-2
On 05/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 10/5/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > We're a top-20 website, and the only one that's run on a shoestring.
> > This is barely the beginning.
> > ("Google? ... Oh, yes. We were going to use their ads but their
> > servers couldn't possibly send them fast enough.")

> We've leveled off in terms of growth (it's still there but not at the
> rate it used to be). Unless we come up with something new (a way to
> make commons effectively searchable might be one) we may have pretty
> much reached our natural level of webpresence.


Using the self-selected and inherently bogus Alexa numbers, Wikipedia
is still slowly climbing in page rank and steadily increasing in page
views per million. Are you quite sure about that slowing? Is it the
first derivative or the second derivative that's going down?

(I mention only Wikipedia here, not any other project, because Alexa
goes by domain.)

It feels like the press are only just getting their heads around our existence.


> If that is the case it may be time to look to other areas. Mobile
> phones. Book form. Provideing stock photos and information for non
> profits (and to a degree profits).


I'm not saying that ridiculous growth has been good for us; in fact, I
think it hasn't. en: could certainly do with just a little less of the
public glare, though that's not going to happen - we're way too useful
to the actual readers, and we'll only get better in breadth of
coverage and quality in the areas already covered.

In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine). You
describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa." You would, with a moment's
thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Kirill Lokshin
On 10/5/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Using the self-selected and inherently bogus Alexa numbers, Wikipedia
> is still slowly climbing in page rank and steadily increasing in page
> views per million. Are you quite sure about that slowing? Is it the
> first derivative or the second derivative that's going down?
>
> (I mention only Wikipedia here, not any other project, because Alexa
> goes by domain.)

Speaking of which: our daily page rank seems to have jumped up to 11 today. ;-)

--
Kirill Lokshin
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 10/5/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Using the self-selected and inherently bogus Alexa numbers, Wikipedia
> is still slowly climbing in page rank and steadily increasing in page
> views per million. Are you quite sure about that slowing? Is it the
> first derivative or the second derivative that's going down?
>

Alexa rank is staying pretty steady though. We are growing but not at
the rate we once were.


> It feels like the press are only just getting their heads around our existence.

I beg to differ. In any case we have not for the most part relied on
the press for growth.

>
> In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
> categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
> like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
> basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine).

So is everyone else. The results so far have been indiferent. A lot of
people out there are looking for an effective way of searching images.
Whoever finds it is going to be able to cash in big time.

>You
> describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
> and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
> something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
> search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
> Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa."

If you want that you are going to have to remove GFDL as one of the
standard image upload options.

>You would, with a moment's
> thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
> that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.
>

They are one user certianly

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

David Gerard-2
On 06/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 10/5/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
> > categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
> > like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
> > basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine).

> So is everyone else. The results so far have been indiferent. A lot of
> people out there are looking for an effective way of searching images.
> Whoever finds it is going to be able to cash in big time.


Yes, well, there is that! However Getty does it is good enough for
people to pay real money for, fwiw.


> >You
> > describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
> > and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
> > something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
> > search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
> > Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa."

> If you want that you are going to have to remove GFDL as one of the
> standard image upload options.


I'd like it myself, but then I tend to make my photos PD or
copyleft-self (GFDL+cc-by-sa-any). People who would quite like to see
"(c) Me Memememe Meeee - reusable under cc-by-sa" will licence their
work accordingly.

(Personally I consider the GFDL a pretend-open licence for print use
of images; it's technically free content, but the compliance
requirements are onerous.)


> >You would, with a moment's
> > thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
> > that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.

> They are one user certianly


My point is that I think it would be worth it so people see more open
content out in the world.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

geni
On 10/6/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 06/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes, well, there is that! However Getty does it is good enough for
> people to pay real money for, fwiw.
>

most of the users will likely have learned to use the system. Most of
our current users will not wish to do that.

>
> I'd like it myself, but then I tend to make my photos PD or
> copyleft-self (GFDL+cc-by-sa-any). People who would quite like to see
> "(c) Me Memememe Meeee - reusable under cc-by-sa" will licence their
> work accordingly.
>
> (Personally I consider the GFDL a pretend-open licence for print use
> of images; it's technically free content, but the compliance
> requirements are onerous.)
>

Of course. The problem is that a lot of uploads at the moment are GFDL
because that is the licence people think they are most familiar with.
Mind you perhaps the GFDL wiki lisence will be better (I see that
creative commons has one)


> My point is that I think it would be worth it so people see more open
> content out in the world.
>

And I agree but I look more to new uses. How can we use free content
in ways that content has never been used before.

That said newspapers and other traditional media give us a way to
reach out to an audience that doesn't really know about us but has the
power vastly improve the extent of our content. In some ways the
combined IP of AP and getty is nothing to that held by out parents and
grandparents.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

David Gerard-2
On 06/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That said newspapers and other traditional media give us a way to
> reach out to an audience that doesn't really know about us but has the
> power vastly improve the extent of our content. In some ways the
> combined IP of AP and getty is nothing to that held by out parents and
> grandparents.


Open content: a way for the little people to actually use their
automatic copyright grant.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard wrote:

> On 05/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>The problem is that most goverments hold the copyright on things of
>>significant value and as such are unlikely to release them directly
>>into the public domain. Most will consider it enough to allow use for
>>non comercail uses or for educational uses. Or will produce something
>>like the british crown copyright system.
>
>
>
> The results of this approach was, I thought, the precise point Anthere
> was making to quite a lot of the members of the very popular
> centre-right political party in France. After catching their attention
> with 10% of French voters being Wikipedia users. (Must find out the UK
> numbers.)
>
>
> - d.

yes, precisely David.

For our stats in France, we use largely our biggest stats organization,
Mediametrie.

French population is 60 millions, with 50% connected to the net and 25%
using it daily.

Below, stats for august 2006

Rang Marque unique visitors
Google   16 687 000
Orange   12 695 000
MSN/Windows Live   12 397 000
Free   11 621 000
Yahoo!   9 312 000
PagesJaunes 8 777 00
Microsoft   8 182 000
eBay   7 373 000
Mappy   7 052 000
Voila   7 043 000
TF1 Network   5 859 000
Lycos Europe   5 406 000
Cdiscount.com   5 324 000
L Internaute   4 974 000
Alice   4 837 000
01net. Network 4 810 000
voyages-sncf.com 4 709 000
ViaMichelin   4 490 000
La Redoute 4 476 000
Wikipedia 4 443 000
Skyrock Network   4 438 000
Rue du Commerce 3 778 000
Meteo France 3 750 000
Amazon   3 732 000
AOL(*)   3 711 000
PriceMinister 3 548 000
AlloCine   3 356 000
Credit Agricole   3 353 000
LA POSTE   3 265 000

In this list, apart from american websites

Orange: we met them 2 weeks ago. They are interested by a datafeed;

La Redoute: invited us to present Wikipedia 2 weeks ago.

PriceMinister (equivalent of french ebay): was present at the UMP panel
I attended.

Rue du commerce: contacted us for business opportunities 1 year ago.
Typically a datafeed except it did not really existed back them. They
wanted a tech and legal contact. There was no real feedback from us (no
tech in french. No legal interested. End of the story).

Imho, we could have opportunities with (excluding US) about half of that
list (if someone had the time and cash to contact them and make them
propositions).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Valentina Faussone
In reply to this post by geni
> We've leveled off in terms of growth (it's still
> there but not at the
> rate it used to be). Unless we come up with
> something new (a way to
> make commons effectively searchable might be one) we
> may have pretty
> much reached our natural level of webpresence.
>
> If that is the case it may be time to look to other
> areas. Mobile
> phones. Book form. Provideing stock photos and
> information for non
> profits (and to a degree profits).

Nice ideas. May I point out that the quality level of
wikipedia articles is far more effective than the
quality of many pictures we upload on commons?
That is to say, the guys on commons are running a very
important project and they challenge a great effort,
but maybe we should all focus on providing better
quality photos, and not just *more* photos. Many of
them are dark, dull and with ugly subjects: that is a
great minus for some subjects (like food) than for
others.
Plus I totally and entusiastically agree on making
commons searchable like any other image bank.
It's pointless having a treasure if you don't know how
to find it out.

Tinette

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi
http://mail.yahoo.it 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Making Commons searchable is becoming doable with the WiktionaryZ/Wikidata
technology. How it can be done has been described in an article on Meta(1}.
It does require substantial further development. We have asked one of our
partners if they are interested in funding this. The key thing would be to
make Commons searchable for people with a diverse language background.
Development could start in December.
Thanks,
    GerardM


http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Using_Ultimate_Wiktionary_for_Commons

On 10/6/06, Valentina Faussone <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > We've leveled off in terms of growth (it's still
> > there but not at the
> > rate it used to be). Unless we come up with
> > something new (a way to
> > make commons effectively searchable might be one) we
> > may have pretty
> > much reached our natural level of webpresence.
> >
> > If that is the case it may be time to look to other
> > areas. Mobile
> > phones. Book form. Provideing stock photos and
> > information for non
> > profits (and to a degree profits).
>
> Nice ideas. May I point out that the quality level of
> wikipedia articles is far more effective than the
> quality of many pictures we upload on commons?
> That is to say, the guys on commons are running a very
> important project and they challenge a great effort,
> but maybe we should all focus on providing better
> quality photos, and not just *more* photos. Many of
> them are dark, dull and with ugly subjects: that is a
> great minus for some subjects (like food) than for
> others.
> Plus I totally and entusiastically agree on making
> commons searchable like any other image bank.
> It's pointless having a treasure if you don't know how
> to find it out.
>
> Tinette
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto
> spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
2006/10/6, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]>:

> Yes, but there's no requirement for anyone to go as far as the US and
> release *everything* regardless. It wouldn't be impossible to come up
> with some kind of a system where copyright was disclaimed on routine
> work and most publications, with the government retains the right to
> assert copyright at its discretion where it felt it would be
> beneficial to do so.

Actually, Dutch law already has such a provision: Dutch government
materials are copyrighted only when copyright is explicitly claimed.

>From the English translation of Dutch copyright law
(http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html):

The further communication to the public or reproduction of a literary,
scientific or artistic work communicated to the public by or on behalf
of the public authorities shall not be deemed an infringement of the
copyright in such a work, unless the copyright has been explicitly
reserved, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or
in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the
communication to the public. Even if no such reservation has been
made, the author shall retain the exclusive right to have appear in
the form of a collection his works which have been communicated to the
public by or on behalf of the public authorities.

Problem now is how to get those materials...

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard wrote:
<snip>
> (Personally I consider the GFDL a pretend-open licence for print use
> of images; it's technically free content, but the compliance
> requirements are onerous.)
>

See also:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BD-propagande.jpg

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UMP Convention

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
(apologies to Andre, who gets this twice)

> Actually, Dutch law already has such a provision: Dutch government
> materials are copyrighted only when copyright is explicitly claimed.
>
> From the English translation of Dutch copyright law
> (http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html):
>
> The further communication to the public or reproduction of a literary,
> scientific or artistic work communicated to the public by or on behalf
> of the public authorities shall not be deemed an infringement of the
> copyright in such a work, unless the copyright has been explicitly
> reserved, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or
> in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the
> communication to the public. Even if no such reservation has been
> made, the author shall retain the exclusive right to have appear in
> the form of a collection his works which have been communicated to the
> public by or on behalf of the public authorities.
>
> Problem now is how to get those materials...

This is very interesting, though I'm a bit confused about how the last
sentence works - I suspect the translator's understanding of
"exclusive right" and mine differ.

Do you know how it works in practice?

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12