When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

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

When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

guru brahma
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
   
  regards,
  Gurubrahma.

                               
---------------------------------
 Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Justin Cormack

On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:

> Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of  
> http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of  
> Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.  
> I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For  
> example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I  
> make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I  
> adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown  
> monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons  
> Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal  
> images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to  
> see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any  
> thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license  
> can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?

Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the  
license...

Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an  
image of you for
things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.

Justinc

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Anthony DiPierro
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
>
> > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.
> > I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to
> > see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license
> > can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
>
> Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> license...
>
I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html
commands.  There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a
derivative work.  What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway?
Numbers measured in pixels?  I'd say there's no way such a resizing
would be protected.

Anyway, to answer the original question, I think you need to look to
what is the mission of Wikipedia.  "Imagine a world in which every
single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all
human knowledge."  Does including clearly marked CC-ND images hinder
that mission?

I suppose the answer that it does ever so slightly hinder the mission,
because it provides less incentive to create works that people can
legally modify, for instance to draw arrows or make some other sort of
educational marks.  These marks would probably be legal in the United
States under the fair use doctrine, but maybe not elsewhere.

So maybe it's a matter of balance.  If CC-ND were allowed, how many
additional images would be available?  How much more free access to
the sum of all human knowledge would be given?  Maybe the best way to
answer the question would be to run an experiment.  Temporarily allow
such images for a month or so.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Mark Gallagher-5

G'day Anthony,

> On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
>>license...
>
> I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html
> commands.  There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a
> derivative work.  What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway?
> Numbers measured in pixels?  I'd say there's no way such a resizing
> would be protected.

Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".

<snip />

> So maybe it's a matter of balance.  If CC-ND were allowed, how many
> additional images would be available?  How much more free access to
> the sum of all human knowledge would be given?  Maybe the best way to
> answer the question would be to run an experiment.  Temporarily allow
> such images for a month or so.

There's a certain feeling in the air ... the people are whispering ...
it's Wikipedia Experiment Season again!


--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Justin Cormack
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro

On 14 Mar 2006, at 12:19, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>> Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
>> license...
>>
> I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html
> commands.  There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a
> derivative work.  What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway?
> Numbers measured in pixels?  I'd say there's no way such a resizing
> would be protected.

I was thinking of say for print, where a rescaled, colour adjusted and
screened version might be considered derivative.

Justinc

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by guru brahma
guru brahma wrote:

> Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I
> think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see
> in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts
> which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be
> used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
>
AFAICT (and IANAL), a GFDL image that was photoshopped would have to
include both a link back to the original image (so that you could see
what it was photoshopped *from*) and would also have to credit you as
the original author.

If we don't already (and I think we might have) we should have an image
protection policy; you can't upload an image over one which already
exists. IIRC this has been implemented already by making image
overwriting a "protected" action, but YMMV.

HTH,
--
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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (570 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Mark Gallagher-5
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".

Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create
[[HTML commands]] straight away.

Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount
a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from
disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a
scrolly window!

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

geni
In reply to this post by Alphax (Wikipedia email)
On 3/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> guru brahma wrote:
> > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I
> > think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see
> > in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts
> > which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be
> > used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
> >
>
> AFAICT (and IANAL), a GFDL image that was photoshopped would have to
> include both a link back to the original image (so that you could see
> what it was photoshopped *from*) and would also have to credit you as
> the original author.
>
> If we don't already (and I think we might have) we should have an image
> protection policy; you can't upload an image over one which already
> exists. IIRC this has been implemented already by making image
> overwriting a "protected" action, but YMMV.
>
> HTH,

I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since
uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the
previous image and a link to it.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Steve Bennett-4
On 3/14/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since
> uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the
> previous image and a link to it.

What do you mean by uploading "over the top" ? There are lots of times
when you want to replace an existing image with an updated version
(notably to crop, recolour, change the image format etc).

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Mark Gallagher-5
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4

G'day Steve,

> On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
>
> Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create
> [[HTML commands]] straight away.

Oh, I have.  You know what 351 000 people with their hands in their ears
chanting "la la la" sounds like?  It's not pleasant, I'll tell you that
much.

> Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount
> a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from
> disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a
> scrolly window!

You *could* probably mount such a case, but if you did I'd have to shoot
Anthony.  And he wouldn't like that.  He wouldn't like that at all.


Cheers,

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

geni
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
On 3/14/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3/14/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since
> > uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the
> > previous image and a link to it.
>
> What do you mean by uploading "over the top" ? There are lots of times
> when you want to replace an existing image with an updated version
> (notably to crop, recolour, change the image format etc).
>
> Steve

Well if you look at this page you have an image that has been edited
to remove the black boarder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CanalCentreAmsterdamjpg.jpg

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Fastfission
In reply to this post by Justin Cormack
The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only
very "large" derivatives (i.e., translating it into another language)
rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a
derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example,
syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in
this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work
as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of
taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :

"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License.

FF

On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
>
> > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.
> > I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to
> > see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license
> > can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
>
> Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> license...
>
> Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
> image of you for
> things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
>
> Justinc
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Fastfission
Actually -- I now see (right after sending the last one, of course)
that I must qualify this considerably. An encyclopedia is listed as a
"collective work", in use in the context of a collective work is not
considered derivative. So that's not a problem, I suppose.

FF

On 3/14/06, Fastfission <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only
> very "large" derivatives (i.e., translating it into another language)
> rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a
> derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example,
> syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in
> this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work
> as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of
> taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :
>
> "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
> and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
> arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
> sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
> other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
> except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
> considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
> avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
> recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
> moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
> purpose of this License.
>
> FF
>
> On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
> >
> > > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.
> > > I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to
> > > see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license
> > > can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
> >
> > Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> > license...
> >
> > Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
> > image of you for
> > things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
> >
> > Justinc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

User:KWH
In reply to this post by guru brahma
It seems to me that if the new work does not "transform" or combine
the CC-ND work with other creative material, then it is not a
derivative, but a redistribution, which is allowed by the license. The
license can make its definition of derivative a subset of the
copyright code definition, but it can't expand it to include things
which would normally be defined as redistribution.

I don't think it intends to because although the derivative work
definition includes "...any other form in which the Work may be
recast, transformed, or adapted...", a latter bit of the license
allows that the "...above rights may be exercised in all media and
formats whether now known or hereafter devised.", therefore it does
not intend to disclaim non-creative transformations. I would say that
a resize would always be allowed, a cropping might be subject to
interpretation depending on whether it was a "creative" cropping.

I think a decent "acid test" for derivative is whether, if the given
transformation were applied to an already public domain work, it would
merit a new copyright protection for the new work created.

[[User:Kwh]]

On 3/14/06, Fastfission <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only
> very "large" derivatives ( i.e., translating it into another language)
> rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a
> derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example,
> syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in
> this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work
> as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of
> taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.
>
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :
>
> "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
> and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
> arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
> sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
> other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
> except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
> considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
> avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
> recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
> moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
> purpose of this License.
>
> FF
> On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack < [hidden email] > wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
> >
> > > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.
> > > I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to
> > > see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license
> > > can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
> >
> > Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> > license...
> >
> > Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
> > image of you for
> > things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
> >
> > Justinc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5license makes sense

Phil Boswell
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
"Steve Bennett" <[hidden email]> wrote in
message news:[hidden email]...
> On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
> Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create
> [[HTML commands]] straight away.
> Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount
> a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from
> disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a
> scrolly window!

You would then be lynched by a rampaging mob of disrespectable C hackers who
think it's disgraceful that HTML dweebs are allowed to call themselves
"programmers".

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5license makes sense

Mark Gallagher-5

G'day Phil,

> "Steve Bennett" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
> news:[hidden email]...
>> On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
>>
>> Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create
>> [[HTML commands]] straight away. Anyway, it's just a question of
>> perspective. You could probably mount a case for saying that <IMG>
>> is a command that loads an image from disk, resizes it, adds a
>> border and displays it on the screen in a scrolly window!
>
> You would then be lynched by a rampaging mob of disrespectable C
> hackers who think it's disgraceful that HTML dweebs are allowed to
> call themselves "programmers".

Being an HTML dweeb myself, I'm unsure whether to agree entirely (HTML
is not programming), get irritated (only a very silly minority think of
themselves as "programmers"), or sit in the corner and cry (I don't know C).


--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.3/281 - Release Date: 14/03/2006

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5license makes sense

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Mark Gallagher wrote:

> G'day Phil,
>
>
>>"Steve Bennett" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
>>news:[hidden email]...
>>
>>>On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
>>>
>>>Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create
>>>[[HTML commands]] straight away. Anyway, it's just a question of
>>>perspective. You could probably mount a case for saying that <IMG>
>>>is a command that loads an image from disk, resizes it, adds a
>>>border and displays it on the screen in a scrolly window!
>>
>>You would then be lynched by a rampaging mob of disrespectable C
>>hackers who think it's disgraceful that HTML dweebs are allowed to
>>call themselves "programmers".
>
>
> Being an HTML dweeb myself, I'm unsure whether to agree entirely (HTML
> is not programming), get irritated (only a very silly minority think of
> themselves as "programmers"), or sit in the corner and cry (I don't know C).
>
HTML dweebs can become programmers if they learn PHP or Javascript... :)

--
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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (570 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5license makes sense

Fastfission
On 3/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Being an HTML dweeb myself, I'm unsure whether to agree entirely (HTML
> > is not programming), get irritated (only a very silly minority think of
> > themselves as "programmers"), or sit in the corner and cry (I don't know C).
> >
>
> HTML dweebs can become programmers if they learn PHP or Javascript... :)

Ah, but 'tis a fine line between programming and "mere scripting", is it not?

FF
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Justin Cormack
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14 Mar 2006, at 12:19, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >>
> >> Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> >> license...
> >>
> > I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html
> > commands.  There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a
> > derivative work.  What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway?
> > Numbers measured in pixels?  I'd say there's no way such a resizing
> > would be protected.
>
> I was thinking of say for print, where a rescaled, colour adjusted and
> screened version might be considered derivative.
>
> Justinc

"The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether
now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to
make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the
rights in other media and formats."

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license makes sense

Ryan Delaney
In reply to this post by guru brahma
On 3/14/06, guru brahma <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think
> there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images
> tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is,
> take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be
> photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in
> using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would
> apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I
> want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be
> used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
>

I don't see any need for this. If you take a picture of Eddie Van Halen, and
someone photoshops a beard and a corncob pipe onto it, you can be for damn
sure that this image won't be apperaing on Wikipedia. And since people do
this stuff all the time anyway without any kind of legal permission, you
won't be any worse off by indirectly permitting it anyway. No one is going
to see the image except a few of the joker's friends.

The only place where this is really different is when we are trying to
rework an image for legitimate purposes, and this license only introduces
barriers to that. There is no benefit to the project really.

The bottom line is that who are highly protective of their intellectual
property probably should not be contributing it to Wikipedia.

Ryan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12