User talk:Jamesday

West publishing is not a wiki

I do not agree with the statement that the situation with Wikipedia is equivalent to the decisions in West Publishing cases. Wikipedia can clearly be distinguished on the facts. How? it is two way, not one way and West just adds trivial stuff as a corporate entity, here you have a voluntary association with thousands of members (unless you confuse Wikimedia with Wikipedia, they are not the same thing at all). Moreover, there is the issue of a group copyright owned jointly, when you say you are working for Wikipedia this means you are representing all contributors, therefore the rights owned by the conglomerate of Wikipedians taken together is an exclusive right, no matter how you look at it as no one else collectively owns the rights. This is what makes wiki software a true innovation vis-a-vis copyright law. Copyright is owned collectively by a group on the wiki (no where else) and anyone on the wiki who decides to represent themselves as the spokesperson for the group can do so, as is often done and tolerated here as a matter of custom. I would not make pronouncements about law that are untested, just argue for all of the options that could be put forward, unless you want to sue Wikipedia to find out I doubt that we will have any clear cut answer, but my position is that Wikipedia does have a copyright as it is not the same as the software developed by the Free Software Foundation. Cheers. — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 04:51, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I distinguish between the Wikipedia, a business unit of the Wikimedia Foundation, with a trademark I think is owned by that Foundation (if its ownership is clear at all), and Wikipedians. If the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation owns the copyright it can assign it (perhaps accidentally as part of a print deal) or otherwise limit its freedom. That's a strongly negative result for a work intending to be free, so avoiding any possibility of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation owning the work is necessary to keep the work free. Avoiding the whole Wikipedia work being a collective work owned by all who have contributed any article is necessary to avoid any potentially infringing party contributing something to a few articles and then being protected from infringement claims as a co-author. Viewing each article as an individual work, owned only by those who have made a copyright-significant contribution seems like a safer course. Not as easy for taking infringement action becuase it's necesssary to find a useful subset of Wikipedians (those who have contributed article work) to be a sufficiently substantive part of a work that prevailing will harm the infringing work substantially. That is doable, provided he Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation is behaving properly. If it ever seeks to abuse its position, via soe future board we can't know about, the required support for infringement actions will dry up and it'll find itself powerless to take infringement action against forks seeking to behave properly. It's a very useful strategy to help to keep the work free. The usual indemnification clauses for a publication contract seems to me to be best provided for by insurance, not by discouraging contributors by trying to get them to indemnify for things happening in jurisdictions they don't contemplate, in forms they may never have contemplated - more a business argument than a legal one. Jamesday 01:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your advice on an image sought

Hello Jamesday, could you please take a quick look at Image:mjf_1983.png and tell we whether or not using this picture on Montreux Jazz Festival this is indeed fair use. Thanks, Lupo 12:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Muchas graçias! Lupo 12:19, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

You wrote: Please refrain from engaging in the revert war over the redirect at Terrorism against Israelis. The matter is in discussion at the talk page of Violence against Israelis and that's the place to sort out what the article should be called. If you revert again prior to the matter being resolved by discussion I'll protect the page so resolution can happen through consensus rather than a revert war. Jamesday 16:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the matter is under discussion when User:Viajero started editting that page and others it refers to...I have been reverting his edits. his edits are based upon the assumption that his view will prevail...it very well might, but the edits should wait for the discussion to resolve the matter, I would think. As can be seen from the edit which began the matter:

(cur) (last) . . 11:06, 10 Feb 2004 . . Viajero (#REDIRECT Violence_against_Israelis) OneVoice 18:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

JamesDay, please take a look at the text at the end of Talk:EdPoor it seems that the non-stop deletion of material and revision of articles is being persued by Viajero and Zero0000 on a number of other pages with the two acting in concert. OneVoice 19:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Sorry. I didn't think that was fair use. --Ed Senft! 13:07, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The page where I got it doesn't said something of a permission. There are other pics with the advice to ask for a permission, but not at this one, so it think that no permission is needed. Sp4z 16:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes I realize that I made that mistake. I don't know if that image is fair use. Personally, I think it is ugly and might not belong in wikipedia (some ugly things belong in wikipedia though). Is this image fair use in your opinion? --Ed Senft! 17:35, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Swapping articles

Please don't do anything to the articles Bogosort, Stupid sort and Stupid sort swap temp or variations of them for the next hour. I'm swapping a new version of Bogosort which was written at Stupid sort with bogosort and someone renaming back part way through the move causes a random version to be deleted. In this case, it was the new one. I'll let you know when the swap and is complete so you can see why preserving the history rather than doing a copy and paste move was the course agreed in IRC discussion. Jamesday 17:54, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry about this matter. I had no idea. I saw swap in the title but the algorithm seems not quite related to swapping, though it is involved. So I just changed the name. Please regard this as an accident, careless. -- Taku 18:14, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright question

A new user asked me if it was acceptable to download images from Wikipedia, alter them, and repost them to Wikipedia. I told him it was, as I'm fairly sure, but I'd like some confirmation. This is OK, right? And is it in any way affected by the source of the image (e.g. fair use etc.)? Thanks very much, Meelar 22:24, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Plautus satire

Your comments are requested on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire. →Raul654 05:14, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't work for NASA. After receiving your message, I updated my user page to make that clear. NASA 22:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is that possible? How do I change my name? I looked for it in the preferences. I want to change the name to FBI or CIA. NASA 22:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus satire (again)

James - it appears that Plautus has decided to ignore what you have told him (to move to less conspiracy-theory suseptible articles), and has instead decided to take to expand his tin-foil hattery vandalism to include several other articles. A glance at his talk page shows that talking with him in an excercise in frustration. I think you might want to reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire. →Raul654 02:17, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

USAF Museum images

I agree with you that the USAF Museum's conditions of use are probably over-reaching, in terms of copyright -- merely scanning, cropping, resizing, levels adjustment don't rise to the level of artistic output. The only legal leg they have to stand on is that SOME material in the USAF Museum's archives is not public domain, but donated from corporations or individuals and under different conditions of use, and the museum doesn't want the responsibility of keeping track of which images on their web site are from PD sources and which aren't.

It seems mostly, though, to do with a bad attitude. Firstly, a resentment of their scanning work being used by other websites. Secondly, that they want people to have to come to their website to get the info so that they get website hits to boast of (justifying their mission, I guess).

They offer the justification of 'well, you always had to come to our archives in person before to get USAF images, so it's not like we're taking anything away'. Well, they say on the same site that their archives are (post Sep 11 2001) closed to the public!

My considered opinion about the images being used on Wikipedia: we most likely have the legal right to do so. However, given the Museum's stated opposition to such use, we are probably better off using images whose source doesn't disapprove of the use; and sources where we can verify that the images are indeed public domain, which the USAF Museum won't do.

What is really stupid about the USAF site is that they say "Information presented on the USAF Museum web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied", but then try and impose conditions. Now, I'm not sure what the precise legal definition of public information is, but on all other US Government websites that I have seen, "public information" is synonymous with public domain.

Their mealy-mouthed excuse about the Research division archives being indexed differently than the website is, in my opinion, a bunch of crap. THEY should have done the cross-referencing before putting the photographs on the website. Others, like the Naval Historical Center can do it, and the NHC is not exactly a huge organisation. The rules may "always have been this way", but that is no excuse for not changing things to reflect the internet. It also doesn't reflect post-9/11. Perhaps they should think about cataloguing their holdings properly? If they have volunteers who are willing to run a website, perhaps they could get volunteers who are willing to catalogue things. Also, perhaps they should not be running the website on a .mil domain if it is a private website.

All in all, I agree it is a completely ridiculous situation. I will email them to try and cajole them into changing the wording of their site. They certainly need to. David Newton 19:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

On the online law section, I've put in the relevant bits of current British copyright law to define what constitutes a work eligible for copyright in the UK. I've also found a definition on the UK Patent Office site that defines what exactly originality is for a work in the UK. David Newton 03:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Linkback

It appears that v2.0 of cc-by will have a linkback requirement: see http://creativecommons.org/drafts/license2.0 , section 4(d). CC summarised it as "Licensees will only be required to link back to licensors if (1) it's reasonably practical to do so; (2) the licensor actually specifies a URI; (3) that URI actually points to license information about the work". So, that's nice. Martin 20:02, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ISS

I looked but could no longer find the article I read which claimed 75% completion of spacewalk tasks. Probably means they were wrong and pulled the article (or edited it beyond recognition) Rmhermen 22:49, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

Look, of course the editor was not a new user. It's obvious that it's Lance/Hector. But LanceMurdoch and HectorRodriguez weren't banned. This user has a problem with POV, but he's being singled-out because his ideology isn't popular. On the Stalin article, for instance, most of his changes were long needed. Please don't make a sweeping change back to the 2/28 version. 172 01:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Best Wishes

Hi, just received your wishes on my talk. I would like to give you my Best Wishes for Happiness, Good Luck and Peace Profound. Optim 19:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)