Commons-l November 2008

29 participants
15 discussions

Support for Chemical Markup Language
by Eugene Zelenko 30 Nov '08

30 Nov '08

Hi! We are discussing on Commons list (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2008-November/004338.html) possible support for Chemical Markup Language (http://cml.sourceforge.net) and Jmol viewer (http://jmol.sourceforge.net). Extension for MediaWiki is already implemented (http://wiki.jmol.org/index.php/MediaWiki). However it was done for 1.12 and some security concerns exists. Will be great if somebody will review extension code and adapt it to current MediaWiki state if necessary. Eugene.

4 4

GPS data logger and software
by Guillaume Paumier 28 Nov '08

28 Nov '08

Hello, I am considering the purchase of a GPS data logger to automagically geotag my photos on Commons (I am currently geotagging hundreds of them manually and it's a *real* pain). I've been doing some research already, but if anyone had some feedback to share about the hardware available and the software to do the mapping (linux-compatible, I'm using Ubuntu), that would be great. Thanks, -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]]

2 1

Support for Chemical Markup Language
by Eugene Zelenko 28 Nov '08

28 Nov '08

Hi! Just re-incarnation of old idea to support 3D image of chemical structures... I played a little bit with Kalzium in KDE 4 today and discovered molecule viewer which render molecules in Chemical Markup Language. CML (http://cml.sourceforge.net) is open XML-based format so we could allow it on Commons and provide files repository for other projects (such as Kalzium). There is also Java-based open source viewer JMol (http://jmol.sourceforge.net) including web browser plugin. With JMol we could dramatically enreach chemistry/biochemistry related pages in Wikipedia/Wikibooks/Wikiversity in same way as we support Ogg media files playback now. Eugene.

5 8

Vorbis implementations in Flash 10
by Erik Moeller 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

You may have already seen the FVorbis implementation of Vorbis in Flash 10: http://people.xiph.org/~arek/pg/hx/test.html This is a more integrated demo of the same approach: http://www.omtk.org/js/demo-mod.html The FVorbis implementation uses lower CPU on my system, but in any case, this definitely seems like a viable approach to bring at least Vorbis to many more people - especially when combined with native support in Firefox 3.1 and the existing Java player. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

5 11

Re: [Commons-l] Upload filesize limit bumped
by Platonides 22 Nov '08

22 Nov '08

Posted on wikitech-l :) :) Brion Vibber wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Now that we've got uploads running on our new, beefier file servers, > I've experimentally bumped the upload limit from 20 to 100 megabytes. > > Files nearing the high end of that range might not actually succeed, > though, as it'll be hitting post-size limits etc. > > As time goes on we'll be improving ways to upload large video files in > particular... > > - -- brion > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkknVv4ACgkQwRnhpk1wk45HaQCgzH3rAHh9cvBUQtSt6FZtO0cF > s+0AoNNBOGGA9S8vFE4AQqALJuCHVtUZ > =YKTr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Licensing for textures within SVG files
by Bruce Perens 22 Nov '08

22 Nov '08

Forgive me if this is the wrong list. Inkscape is an Open Source authoring program used by some Wikipedians to create SVG files. The author of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M1_Abrams-TUSK.svg placed one such image in the public domain. On examining the image, I found a non-public-domain texture called "Sand". Fortunately, the texture is under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 . It has an "inkscape:stockid" attribute, so I'm assuming it is a built-in stock image of Inkscape. It is possible that Inkscape is not informing image authors that their stock textures have a license. Those authors then dedicate the entire image to the public domain on Wikimedia, and do not note the licensing of the contained texture. Recommended action: parse Wikimedia SVG files to detect <pattern> tags, see how many have this problem, fix information pages to indicate licensing of the textures, delete inappropriately licensed content if necessary. Thanks Bruce

7 12

Re: [Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered derivatives in the US? (Geoffrey Plourde)
by J JIH 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Neither am I your lawyer, but your points are very interesting and potentially encouraging. Once the Wikimedia Foundation is able to accept your points, recent pictures of very old coins may also become acceptable on Commons, similar to mere copies of very old 2-dimensional works. Jusjih > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:11:39 -0800 (PST) > From: Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered derivatives > in the US? > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: <131842.94385.qm(a)web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > IANAL, but I would say it's solid as it has been cited in Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 2008 WL 697346 (M.D. Fl.) > > > > ________________________________ > From: Howard Cheng <howard(a)howcheng.com> > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:42:29 PM > Subject: [Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered derivatives in the US? > > According to http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…, > Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of New York ruled > in SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D. > N.Y. 2000) that photographs of statues/sculptures are not considered > derivative works, noting: "A photograph of Jeff Koons's 'Puppy' > sculpture in Manhattan's Rockefeller Center merely depicts that > sculpture; it does not recast, transform, or adapt Koons's sculptural > authorship. In short, the authorship of the photographic work is > entirely different and separate from the authorship of the sculpture." > > Note that this is the same court that issued the Bridgeman v. Corel > ruling. If this hasn't been overturned at any point, and the blog post > linked above doesn't indicate that it has, then we should start > allowing photos of statues in the US, and perhaps anywhere even where > there is no FOP for statues (similar to what we did for PD-Art). > > Thoughts? > > -h

3 2

Photos of statues not considered derivatives in the US?
by Howard Cheng 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

According to http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…, Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of New York ruled in SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D. N.Y. 2000) that photographs of statues/sculptures are not considered derivative works, noting: "A photograph of Jeff Koons's 'Puppy' sculpture in Manhattan's Rockefeller Center merely depicts that sculpture; it does not recast, transform, or adapt Koons's sculptural authorship. In short, the authorship of the photographic work is entirely different and separate from the authorship of the sculpture." Note that this is the same court that issued the Bridgeman v. Corel ruling. If this hasn't been overturned at any point, and the blog post linked above doesn't indicate that it has, then we should start allowing photos of statues in the US, and perhaps anywhere even where there is no FOP for statues (similar to what we did for PD-Art). Thoughts? -h

2 1

LIFE photo archive hosted by Google
by Brianna Laugher 19 Nov '08

19 Nov '08

<http://images.google.com/hosted/life> There is no directly copyright related metadata, but there is a "Date taken:" field. 1923 is the magic number, is that right? cheers Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/

8 7

Video licenced CC
by Douglas Pollard 19 Nov '08

19 Nov '08

I have been downloading some video that is made from old silent film movies. They are licenced cc no derivatives. Some are remixed. How is this possible? I am thinking these old films were in the public domain or the remixer bought the right to publish them. How do these clips get published under CC. How does a remixer get the right to not allow remixing or derivatives? If he did a voice over it makes sense that he has the right to publish his added sound but how the video? If you buy publishing rights can you then publish under a CC licence. I am trying to figure out what I can use in making a video and how it is that I can't use some things and can others. My video will be maybe 70% my own work but I would like to use CC music.some pictures, video and sounds, then publish in creative commons. Doug

4 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Commons-l November 2008