Wikimedia Commons reaches 400,000 Files 110
Brushen writes "Wikimedia Commons, a website built to be a repository of free, public domain, or GFDL images, sounds, and animations, has reached 400,000 files this week. Launched in September 2004 by the Wikimedia Foundation, the creators of Wikipedia, the organization intended for it to be a source of images that could be used in the rest of the organization's projects. As well, recently they've had a best picture comeptition."
They managed to... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They managed to... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They managed to... (Score:1)
Re:They managed to... (Score:2)
Hmm...maybe a Greasemonkey plugin that checks category for slashdot.org wikimedia entries...hmm...
Re:They managed to... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:They managed to... (Score:2)
Re:They managed to... (Score:2, Informative)
Nah. It just means that Zeus was a rather kinky fellow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leda_and_the_Swan [wikipedia.org]
Re:They managed to... (Score:2)
Finally! An interesting link on Slashdot! Worth clicking and worth "reading"!
Re:They managed to... (Score:2)
they have all sorts of shit (Score:2)
Re:They managed to... (Score:2, Troll)
No way, a real accomplishment would be properly spelling competition instead of comeptition.
I know Taco is not as concerned about spelling and grammer, but this is really obvious and it is a primary link, so it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Re:They managed to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They managed to... (Score:2)
Not find, but take it (Score:1)
Ok, it's funny. But a lot of images are new photographs taken for Wikipedia not previously found in internet.
There is a lot of fun in take photographs, but it's a lot better if they have a purpose.
When I travel for fun or for business I take my camera with me and take some photographs that I think can be interesting for Wikipedia. I have contributed to Barcelona [wikimedia.org] or Josep Puig i Cadafalch [wikimedia.org] in architect
Impressive, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
How many of the media files have been taken despite being under copyright? I've seen the obvious and/or controversial images removed -- pretty promptly in most cases. But how about an image taken from a website with no watermark taken from a website where the webmaster has no time to pursue misappropriation.
Although if they truly have 400 000 original images that have been validly released for them to use, more power to them.
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Have a look at this - one of a collection taken at Disney's Animal Kingdom:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Varanus_ko modoensis2.jpg [wikimedia.org]
Do you think the owner got permission from Disney to put this up on Wikimedia? I know when I tried to get permission to use photos from Sydney's Taronga Zoo in Australia I was shot down in flames and told they'd persue
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
Did you know that video or photography taken on private property or of private property requires the permission of the owner before you can exhibit them?
No, in fact I'm not even sure that's true. It's certainly not an aspect of US copyright law. If you can point me to the part of the US Code which covers it I'd appreciate it.
Or maybe you're thinking of Australian law.
Have a look at this - one of a collection taken at Disney's Animal Kingdom: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Varanus_ko [wikimedia.org] modoen
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
These laws and principles of law aren't an Australian exclusive. Here are some articles so perhaps you can get a clue before you type sarcastic drivel - it isn't my jo
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:1, Offtopic)
No, in fact I'm not even sure that's true. It's certainly not an aspect of US copyright law.
This was absolutely blantantly false. He was basically telling me I'm an idiot that got it wrong because I don't live in the US and where I'm from the laws are obviously inferior.
How is it polite to call someone a liar without checking the facts?
I suggest you get a clue.
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
No, in fact I'm not even sure that's true. It's certainly not an aspect of US copyright law.
This was absolutely blantantly false.
I wasn't sure if your original statement was true or not. In fact, not I'm fairly convinced it isn't. And the law you claimed is *not* an aspect of US copyright law. I know enough about about US copyright law to state that unequivically. The issue of "Property Release" is state privacy/publicity law, which is altogether a different thing from US copyright law.
He was ba
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:1)
I don't think you can find this mentioned in statutory law, but instead is something that comes from common law. Copyright law is full of that, including seemingly contradictory legal precedence that seems to support and deny certain activities.
Well, federal copyright law actually supercedes common law. There is some common law (and statutory law) concerning privacy and publicity rights, though. But I seriously doubt it would apply to a picture of some lizard, and I'm certain it wouldn't apply to nonco
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:1)
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
His words.
He basically shot down what I said without backing it up. By using the word "certainly" not only is what he is saying false but he's implying I'm either a fool who doesn't know what he's on about or a liar because supposedly I've said something false.
He goes on:
. If you can point me to the part of the US Code which covers it I'd appreciate it.
Or maybe you're thinking of Australian law.
Given that he's just s
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
By using the word "certainly" not only is what he is saying false but he's implying I'm either a fool who doesn't know what he's on about or a liar because supposedly I've said something false.
My work "certainly" was qualified with "not an aspect of US copyright law". What I'm saying is that the law you claim exists is definitely not a part of Title 17 of the US Code (which is referred to as "US copyright law"). I'm quite sure of this. I've read the title several times and I've examined a lot of the c
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
You know saying something is so doesn't make it true. That seems to be your whole mode of argument. State something as if it were fact. Don't qualify it. Insist you know what you're talking about and that the other person doesn't. Frankly it makes you look incapable of arguing a point.
I do know what I'm talking about and I just provided evidenc
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
Typical BS on /. - you're not even sure if that's right and you're certainly not an expert - so go ahead and slam someone who is, even if you haven't checked your facts.
I don't believe I slammed anyone. You claimed there was a law, I said I wasn't sure that was a law, and if so it's definitely not a copyright law. I asked for further information.
These laws and principles of law aren't an Australian exclusive.
Maybe not. I never said they were. In fact, I know very little about non-US law. But the
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
If not, then they overreacted - or maybe they *thought* you wanted to sell it
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
Possible reasoning:
1. It might take away from sales of calendars the zoo would otherwise make.
Counterpoint: What if you sold in a different market?
2. You might somehow harm the zoo's reputation with bad photos etc.
Counterpoint: Why not allow people to submit photos for inclusion in their calendars. (I enquired about this, and they'll only use their own pro photographers no matter how good the shot).
The IP law is a joke. I'm certainly not going to spend
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:1)
Google Earth owes me royalties!!!
Really, do you think they have permission from every property holder on the planet?
The links you posted referred to usage "for trade or advertising purposes", "for commercial purposes in an annual report, advertisement, etc.", "in order to sell your photo for commercial use ", and even then are a just-in-case point of view (
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:2)
No. I'm not an IP lawyer. However if every large stock house on the planet requires property releases I'd think there's something to it. These people make their money from the photos they sell. They're not exactly looking for reasons to exclude good pictures.
I was trying to make people aware that there were issues here that the average
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Impressive, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anybody with a collection of anything can get sued in a dispute over whether they actually own something. That's not a problem affects free licenses in particular. The same holds whether you have a collection of files (whether free or commercially licensed), a museum (works have long and twisted histories), own a newspaper (journalists sometimes plagiarize), or run a pawn shop (people might sell you stolen goods).
So I have no pa
Good idea to post it on ./ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good idea to post it on ./ (Score:2)
When will the first lawsuit hit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:When will the first lawsuit hit? (Score:2)
Re:When will the first lawsuit hit? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (Score:2)
I remember reading something about how, while something like the Mona Lisa may not be copyrighted, photographs of the work are
I'm assuming that what you read was published either outside the United States or before 1999, when Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. [wikipedia.org] was decided. The ruling, an application of the Feist test [wikipedia.org], was that exact photographic copies of two-dimensional images in the public domain are not eligible for copyright on grounds of lack of originality.
Re:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (Score:2)
Re:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (Score:2)
Re:When will the first lawsuit hit? (Score:1)
The Art of Being Bill Gates [businessweek.com]
He's not known to share.
License Verification (Score:2)
I have had images that I uploaded which have been deleted.
Come on CmdrTaco, SpellCheck Isn't Hard (Score:1, Insightful)
Taco, is it really that hard to correct "comeptition" to "competition"?
You are supposedly an editor, yet you can't even be bothered to use a spellcheck?
I know he says this doesn't matter on slashdot and that it is just minutiae, but most people would say it does matter a great deal. This site is run by paid editors, it is long past time they act like it.
Re:Come on CmdrTaco, SpellCheck Isn't Hard (Score:1)
Re:Come on CmdrTaco, SpellCheck Isn't Hard (Score:1)
Re:Come on CmdrTaco, SpellCheck Isn't Hard (Score:2)
But they do a good job. I enjoy reading Slashdot, hence they're doing okay.
Oh, yes -- your sentence is grammatically incorrect. You should have put a period or maybe a semicolon where you put the comma.
Re:Come on CmdrTaco, SpellCheck Isn't Hard (Score:1, Offtopic)
In other words, it's a feature, not a bug lol.
I'd find a link to the discussion but I can't be arsed to wade through the hundreds of posts in the discussion to find it.
I admit to it bothering the hell out of me before also (the frequent, obvious screwups in the postings), but now that I know they
Re:Come on CmdrTaco, SpellCheck Isn't Hard (Score:2)
Page worth a visit (Score:2)
Anyway, I think the following page is worth a visit: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sunrise [wikimedia.org]
Re:Page worth a visit (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why am I not thoroughly impressed? (Score:2)
The non-free files referred to are basically just all the project logos. All of them can be found here [wikimedia.org]
The only other exception I can think of is the spoken version of GFDL [wikimedia.org], as absurdly enough, GFDL itself isn't GFDL compatible (modification isn't allowed)...
More royalty free pics, lucky corporate media orgs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More royalty free pics, lucky corporate media o (Score:2)
Re:More royalty free pics, lucky corporate media o (Score:2)
Re:More royalty free pics, lucky corporate media o (Score:2)
some mortal sin. You're an artist. Artists starve. That or they
do something else to eat. Most cartoonists have side jobs. Many
musicians, etc. etc. If you're lucky enough to make a living from
your art (or playing a fucking game), you're just that *lucky*.
There's no right to profit, there's no right to make a living at
what you want. Yes, it sucks.
Re:More royalty free pics, lucky corporate media o (Score:1)
Re:More royalty free pics, lucky corporate media o (Score:5, Insightful)
Sucks to be you.. (Score:2)
Times change. Cobblers had to find new jobs once upon a time, now there's a new set of people who need to retrain themselves.
Due to digital cameras, amateur shutter bugs take 1,000 pictures on a 7-day vacation instead of 72 or 108. And the quality (technically, no
Re:More royalty free pics, lucky corporate media o (Score:2)
Don't forget other CC sources (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, don't forget Google's Advanced Search which nowadays support searching for CC licenses material too. If you're still looking, Wikipedia's public domain resource list [wikipedia.org] is another good starting point.
Re:Don't forget other CC sources (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget other CC sources (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget other CC sources (Score:2)
More creative commons... (Score:2, Interesting)
Image sites need to combine efforts (Score:2)
Re:Image sites need to combine efforts (Score:2)
I'd disagree that we should "combine efforts" with other sites just because they use the same licence. One useful element of the Creative Commons licence is the machine readable licence embedded into webpages and media to enable search engines to locate them.
It's up to search engines to tap into this, and the efforts from Google and Yahoo (see http://creativecommons.org/find/ [creativecommons.org]) are a great first step.
This is hardly news (Score:1)
Never mind the quality, feel the number (Score:1)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot couldn't overwhelm their servers even if they wanted to. They get a LOT more traffic than Slashdot does.
Re:Quick! (Score:1)
Re:Quick! (Score:1)
Re:Quick! (Score:2)
Straying wildly off topic here, but you are wrong. It is very easy to get a savings account that pays a greater rate of interest. If you have enough money to repay the loan, and you put it in a savings account rather than repaying the loan, then at the end you will have more money than if you paid off the loan.
Re:They had a best picture competition too (Score:3, Funny)
No, for subscribers it is optional. It is only compulsory for the editors.