Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Oh noes porn! (Score 2, Informative) 263

Dude, no one knows, that is kinda the whole problem of 2257. In the past 6 years it has become so broad that any corner cases can only be decided in court. And that is why Google Yahoo and all those other big internet companies are ignoring those laws. So they can get sued and a judge will tell them the scope of the law.

Submission + - Jimmy Wales: the porn on Commons must go ( 1

Larry Sanger writes: Jimmy Wales recently took a bold position against pornography on Wikimedia Commons: "Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support." Wales also restarted the "Commons:Sexual content" policy page. His basic complaint is that Wikimedia Commons hosts too much unnecessary porn, and he wants to get rid of it. He underscored his seriousness this way, stating that we can expect "a strong statement" from the WMF soon: "if the Wikimedia Foundation wants to declare that it is ok for Commons to be a porn host, they can do that, and I'll not be able to continue. That isn't going to happen, though, and in fact you should expect a strong statement from the Board and/or Sue in the next few days." This comes about a month after I originally posted my report about depictions-of-child-sexual-molestation on Wikimedia Foundation servers to the FBI, which Slashdot duly ripped to shreds (as only Slashdot can), and a little over a week after the story. The latter coverage reported that one of my senators, and my representative to Congress, had forwarded the matter to the FBI's Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs. I'm happy to be able to congratulate Jimmy Wales for his good judgment on this, and I look forward to the larger Wikimedia community approaching these issues with a little more sanity.

Submission + - Spotify secure funding - Planing US launch (

BuR4N writes: "Spotify ( ) the Swedish streaming music service have secured funding ($50 million) for expanding in the US. Spotify aims to give iTunes a run for the money. Having a cost free (ad sponsored) account alternative (not for the iPhone version) and a lightweight streaming application with a fantastic music choice, it certainly going to be interesting to see if it can shake up the music market in the US."

Comment Re:"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission" (Score 1) 526

Yeah, in this I agree with BasilBrush somewhat earlier in the comments thread. "The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act. It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy."

Comment Re:"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission" (Score 1) 526

Indeed. This is not really a case of legal copyfraud, it's more about moral copyfraud. They might have the right to claim and exert their copyright on these photos perhaps, but in the light of their mission, it is a form of moral copyfraud, to do so, when the photos are of art works that are in the Public Domain. I advise people to read: and

Comment Re:Well, that makes it straightforward. (Score 1) 526

You misinterpreted the poll. The poll was only to confirm if the community would follow the position of the WMF, or stand by it's previous guidelines under which these images would not have been allowed because they were from the UK. So the position of the WMF was not based on the outcome of the poll, it predated the poll.

Submission + - National Portrait Gallery testing copyfraud

UKNeedsAPirateParty writes: The National Portrait Gallery, London has sent one of the users of Wikimedia Commons, who had uploaded a bunch of NPG website images to the Commons website a legal threat, after Wikimedia refused to remove the images of many Public Domain portraits from their website. Since NPG apparently couldn't get their way with Wikimedia, they now seem to have decided to go after an individual. Wikimedia seems to assert that due to Bridgeman v. Corel, the copyright claim over these photographs is weak at best due to lack of originality. NPG on the other hand claims that this US court decision is not relevant in the UK and also claims their database rights. This practice of claiming (copy)rights on anything and everything build around works that themselves are in the Public Domain, has been described as copyfraud, but defended by others as required to maintain the financial health of museums.

Submission + - Wikipedia Sued By National Portrait Gallery ( 3

jpatokal writes: "The National Portrait Gallery of London is suing a Wikipedia user over his uploads of pictures of some 3,000 paintings, all 19th century or earlier and firmly in the public domain. Their claim? The photos are a "product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer", and that downloading them off the NPG site is an "unlawful circumvention of technical measures". And remember, the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission is to "promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible"!"

Slashdot Top Deals

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!