Wednesday, June 12, 2013

A two-vehicle road traffic accident in County Donegal in Ireland has left one person dead and injured two others. The accident occurred when a camper van collided with an oncoming car on the N15 road between the towns of Ballybofey and Donegal at approximately 1540 BST (1440 UTC) on Monday.

The fatality was reportedly a man in his 70s from the town of Lifford; he has not yet been publicly identified. He was taken to Letterkenny General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The female passenger he was travelling in the car with, thought to be the wife of the man, was taken to the same hospital after suffering serious injuries.

The man and woman in the camper van were transported to Sligo Regional Hospital. The condition of the two occupants is not clear, although the woman in the vehicle reportedly injured her leg in the accident.

The road where the crash occurred was closed to allow the Garda to investigate the incident.

Wikinews Audio Briefs Credits
Produced By
Recorded By
Written By
Listen To This Brief

Problems? See our media guide.


NASA considers continuing shuttle use after 2010

NASA considers continuing shuttle use after 2010

Posted at February 25, 2018 @ 3:18 am by in Uncategorized

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Michael Griffin, administrator of the American space agency, NASA has ordered a study into considering the possibility of continuing the usage of the Space Shuttle, a space vehicle that takes astronauts to the International Space Station. The agency originally planned to retire all shuttles in 2010 after mission STS-134, but concerns over staff job losses that were created by the Space Shuttle program caused Griffin to order the study. The space crafts have been in use since 1981 and it’s replacements, the Ares rockets, will not be in use until 2015 causing a 5 year gap where NASA will have no manned space flights, which is the reason the agency is considering extending usage for five more years, when the vehicles can be immediately replaced by their successors.

We want to focus on helping bridge the gap of U.S. vehicles traveling to the ISS (International Space Station) as efficiently as possible.

The news came from a leaked email which was obtained from the Los Angeles Times. NASA officials have confirmed the email’s authenticity, but have stated that it is too early to decide whether or not the shuttle use will continue.

Griffin has originally been against the continuation of the shuttle, as it would damage the funding of Project Constellation, a project that involves sending astronauts to the Moon and Mars.

If NASA chooses not to continue the space shuttle, they would rely on the Russian Federal Space Agency and their Soyuz space vehicles in the five year gap of no American space flights. To do this, they would have to purchase seats on Soyuz missions. However, because of the recent events that have transpired over the Georgia conflict, US and Russian relations have been damaged, so it is believed unwise to work with the Russian agency.

Comments are closed.

Pakistani military launches ground offensive against Taliban and al-Qaeda

Pakistani military launches ground offensive against Taliban and al-Qaeda

Posted at February 25, 2018 @ 3:04 am by in Uncategorized

Monday, October 19, 2009

Pakistani officials say the military has launched its much anticipated ground offensive against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the South Waziristan tribal region. Fierce fighting has broken out and dozens of casualties are reported on both sides.

This mountainous district forms part of the Afghan border, which United States officials call the most dangerous place in the world. It is considered to be a stronghold for the Taliban. An attack by US drones on this area killed the former Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud and it shelters the new leader Hakimullah Mehsud. It is also has training camps for suicide bombers. The US has put pressure on the Pakistani government to deal with militancy in the area.

30,000 troops which had been moved into the area over the past few months moved out of their bases in and around South Waziristan on Saturday, hours after top military and political leaders were briefed by army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayanimain in the capital, Islamabad. The troops advanced north towards the Mehsud stronghold of Makeen, west towards Kunigaram, Saam and Baddar, and east towards Kotkai, Spinkai Raghzai.

Pakistan has experienced a wave of terror attacks, including suicide blasts targeting international and security organizations, coordinated attacks around the country’s cultural center, Lahore, and an assault on the army’s headquarters near Islamabad. Some 175 people have died in the past two weeks. The government has blamed the Pakistani Taliban, which is based in South Waziristan, for the violence.

“The recent upsurge of terror incidents in the country were condemned and it was agreed that these elements pose a serious threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the state […] In the given circumstances, the national consensus is reaffirmed to establish and maintain the writ of the state to weed out these elements,” said Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

these elements pose a serious threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the state

Hours ahead of Saturday’s offensive, Pakistani authorities imposed a curfew and turned off mobile phone service in parts of South Waziristan in the district of Wana, as well as in Shakai and Tiarza.

Despite the military’s superiority in numbers, former security chief of the tribal regions, Mahmood Shah, told the Voice of America (VOA) news agency it would not be an easy battle. “This 30,000 against 10,000 is a conventional battle,” he said. “The militants do not fight conventional battles.” He also said he expects the military will face an enemy deeply entrenched in the mountainous and remote region. He also cautions that militants will likely launch suicide attacks elsewhere.

Top army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas has stated that the offensive could last up to two months, but that because of impending climatic conditions they would try to complete the attack by snowfall. A formal announcement on the start of the operation is expected by Prime Minister Gilani.

Officials have said that four soldiers were wounded during clashes and that remote-controlled bomb attacks killed two soldiers in North Waziristan and one in South Waziristan. The three soldiers’ bodies have been taken to Ramzak. There are also unconfirmed reports of militant deaths.

A senior military official has said that initially the objective is to establish footholds, but that they would mobilise three divisions of the military, paramilitary and police, with the final total rising up to 60,000 troops. According to a senior government official in Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal belt, the objective is to remove all militants from the area. He also said that “[t]his has been in the works for a long time. It was only a question of timing and the timing was decided. Troops were in place and they moved in.”

This is not the first time the military has launched an offensive in the tribal region. But those previous operations were not successful, mainly because militants killed sympathetic tribal leaders and opposition political parties refused to offer their support.

Experts estimate the number of militants between 10,000 and 12,000 from the Tehreek-e-Taliban movement in South Waziristan and up to 25,000 across Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal belt, with up to 5,000 Uzbek fighters supporting the Taliban.

For the past several months since the anti-Taliban offensive in and around Swat Valley, the military has built up its forces around South Waziristan.

Manuel Bessler, head of the United Nations’s Office for Coordinating Humanitarian Affairs in Pakistan, told Voice of America that many civilians have fled the area. “We had IDPs, internally displaced people, since May about 77,000, up to 80,000,” he said. “Now with this more intense fighting and military operation inside [South] Waziristan, we have a daily outflow of 70 to 100 families from the area.” Official figures put at 90,000 the people displaced from South Waziristan since August.

Comments are closed.

U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images

U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images

Posted at February 25, 2018 @ 2:56 am by in Uncategorized

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

This article mentions the Wikimedia Foundation, one of its projects, or people related to it. Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The English National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in London has threatened on Friday to sue a U.S. citizen, Derrick Coetzee. The legal letter followed claims that he had breached the Gallery’s copyright in several thousand photographs of works of art uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, a free online media repository.

In a letter from their solicitors sent to Coetzee via electronic mail, the NPG asserted that it holds copyright in the photographs under U.K. law, and demanded that Coetzee provide various undertakings and remove all of the images from the site (referred to in the letter as “the Wikipedia website”).

Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free-to-use media, run by a community of volunteers from around the world, and is a sister project to Wikinews and the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Coetzee, who contributes to the Commons using the account “Dcoetzee”, had uploaded images that are free for public use under United States law, where he and the website are based. However copyright is claimed to exist in the country where the gallery is situated.

The complaint by the NPG is that under UK law, its copyright in the photographs of its portraits is being violated. While the gallery has complained to the Wikimedia Foundation for a number of years, this is the first direct threat of legal action made against an actual uploader of images. In addition to the allegation that Coetzee had violated the NPG’s copyright, they also allege that Coetzee had, by uploading thousands of images in bulk, infringed the NPG’s database right, breached a contract with the NPG; and circumvented a copyright protection mechanism on the NPG’s web site.

The copyright protection mechanism referred to is Zoomify, a product of Zoomify, Inc. of Santa Cruz, California. NPG’s solicitors stated in their letter that “Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client’s copyright in the high resolution images.”. Zoomify Inc. states in the Zoomify support documentation that its product is intended to make copying of images “more difficult” by breaking the image into smaller pieces and disabling the option within many web browsers to click and save images, but that they “provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system”.

In particular, Zoomify’s website comments that while “many customers — famous museums for example” use Zoomify, in their experience a “general consensus” seems to exist that most museums are concerned with making the images in their galleries accessible to the public, rather than preventing the public from accessing them or making copies; they observe that a desire to prevent high resolution images being distributed would also imply prohibiting the sale of any posters or production of high quality printed material that could be scanned and placed online.

Other actions in the past have come directly from the NPG, rather than via solicitors. For example, several edits have been made directly to the English-language Wikipedia from the IP address, one of sixteen such IP addresses assigned to computers at the NPG by its ISP, Easynet.

In the period from August 2005 to July 2006 an individual within the NPG using that IP address acted to remove the use of several Wikimedia Commons pictures from articles in Wikipedia, including removing an image of the Chandos portrait, which the NPG has had in its possession since 1856, from Wikipedia’s biographical article on William Shakespeare.

Other actions included adding notices to the pages for images, and to the text of several articles using those images, such as the following edit to Wikipedia’s article on Catherine of Braganza and to its page for the Wikipedia Commons image of Branwell Brontë‘s portrait of his sisters:

“This image is copyright material and must not be reproduced in any way without permission of the copyright holder. Under current UK copyright law, there is copyright in skilfully executed photographs of ex-copyright works, such as this painting of Catherine de Braganza.
The original painting belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, London. For copies, and permission to reproduce the image, please contact the Gallery at or via our website at”

Other, later, edits, made on the day that NPG’s solicitors contacted Coetzee and drawn to the NPG’s attention by Wikinews, are currently the subject of an internal investigation within the NPG.

Coetzee published the contents of the letter on Saturday July 11, the letter itself being dated the previous day. It had been sent electronically to an email address associated with his Wikimedia Commons user account. The NPG’s solicitors had mailed the letter from an account in the name “Amisquitta”. This account was blocked shortly after by a user with access to the user blocking tool, citing a long standing Wikipedia policy that the making of legal threats and creation of a hostile environment is generally inconsistent with editing access and is an inappropriate means of resolving user disputes.

The policy, initially created on Commons’ sister website in June 2004, is also intended to protect all parties involved in a legal dispute, by ensuring that their legal communications go through proper channels, and not through a wiki that is open to editing by other members of the public. It was originally formulated primarily to address legal action for libel. In October 2004 it was noted that there was “no consensus” whether legal threats related to copyright infringement would be covered but by the end of 2006 the policy had reached a consensus that such threats (as opposed to polite complaints) were not compatible with editing access while a legal matter was unresolved. Commons’ own website states that “[accounts] used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked”.

In a further response, Gregory Maxwell, a volunteer administrator on Wikimedia Commons, made a formal request to the editorial community that Coetzee’s access to administrator tools on Commons should be revoked due to the prevailing circumstances. Maxwell noted that Coetzee “[did] not have the technically ability to permanently delete images”, but stated that Coetzee’s potential legal situation created a conflict of interest.

Sixteen minutes after Maxwell’s request, Coetzee’s “administrator” privileges were removed by a user in response to the request. Coetzee retains “administrator” privileges on the English-language Wikipedia, since none of the images exist on Wikipedia’s own website and therefore no conflict of interest exists on that site.

Legally, the central issue upon which the case depends is that copyright laws vary between countries. Under United States case law, where both the website and Coetzee are located, a photograph of a non-copyrighted two-dimensional picture (such as a very old portrait) is not capable of being copyrighted, and it may be freely distributed and used by anyone. Under UK law that point has not yet been decided, and the Gallery’s solicitors state that such photographs could potentially be subject to copyright in that country.

One major legal point upon which a case would hinge, should the NPG proceed to court, is a question of originality. The U.K.’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 defines in ¶ 1(a) that copyright is a right that subsists in “original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works” (emphasis added). The legal concept of originality here involves the simple origination of a work from an author, and does not include the notions of novelty or innovation that is often associated with the non-legal meaning of the word.

Whether an exact photographic reproduction of a work is an original work will be a point at issue. The NPG asserts that an exact photographic reproduction of a copyrighted work in another medium constitutes an original work, and this would be the basis for its action against Coetzee. This view has some support in U.K. case law. The decision of Walter v Lane held that exact transcriptions of speeches by journalists, in shorthand on reporter’s notepads, were original works, and thus copyrightable in themselves. The opinion by Hugh Laddie, Justice Laddie, in his book The Modern Law of Copyright, points out that photographs lie on a continuum, and that photographs can be simple copies, derivative works, or original works:

“[…] it is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely by placing a drawing or painting on the glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no copyright at all; but he might get a copyright if he employed skill and labour in assembling the thing to be photocopied, as where he made a montage.”

Various aspects of this continuum have already been explored in the courts. Justice Neuberger, in the decision at v Rodney Fitch & Co. held that a photograph of a three-dimensional object would be copyrightable if some exercise of judgement of the photographer in matters of angle, lighting, film speed, and focus were involved. That exercise would create an original work. Justice Oliver similarly held, in Interlego v Tyco Industries, that “[i]t takes great skill, judgement and labour to produce a good copy by painting or to produce an enlarged photograph from a positive print, but no-one would reasonably contend that the copy, painting, or enlargement was an ‘original’ artistic work in which the copier is entitled to claim copyright. Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.”.

In 2000 the Museums Copyright Group, a copyright lobbying group, commissioned a report and legal opinion on the implications of the Bridgeman case for the UK, which stated:

“Revenue raised from reproduction fees and licensing is vital to museums to support their primary educational and curatorial objectives. Museums also rely on copyright in photographs of works of art to protect their collections from inaccurate reproduction and captioning… as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law”. The report concluded by advocating that “museums must continue to lobby” to protect their interests, to prevent inferior quality images of their collections being distributed, and “not least to protect a vital source of income”.

Several people and organizations in the U.K. have been awaiting a test case that directly addresses the issue of copyrightability of exact photographic reproductions of works in other media. The commonly cited legal case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. found that there is no originality where the aim and the result is a faithful and exact reproduction of the original work. The case was heard twice in New York, once applying UK law and once applying US law. It cited the prior UK case of Interlego v Tyco Industries (1988) in which Lord Oliver stated that “Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.”

“What is important about a drawing is what is visually significant and the re-drawing of an existing drawing […] does not make it an original artistic work, however much labour and skill may have gone into the process of reproduction […]”

The Interlego judgement had itself drawn upon another UK case two years earlier, Coca-Cola Go’s Applications, in which the House of Lords drew attention to the “undesirability” of plaintiffs seeking to expand intellectual property law beyond the purpose of its creation in order to create an “undeserving monopoly”. It commented on this, that “To accord an independent artistic copyright to every such reproduction would be to enable the period of artistic copyright in what is, essentially, the same work to be extended indefinitely… “

The Bridgeman case concluded that whether under UK or US law, such reproductions of copyright-expired material were not capable of being copyrighted.

The unsuccessful plaintiff, Bridgeman Art Library, stated in 2006 in written evidence to the House of Commons Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that it was “looking for a similar test case in the U.K. or Europe to fight which would strengthen our position”.

The National Portrait Gallery is a non-departmental public body based in London England and sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Founded in 1856, it houses a collection of portraits of historically important and famous British people. The gallery contains more than 11,000 portraits and 7,000 light-sensitive works in its Primary Collection, 320,000 in the Reference Collection, over 200,000 pictures and negatives in the Photographs Collection and a library of around 35,000 books and manuscripts. (More on the National Portrait Gallery here)

The gallery’s solicitors are Farrer & Co LLP, of London. Farrer’s clients have notably included the British Royal Family, in a case related to extracts from letters sent by Diana, Princess of Wales which were published in a book by ex-butler Paul Burrell. (In that case, the claim was deemed unlikely to succeed, as the extracts were not likely to be in breach of copyright law.)

Farrer & Co have close ties with industry interest groups related to copyright law. Peter Wienand, Head of Intellectual Property at Farrer & Co., is a member of the Executive body of the Museums Copyright Group, which is chaired by Tom Morgan, Head of Rights and Reproductions at the National Portrait Gallery. The Museums Copyright Group acts as a lobbying organization for “the interests and activities of museums and galleries in the area of [intellectual property rights]”, which reacted strongly against the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case.

Wikimedia Commons is a repository of images, media, and other material free for use by anyone in the world. It is operated by a community of 21,000 active volunteers, with specialist rights such as deletion and blocking restricted to around 270 experienced users in the community (known as “administrators”) who are trusted by the community to use them to enact the wishes and policies of the community. Commons is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a charitable body whose mission is to make available free knowledge and historic and other material which is legally distributable under US law. (More on Commons here)

The legal threat also sparked discussions of moral issues and issues of public policy in several Internet discussion fora, including Slashdot, over the weekend. One major public policy issue relates to how the public domain should be preserved.

Some of the public policy debate over the weekend has echoed earlier opinions presented by Kenneth Hamma, the executive director for Digital Policy at the J. Paul Getty Trust. Writing in D-Lib Magazine in November 2005, Hamma observed:

“Art museums and many other collecting institutions in this country hold a trove of public-domain works of art. These are works whose age precludes continued protection under copyright law. The works are the result of and evidence for human creativity over thousands of years, an activity museums celebrate by their very existence. For reasons that seem too frequently unexamined, many museums erect barriers that contribute to keeping quality images of public domain works out of the hands of the general public, of educators, and of the general milieu of creativity. In restricting access, art museums effectively take a stand against the creativity they otherwise celebrate. This conflict arises as a result of the widely accepted practice of asserting rights in the images that the museums make of the public domain works of art in their collections.”

He also stated:

“This resistance to free and unfettered access may well result from a seemingly well-grounded concern: many museums assume that an important part of their core business is the acquisition and management of rights in art works to maximum return on investment. That might be true in the case of the recording industry, but it should not be true for nonprofit institutions holding public domain art works; it is not even their secondary business. Indeed, restricting access seems all the more inappropriate when measured against a museum’s mission — a responsibility to provide public access. Their charitable, financial, and tax-exempt status demands such. The assertion of rights in public domain works of art — images that at their best closely replicate the values of the original work — differs in almost every way from the rights managed by the recording industry. Because museums and other similar collecting institutions are part of the private nonprofit sector, the obligation to treat assets as held in public trust should replace the for-profit goal. To do otherwise, undermines the very nature of what such institutions were created to do.”

Hamma observed in 2005 that “[w]hile examples of museums chasing down digital image miscreants are rare to non-existent, the expectation that museums might do so has had a stultifying effect on the development of digital image libraries for teaching and research.”

The NPG, which has been taking action with respect to these images since at least 2005, is a public body. It was established by Act of Parliament, the current Act being the Museums and Galleries Act 1992. In that Act, the NPG Board of Trustees is charged with maintaining “a collection of portraits of the most eminent persons in British history, of other works of art relevant to portraiture and of documents relating to those portraits and other works of art”. It also has the tasks of “secur[ing] that the portraits are exhibited to the public” and “generally promot[ing] the public’s enjoyment and understanding of portraiture of British persons and British history through portraiture both by means of the Board’s collection and by such other means as they consider appropriate”.

Several commentators have questioned how the NPG’s statutory goals align with its threat of legal action. Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt, asked “The people who run the Gallery should be ashamed of themselves. They ought to go back and read their own mission statement[. …] How, exactly, does suing someone for getting those portraits more attention achieve that goal?” (external link Masnick’s). L. Sutherland of Bigmouthmedia asked “As the paintings of the NPG technically belong to the nation, does that mean that they should also belong to anyone that has access to a computer?”

Other public policy debates that have been sparked have included the applicability of U.K. courts, and U.K. law, to the actions of a U.S. citizen, residing in the U.S., uploading files to servers hosted in the U.S.. Two major schools of thought have emerged. Both see the issue as encroachment of one legal system upon another. But they differ as to which system is encroaching. One view is that the free culture movement is attempting to impose the values and laws of the U.S. legal system, including its case law such as Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., upon the rest of the world. Another view is that a U.K. institution is attempting to control, through legal action, the actions of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

David Gerard, former Press Officer for Wikimedia UK, the U.K. chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has been involved with the “Wikipedia Loves Art” contest to create free content photographs of exhibits at the Victoria and Albert Museum, stated on Slashdot that “The NPG actually acknowledges in their letter that the poster’s actions were entirely legal in America, and that they’re making a threat just because they think they can. The Wikimedia community and the WMF are absolutely on the side of these public domain images remaining in the public domain. The NPG will be getting radioactive publicity from this. Imagine the NPG being known to American tourists as somewhere that sues Americans just because it thinks it can.”

Benjamin Crowell, a physics teacher at Fullerton College in California, stated that he had received a letter from the Copyright Officer at the NPG in 2004, with respect to the picture of the portrait of Isaac Newton used in his physics textbooks, that he publishes in the U.S. under a free content copyright licence, to which he had replied with a pointer to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..

The Wikimedia Foundation takes a similar stance. Erik Möller, the Deputy Director of the US-based Wikimedia Foundation wrote in 2008 that “we’ve consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes”.

Contacted over the weekend, the NPG issued a statement to Wikinews:

“The National Portrait Gallery is very strongly committed to giving access to its Collection. In the past five years the Gallery has spent around £1 million digitising its Collection to make it widely available for study and enjoyment. We have so far made available on our website more than 60,000 digital images, which have attracted millions of users, and we believe this extensive programme is of great public benefit.
“The Gallery supports Wikipedia in its aim of making knowledge widely available and we would be happy for the site to use our low-resolution images, sufficient for most forms of public access, subject to safeguards. However, in March 2009 over 3000 high-resolution files were appropriated from the National Portrait Gallery website and published on Wikipedia without permission.
“The Gallery is very concerned that potential loss of licensing income from the high-resolution files threatens its ability to reinvest in its digitisation programme and so make further images available. It is one of the Gallery’s primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view.
“Digitisation involves huge costs including research, cataloguing, conservation and highly-skilled photography. Images then need to be made available on the Gallery website as part of a structured and authoritative database. To date, Wikipedia has not responded to our requests to discuss the issue and so the National Portrait Gallery has been obliged to issue a lawyer’s letter. The Gallery remains willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia.

In fact, Matthew Bailey, the Gallery’s (then) Assistant Picture Library Manager, had already once been in a similar dialogue. Ryan Kaldari, an amateur photographer from Nashville, Tennessee, who also volunteers at the Wikimedia Commons, states that he was in correspondence with Bailey in October 2006. In that correspondence, according to Kaldari, he and Bailey failed to conclude any arrangement.

Jay Walsh, the Head of Communications for the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Commons, called the gallery’s actions “unfortunate” in the Foundation’s statement, issued on Tuesday July 14:

“The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. To that end, we have very productive working relationships with a number of galleries, archives, museums and libraries around the world, who join with us to make their educational materials available to the public.
“The Wikimedia Foundation does not control user behavior, nor have we reviewed every action taken by that user. Nonetheless, it is our general understanding that the user in question has behaved in accordance with our mission, with the general goal of making public domain materials available via our Wikimedia Commons project, and in accordance with applicable law.”

The Foundation added in its statement that as far as it was aware, the NPG had not attempted “constructive dialogue”, and that the volunteer community was presently discussing the matter independently.

In part, the lack of past agreement may have been because of a misunderstanding by the National Portrait Gallery of Commons and Wikipedia’s free content mandate; and of the differences between Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Commons, and the individual volunteer workers who participate on the various projects supported by the Foundation.

Like Coetzee, Ryan Kaldari is a volunteer worker who does not represent Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. (Such representation is impossible. Both Wikipedia and the Commons are endeavours supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, and not organizations in themselves.) Nor, again like Coetzee, does he represent the Wikimedia Foundation.

Kaldari states that he explained the free content mandate to Bailey. Bailey had, according to copies of his messages provided by Kaldari, offered content to Wikipedia (naming as an example the photograph of John Opie‘s 1797 portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft, whose copyright term has since expired) but on condition that it not be free content, but would be subject to restrictions on its distribution that would have made it impossible to use by any of the many organizations that make use of Wikipedia articles and the Commons repository, in the way that their site-wide “usable by anyone” licences ensures.

The proposed restrictions would have also made it impossible to host the images on Wikimedia Commons. The image of the National Portrait Gallery in this article, above, is one such free content image; it was provided and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licence, and is thus able to be used and republished not only on Wikipedia but also on Wikinews, on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, as well as by anyone in the world, subject to the terms of the GFDL, a license that guarantees attribution is provided to the creators of the image.

As Commons has grown, many other organizations have come to different arrangements with volunteers who work at the Wikimedia Commons and at Wikipedia. For example, in February 2009, fifteen international museums including the Brooklyn Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum established a month-long competition where users were invited to visit in small teams and take high quality photographs of their non-copyright paintings and other exhibits, for upload to Wikimedia Commons and similar websites (with restrictions as to equipment, required in order to conserve the exhibits), as part of the “Wikipedia Loves Art” contest.

Approached for comment by Wikinews, Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, said “It’s pretty clear that these images themselves should be in the public domain. There is a clear public interest in making sure paintings and other works are usable by anyone once their term of copyright expires. This is what US courts have recognised, whatever the situation in UK law.”

The Digital Britain report, issued by the U.K.’s Department for Culture, Media, and Sport in June 2009, stated that “Public cultural institutions like Tate, the Royal Opera House, the RSC, the Film Council and many other museums, libraries, archives and galleries around the country now reach a wider public online.” Culture minster Ben Bradshaw was also approached by Wikinews for comment on the public policy issues surrounding the on-line availability of works in the public domain held in galleries, re-raised by the NPG’s threat of legal action, but had not responded by publication time.

Comments are closed.

Enjoy An Algae Free Pool

Posted at February 25, 2018 @ 2:22 am by in Construction

Enjoy An Algae-Free Pool by Davo JudgeSwimming pools can be wonderful contributions to your home; they not only provide a pleasant place to get some very good exercise, but they can quite visually stunning as well. However, even the most well designed pool can fall far short of being attractive and complimentary from a landscaping perspective when it becomes infested with algae on a regular basis. Algae – that telltale green, mossy-looking substance that can grow in virtually any body of water – can take your once pristine pool and render it shoddy and undesirable. Many Brisbane pool builders, though, will tell you that there are proven ways to keep algae at bay. You can learn more by reading on below.Keeping Up With Regular Maintenance -Owning a pool means taking care of it. When you have a pool construction Brisbane company install an in ground pool for you, you assume the responsibility of keeping it clean and taking care that its chemicals are well balanced. Failure in doing so may result in rapid growth of algae which creates unpleasant pool conditions. During the first few days, have a chat to the pool construction company about what you need to do – and make sure that you have a well designed water-testing kit from the very beginning.Every day, you will need to check the pool’s chemical balance to make sure that it’s in check. If the pH, for instance, becomes too high or too low no amount of chlorine will stand a chance against algae. You need to keep an eye on the pool’s pH levels to assure that the chlorine can do its work properly. Also, shocking the pool from time to time – i.e., applying a high dose of chlorine – can help keep algae growth under control. Lastly, every once in a while you should scrub and vacuum the pool; as otherwise, problems may occur as the microscopic algae spores multiply.Using The Right Equipment -Another major culprit behind algae growth in many pools is insufficient, ineffective equipment. Sometimes, people try to save money by purchasing a filter that uses less energy than the one recommended. Generally, this is not a great idea as algae may grow due to poor water circulation. Also, some people try to limit the amount of time that their filter runs as a cost-saving measure; however, this can completely backfire and cause a recurring case of algae to sprout up. Make sure that you have the proper equipment for your particular pool – and be sure to use it for the recommended amount of time per day – or you will have an algae colony on your hands in no time flat.The team at John Clark Pools understand that one of the biggest concerns that pool owners have, according to many pool renovations Brisbane companies, is algae. The green spread of algae can make your pool unpleasant to swim in. An experienced pool construction Brisbane company can help you, as can keeping up with your routine maintenance.Article Source:

Comments are closed.

Blue Coat and AT&T take parts of FOSI for Internet Security

Blue Coat and AT&T take parts of FOSI for Internet Security

Posted at February 24, 2018 @ 2:58 am by in Uncategorized

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Recently in Sunnyvale, CA, Blue Coat Systems and AT&T are confirmed to join the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI), an international non-profit organization dedicated to identifying and promoting best practices, tools and methods for online safety.

A safety online experience should be established. Kids often spend most time on Internet surfing, but [their] parents often ignored critical awareness on risks of the Internet. To decrease risks, we encourages parents to notice on children’s Internet activity and educate them about the risks they face online to protect themselves.

Apart from AT&T, Blue Coat recently announced “K9 Web Protection” software and promoted “Community Outreach Program” for parents to strengthen Internet security on kids. In addition, Laurie Coffin, Director of Marketing Communications at Blue Coat, was confirmed to join FOSI’s board of directors to assist in governing FOSI’s strategic direction and initiatives.

Comments are closed.

Portuguese Republican National Guard in Dili confined to headquarters

Portuguese Republican National Guard in Dili confined to headquarters

Posted at February 24, 2018 @ 2:58 am by in Uncategorized

Wednesday, June 7, 2006

The Portuguese Republican National Guard (GNR), that arrived last Sunday at Dili, have interrupted their patrols in the streets of Dili and are now confined to their temporary headquarters.

According to a Portuguese governmental source, the GNR force is confined to its improvised headquarters in Dili, with orders from the government not to go out into the streets, due to a diplomatic block in the negotiations with Australia about the command chain.

The decision was made after a incident during the middle of the afternoon (local time), when a Republican National Guard patrol was transporting three men to a new temporary detention center, guarded by Australian troops. The Australian soldiers refused to receive the detained men, questioning the legitimacy of the Portuguese soldiers to make arrests.

At this moment, urgent negotiations are being made in New York. Portugal is waiting for President Xanana Gusmão and the Timorese government to clarify the action of the Portuguese force on the bilateral agreement signed between the two governments that guarantees operational autonomy to the Portuguese soldiers.

Contacted by SIC reporters, the spokesman of the Portuguese Foreign Ministry, Carneiro Jacinto, denied that the problem is the presence of the GNR in East Timor. Carneiro Jacinto told SIC that the case is being handled through diplomatic channels, including the United Nations, the government and the Timorese presidency. Carneiro Jacinto also said that it’s necessary to clarify the case once and for all, so that situations “serious like this one” will not be repeated.

Ana Pessoa, East Timor’s State Minister, told TSF News Agency that the idea that the Portuguese contingent’s mission in Timor may be threatened makes no sense. She said all that is being discussed at this time is what mission the GNR force will assume in East Timor.

Last Friday (June 2) an Australian mission held a meeting with Portugal’s Foreign Minister, Diogo Freitas do Amaral, who was sent to ask for clarification of the agreement signed the day before (June 1, Thursday) between Portugal and East Timor. The agreement gave the Portuguese Republican National Guard troops their own operational command, reporting directly to President Xanana Gusmão.

In a meeting on Monday (June 5) between Australian, Malaysian, New Zealand and Portuguese representatives, the four countries discussed the creation of a coordination structure, instead of an entirely Australian-led command, for the police forces working on the Timorese territory.

Beyond the 120 soldiers of the Portuguese Republican National Guard force, that arrived this Sunday to East Timor, there are 70 Australian and 200 Malaysian police officers in the country. A New Zealand police team also arrived yesterday from Auckland to negotiate their possible contributions towards policing. In addition to these police forces, the international force includes more than 2,000 Australian, New Zealand and Malaysian soldiers.

Comments are closed.

Sinkhole reported in Buffalo, New York

Sinkhole reported in Buffalo, New York

Posted at February 24, 2018 @ 2:55 am by in Uncategorized

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Buffalo, New York — Officials in Buffalo, New York have closed a portion of a downtown street after a sinkhole was reported. At approximately 4:20 p.m. (Eastern time) Washington street between E. Eagle and Clinton was closed to vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Wikinews was on scene and obtained exclusive photos and statements.

City officials say the sinkhole is located in an area under the road where a tunnel, about 40 feet wide, connects two buildings, formerly the AM&A’s warehouse and department store which is now owned by The Bon-Ton. It was first reported last week when portions of the blacktop were seen caving in near the sidewalks. When city engineers examined the holes, they found it to span the entire width of the street and nearly a half the block’s length with the hole being nearly 15 feet deep. Officials say the only thing holding up the road, is the thin layer of concrete and asphalt that make up the road’s surface.

“I am shocked a car has not went through it (the street)”, said a police officer who was coordinating the blocking effort.

Despite today’s actions, someone who wishes to remain anonymous tells Wikinews that the problems began nearly 10 years ago, and the city was notified then of the sinkhole.

Officials state that the road will be closed for several months and all pedestrian and vehicle traffic will have to be diverted until further notice. It is not yet known when the repairs will begin. The person wishing to remain anonymous says the repairs could take years instead of months.

Comments are closed.

The Mining Equipment Brokers}

Posted at February 24, 2018 @ 2:43 am by in Earthmoving Equipment

The Mining Equipment Brokers


Martin SejasAustralia is one of the richest places in the world in some of the important minerals and other resources. It is known for its rich resources of Nickel, Gold, Uranium, Diamond, Zinc and iron which tops the list. Australia was ranked first in the world in 2008 as being the largest producer of iron ore, supplying over 340 million metric tones. Natural gas and petroleum has also been found in abundance in this rich country. These regions that have rich deposits are spread out all over the country including the Hunter Valley, Pilbara, Bowen Basin and Latrobe Valley amongst other areas.

The mining industry has both old and new players even as other entrepreneurship launch into mining. The mining process is by far evolved from the old procedures and equipment and employ the use of highly specialized equipments. The equipments in question are very expensive to purchase more so for the new companies just starting out in the industry. This has led to these companies looking for the equipment through mining equipment brokers who provide their services to companies that need them. The country is really rich in mineral and other resource deposits and mining has become a lucrative venture for many companies. This is where the mining equipment brokers step in and provide the greatly needed equipment making it one of the most profitable ventures.

YouTube Preview Image

There are certain machinery that are not readily available in the local market or are not manufactured in Australia. This calls for the mining companies to try and seek the machinery from outside the country. The Australian mining equipment brokers play a big role in this as they are adept at handling external manufacturers and have the most experience in sourcing for mining equipment at competitive prices. This has enabled many mining companies to have their own equipment at affordable costs. The charges by these brokerage firms are dependent on the type of mining equipment required and whether they are available locally or internationally.

It is a fact that mining has been a drawback to the environmental preservation and aesthetics. Mining companies are required to put in place measures that will restore the mining area and preserve the environment as a whole. This opts for use of useful non-mining equipment. The mining equipment brokers also provide the opportunity for companies to purchase the equipment. They source the equipment and make them available to the companies at affordable prices. The equipment are vital in the role of environmental preservation as well as safety for the miners.

The mining equipment brokers in Australia have a firm association with elected officials who take care of their interests. The association represents the members in different forums to raise concern and awareness over the needs of their members. The elected officials also play a crucial role in the developing and passing of legislature that govern their industry. The services brokerage firms provide are very expensive and they do require major financial backing from banks and other financial services which have done just that.

If you are looking for

mining equipment finance

, then you have chosen the right place. Get the best

hire purchase

deal possible for mining equipment by getting in contact with one of our brokers today.

Article Source:}

Comments are closed.