New Research Shows How Copyright Law Is Keeping Useful Info Off Wikipedia

from the too-bad dept

Fri, Jul 20th 2012 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

The Atlantic has an interesting article about some forthcoming research from MIT PhD student Abhishek Nagaraj (though, oddly, the article never introduces him, never mentions his first name, and just refers to him throughout by his last name only). It's the latest in an increasingly long line of evidence showing how copyright is stifling content and keeping it from reaching the public in useful ways. Nagaraj found a particularly useful natural experiment in the archives of Baseball Digest "the oldest and longest-running journal of matters baseball-related," which has been published continuously since 1942. For various reasons (sounds like they didn't renew...) the issues from 1942 until 1964 are in the public domain. Everything after that... not so much. Google's book scanning project scanned nearly every issue from July 1945 until 2008.

Nagaraj realized that Wikipedians were using this as good source material for Wikipedia pages -- especially on the profiles of older baseball players. He noted that there was little stopping the text from being rewritten, but the real issue was around images. People could use the scanned images to illustrate the profiles, but clearly they could only use the public domain ones without permission.

But Nagaraj found was that the availability of public domain material dramatically improved the article's images. Before the digitization, players from between '44 and '64 had an average of .183 pictures on their articles. The '64 to '84 group had about .158 pictures. But after digitization, those numbers dramatically changed: there were 1.15 pictures on each of the older group's articles -- but only .667 in the new group. More recent players, covered by privately-owned parts of Baseball Digest, had half as many images on their pages as did old-timers.

And, yes, the article notes that he put in place various controls to correct for unrelated differences. Basically, the only observable difference in why the pages have more images is the public domain status of some of those works vs. others. Some might argue that this is no big deal, but he found a second bit of useful data s well:

And the effects of this -- of just having an image on the page -- cascaded to other metrics. "Out-of-copyright" players's pages saw a significant boost in traffic. Articles from the pre-'64 that were already in the top 10 percent saw their hits increase more than 70 percent. Articles from that group in the least-popular ten percent saw traffic to their articles increase by 25 percent. Those pages were more frequently edited across the board, too. And this makes sense: Google rewards updated content, and it rewards images. The out-of-copyright players provided more of both.

I'm reminded, yet again, of that chart of the now infamous gap in books under copyright that you can't find any more -- even though older books in the public domain are widely available. Once again, we're seeing not only the massive value of the public domain, but how much useful content is being locked away by excessively strict (and excessively long) copyright law.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: baseball digest, copyright, information, learning, public domain, wikipedia

104 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 7:42pm

Kind of how Turner is keeping the MLK speeches locked up in his IP vault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:05pm

let me guess... Google paid for the study... Kinda how the CCIA paid for yours... Hmmm... He Who Pays The Piper Names The Tune, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:09pm
  
  Re:
  Let me guess...you're angry that you're incapable of argument.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile), 21 Jul 2012 @ 4:46am
    
    Think like a mental case !
    let me guess... Obama paid for the study ... Kinda how the JEWS paid for yours... Hmmm... He Who Pays The Whore Names The Baby, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re:
  So we're supposed to take your self interested guess more seriously than common sense and basic intuition?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    I read your troll (yes, you actually typed it - it wasn't just in your head keeping all your demons company). What the hell would you know about common sense beyond the fact that you appear to have none?
    
    Get mental help. Now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Anyone who thinks 95+ year copy protection lengths is somehow acceptable needs mental help.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and since congresss has pretty much passed these retarded laws and they pretty much approve of them, being that they aren't removing them, they need mental help. Well, they are bought and paid for but either way why do we have bought and paid for retards running government.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Viln (profile), 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:42pm
  
  Re:
  Why should you have to guess? Didn't you do some digging and come up with proof to back up your claim, so it doesn't look like a snarky appeal to motive shot from the hip?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile), 21 Jul 2012 @ 4:19am
  
  Re:
  A Wikipedia user and baseball fan, student of MIT.
  Writes a thesis (something he HAS TO do) about stuff he gives a shit about.
  
  NOW........ it's a CONSPIRACY !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  let me guess... you are a same tired no argument troll with no grammar or punctuation skills that posts on every techdirt article... Hmmm...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:03am
  
  Re:
  "He Who Pays The Piper Names The Tune, right?"
  
  By that standard, any study, poll, research, etc. is suspect, because SOMEONE is paying for it, either private or govermental, and will force the results to reflect their bias.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:14pm

Our IP laws are an outrage. Someone, do something!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  outrageously weak you mean? guess we need to pass stronger ones then. be back in a week with a house vote. no you don't need to worry. i am sure lamar smith knows what to do about this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Whenever I hear the name Lamar I picture a headcrab - lol
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      he is definitely stupid enough to be one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lamar, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Screeeeeeeee!
      
      *jumps on abc gum's head*
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  outrageously weak you mean? guess we need to pass stronger ones then. be back in a week with a house vote. no you don't need to worry. i am sure lamar smith knows what to do about this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:32pm

Copyright law is keeping , everything from evrybody, Sing "happy Birthday" to your child, and get sued. Tis is not Realy News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:39pm
  
  Re:
  Warner Music Group has that tune
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheogorath (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 5:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    AC said: "Copyright law is keeping , everything from evrybody, Sing "happy Birthday" to your child, and get sued. Tis is not Realy News."
    Another AC said: "Warner Music Group has that tune"
    The public's had that tune since 1936, actually. What WMG has is a tenuous claim on the lyrics. I've said it before, but here goes:
    
    This tune's Public Domain
    This tune's Public Domain
    So it's free, WMG
    'Cos it's Public Domain!
    
    Copyright � 2010 Romersa's Prot�g�. Individuals and groups are free to copy, share, and perform this work for non-commercial purposes. All other rights reserved.
    Adapted from 'Good Morning to All'
    AKA 'Happy Birthday to You'; Public
    Domain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2012 @ 8:00pm
  
  Re:
  WTF? Is this meant to be a parody?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yartrebo (profile), 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:46pm

An Anecdote
This effect can be see very clearly if you look at the dates for a lot of the biology-related images in Wikipedia. An awful lot date from the early 1900s, from various now-public domain textbooks and encyclopedias.

For example, most of the pictures in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femur are from the 1918 edition of Gray's anatomy.

I'm pretty sure it isn't out of some massive epidemic of nostalgia on the part of Wikipedians, but rather that the long term of copyright means that reference sources from the roaring 20s onwards are off-limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: An Anecdote
  could be the far retro movement. Anything after the roaring 1920's is just depressing or something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:41am
  
  Re: An Anecdote
  One of the most important repositories of human knowledge are forced to use diagrams from the 1910s. For some reason that just really disturbs me when I visited that article.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re: An Anecdote
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Human_Project
    http://www.humanatlasproject.com/
    
    Not because there is no free data, because there is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:06am
    
    Re: Re: An Anecdote
    Calling Wikipedia "One of the most important repositories of human knowledge" is like calling pizza "the perfect food".
    
    It's humorous, and has elements of conceptual truth, but in practice, it just doesn't work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: An Anecdote
      Pizza being the perfect food depends on how you define perfection
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 8:55pm

I find it a bit unnerving that we need a research to show how exclusionary rules are a barrier.

Despite claims to the contrary IP laws limit the availability of everything, that is the rule the exception is when for some reason the contrary is true, which may happen in a very specific set of circumstances that are rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:42am
  
  Re:
  i think he is trying to tell me something i just know it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2012 @ 9:50pm

Not that this has much to do with copyright but um.. has anyone else noticed an alarming number of executive orders from the White House, lately?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

Particul arly in the one about Russian enriched uranium, you'll notice the president casually declaring a state of emergency. hmmm. I don't recall any news agencies mentioning that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret, 21 Jul 2012 @ 4:07am

There are a vast number of laws that keep things from Wikipedia, let's trash privacy law, trade secrets, laws preventing disclosure of police files, doctors records etc etc. This article is just dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ebilrawkscientist (profile), 21 Jul 2012 @ 4:29am
  
  Re: article
  The article is not "dumb", IMHO. The idea is to make people AWARE of the insidious creeping dystopian DOOM that is stalking the "Interwebs Freedoms of Expression of Everybeing on the Planet." You must realize from the 'verse of Twitteratti teh tweeples abroad will recieve the messages all powerful and RESPOND with vitrol to quell the creepy corporative buzzkill that strives to oppress all that is good and free on this ball of mud! Knowledge wants to be FREE! And Sharing is Caring!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 4:33am
  
  Re:
  Right now they are talking about one "copyrights" that have been noticed, do you have another study showing how trade secrets are keeping things out of Wikipedia?
  
  We love to see those too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 5:49am
  
  Re:
  How is privacy, trade secrets and laws preventing disclosure of police files, related to copyright?!?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  none of which are generally public information. i don't need to know that working for the RIAA or MPAA has left you brain in a cataconic zombie like state, it is none of my business. if you are going to make an argument could you please use relevant examples?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:56am
  
  Re:
  Let's trash hyperbole. Your comment is dumb in that case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 5:26am

Thank goodness copyright exists or else we wouldn't have those great baseball magazines to begin with. And the fact that some copyrighted photo can't be used on Wikipedia is a problem how? You do realize that copyright means the right to exclude others by design, right, Pirate Mike? I know you're completely confused about who copyright benefits FIRST, but the owner of the right is the one who gets the initial benefit. It's hilarious to see you whine that the system that by design excludes others is actually excluding others. Next you're going to tell me that bank vaults keep the money safely locked within, only to be accessed by those with permission. SHOCKING! Sorry, Pirate Mike, but this is more whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 6:10am
  
  Re:
  I find it really strange that the self-appointed champion of the rights of the creative has not one speck of creativity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 6:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    I do believe in artists' rights. I stand by them when people violate their rights. I don't make any excuses for the pirates like Pirate Mike, who champions the wrongdoers. I'm not trying to be creative. I'm trying to defend artists' rights. In a piratical shithole like Techdirt, such beliefs are not understood and are strongly resisted. Nobody hates artists' rights more than Pirate Mike. He never supports an artist who enforces his rights. He always sides with the pirates. It's absolutely disgusting, esp. the way that he lies about it. What a truly disgusting human being.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - surfer (profile), 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:28am
      
      never
      I don't ask for excuses from Mr. Masnick, nor do I give a fuck about your 'exclusive privilege'. When you return copyright to its' intended purpose, I will consider respecting it, until then, I'm off to download 'The Dark Knight Rises', and anything else I want, just to piss you off.
      
      My rights cancel your privilege, have a great day.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sounds like your beliefs have religious overtones, no need to prove anything - just accuse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What you believe in, is in monopolistic laws that is what you truly believe.
      
      "Artists" are just your canon folder, they are just a word to be thrown in the mix to elicit an emotional response and because of that you are full of shite.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous 314159, 21 Jul 2012 @ 6:18am
  
  Re:
  The article is arguing specifically that the insanely long duration of copyright is the problem. According to the US Constitution, Congress has the power
  
  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  (Article 1, Section 8; emphasis added).
  This article is arguing that the length of copyright (ie, the fact that it really is no longer for "limited Times") is hindering "the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 6:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Copyright is for a limited time. It's right there in Title 17. And it's only hindering progress if you look at it short term. Of course, while something is under copyright, it's locked up. That's what copyright does--it on purpose and by design locks up stuff. That's what "exclusive rights" means in the Constitution. To complain that copyright is broken because it's locking up stuff is twisted, Masnickian, backwards-thinking nonsense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 6:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Could it be argued that locking up everything is a bad idea, or is that a position only taken by pirates?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      got to love how you seem to make a semi-intelligent sounding argument by not actually arguing against what the guy said. the locking up is not the issue. it is the length of how long it is locked up is the issue. 10 years would be more than enough to secure the content protection necessary to get artists and inventors to create things. the moment that patents and copyright does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, it the moment that it directly violates the constitution. the current life plus 50 years for copyright and 20 years for a patent are way longer than is necessary. do you really think that a lot less musicians would create music if they only got 20 years of exclusivity vs up to maybe 130 years? (assuming they were 20 when they created it and lived to 100, it is actually possible that it could be locked up even longer.)For patents in the late 1700s and early 1800s 20 years might actually be a decent patent length because actual innovation did not happen as often. but now 20 years in the advance of technology is equivalent to a century in the past. at the rate we innovate (i use that term lightly, because most of what is considered innovation is really just the next logical step in tech) most patents serve to do nothing more but to extort cash from people who actually do stuff for a living. if you want to contest go ahead and try you got nothing.
      now i just have this to say.
      Logic'd bitch.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please read The Long Tail to understand how this is just not true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What, exactly, is not true?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        i will attempt to translate the shillese. tldr
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        i will give you that the patent section is a bit exaggerated. if i specified it to stuff relating to electronics then it would be dead on. 2 years is more than enough for most electronic patents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Short term you mean a 100 years?
      
      You are full of shite.
      
      And it doesn't even lockup one piece it locks up an entire segment since it applies to derivative works also for a hundred years.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 3:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You call life + 75 years limited?
      You call misappropriation of derivatives limited?
      You call paying levies that are pirate taxes on everybody limited?
      You can evermore expanding interpretations of what can be excluded limited?
      
      So we are clear, we have very different notions of what limited means.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 5:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If something lasts more than a generation's lifetime then no, it's not limited. It's also not limited if it keeps getting extended after a decade or two.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - gnudist, 21 Jul 2012 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, there's no other reason to have retroactive extensions except to curcumvent the limited times requirement of the copyrigth clause.
        
        The fact the work was created without the extension shows that the length of copyright already in effect before the extension was enough incentive for the copyright holder to create the work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        gnudist, 21 Jul 2012 @ 5:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        note: copyright holders not always the same as the creator
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 7:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The argument about the extensions violating the limited times provision has been tried. It failed. Ask Lessig. Yes, the work was created without the extension, but if you read the opinions on this, you'll see that there's more going on than just incentivizing new works. The Court doesn't take that strict of a view. You guys lost miserably on these constitutional arguments. Strange that you still try and make them after a majority of the Supreme Court has shot them down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Supreme court was wrong to issue that decision.
        
        If you allow congress to kepp extending copyrigth at will then you have no limited times because they can just up the expiration date thus granting unlimited copyright without granting unlimited copyrigth.
        
        And promoting new works is the thing congress is enpowered to do under the copyrigth act, anything that goes against that would be judged unconstitutional by a copetent and non corrupt supreme court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright clause, not act
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, "Have unlimited copyright without technically having unlimited copyright"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2012 @ 8:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, if you disagree with the Supreme Court, they are incompetent and corrupt.
        
        It doesn't take an incompetent or corrupt Court to determine that Congress has the power to determine what is necessary and proper in effectuating a Constitutionally-approved goal.
        
        I know that people who disagree with Congress would really like the Supreme Court to swoop in and institute their judgment on what makes the best law, but that's not how the system is designed to work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the supreme court let's congress keep extending copyirhght terms every time it's about to expire despite the consitution not allowing unlimited copyright then it is only the result of incompetent judges who don't understand the power they just gave congress or there is a confilct of interest somewhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2012 @ 8:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently, everyone in this thread is using a definition of "limited" that I'm unfamiliar with.
        
        I, and most English speakers, think that any limit makes something limited, such that a set time is a limited time, even if it's a really long time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  Ad hominem is a bastion of the small minded and a clear lack of confidence indicator.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  Thank goodness copyright exists or else we wouldn't have the works of Shakespeare, or Homer, or Machiavelli, or Descartes, or anyone else who lived for that brief and confused era known as "nearly all of human history".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - GearMentation (profile), 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    They didn't have copyright back then
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I took it as sarcasm and therefore it was a subtle dig, but I could be wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2012 @ 8:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Got any more straw men laying around? I've got some Internet flame that needs more fuel.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:59am
  
  Re:
  It is shocking how people defending copyright are all from another timeline and can tell that the magazin would not exist without copyright. I thought time-travel was banned?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 12:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    jewsgot timetrave regulations repealed in a conspiracy to rewrite the bible to have them as the chosen people instead of adolf hitler an the aryans.
    
    I know this because a guy with a swastika tatoo told me. Seemed legit
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 3:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The magazine is alive and well (although apparently just barely): https://baseballdigest.com/storefront/ Looks like they don't give it away. Instead, they have this crazy ass business model. They create a product that people want--a magazine--and then they sell that product to consumers who want it. It's crazy! What are they thinking? I mean, computers can copy stuff and I have a big hard drive. Why don't they just create that content for free? Idiots. They deserve to get ripped off. Just ask Pirate Mike. They asked for it, and they have driven the pirates into violating their rights. It's not the pirates' fault! They were driven by their victims! I mean, the pirates are the victims! Yeah, that's it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 3:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You do know that people nowadays have cellphones and that people take pictures of the damn magazines don't you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 3:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Looks like those magazines will be replaced by open source ones.
      
      http://www.springwise.com/media_publishing/hip2b2/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 5:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You do not have a moral rigth to not have people copy you and it's an absurd notion to think you do.
      
      If copying is stealing then competition is theft since you must do some degree of copying to compete. For example:
      
      - A mexican restaurant and a chinese restaurant must both copy the basic concept of what a restaurant is and a direct competitor of either of the first two types must copy the style of cuisine.
      
      - a smartphone must copy the concepts of a cellphone(naturally) and the idea of running software from your phone
      
      - first person shooters copy a number of things such as having a generally standard set of weapons which themselves are based on real life weapons or ceatures
      
      - and don't get me started on movies and TV massive amounts of copying abound there.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 12:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You copied the letter that appear on your keyboard to send your message. You are a nasty person for copying.
        
        Your ideas are meaningless, because you are confusing GENERAL concepts with specific ones. A specific image, a specific written story, a specific performance, those are key. The general concept of images, the general concepts of writing a story or recording a song are not.
        
        You suck at this stuff. Try again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 4:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, if copying is theft then it also applies to general stuff too. After all it doesn't make it okay if it's "just a little theft"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you don't get the idea. So you fail.
        
        Please call us back when you get a clue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The clueless guy is telling me to get a clue?
        
        You amuse me moron
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 7:43am

What I don't get is this: Anyone can go to the ball park, buy a reasonable ticket, and take all the pictures they like of the players, and GIVE them to Wikipedia. What's the problem?

In fact, if they contacted the players themselves (or their orgasnizations) I am sure they have publicity photos which could be used.

I get more of the feeling that people are lazy, and would rather lift the information from wherever, rather than actually develop a proper source. That's the Wikipedia disadvantage, people taking shortcuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 7:52am
  
  Re:
  "go to the ball park, buy a reasonable ticket, and take all the pictures they like "
  
  Have you actually done this?
  
  "people are lazy"
  
  and water is wet
  
  "would rather lift the information from wherever, rather than actually develop a proper source. That's the Wikipedia disadvantage, people taking shortcuts."
  
  Proper source people, yeah that's the ticket. No more lazy pirating of past research, one must reinvent the wheel at every occasion. Oh and btw, Wikipedia is the only place people take shortcuts leading to its "disadvantage".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    ""go to the ball park, buy a reasonable ticket, and take all the pictures they like "
    
    Have you actually done this?"
    
    I have gone to sporting events, and taken pictures, some of which are good enough for publication, yes.
    
    "Proper source people, yeah that's the ticket. No more lazy pirating of past research, one must reinvent the wheel at every occasion. "
    
    It's not a question of re-inventing the wheel. If you want publicity pics of a player, ask his team. They almost always have some. Most of them would LOVE to help you out, especially on past players. It's good for them.
    
    Wikipedia isn't the only place - but it's the biggest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - arcan, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      your next task is to go to the ballpark and take a picture of babe ruth hitting a homerun. have fun
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "have gone to sporting events, and taken pictures, some of which are good enough for publication, yes."
      
      Hopefully this will continue to be the case ... however, just try that at other locations and you will be accosted by the picture police. They use many excuses, from copyright to terrorism, but the result is the same - they get to harass you and suffer little consequence. Several courts have ruled that it is not illegal to photograph things in public but the picture police do not care about the law.
      
      When I read this blog post, I took it as just another of many examples of how copyright is being abused. Pointing out how one item in the post is arguable (pictures at ballgames) does not mean the entire post is trash.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess if you are going to live your life totally concerned that the "picture police" are out to get you, then there is no way that I can convince you otherwise.
        
        I would recommend you be careful which brand of tin foil you use for your hat, some of them are purposely poorly made as to let the signals get through, so those voices can talk to you all night. You know, the ones you are listening to right now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, I am a nutter and wear tin foil hats - lol - you are so funny and original. So, you dispute that there are many cases of private security, TSA, Transit Authority, Police, etc over stepping their bounds in accosting tourists, journalists, artists, children and grannies for the gross infraction of taking pictures in public? Please elucidate, this should be interesting. Let me guess ... next you will tell me that no one has ever been arrested for dancing in public.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 3:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is not the only issue, nobody can travel in time to take pictures can you take pictures from 1984 today?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't have to travel in time. Remarkably, there were actually people at those events, and they took pictures. Newspapers, the teams themselves, the players themselves... they all have pictures that have been taken of them.
        
        Cameras weren't just invented, and nobody had a monopoly use of a single camera.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2012 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh goodie, and all pictures of past events are in the public domain so they can be used without worrying about not being able to afford it's useage or that it might not be licensed to anyone at all!
        
        Oh wait....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not really, most of them will never even return a call.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt T. (profile), 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  What I don't get is this: Anyone can go to the ball park, buy a reasonable ticket, and take all the pictures they like of the players, and GIVE them to Wikipedia. What's the problem?
  
  I'm sure wikipedia contributors do that: today. But the article concerns players from the 1964-1984 time period, a time which is decidedly not today.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, nobody had cameras back then.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, how many has digitalized these photos or do you think they had digital cameras at that time?
      
      People are lazy and water is wet as someone mentioned...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that is the point - isn't it?
      All the pictures from back then are tied up in copywrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  Yah right, have you ever tried to contact a celebrity?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:40am
  
  Re:
  And where can I get a time machine to that photos of famous dead people before they died?
  
  Fucking moron
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I hear Mitt Romney has a time machine, but I doubt "you people" would be allowed to use it though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I hear Mitt Romney has a time machine, but I doubt any of "you people" would be allowed to use it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Attack of the comment clones!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 21 Jul 2012 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah - double plus good !!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- maclypse (profile), 23 Jul 2012 @ 2:16am
  
  Re:
  Of course you know by now that for example the olympics don't actually allow you to bring any use of any privately recorded pictures or video, and that people are being sued by public figures because the pictures they take aren't flattering enough. Right? Taking the pictures yourself is a) legally fucking dangerous and b) only really possible if you can afford to fly out to actually see the event, which may be hard if you live ... oh, just about anywhere in the world. God forbid we let anyone have an interest that reaches outside their own city.
  
  Asking people for publicity photos is a daft and dangerous solution. It gives the copyright holders the option to add demands for the use of the photos (don't mention the steroids or else) or to charge for the use of the photos, or worse, decide to refuse publication of the photos altogether because they don't like the site, the author or the subject matter.
  
  Anyway... photos of public figures doing things in public should be fair use anyway, so all this jumping through copyright hoops shouldn't be necessary in the first place. But this of course is the way some people want things: illegal to take photos, illegal to use other people's photos, and if you ask to use someone's PR photos - you must pay licensing fees, and obey their demands to censor your own work according to their wishes. It's fucking beautiful, isn't it? Also, let's not forget that we are now trying to grant famous people additional copyrights to protect them even more.
  
  But sure, let's take the easy way out and decide the system is good, and people are lazy. That explains everything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GearMentation (profile), 21 Jul 2012 @ 8:12am

It's very difficult to upload any image to Wikipedia, you have to jump through all sorts of copyright hoops. One of the greatest barriers to writing Wikipedia articles is that you can't get the source material, it's either not on the internet due to copyright, or it's behind a pay barrier, especially with scientific texts. It's hard. And the cost in time and energy of going to a library, then trying to translate from those paper sources to online is pretty high (impossible for many especially outside the US). It's volunteer work after all, how much time and energy do you have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2012 @ 11:43am

This shit is exactly why it's unconstituional to grant unlimited term copyright and why retroactive extensions should be banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2012 @ 9:27am

Wait, so what is the useful info being kept off of Wikipedia? Just the photos?

That was not at all clear to me from the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counces (profile), 15 Sep 2012 @ 4:28pm

ReRe
Copyright is one of the main reasons I gave up on contibuting to wikipedia. It's just such a pain in the ass if you want to create an article and then you can't add images, because most of them have a Copyright and it's just to much work to get a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]