GeezerVison is showing github.com — Remove lena.jpg/png, it is undistributable and violating copyright · Issue #4927 · matplotlib/matplotlib
Remove lena.jpg/png, it is undistributable and violating copyright #4927ActivityWeatherGod commented on Aug 15, 2015 WeatherGod commented on Aug 15, 2015 Quote from the wiki page:
"While Playboy often cracks down on illegal uses of its material and did
initially send out notices to research publications and journals that used
the image,[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna#cite_note-Thompson-11
over time it has decided to overlook the wide use of Lena. Eileen Kent, VP
of new media at Playboy said, "We decided we should exploit this, because
it is a phenomenon.""
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Benjamin Root [email protected] wrote:
If I remember correctly, Playboy and Lenna has granted rights to
redistribute the cropped image for non-profit image processing purposes.
This is a very old argument that was settled a long time ago.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Sandro Tosi [email protected]
wrote:
Hello,
Lenna images are not distributable and currently violanting the copyright
of Playboy, some references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenna.png
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/license-problem-non-free-img-lenna.html
http://bugs.debian.org/794854
there is already 5da2608#diff-8f9a4136c7213fb5de70d2a382ed8fbf
5da2608#diff-8f9a4136c7213fb5de70d2a382ed8fbf
which is in public domain, please let's use that one and remove Lenna from
the repo and the distributed tarball.
Regards,
Sandro
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4927.
sandrotosi commented on Aug 15, 2015 ContributorAuthor More actions actually Playboy never did, they just ignore it (for the moment)
exactly "overlook" it doesnt mean anybody other than Playboy has any right to distribute that image jenshnielsen commented on Aug 15, 2015 We have already removed al usage of it in #1581 so I am surprised that the image wasn't deleted from the repository at that point. I see absolutely no reason to keep it around. WeatherGod commented on Aug 15, 2015 It was kept around at the time because it was an accessible sample image,
and thus needed to go through a deprecation cycle.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jens Hedegaard Nielsen <
[email protected]> wrote:
We have already removed al usage of it in #1581
#1581 so I am surprised
that the image wasn't deleted from the repository at that point. I see
absolutely no reason to keep it around.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4927 (comment)
.
WeatherGod commented on Aug 15, 2015 Furthermore, this has been discussed on wikimedia with a decision that it
was fair-use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenna.png
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Benjamin Root [email protected] wrote:
It was kept around at the time because it was an accessible sample image,
and thus needed to go through a deprecation cycle.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jens Hedegaard Nielsen <
[email protected]> wrote:
We have already removed al usage of it in #1581
#1581 so I am surprised
that the image wasn't deleted from the repository at that point. I see
absolutely no reason to keep it around.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4927 (comment)
.
efiring commented on Aug 15, 2015 Ben,
It evidently still causes more trouble than it is worth, so I merged the PR.
Case closed.
Eric
On 8/15/15, Benjamin Root [email protected] wrote:
Furthermore, this has been discussed on wikimedia with a decision that it
was fair-use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenna.png
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Benjamin Root [email protected]
wrote:
It was kept around at the time because it was an accessible sample image,
and thus needed to go through a deprecation cycle.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jens Hedegaard Nielsen <
[email protected]> wrote:
We have already removed al usage of it in #1581
#1581 so I am surprised
that the image wasn't deleted from the repository at that point. I see
absolutely no reason to keep it around.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4927 (comment)
.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#4927 (comment)
WeatherGod commented on Aug 15, 2015 This does raise a bigger question, though. I don't think we have any
copyright notices for any of the images.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Root [email protected] wrote:
Furthermore, this has been discussed on wikimedia with a decision that it
was fair-use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenna.png
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Benjamin Root [email protected]
wrote:
It was kept around at the time because it was an accessible sample image,
and thus needed to go through a deprecation cycle.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jens Hedegaard Nielsen <
[email protected]> wrote:
We have already removed al usage of it in #1581
#1581 so I am surprised
that the image wasn't deleted from the repository at that point. I see
absolutely no reason to keep it around.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4927 (comment)
.
WeatherGod commented on Aug 15, 2015 Just for the record, I take no position on whether the image is
"acceptable" or not for inclusion in mpl_data/. To me, it is just data. I
fully supported removing the image from documentation and examples. The
question that I am contesting here is one of whether its inclusion is a
violation of our BSD license:
estoppel precludes "a person from denying, or asserting anything to the
contrary of, that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as
the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by
his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied"
(emphasis mine).
So, I seriously doubt there is any real licensing/copyright issues at play
here. Contrast this with our official position on MathWork's perula
colormap, which they have expressly stated that they did not want it
redistributed in any other plotting packages. All that being said, I will
not push for a deprecation cycle for the Lenna image since it was de-facto
deprecated by virtue of it no longer being included in our documentation
and examples.
I did just take a quick peek at our source tree for any licensing for
anything in mpl-data/sample_data. I could find none. Even the Grace Hopper
image needs to have a copyright notice. I'll open a new issue on this
regard, as it is important.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Eric Firing [email protected]
wrote:
Ben,
It evidently still causes more trouble than it is worth, so I merged the
PR.
Case closed.
Eric
On 8/15/15, Benjamin Root [email protected] wrote:
Furthermore, this has been discussed on wikimedia with a decision that it
was fair-use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenna.png
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Benjamin Root [email protected]
wrote:
It was kept around at the time because it was an accessible sample
image,
and thus needed to go through a deprecation cycle.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jens Hedegaard Nielsen <
[email protected]> wrote:
We have already removed al usage of it in #1581
#1581 so I am surprised
that the image wasn't deleted from the repository at that point. I see
absolutely no reason to keep it around.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
#4927 (comment)
.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#4927 (comment)
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4927 (comment)
.
tacaswell commented on Aug 16, 2015 I am 👍 on the outcome of this. The image should go anyway and it is not worth the effort to argue with Debian about it. They have also hit scikit-image with a similar request.
It probably does require a note in API changes though.
MetadataMetadataDevelopmentNo branches or pull requestsIssue actions
|
