Jump to content

Talk:Günther von Schwarzburg (opera)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

The two copyright tag are ridiculous. The first is a quote from a letter WA Mozart wrote in 1777 to his father, cited in Abert (2007), the second is the opera's dedication, cited in the same book. No-one with a sane mind can expect such items to be rephrased. I'm going to remove the tags. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fully agree. The very brief quoted material (3 sentences) + one phrase from a different page of the book were presented as clearly marked quotations and fully attributed both to the original author and to the modern translator (Spencer). Brief, clearly marked, and fully attributed direct quotations from copyright works are permissible under fair use. I suggest that the editor who tagged this article read Wikipedia:NFCCEG. Voceditenore (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •     I tagged the article, and since i am very careful about what i say i've fully considered what each of you have said and argued, along with reconsidering my own role. While the evidence i have on your own efforts is far from conclusive, i feel safe in saying this and no more:
  1.    I am not confident that Wikipedia:Copyright problems will conclude that any changes from the version i found are required, but it is outrageous to claim that the tagging is indefensible.
  2.    Copyright issues are existential issues for WP, and more technical than often imagined, and removal of one or more COPYVIO tags, other than after durable consensus at the designated page, where attention of the experienced experts, not just any self-selected group of self-imagined experts is assured -- let alone by a single editor, or one who cites no consultation -- is unacceptable.
  3.    The ideal editor to restore the tags, and announce that restoration at the project page, is the one who did the removal. Those who had knowledge of it and approved or made no objection stand next in line. I will do so if no one else does, tho i think you jointly and severally owe it, to me personally, to see that it is not left to me.
  4.    "Brief, clearly marked, and fully attributed direct quotations from copyright works are permissible under fair use." is a direct quote from WP:NFCC#Policy-2, not from Wikipedia:NFCCEG (which is not a page link as it appears, but another section link, namely to WP:NFCC#Guideline examples.) It says something much longer and substantially more nuanced.
  5.     Specifically, the relevant sub-sub-section begins:
    Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea....
    and thus adds something arguably crucial: the language of section 107 of the statute suggests that the "used to" clause directly addresses the statute and thus that that clause is pivotal to understanding the intended meaning of the policy statement. I had already stated that meaning to myself as "No fair use without a need for fair use", even before finding the same spirit in point 1 of WP:NFCC#Policy-2:
    No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
    and i conjecture that it is nothing more than an oversight that has let point 1 appear to be inapplicable to text quotes, as one of you seems to suggest it is. Even if it is not an oversight, the lack of a definition in the policy (or the statute) of what is "brief" still has to commend point 1 as a factor in resolving that vagueness of the text-specific policy's scope.
  6.    Violations of community behavior standards have occurred in this matter, and been compounded by others expressing approval of the action without effort to avoid the appearance of condoning or approving the behavior.
--Jerzy•t 06:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, Jerzy, I just don't understand this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •    Thanks for your attention, Gerda, and i'd be glad to answer specific questions if you like.
       I was aware you'd been among the editors during the period in question, but saw no need to attend to the content of your edits. While this page is public and open to all who care to read or comment, my impression is that you've done nothing i would criticize, and i certainly did not intend to include you (singular, dich) among those i addressed as "you" (plural, euch) above. The "you" i addressed were the three who edited before my first edit on this talk page, and (to go into otherwise pointless detail) almost entirely the first two. In summary, any interest you have is appropriate, but (as far as i, in my ignorance, can know) likely to be a waste of your time. Thanks again.
    --Jerzy•t 17:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tags were a misuse since all you had to do, and should have done, in a case like this is remove the brief quoted text which you believed to have been a copyright infringement and note your concerns on the talk page for discussion. See WP:CPI which details how to use those tags. I have now replaced the quoted text from an 1866 English translation from Mozart's letters, which unsurprisingly is virtually identical to Spencer's. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Looks like this has been dealt with (properly) by editors on the article's talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)"
– Voceditenore (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Günther von Schwarzburg (opera). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Günther_von_Schwarzburg_(opera)&oldid=1202509626"