Talk:The Yellow Sofa

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 September 2018 by reviewer Velella (talk · contribs).

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... the contested text is a standard opera synopsis, and this synopsis was in fact created by composer Julian Philips and writer Edward Kemp for Glyndebourne's original production of this opera in 2009. So the contested text that appears on the Glyndebourne website was in fact generated by composer Julian Philips and Edward Kemp and not by Glyndebourne. The fact that there is no copyright information attached to this synopsis on the Glyndebourne website simply reflects the fact that in opera a synopsis is freely exchanged between composer/writer, publisher and opera company with no copyright implications.

In the short-term, if this ambiguity is too problematic, I would suggest withdrawing the synopsis from the wikipedia entry for now while I ask Glyndebourne to correctly credit their synopsis to composer Julian Philips and writer Edward Kemp on their website. But to reiterate, this contested material was created by composer Julian Philips and writer Edward Kemp for Glyndebourne to make use of.

The other issue here is that I am in fact the composer concerned - hence my COI declaration - and can confirm how this contested text was first generated.

(your reason here) --Prenton1969 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is not enough for Glyndebourne to modify their website unless their licence conditions match those of Wikipedia. This, I would imagine, is most unlikely. A better course of action is to arrange for the copyright to be donated. Instructions for doing this can be found here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I may offer a minor modification, it isn't quite correct to say that the license conditions must match those of Wikipedia, but they must be acceptable to Wikipedia. There are a number of licenses acceptable to Wikipedia other than the specific license used by Wikipedia for its content. However, the link in the previous comment is the right place to start.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this; I understand. Can I suggest that the synopsis is removed from this draft entry for now, and I will liaise with the the parties concerned on the best way forwards. Most Wikipedia individual opera entries include synopses; the issue here seems to be the duplication on the Glyndebourne website and the copyright ambiguity that arises as a result.

Have done so. No further action is needed until and unless the synopsis issue is satisfactorily resolved. However, this Draft is at risk of deletion if no edits are made for any elapsed 6 month period, but, subject to that caveat, this Draft can be picked up again when appropriate. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for your help and advice. On reflection, I think I will just create a completely new synopsis bespoke for this Wikipedia entry that has no connection to the details on the Glyndebourne website. Seems the easiest solution. Many thanks again.