Template:Did you know nominations/Paraphrasing of copyrighted material
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Paraphrasing of copyrighted material
[edit]
... that United States Court of Appeals judge Richard Posner has argued in favor of requiring online sites to obtain permission before paraphrasing copyrighted material?
Created/expanded by Aymatth2 (talk). Nominated by Maile66 (talk) at 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK on length and newness (among other things, the article does not appear to be derived from existing Wikipedia articles); article is adequately footnoted, and it would be very ironic for the article to have too-close paraphrasing (regardless, I didn't see any). However, I would like the article to be more explicit in identifying legal jurisdictions; this is a particular concern in the "Sample court findings" section, where names like "the Supreme Court" are batted around without identifying whose supreme court is mentioned (United States? Canada? New York? Pakistan?). Additionally, I seriously dislike the hook, for multiple reasons:
- (1) Piping the article link down from "Paraphrasing of copyrighted material" to "paraphrasing" is very misleading -- and does not do justice to the subject matter of the article.
- (2) When an appeals court judge is quoted or paraphrased on a legal subject, readers are likely to assume that the statement is an interpretation of the law and comes from a court decision. Neither is true here. The hook fact is derived from a blog post in which the judge was musing about measures that could possibly assure the future of the news media.
- (3) High standards of verifiability need to be employed when quoting or paraphrasing a living person, and I don't think that a paraphrase of a blog meets that standard.
- Let's try to find a hook that relates more directly to the subject of the article, which is one that should be of great interest to Wikipedia contributors, if not to users at large. One idea:
- ALT1 ... that many important literary and musical works of the past likely would be deemed to infringe copyright under today's law on paraphrasing of copyrighted material? --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I could not find any articles that covered this topic, surprisingly, although copyright, fair use, substantial similarity, moral rights etc. cover aspects. The content is new apart from minor copying from Copyright law of the Soviet Union and Moral rights (copyright law), noted in the edit summary, and minor copying of findings from the articles on cited cases, e.g. Nutt v. National Institute Inc., Salinger v. Random House etc., most of which I started myself while researching the subject. I believe it is a legitimate topic. Much more could be added. The article is slanted to common law and the U.S., perhaps reasonably since civil law tends to be clearer and harsher on paraphrasing, and the U.S. is much the largest common law country. Anyway,
- I have spelled out which court made the judgement in each of the cited cases - should have done that in the first place
- I have made it clear that Judge Posner's views are from his blog - I think it is legitimate for an opinion in the article, although not for the hook
- Fully agree that ALT1 is much better
- Aymatth2 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I could not find any articles that covered this topic, surprisingly, although copyright, fair use, substantial similarity, moral rights etc. cover aspects. The content is new apart from minor copying from Copyright law of the Soviet Union and Moral rights (copyright law), noted in the edit summary, and minor copying of findings from the articles on cited cases, e.g. Nutt v. National Institute Inc., Salinger v. Random House etc., most of which I started myself while researching the subject. I believe it is a legitimate topic. Much more could be added. The article is slanted to common law and the U.S., perhaps reasonably since civil law tends to be clearer and harsher on paraphrasing, and the U.S. is much the largest common law country. Anyway,