Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

State, County & Cities - Governmental Copyright Option

I don't know of a single state, county or city in the US of A that pictures taken with their cameras (thereby government AKA TAX PAYERS property) that isn't thereby in the free domain. But I don't see any option like that when uploading a photo. There is one for Fed, but the laws are the same for all government, sometimes you have to pull a GRAMA to request it, but it's all still public information. Thoughts? --Eckre (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing freedom of information legislation with public domain. They're two very different things: most non-federal works are available to the public, but they are not copyright-free. --Carnildo (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So will someone tell me WHICH ONE? Why do I feel like I'm not conversing with english speakers here, I want 1 answer, like "Creative Common 2.5" or something that's the licence one uses for stuff that is free to the public from city/county/state. --Eckre (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

None. It is copyrighted information unless it comes from the federal government (or California state government) and is work produced in the course of official duties. The fact that you can access other information does not make it copyright free. Rmhermen (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

earth and electromagnetic induction.

I don't know , can it happen or not... Earh has it's own magnetic field...it's been proved. Then if an object cut the flux line with the earth ,there an e.m.f may be induced of larger magnitude... Suppose it happen ,why not we use thus formed emf to avoid energy crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinthu v kumar (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} If you are the editor of a Wikipedia article and have found a copy hosted without recognizing Wikipedia or GFDL licence please see Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter --CyclePat (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please suggest where you'd like that added? I'm drawing a blank, personally. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking at the bottom just after the section "Wikipedia:Copyrights#If you are the owner of Wikipedia-hosted content being used without your permission". Follow the same format. Except Title it : "If you are the editor of a Wikipedia article and have found a copy hosted on an external website that does not recognize Wikipedia or the GFDL licence". Then, follow the same format as the aforementioned section... including a see main article section. --CyclePat (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank You! --CyclePat (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL requires the treatment of verbatim copies and modified versions the same way.

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

— Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License §1

However, this page currently states

If you are simply duplicating the Wikipedia article, you must follow section two of the GFDL on verbatim copying, as discussed at Wikipedia:Verbatim copying. If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content, this entails the following

— Wikipedia:Copyrights §2

So, even verbatim copies must follow all the requirements of the GFDL §4, which is very difficult, go read it. You can't just follow the "Example notice". -- Jeandré, 2008-08-17t10:51z

McCain Flap/ Copyright within Wikipedia/Improving this article

  • Wiki news article claiming McCain plagiarized If you see the comments editors were confused about whether Wikipedia claiming copyright infringement or plagiarism. (Since former on my mind, that's how I interpreted it.) So that might be clarified about Wiki material.
  • Also make it clearer that issue is attribution, not that someone is going to get sued. .
  • Links to this copyright page should be more prominently place, if they aren't already. I've never noticed any.
  • Also it's not clear what the first "see below" points to.
  • English text of the GFDL also should link there because repetition more likely to make things clear to people.
  • Also, I had someone claiming it was against copy right to summarize/copy/move WP:RS info in wiki article to another one. If that was in this article, I couldn't find it. Should that be made clear one way or the other?
  • Also, once I posted an earlier, more informative, better sourced WIKI article version on my web page before it was gutted by partisan editors, and another editor claimed it was "canvassing" so I took down attribution. I guess I'll put up the attribution again!
  • Talk page redirects are a little confusing so at first I didn't think could bring up these issues here, and still not sure. Anyway, will come back another day and try to figure it out and probably have more suggestions, assuming this is right place to leave them. Carol Moore 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

California sites and public domain

This article was tagged as a potential copyright problem because of the conflicting message of the "c" tag on the source and the "ownership" release at its "conditions of use" page. I have tagged it as public domain, since that conditions of use seems to be governing there. The "copyright" tag is on every page and so does not seem specifically to apply. I'd invite review, if anybody has reason to believe otherwise. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly PD--anyone who wishes to claim a particular image or text from there is copyright would need to show this. they state they use disclaimers in such cases. We should add a standard free template parallel to that for USGov. DGG (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

i want the letter of O Holy Night

I want the letter of O Holy Night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.207.150.208 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

list of top singles

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005 has been tagged as a copyright violation and is coming up for its "7 day later" review tomorrow, (here) I've been discussing it with the tagger, here. The question is whether the list is copyrightable or if it represents a compilation of non-copyrightable facts. The publishing agency indicates that "The Top 40 Singles Chart is compiled based on a 75:25 split between physical / digital singles sales figures and radio play information gathered by radio data collection agency Radioscope"[1] Input on this requested and much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More than I realized, actually. I was thinking of Billboard's listing. But there seem to be a great many of these New Zealand articles, here. If this one is a copyright violation, very likely they all are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that the ranking itself isn't copyrightable, just like the facts. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The description provided here and at the thread indicated imply the list is copyright exempt. Copyright cannot be applied to any compilation created through a "mechanical" process, as such processes lack the requisite creativity required under United States copyright law. In this context "mechanical" is understood to mean any process that takes purely factual data and generates a unique ordering or listing in such a way that any other person would necessarily arrive at the same conclusion provided they had access to the same data and applied the same process. An important point, and one that responds directly to the commentary, is that neither the data used nor the process applied need to be public knowledge. In fact those items may be trade secrets. The question of whether or not an approach is creative is answered under the assumption that one has perfect knowledge about how it is achieved. (As an aside, I've generally felt that the complexity or creativity involved in choosing a particular ranking process ought to be considered. However, that is not the standard in US law. So even if you have some especially clever way of arranging the facts, that is still irrelevant.)

Unless there is some unidentified creative element in play beyond the weighted averaging of factual sales and air time information, then this list would be ineligible for copyright in the US. (Incidentally, the United Kindgom and many Commonwealth countries apply a more liberal copyright standard that allows for the copyright protection of lists such as these. So it is possible that this list might both be copyright protected in New Zealand and ineligible for copyright in the US.) Dragons flight (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pretty simple: the owner of the material asserts copyright over it, so it shouldn't be copied here. Perhaps it's true that they're not actually able to assert that copyright, but I'm not sure how a handful of anonymous, self-appointed users on Wikipedia can make that determination with any accuracy or validity. Since Wikipedia is used world-wide, what set of laws will govern that decision? Which forum will be used to resolve problems resulting from this decision? The bottom line is that the article is copied and pasted (with some formatting) from the site of a non-profit organization that asserts they hold the copyright to the material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's copyright policy is based on the laws of the United States, as its servers are founded in Florida. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
We routinely ignore mistaken copyright claims. Most prominently the claims by art galleries that they hold copyright over pieces of art work that long ago lapsed into the public domain. That copyright notice exists is not a controlling factor. Unless and until the putative owners come forward to directly assert a legal claim, we (i.e. the community) use our best judgment under US law. Dragons flight (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The policy of self-lawerying until the victim bothers to find out about the issue and lodge a complaint seems hubristic and reprehensible. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You're free to think that, but Wikipedia has been doing just fine for years now. Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It's also egotistical to fail to consider the opportunity for change. What makes you think Wikipedia is doing just fine? Far from it: Wikipedia is badly broken, and these copyright issues are some of its many problems. You're not ignoring mistaken copyright claims; you're ignoring copyright claims that you, without any license to practice law, personally think are mistaken.
Thinking through the problem should reveal the "creativity" you're looking for. We've found that the sales rankings aren't simply the report of fact; they're they a blended average. IIRC, the blend was 75 parts retail sales and 25 parts online sales and downloads. Certainly, this is creative, isn't it? Why not 65-35? Why not 10-90? Further, the numbers aren't simple facts or observations. It's impossible to tally sales accurately as quickly as the charts require them to be tallied in order to be published. As such, they're based on sampling and averaging and extrapolation. The decisions regarding handling incorrect reports, defending against incorrect data, and coping with returns are all not trivial, particularly considering the business that is the music industry. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
We actually not only operate within US law, but go above and beyond it. Wikipedia is governed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which requires that online service providers remove copyrighted material when the copyright holder or the copyright holder's designated agent identifies the violation and requests its removal. Being ethical people, we go one step better. If anybody identifies a clear violation, we remove it. Youtube certainly doesn't do that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
What could be clearer? This article has text pasted from a website, and that website asserts a copyright over its content. It's pretty clear to me that the copyright holder wants to retain rights to their material. The material should be taken down. What's happening instead is that editors here are looking for reasons to not do that. They're trying to find reasons to add the content to their corpus, re-publishing it and irrevocably conferring the rights to it to the GFDL. Why is that? Just to increase the size of the corpus? Just so the encyclopedia can be one more article closer to 3,000,000, regardless of legality or quality? Just to expose the encyclopedia to more risk based on his arm-chair lawyering? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Presuming that's not rhetorical, what could be clearer is actual duplication of creative text such that all contributors agree infringement is obvious. That could be loads clearer. Indeed, given that, there wouldn't even be a conversation. :) Not infrequently, Dumbbot lists an article at WP:CP that has been marked as a copyright violation of AMG, IMDb or some commercial album sales website because it includes a tracklist or a filmography or a cast list. Allmusic bears a copyright notice on each page, yet they are our primary sources for discographies and album credits. They can put a copyright label on it, but that doesn't make it copyrighted. If it were, they wouldn't be able to use it themselves, as they get the information off of the albums. (Of course, unlike Wikipedia, they only respond to copyright holders, which is within the letter of the law, if not highly ethical.) The question here is not whether the material has been taken from a website that includes a copyright notice, but whether the material violates copyright. I'm inclined to doubt that the contributors here who think it doesn't have nefarious ulterior motives (particularly the contributor who changed his mind; really sly, that would be!), but, then, I do my best to assume good faith until somebody proves that naive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world. [2]" Physchim62 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, that's true, although US copyright law governs here. There's similar language at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, which also notes, however, that "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." But we're going a little off-field. The basic question here is whether this usage constitutes a copyright infringement. It hasn't been established that it does, in any country. Do you have an opinion on that basic matter? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, my opinion is that it is definitely a borderline case ;) We've had similar discussions in the past, but I can't find the links just yet. In the absence of this past wisdom, I would have to go for copyright as a compilation under 17 U.S.C. 103(a) and s. 2(1), Copyright Act (NZ) 1994. I think we would be stretching Feist v. Rural a little bit to far to claim copyright exemption as a mechanical work: there doesn't need to be very much creativity to generate copryright, and there seems to be some in this list. To reply to Mikeblas above, we often have to "self-lawyer" because of the lack of copyright cases covering the material we use (and the manner in which we use it): the important point is that we try to abide by the relevant law(s), instead of simply ignoring them. Physchim62 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you say where you think there is creativity? Dragons flight (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The compilers choose which sources to base their list on – it is undoubtedly done by a sampling method – and how much weight to give to each of these sources. I admit that it is borderline, but that is probably enough creativity to ensure copyright. In West v. Mead, the Eighth Circuit held that a fairly logical arrangement of court judgments was "the result of considerable labor, talent, and judgment," and noted that "to meet intellectual-creation requirements a work need only be the product of a modicum of intellectual labor". Physchim62 (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a significant difference between this and West v. Mead: this is a simple mechanical ordering of song titles by order of sales/airplay numbers, while West v. Mead is about a consequent of the formatting and layout of a book -- something that requires creativity. --Carnildo (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The quotations I used were referring to the order of cases, not the question of copyrighting page numbers (the main issue in the various West cases). A singles chart seems to be somewhere between a list of football fixtures (no copyright) and a TV schedule (copyright). Physchim62 (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I unfortunately do not recall the case name, but some time ago the courts rejected copyright on a list of college rankings derived from a system that combined purely objective factors such as number of students, test scores, cost, graduation rate, etc. based on the reasoning that the ranking did not utilize human judgment to make the assignments (in contrast to US News rankings which do factor in "expert" opinions). The difference between this and the case you cite appears to be that the arrangement of court cases was itself the result of human judgment rather than merely the result of some deterministic rule or algorithm. It is my contention, and I believe the case law backs me on this (though I'd need more time to gather citations), that it is the reliance of purely factual data that renders an arrangement non-creative. That the selection of facts to be discovered may be complex or not obvious isn't sufficient to consider the resulting factual arrangement as creative (even though the process used in arranging may seperately warrant some form of intellectual property protection). As you are probably aware, Feist v. Rural, exempts factual listings from copyright regardless of the amount effort necessary in their creation. This is essentially the same result, if the arranging process results from some deterministic manipulation of purely factual data, it doesn't matter that the facts involved were hard to obtain. Dragons flight (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I back down. The creativity is entirely in the process of obtaining sales figures, and it is a tenant of international copyright law that you cannot copyright processes (Art. 9.2, TRIPS). Hence the singles chart is not under copyright. Physchim62 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
See [3]. Jayen466 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I "lose my Latin" ;) Physchim62 (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the potential widespread ramifications of this one (with at least 30 other articles of a similar nature) and the persistent concerns of Mikeblas, I've requested input from Wikimedia's legal counsel. Let's hope that he has time to put in a word. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick response! He indicates no concern. I'm going to restore the text and mark this resolved at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have the details of his response? -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

←Hi. Yes, I do, but, of course, copyright laws prevent me posting it in its entirety here. :) (Which strikes me as a bit ironic.) Also, fundamental privacy issues in posting an e-mail without permission. But my note to him, to which I own the copyright and which I'm very happy to share, was as follows:

The article New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005 was tagged as a potential copyright violation of this source, http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp, on August 27th. It's been languishing at the Wikipedia copyright problems board since. Most of the contributors to the conversation about it at the copyright talk

page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:C#list_of_top_singles, are of the opinion that it does not infringe copyright. One is adamant that it does. The matter needs to be resolved, but I am quite reluctant to close it the wrong way, since there are about 30 more articles that will probably be impacted by whatever decision is made here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_number-one_songs_in_New_Zealand)
The list is derived by a 75:25 weighting of sales and radio play information.

If you have a minute at some point to shed light on this one, I'd be grateful. I don't want to start deleting these articles if they aren't infringement, but I also don't want to remove the tag if they are.

His response, which was very brief, indicated his opinion that the "mere list" would not be a violation with objective rather than creative selection criteria. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Attribution for images which are links to anywhere other than the image description page

I've seen a number of images which are links to pages other than their description page, such as {{foolicon}}'s usage of Image:Laff alert.svg. As attribution of images is, to the best of my understanding, done using the description page, it would seem to me that use of images as links to other pages violates the attribution clause of licenses such as GFDL, CC-BY-SA and similar ones - licenses which cover most of Wikipedia's and Wimedia Commons' free image content. Is this really a problem? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even worse, {{Featured article}} makes use of such links with Image:LinkFA-star.png (). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I would love to give you intelligent feedback here, but this is not my bailiwick. :) Seems like you make a valid point to me, but I would have no notion what to do about it. I just thought to suggest you might get better response at WP:MCQ, which is where the image folk usually seem to hang out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Internet archives

The current wording reads,

Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.

As it is, the term "Internet archive" is not defined. It could be understood (and has at times been argued) to mean any news "scraping" site that collects and reproduces the text of copyrighted press articles, or copyrighted texts from other sources (see e.g. the L.A. Times v. Free Republic copyright infringement case, Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense). To remedy this ambiguity, I would propose altering the text as follows:

Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified snapshots of historical webpage content (archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time). In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.

Would there be support for adding the subclause marked in bold? Jayen466 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to adding it? Jayen466 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

None from me. I think clarity is a good thing. I wonder if we could trim the text, though, and I don't think we need the bold. (You may have put that in for illustration.) How do you feel about this: "It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine by me. (And the emboldening was only for emphasis here on the talk page.) Jayen466 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you make the edit, as an admin? Or should we seek further input first? Jayen466 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should {{holdon}} for a day or two yet: there's no urgency and others might like to get involved. I am neutral on the matter. Physchim62 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. I had started to do so, but the site was locked down. I just came and resubmitted before noting that you had followed up here. Since you don't object and since the matter has been here for 13 days without objection, I'm inclined to let the clarification stand, though, unless somebody does object. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyscape

I recommend adding an internal link to Copyscape. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. It might have pretty limited usefulness. I'd never seen it before, so I went to check it out. I put in a random Wikipedia page, and the response it gave me was "The maximum of 10 searches per month has been reached for this site. For more searches, please sign up for a Premium account." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If you put in a random page from outside Wikipedia, a page on a site with less traffic than the Wikipedia site, you will have more likelihood of seeing whether any other pages, such as Wikipedia pages, match it, but that still does not tell you which page is a copy of the other. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If you already know the URL of a page that a Wikipedia article duplicates, do you need Copyscape? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
(1) In that situation, Copyscape might tell you of other Wikipedia pages that duplicate the same external page.
(2) However, what I had in mind was choosing an external page where duplication was uncertain but suspected. I realize that checking every external page would be impractical, but if Wikipedia maintained a list of external pages that have already been duplicated and on what Wikipedia pages, then the list might show a pattern suggesting what Wikipedia pages and/or what non-Wikipedia pages are suspect. It might be possible for a large number of pages to be checked automatically.
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of such a procedure, I'm not sure I see the benefit of linking to copyscape. You might want to check the feasibility at WP:VP? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that suggestion. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable CC license? And where to find that?

I can't remember where to look for which CC licenses are acceptable (why I can't find this at WP:IUP I don't know). I ask because someone on a David Foster Wallace listserv I belong to has changed the license on a photo for adding to the article about him. I would like to add it, but want to make sure the license is correct first. Little help? WWB (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've figured out that the Attribution 2.0 Generic is appropriate, as it seems to be in regular use -- but I'd still very much appreciate it if someone can point me to the page which clarifies WP policy re: CC licenses. Cheers. WWB (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
While not all that helpful, my best advise is to ask at WP:MCQ (unless, of course, somebody better informed on image copyrights than I comes along to answer here. :)) My observation suggests that this page tends to be observed more by those familiar with text copyright questions, while that site is specifically related to images. Again, though, you never know who'll be looking where. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. WWB (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Swedish copyright?

The article Social Security (Sweden) has been tagged as a possible copy of this site. User:Henrik has kindly confirmed to me that the site in question is official (here), but I am not quite certain if it's being official makes it fair game. Unfortunately, there's no explicit reference to be found at the site. My first thought is that it should be all right, as according to the World Intellectual Property Organization there's no copyright in Sweden on "(1) laws and other regulations, (2) decisions by public authorities, (3) reports by Swedish public authorities, or (4) official translations of texts mentioned under items 1.-3."here. As that might be more specifically related to official pronouncements, and less to official websites, I'm hoping to find clarification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To (half-)answer the copyright question, we would be pushing the Swedish copyright exemption pretty hard to allow this. I wouldn't want to call it either way without speaking to someone from sewiki. However, that misses the point that this is not a great encyclopedic article anyway! It could be merged to Swedish welfare, which has problems but at least is looked after by WikiProject Sweden. We shouldn't be quoting large chunks of text verbatim from other sources even if they are PD, let alone if their copyright status is at all questionable. Physchim62 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. What I have done, given your doubts and the concerns of Henrik, is restore the material prior to the pasting. I don't have any particular opinion on the value of the article or whether it should be merged into Swedish welfare, but I've tagged it with the project banner to draw it to the attention of the Swedish WikiProject. Perhaps they can make a determination. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the link as an External Link, as it seems to be (more than) valid to the subject of the article. Physchim62 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Copyrights page seems to interchangeably use the terms "wikipedia content" and "wikipedia articles". The latter term clearly means wikipedia pages from wikipedia:main namespace. The former term may be iterpreted either in the narow or broad senses. In the narrow sense of "encyclopedia content", i.e., basically "main namespace plus everything linked from it". In the broad sense it means the whole content of wikipedia.org.

Here comes an issue: whether it was the intention of the "founding fathers" to cover wikipedia:User namespace and Wikipedia:Project namespace by copyright. While the second case seems rather reasonable and uncontroversial, the former one IMHO is of dubious utility, and more important, contradicts to some other wikipedia rules and traditions, more importantly, to the "right to vanish". Namely, deletion of user-pages associated with the "right to vanish" contradicts GFDL, since contributions to user talk pages, and most importantly, to user talk pages, are not restricted to the user to be "disappeared".

Please make this issue explained explicitly in the policy. `'Míkka>t 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated below, Wikipedia doesn't own copyright to material. Contributors do. While Wikipedia hosts material, though, it isn't required that we host everything. We are allowed to delete and remove material as Wikipedia's contributors deem appropriate, whether in article space or project space. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side issue, which just came to my mind and IMO requires explicit statement: if an article is deleted, does this mean that wikipedia copyright claims to its content are revoked?

In some cases in goes without saying: e.g., when copyvio is deleted. But what about everything else? Physically the text still resides in wikipedia database and may be "reclaimed" by an admin at any time.

On the one hand, a deleted text means it is rejected by wikipedia, and it is rather ridiculous to keep hold on it. On the other hand, an admin can view a deleted page and copy it somewhere else. If the license claim is revoked, then this would be illegal, but done without much thinking. Therefore I strongly urge the policymakers to cover this issue in the policy explicitly. `'Míkka>t 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no copyright claims to any of its material. Copyright of contributions are owned by the contributors, who license it for reuse according to the terms of GFDL. Our deletion has no impact on their copyright ownership. Admins should know better than to violate the copyrights of our contributors. That seems to me to be explicitly set out in the introduction of WP:C and at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Danni Minogue

I am unsure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, If not can somebody please point me in the right direction. I came across some pictures of Danni Minogue found here [4]. These pictures look better than the one currently used on her article. I can not see anywhere on the page which indicates they are copyright protected. Does anybody know if they can be used on her article.--Theoneintraining (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. They can't be used directly from that site. In order to use them, you'll have to find their point of origin and make sure that they are either not restricted by copyright (which is unlikely) or that we receive permission. As Wikipedia:Image use policy notes, we need to be able to prove that the images are free for use; we start with the presumption that images published previously are not. If you have more questions about that procedure, you should probably ask them at WP:MCQ. I've never tried to track down a publicist, which is where I imagine this quest would take you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I joined as a member at that website and asked the following to an admin.

"Hi, Can I just ask if any pictures are uploaded to this forum is the person who uploaded the images essentially releasing them to the public domain thus meaning they can be displayed elsewhere without needing permission to use them. I hope this makes sense as I am a bit tired at the moment." I received the following in response, "No you don't need permission in order to post them elsewhere. The pics being posted here by our users are not exclusive or their property." So to me it appears that I can use one of those images, do you think it O.K.--Theoneintraining (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, if they're saying the pictures are not the property of their users, they're admitting that their users do not own the copyright to them and do not have authority to release them. You need to find out who does and get permission from that person. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The Danni minogue pictures were created by a user of that site, does that change anything?--Theoneintraining (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If by that you mean that one of the users was the photographer, then, yes. But you'd need to write that person for permission according to the permission procedure. He (or she) would need to verify that he or she is the photographer and copyright holder and affirm the license under which he or she is releasing the images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Copyrighted quotes in infoboxes

There is a conversation concerning the use of copyrighted quotes in infoboxes at the copyright problems talk page. Contributors here may wish to participate. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting revision of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

I am proposing a revision to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, giving donors information on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation themselves rather than suggesting they leave a note for another contributor to do so. I feel this process is inefficient, as it creates a needless middleman. It is also not inline with practices described elsewhere, including WP:IOWN. Please offer feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials#.22someone_will_contact.22_redux.2C_suggest_revising. I'd be appreciative. I'm publicizing this at relevant places because I don't see any evidence that anyone monitors that talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose the addition of a linked mention of the orphaned page Wikipedia:Association of Copyright Violation Hunting Wikipedians to this project page.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that you're the first one to edit that page in 2 years, it doesn't seem like it's at all active. Doesn't seem that urgent to link to from here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

.

A lack of links promotes a lack of awareness, and a lack of awareness promotes a lack of activity.
Linking promotes awareness, and awareness promotes activity.
-- Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, and can sympathize. At one point, WikiProject Orphanage was tagged with an "inactive" template! (My edit summary on removing the tag: Not inactive...just slow.) However, as this page is policy, I think that links from here shouldn't simply be used for "awareness". Everything on a policy page should be up-to-date and current. If you can get the Association moving again, then I would have no hesitation about adding them as a link here. How about posting some notices on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion that the Association is recruiting again? Make it an active page, and then by all means come back and add the link here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose that this project page have a linked mention of Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia.

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
There's already a link to m:Avoid copyright paranoia at the bottom of the page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In Mexico exists the "Ley Federal de Acceso a la Información" that states that any information of the Federal government and it dependencies is published under public domain, would this include the images/pictures in their websites? EOZyo (мѕğ) 05:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The government may be using third-party copyright images. Physchim62 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
However, if they were images produced by government employees as part of their job, then it should be ok. Just make sure they actually are government work, per Physchim.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see the actual wording of this law, to make sure it's a copyright release and not a freedom-of-information law. It's very common for people to confuse the two. --Carnildo (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You can see the Law here, if you don't know Spanish, let me know and I will translate the Articles that lead me to ask the question in the first place (Article 2 and Article 3 Section III). EOZyo (мѕğ) 17:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks for the link. That seems to be a simple freedom-of-information law which doesn't override the explicit copyright protection for "obras hechas al servicio oficial de la Federación, las entidades federativas o los municipios" given by Art. 29.II.b) of the Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor. Not wikicompatible, sorry. Physchim62 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I upload black and white photographs from various sites and books which were taken inside the Winter Palace, St Petersburg, published by the Bolsheviks dated 1917 - which makes them 91 years old? Giano (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

They're definitely {{PD-US}}, being published before 1923, so yes, you can upload them here. It's probably worth finding out the actual copyright status elsewhere, as well, to see if they can be uploaded on Commons. --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Giano (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

I propose that this page have a link to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) It links to WP:NFC at the top, under {{Wikipedia copyright}}. That would seem to be sufficient. Is there a reason to link to NFCC itself, in addition to NFC, which incorporates it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for being late in responding. Thank you for pointing out the already existing link. It probably is sufficient. I was just trying to encourage an increase in the number of project pages with links to that page.
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GFDL 1.3

Hi. I guess we need to figure out the impact of GNU FDL 1.3 on this and various related pages. According to the ANI thread on this, "From November 1, 2008 on we can not accept any contributions by someone other than the copyright holder that were first published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at other than a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" such as Wikimedia projects." (thus sprach WAS 4.250). Seems like this is going to impact text like, "you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't accept non-wiki GFDL content from now on, if we choose to go the CC-BY-SA route. WMF has committed to "community discussion and voting." We have 9 months to decide according to GFDL 1.3, and I expect that time to be used wisely. Superm401 - Talk 22:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to write a concise and compelling comparison of CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Sanger wrote an interminable one, and I've linked it in the ANI thread, but who's going to read that? The criticism sections of Wikipedia articles for GFDL and CC-BY-SA aren't that conclusive either. VG ☎ 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The text at the bottom of the pages says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 says "If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.3 says "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA ..." The Wikimedia Foundation is the operator and its Board has authority over the Foundation. So the Board right now has the legal ability to go to CC-BY-SA. Wikimedia has been trying to make this happen for literally years now. In the end they will migrate. And it is for the best. For many many reasons. But I'm not gonna waste my time on something I already know the outcome of. Mike Godwin needs to follow up with a presentation and a promotion campaign to sell this to those not already sold. He's getting paid for this sort of thing. Of course, Sue may want most the time spent on it to be delegated to people who cost less per hour. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My primary concern at this point is simply wording the various copyright policies and templates that may need to be altered. I understand that if we decide not to go CC-BY-SA, that we'll be heading back to business as usual, but I'm presuming that in the meantime we need to conduct matters in such a way that the conversion is possible if the community so wills. Concretely speaking, do we need to change the above text, for instance, to read, "you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is from a wiki published under GFDL"? Template:Nothanks-web says, "If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:{{{pg}}}]] with a link to where we can find that note." How does this need to be altered? Under what circumstances would this no longer be okay? (I'm very familiar with basic US copyright laws. These licenses, however, I only started to explore after becoming a Wikipedian. I especially want to be sure that I grasp the changes because I am one of the few admins working at WP:CP at the moment.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik Moeller has apparently been put in charge of the promotion campaign. More information can be found here:

WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. If I'm reading that correctly, that would be a more sweeping change than I was thinking. He says here, "we should stop importing GFDL content from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch as well. I believe Wikia is planning to switch, but will confirm that shortly. Please feel free to begin reaching out to other relevant GFDL sources." If that's the case, then the clause above would need to be altered more dramatically. "or is itself published under GFDL" would need to specify "or is a Wikimedia Foundation wiki published under GFDL" (plus whatever growing list of other wikis plan to convert) Later, "if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy." would probably also need to specify what sorts of external GFDL materials we can use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So the "(2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008." part means we just can't import new stuff (created after Nov 1), but creating new articles is fine as far as porting them to CC? --Falcorian (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Things that are OK to add and then transition to CC-BY-SA by the deadline next year (actually dual licenced with GFDL):
  1. anything the person adding owns the copyright to, either created new on the wiki or pre-existing
  2. anything copied from another anyone-can-edit GFDL collaberation site (an MMC Site)
  3. any GFDL material that is or will also be made CC-BY-SA by the deadline next year

WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine

Visitors to this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ODNB

Readers of this talk page may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#ODNB_concerns about articles which are heavily based on entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. -- Testing times (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the photo of a sculpture at Image:Althorv.jpg in the public domain because the sculpture is old? If so, please edit Image:Althorv.jpg accordingly. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

{{editrequest}} Yo, can someone please add the shortcuts WP:COPYLINK, WP:COPYLINKS and WP:LINKVIO to the section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works? The code needed is as follows: {{shortcuts|WP:COPYLINK|WP:COPYLINKS|WP:LINKVIO}}

Incidentally, if an admin wants to add shorcuts to the other sections it would be most helpful. the skomorokh 15:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added those, anyway. Back to WP:CP for me for now, though. If you want to draw more immediate attention to your request for shortcuts to other sections, please de-neutralize your editrequest template. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Ahh...so much time...so little desire for hard work...I must demur ;) Thanks for the help! the skomorokh 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Need an admin with access to ODNB

In a couple of days, two issues from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 10 will come ripe for admin closure. With both, there are concerns of "substantial similarity" with the ODNB. I do not have a subscription to ODNB, and I am "advertising" for an admin who does. Do you? Do you know one who does? Please see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#ODNB concerns for background and pitch in if you are able to help determine to what degree revision may be necessary to separate from source. Help would be much appreciated. :) (I am also spamming WP:AN, though it may not necessarily attract the notice of admins with an interest in copyright concerns.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been provided copies of the source articles so that I can compare these for myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging and deleting

GFDL requires that all authors of a given text be listed. It's generally believed that Wikipedia's history fulfills this requirement. But what about this scenario:

  1. An editor moves a paragraph from article1 to article2, stating article1 as the source in the edit log
  2. article1 gets deleted, history is lost

Now the authors of the paragraph in question cannot be determined any more.

I'm too lazy to collect evidence, but provided how often merging and deleting occurs in Wikipedia, I'd say this scenario happens all the time.

Or a slightly different scenario: I read it's believed to be GFDL-compliant to copy a Wikipedia article excerpt to another website or book if you provide a link to the original Wikipedia article. But what happens if that article gets deleted? --91.12.11.251 (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read the GFDL, they also have to include a copy of the GFDL as well as a copy of the history page with whatever copies they have, so the deletion should be no problem. Linking to the article is not actually required.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

As I'm not knowledgeable about copyrights, the following may be a stupid question, but I'll be bold anyways.

As I understand, images are copyrighted if the copyright is not explicitly disclaimed nor if they fall in public domain, nor there is any special permission over the images.

What if a website displays an image and then disclaims copyrights over it, but one suspects that the website is not the owner of the image? In other words I'm guessing only the owner of an image can disclaim copyrights, not some third party. Is it up to users to also prove that the party disclaiming the copyrights is also the image's rightful owner?VR talk 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got it. The standard of "proof" here is pretty low, though. Basically, we just need not to have a reason to doubt the ownership.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there rules about the promiscuous use of the word "blatant" when speedily deleting an article suspected of copyright infringement? User:Jclemens speedily deleted Window Box Multiplication and called it "blatant copyright infringement", apparently on the grounds that it's verbatim identical to a web site. It is likely that the creator of the web site is the same person who wrote the Wikipedia article, since they have the same name, and even if that were not so, the identical nature of the content would be at most grounds to suspect copyright infringement, since permission could have been given while procedures for indicating such permission were neglected.

It seems to me that it is irresponsible to throw around the word blatant when there is at most a reasonable suspicion that is so far from certainty. I think one ought to notify the user of the following policy pages and say "suspected copyright infringement" rather than "blatant copyright infringement":

Michael Hardy (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "blatant" is encoded in the deletion policy, WP:CSD#G12, and in the pull-down selection window for speedy deletion rationales. Wikipedia's definition of "Blatant copyright infringement" is "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." If the page met the definition of "Blatant copyright infringement" that we have, by consensus, devised, then there's nothing promiscuous about identifying it with the encoded Wikipedia terminology. I do agree with you that it would be helpful to advise individuals whose pages have been deleted for copyright concerns about Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Perhaps this should be written into the db warning template, as it currently gives better instructions for asking permission than donating one's own works. The one provided to this individual, Template:Db-copyvio-notice, offers no guidance on this at all. I'll address that. If you disagree with the definition devised by consensus, you should probably take it up at WT:CSD, as the word "blatant" doesn't seem to be utilized in this policy and as that page has much broader participation than this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've modified the Twinkle template, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Terrence.Maguire (talk · contribs) correct in his assertion that the copyright recordings on imeem to which he added links may be freely shared, and are therefore appropriate for Wikipedia articles? These are modern commercial recordings of lengthy classical compositions, for which the music is still in copyright. If this question would be more appropriate at WT:EL, let me know and I shall willingly cross-post it there instead. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any way for us to know if he is correct or not that Imeem has contracted for this work, but we certainly can't take that chance given the blatant copyright infringement elsewhere on that site. I'd say lacking verification of that, we presume that it--like their other content--is illegally displayed. I note, too, their terms, which indicate that "Content may not be reproduced, modified, derivative works created from, displayed, performed, published, distributed, disseminated, broadcasted or circulated to any third party (including, without limitation, the display and distribution of the material via third party Web sites or other networked computer environment) without the express prior written consent of imeem and/or its suppliers, affiliates, or licensors. All rights reserved." Hence, even if imeem did for some reason decide to obey copyright laws with those particular recordings, we don't have evidence that http://trinity.organ.googlepages.com/latrycompleteorgan has authorization to display, publish, distribute, disseminate, broadcast and/or circulate it. Given all factors, I feel pretty strongly that the burden of evidence is on the other side. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I thought, too - although it's much more cogently argued than I could have done. Thank you for your response. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Political Graveyard

I noticed that Template:Pg was being used on the article Len Small, saying "This article incorporates facts obtained from The Political Graveyard." According to The Political Graveyard and [5], that page is licensed CC-NC-BY-SA-1.0. This is a problem, right? My understanding was that we the non-commercial term was a non-starter for GFDL compliance. Of course, we can use facts from The Political Graveyard no matter how they're licensed, but I'm afraid people may have read this template as something more akin to the Catholic Encyclopedia and Britannica templates, which do (can) mark wholesale usage of public domain material. Has this been discussed? Avram (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I don't recall having seen it discussed. Do you see duplication of text there or have you seen it elsewhere where the template is used? I'm not familiar with the website, so I don't know if they have multiple points on each individual, but the Lenington Small profile at least seems okay. It's a very strange template. I'm not sure its purpose. As far as attribution goes, it barely registers, since it doesn't link to anything or aid in verification (as template {{amg}} does, for instance.) Can't fathom how it's otherwise useful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way for me to find all the places that the template is used? I think that the Len Small page is fine, although it of course needs some more references (even the PG is not properly cited), but I'd then go through the rest of the uses, check them, and delete the template. Avram (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Since it's transcluded, you can just do the what links here thing from the toolbox. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to work on that some time soon; for now, I don't think that we're looking at a serious WP:COPYVIO situation, just a misleading template. Thanks for your help. Avram (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues that have been raised before, but basically been overlooked merely because it is not currently an issue. I think that #1 is the biggest issue, concerning copyright enforceability. The rest aren't as big, but still worthy of consideration. I'm glad that the GFDL and CC-BY-SA have been changed to be compatible, even if they haven't changed Wikipedia to reflect that yet.

(1) It is not currently feasible to enforce copyright of Wikimedia materials, since the Wikimedia foundation doesn't have copyright ownership and therefore can't bring suit. In essence, you'd need some sort of unprecedented, super class action that included all relevant Wikimedia authors. Even sending a DMCA violation notice requires copyright ownership.

I could copy all of Wikipedia and go "ha ha I violated it and there's nothing you could do." I'm not sure of any laws, even outside the U.S., that currently account for this type of scenario.

(2) The suggestion that HTML is a transparent copy seems dubious. From the GFDL: Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.

AND

that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters

It's clear that this HTML is for output purposes only. The wikitext (and formats that encapsulate it) are the only forms that are made for the purpose of being able to straightforwardly reproduce the text in a variety of different formats. The conversion to HTML makes it more difficult to process and removes some of formatting and content markers which make it easy to edit and output in any format.

The issue comes up with users who are banned can't view the source, last time I checked. With protected pages, people can just click "view source." There may be some other scenarios I'm not aware of where it's a problem.

So this can be resolved just by directing them to pages that allow them to download of the XML formatted individual pages that contain the wikitext. The notice of this should be clear OR they should just change "edit this page" to say "view source" instead.

(3) If anyone has included material licensed under the GFDL v1.3 or later, this would effectively convert the modified sections to 1.3, but it currently, incorrectly, states that it is ok to license anything under 1.2 or later. You can't back-license under the GFDL, you can only license for later versions and there is currently no way to note what version is in use.

There's also a related issue in that we don't notify users that Wikimedia works can only accept GFDL licensed works that have the notice saying that you can copy it without invariant sections--without that exception, it's not compatible.

(4) The GFDL has a few requirements that don't really make sense for a wiki and aren't followed. The currently suggested form for attribution is incorrect: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Metasyntactic variable".

Even if it is acceptable to merely link back to the page, even the Wikipedia page does not list the five principal authors as required and there is no notice releasing it from this requirement. It's too late to put one in, as you need permission form all of the copyright owners.

I suspect, though, there is a low chance that anyone will complain, since they didn't contribute to Wikipedia either with knowledge of this clause and if they did, they probably don't care. It'd become like the often ignored GPL requirements to produce a properly annotated history (changelogs are often considered sufficient if included).

HOWEVER, this may be an issue with using content from outside Wikimedia. So we'd have to either come up with a convenient, non-ugly way to attribute them. Keep in mind that their text might be moved and altered all over a page, so making a million footnotes solely for attribution purposes of text as it gets dispersed (and it would be annoying to have to check each time which parts need to be attributed) gets ugly.

As part of a larger feature, I'd suggest an attribution mechanism that keeps things hidden from regular viewers, so as not to uglify and inconvenience the regular users. This would be in a separate section so that, when copying text from one article to another, it would be immediately obvious that you need to check attribution for what you're moving and this mechanism would help track moving attributions. So you look at the text in "editor mode" and it will have name(s) attached to it, which you can click to see all articles with their work.

One might suggest that merely having the aggregate history of all articles be enough, BUT when you move some text around from outside Wikimedia, having attribution so deeply buried in history in some other article, is probably a violation of the GFDL (it has requirements regarding how prominently placed the notices be) and just a bad thing to do to authors.

-Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Derivative works

In the section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others, we currently have the language:

I believe that we should include at least brief reference to point out that reformulating in your own words does have some legal limits as well as ethical ones. Accordingly, I propose adding the following, based on language from Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works:

Feedback? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think some of Moonriddengirl's templates and form letters express this better.
My concern with the proposal is that, as far as I can tell, for non-fiction, it is not the detail that creates the infringement, but the form of expression. In other words, all the facts from a non-fiction work can be rewritten without infringing, as long as original elements, such as table layout and phrasing, are not copied. I have read, for example, that in the US, directory publishers are free to copy all the entries from the phone book.
At the risk of creep, I would like to suggest a change in addition to Moonriddengirl's recommendation: that the policy or the FAQ contain a mention of using 2 independent sources: one of the best ways to avoid inadvertent infringement.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback (and your kind words about my templates and form letters). :) I agree with you wholeheartedly about the incorporation of multiple sources; it's one of the best techniques I know to avoid this.
Since your text doesn't necessarily make clear, I just want to be specific that form of expression and "original elements" can include more than actual verbiage: it can include (copying for convenience from our own article on Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) an author's "choice of which facts to cover, his choice of which links to make among the bits of information, his order of presentation (unless it is something obvious like an alphabetical list), any evaluations he may have made about the quality of various pieces of information, or anything else that might be considered 'original creative work' of the author rather than mere facts." In other words, the structure of the work is also creative and protected, though in Feist it was not, because no creativity goes into a comprehensive alphabetical listing of residents. The "comprehensive non-literal similarity" test is used to identity cases of copyright where no literal similarity or verbatim duplication exists, but where the pattern or sequence of work is duplicated. (see McCarthy) Where enough similarity of pattern or sequence exists to make copying obvious, the issue becomes whether or not the usage meets the fair use doctrine. Among the facts that courts consider there, obviously, is the marketability of the original (what the Supreme Court calls "the single most important element of fair use"). If one of our readers uses a thesaurus to reproduce an article from the Encyclopædia Britannica on Wikipedia, this can still constitute copyright infringement even if there is not literal duplication, and it can substantially harm the marketability of the original. I'm sure there's a better way to briefly express that with respect to non-fiction than "detail", though I'm not sure what it is. :/ I have encountered more than one user who thought he could change the copyvio of an article by rewriting phrases like "Gentleman George was an exciting wrestler precisely because of his insistence on wearing blue bonnets both in and out of the ring" to "Gentleman George was an exhilarating wrestler exactly for the reason that he insisted on donning cerulean hats inside and outside of the wrestling ring." (Please note that I have made this up. This is a fictional example. I doubt that Gentleman George was a wrestler.) I am particularly fond of this pdf, in which an attorney briefly sets out the principles of substantial similarity & how to distinguish "legitimate" paraphrase from infringement: at it's beginning, it notes that "[i]f you paraphrase or quote more than a reasonable amount from a copyrighted source you infringe the owner's copyright even if you give full attribution." (Neill A. Levy, a California Copyright Lawyer, p. 2.)
That aside, if we were to add a recommendation of multiple sourcing, perhaps it would be best added to Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and included by reference here, where it currently says, "See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context." (Particularly since neither plagiarism nor fair use offer anything concrete on that subject.) I wonder if, outside of this conversation, consensus can be reached for expanding Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? not only to incorporate your multiple source suggestion, but also to include a pointer to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which really ought to be there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I had forgotten about the "author's choice of which facts to cover".
I think your use of the word 'paraphrase' in your Gentleman George example hits the nail on the head. The Levy article confirms what I thought, that the only non-infringing paraphrase is one that is 'not a substantial taking' or has a fair use defense.
I wonder if, for clarity, the FAQ should cover fiction and non-fiction separately. I think the FAQ should link to the article we have explaining how the plot of a copyrighted work of fiction should be summarized in a way that it does not become a derivative work. (I don't recall its title right now.)
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

←Thank you again. :) After my return from Holiday, I'll see what I can suggest by way of the FAQ. When that is organized, maybe a change to this document along these lines would be appropriate:

I'll also note that there is a proposed guideline on plagiarism here. I hope to help get that into shape for consensus for implementation after the holidays, as it seems to have gone quiet since November. If we can get that into shape, it would be an excellent point to explicitly address these concerns...likely better than the copyright faq. With respect to plot summaries, I believe that the document you have in mind is this essay, Wikipedia:Plot summaries. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to propose some alterations to the FAQ. This one has risen again, over at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I should link that here, too: Wikipedia_talk:FAQ/Copyright#Proposed_alteration. It's at WP:VPP, but, not surprisingly, not attracting much notice. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the best way of rephrasing the paragraph in question is to expand it and describe the research process. In the research process, a person with sufficient background reads and assimilates multiple sources regarding the topic; they then formulate their own original presentation of the material, selecting some of the facts from each source to incorporate. This can be contrasted with naive paraphrasing, which is taking a source and systematically rewriting each sentence in different words - this latter practice is not only suspect under copyright law, but also not very useful to any reader who has access to the original source. An encyclopedia does merely replicate source information; it consolidates and summarizes sources, and presents them in a uniform style with cross-references to related topics. Dcoetzee 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for feedback here and at the discussion above. :) If there are no objections, I plan to first implement the proposed change to the FAQ and then change this. I'm inclined to think that some of your suggestions here are better made at the FAQ, which gives more detail and to which this policy will point (barring objections). If I could trouble you for more of your time, would you mind suggestion any wording changes at the FAQ that you might think helpful to further clarify? (I like the phrase "naive paraphrasing." I have not heard it before.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • One thought – if we say that reflecting the choice of which facts to cover is also a kind of plagiarism, this potentially conflicts with our having to use secondary sources to establish due weight. Obviously, that is not a problem if there are dozens of sources available; but it there are, say, only 1 or 2 authoritative biographies of someone (see the sourcing of our FA on Rabindranath Tagore, for example), or only 2 or 3 musicological studies of the music and lyrics of some heavy-metal band, aren't we bound, in fact held, to reflect the main focus of interest in these sources? Jayen466 14:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not us saying that, but the US courts. If there are 2 or 3 musicological studies of the music and lyrics of a band and they all focus on the same elements, then there's no creative selection concern. If they each focus on one and we mention all, then there's still no creative selection concern. If there's only one source, then there's nothing wrong with saying "The Authoritative Guide to Blood Spills Freely notes that the band is unusual for A and B." But that detail is background discussion and not meant to be included in this policy. For my most recent wording proposal on that, influenced by your comment below, see new subsequent subsection. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal, updated

I've implemented the proposed change at the Copyright FAQ. Here's what I suggest for this, for now:

.

I've removed the pointers to article space due to the very good point raised below. I hope that the plagiarism guideline proposal will be able to go live soon so that we can reference it. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The links given are now a lot more helpful, so I think this is an improvement over what we have.
Another point: From reading the pdf document you referenced above (points 7 to 10 on page 3), it seems that the risk of being found guilty of copyright infringement is not so much dependent on how closely material was copied, than it is on the quantity of material copied. One sentence stolen verbatim from a book or newspaper article seems to be neither here nor there, whereas a whole section of a book meticulously paraphrased could still be copyright infringement, depending on how big a proportion of the original work has been appropriated, and how big a proportion the material thus gathered represents in the derivative work (our article). Am I reading this correctly, and might it be useful to point this out? Or is it an oversimplification? Jayen466 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It's an oversimplification (though IANAL), but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. :) (See point 19, which also references the "quality" of the taking, a complicating factor that is even more difficult to convey.) And, yes, you're quite right that a whole section of the book meticulously paraphrased can be copyright infringement--a very hard concept to convey. I'm not sure if it would be useful to point this out or not. Legally, in the United States, copying a single sentence is probably not prosecutable, as the courts would probably find fair use. But in addition to the "moral" questions and concerns with academic dishonesty (very important to reference documents), Wikipedia is more complicated than some publications in that it is our goal to be as free as possible for reproduction anywhere in the world for any reason. This is why, though we are bound by US copyright law, we utilize more strict standards than US Fair Use (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair use materials and special requirements) in our non-free content guidelines. I'm not sure how we could easily explain that a small amount of duplication, if non-essential to the original work, could be fair use, but that we still can't use it except in accordance with NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree on the last point; it would complicate matters unnecessarily. Just "Don't do it" is probably enough. :) As for the matter of quantity or "substantial taking", your proposal does mention the difference between an abridgement and a summary, and provides a link to Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works.
The paragraph there, it seems to me, could perhaps do with one or two extra sentences on this. For example, what to do when we cite several sentences from a short Associated Press article reporting an incident involving a notable person? We may easily end up doing a "substantial taking". Is that a problem? Jayen466 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean if we use several quotations from the article? If so, that would be "extensive use of quotations" per WP:NFC, if it represents a major portion of the original. Or do you mean over-use of summary? I'm hoping that's covered under Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? If you think we can craft and add a sentence about "substantial taking", though, I'm all for it if we can find a way to keep it easily comprehensible. Do you have any specific suggestions? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, imagine a short AP article reporting, say, that notable person X crashed his car at location Y. He has been taken to hospital Z, where he is currently in a stable condition. If that is pretty much all that the article says, and an editor adds that info, in good faith, to the person's BLP, it seems to me we have already done a "substantial taking". What may be in our favour is that it is only a small part of our article on X, even though it is a substantial part of the AP report. I'll think about a wording once I am clearer on what we actually have to say. :) Jayen466 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Facts are not subject to copyright protection. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that an article like you describe -- containing no sythesis, no opinion, no flowery writing -- wouldn't have much in it that could be defended as copyrighted. -Pete (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Pete insofar as there's not much creativity of selection there. Those are fairly standard facts to report in such circumstances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you too. However, note [[6]] and [[7]]. There is clearly a limit; if we paraphrase a whole article, especially a longer, well-researched one that is for sale online, we could potentially reduce the market for that article. I have no idea where the uncontroversial relating of facts ends and infringement begins. Jayen466 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My comment was only intended to apply to the example given. Clearly, some editorial judgment is required to sort out the grey area; my point is simply that there are some cases where lifting all the facts from a (relatively short and straightforward) article might be acceptable. The scenario you gave, while definitely plausible, is not too common. In my view, the proposed text leaves enough room for a scenario like this; I think beyond a certain point, it's impossible to provide a recipe for what is and is not acceptable, and recognize that careful human judgment of the specific case in question is the only recourse. -Pete (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy re: commercial use of images?

I'm writing a blog post, to inform the public and encourage some discussion, focusing on the "commercial use must be permitted" portion of the Wikimedia Foundation's definition of free content. Where does it say that photographs must be made available for commercial use, and where is the deliberation that led to that policy? Does anyone know? I have seen numerous allusions to this policy over the years, but cannot find the "smoking gun," so to speak. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -Pete (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussions you're looking for date back to the late 1970s/early 1980s, when the free software movement was getting started. Wikipedia inherited those views on commercial use when Jimmy Wales decided to use the GFDL as the license for Nupedia (January 2001), and then for Wikipedia.
Early on, Wikipedia was fairly liberal in what licenses were allowed for images, because quantity of content was considered more important than freeness of content (check through the wikipedia-l mailing list from 2001-2002 for discussions of this). As Wikipedia got larger, the ability to get free images increased, and on May 19, 2005, Jimmy Wales decreed that noncommercial-only, by-permission images, and educational-use-only images were no longer acceptable (see [8] and [9]). --Carnildo (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for providing links to precisely the discussions I was looking for! I was searching mailing lists, but did not know what list to search, or what time period. One further question, though: Jimmy alludes to an earlier decision (i.e., "these images have been tolerated for some time…") I would guess that is the decision to use the GFDL to begin with, yes?
Is there any remaining record of that decision process? Also, do you know if there was ever a broad discussion about this, or whether this is one of those things that was simply decided by Jimmy? Thanks much for your help! By the way, here is a link to the blog post I was working on about this, in case you're interested. Pete (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Some interesting posts along these lines: [10] and [11], [12]. It does seem that the early license discussions must have taken place off the mailing list. -Pete (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been going around in a circle trying to figure out/recall how we go about listing/blocking/removing links to a site that's a blatant copyright infringer. I got to looking at some fringe-y articles thanks to an AN/I thread and noted that one was linking to a page on a site called UFOevidence.org -- and when I got there I saw that that page was nothing but a long list of news articles on the topic that had been copied without permission from a huge variety of sources. They have what they call a "fair use" rationale on each page in which they claim that because they are not making money on it and it's supposedly for eductional purposes they believe they can get away with it. But, as anyone on this talk page undoubtedly knows, that's not how fair use works. I did a link search and found some 150 pages linking to UFOevidence.org, and a look at about ten of them at random showed that these pages all were doing the same thing: copying text wholesale from other places and trying to call it fair use.

Is this something we have to remove by hand, or is there a way to nuke all of them at once? I assume links on talk pages qualify equally well as article page links in being contributory infringement, right? This isn't strictly spam per se, but is it handled through the same process here? DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works states that it's illegal if done knowingly, so I would say remove them immediately when you see them. But the only way to "nuke" them all at once is to add them to the spam blacklist, either locally, or preferably globally if the site is a definite copyright infringement. Then there's User:XLinkBot, which would also remove them, albeit not permanently as a blacklist would. – Alex43223 T | C | E 08:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
There are many sites with ad-free press archives under Fair Use, and they are legal. Here is one I know of offhand: http://www.drugnews.org --Timeshifter (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How much reformulation is necessary?

The policy says,

"Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context."

However, I could not readily find anything in plagiarism or fair use that gives a definite indication of "how much reformulation is necessary". For a start, neither article appears even to contain the word "reformulate" or "reformulation".

To give an example, I would be interested in views on whether the following (for the Jason Scott case article, see discussion) would be sufficiently reformulated:

  • The jury, apparently quite horrified at the details of what was a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming, awarded ... (source wording)
  • The jury, apparently struck by the details of what had been a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming attempt, awarded ... (proposed WP text)

What parts, if any, of the proposed WP text would require quotation marks?

And would it not be worth giving some more specific guidance in this policy, rather than pointing to article space, where the text can always change? Jayen466 13:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We're currently working on some of those very question three sections above this and at the Copyright FAQ. :) Barring objections, that policy line is going to be changed very soon. There's also a proposed guideline underway at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Please feel free to help out, as more contributors could help reach consensus.
That proposed Wikipedia text is not sufficiently altered from the original, as it still follows the original in language and structure. It would be better to use the original with quotation marks than the proposed alteration. Better still, obviously, if the whole were revised. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Would "The jury, apparently struck by the very physical nature of the abduction and deprogramming attempt, awarded ..." be okay? Jayen466 13:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I often find it useful in these cases to turn the whole sentence topsy-turvy. You might try something like "The specifics of the kidnapping and deprogramming, which were very physical, seem to have had an impact on the jury, who awarded...." I myself would prefer to change the words "very physical" both because it could be an "apt phrase" but also because it's vague. What does that mean? Was it brutal? If so, I'd be specific. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, very well done indeed, Moonriddengirl. I see I'll have to put more effort into this henceforth. The details of the kidnapping are covered in the article (according to court testimony, the victim was wrestled to the ground by three men, handcuffed, dragged across the floor to a car, had duct tape placed across his mouth, etc.). I guess "brutal" would do, or "violent".
And yes, I see now that you were discussing the very same issue above. :-) Jayen466 14:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy if I could help. :) And I appreciate your help. You make a very good point about linking to articles from policy, particularly where those articles say nothing about the matter at hand. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of product packaging

If I recall correctly, it's prohibited to upload/use pictures of product packaging. Does anyone know where this is stated in our policies or guidelines? Tan | 39 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on the complexity of the design. A court ruled that a bottle of SKYY Vodka was PD-ineligible because of its simplicity and utilitarian-ness. ViperSnake151 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Scholarpedia and GFDL

From discussion Talk:Amygdala#Scholarpedia_content : Amygdala on Scholarpedia has copied GFDL content from Amygdala. Some content on Scholarpedia is GFDL licensed, but not all, and it isn't clear which bits are and aren't licensed in this way. I think using the GFDL image from Wikipedia means that the whole article on Amygdala in Scholarpedia is a derivative work. Others have claimed that it might only be "mere aggregation". But I do not think this is the case, given that the article is a single piece of work - we aren't talking merely about putting files on the same CDROM or server, but actually incorporating GFDL content into the article. It would be quite useful if that were the case, since the Scholarpedia article is quite good, and bits could be copied from it into Wikipedia. What do you think? 78.105.234.140 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you want to use bits from the Amygdala article on Scholarpedia on Wikipedia, you should write to the editor in chief of Scholarpedia and ask for clarification of its licensing. I've done this before and received permission, though it takes some cordial persistence, since Dr. Izhikevich (who seems to be quite nice and approachable) put me in touch with the chief editors. His contact information can be found here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, consider this: in the other direction, our articles are GFDL-licensed, but many of our images are not. I don't think you can assume the entire article is a "derivative work" of the one image that they borrow. Better to ask for an explicit license statement. Dcoetzee 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the validity of these sorts of combinations is an unresolved area of the license. Some serious participants do argue that the license on the image forces licensing the whole article. Nor is it clear that mixing BY-SA and GFDL images in the same work is ever really legal. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. The working practice on Wikipedia has been that the license on images can be regarded as separate from that on accompanying text, but short of a legal ruling it is unclear if that is the correct position. Dragons flight (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A query with self-made photographs

Personality rights may apply in commercial explotation of images (i.e. faces on T-shirts, using images of people to advertise perfume). But for use in something like an encyclopedia (like a news report) then those rights don't really come into the picture. That's why Wallmart magazines like National Enquirer can print endless telephoto photographs of celebs - but you'll never see them sell a poster of the same image. Images of people in private places (where there is an expectation of privacy) may fall under different laws see [13] for more. Megapixie (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Invariant sections

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049534.html --Histo (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

YouTube has permission for most of its copyrighted videos

Please see:

Some quotes:

The tool creates ID files which are then run against user uploads and, if a match occurs, the copyright holders policy preferences are then applied to that video. Rights owners can choose to block, track or monetize their content. ...
There are three usage policies -- Block, Track or Monetize. If a rights owner specifies a Block policy, the video will not be viewable on YouTube. If the rights owner specifies a Track policy, the video will continue to be made available on YouTube and the rights owner will receive information about the video, such as how many views it receives. For a Monetize policy, the video will continue to be available on YouTube and ads will appear in conjunction with the video. The policies can be region-specific, so a content owner can allow a particular piece of material in one country and block the material in another.

See also:

"(YouTube) is not like radio, where it's just promotional," said Caraeff, who heads up Universal's digital group. "It's a revenue stream, a commercial business. It's growing tremendously. It's up almost 80 percent for us year-over-year in the U.S. in terms of our revenue from this category."
Universal, the home of such acts as Akon, the Black Eyed Peas, and U2, has a two-part licensing deal with YouTube, as do the other major labels. Under the deal, the recording companies post music videos on the site and share advertising revenue with YouTube. The two companies also share ad revenue for music posted to the site by users.

Please add this info to Wikipedia:Copyrights in summarized form so that it helps stop the wholesale removal of YouTube reference links, and external links. We link to copyrighted material in the Wayback Machine. It is a web archive with lots of copyrighted material, but it is OK to link to it. YouTube is a video archive. Both are OK for Wikipedia use (via links). --Timeshifter (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this tool actually works? --Carnildo (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the proof is in the contracts that Google (the owner of YouTube) has with the major labels. That seems to indicate that it works well enough for the major labels. We should be able to link to YouTube similarly to how we link to Archive.org.
Also there is this from YouTube Copyright Policy: Video Identification tool:
"How accurate is Video Identification? The solution is very accurate in finding uploads that look similar to reference files that are of sufficient length and quality to generate an effective ID File. The system is tuned to offer the best possible automated matches while eliminating most false positive matches."--Timeshifter (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"The reference library is generated from copies of content or from ID files that are submitted by content owners.". In other words, unless the copyright holder actually makes a claim of copyright, the image is still there with no copyright information. AnyPerson (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not claiming copyright. The major labels decide violations of copyright. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm aware of that, but they're saying that their utility won't work unless the copyright owner has issued an ID file. If the copyright owner is unaware that their product has been uploaded onto YouTube, they won't know to put up an ID file, or else they may not understand how to do it. That still doesn't mean that the item doesn't violate copyright. AnyPerson (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Google/YouTube creates the ID files and runs them against user uploads. See:
YouTube Copyright Policy: Video Identification tool. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
How does YouTube know who the copyright holder is, and what claims they want to make on the copyrighted material? AnyPerson (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering that YouTube is currently subject to a billion $ lawsuit over copyright violation by Viacom and that their deal with Warner fell through in December, resulting in a massive take-down, I think it's premature for Wikipedia to decide that Youtube has permission for most copyrighted videos. (Rather than pick one, I'll just link the googlenews searches: [14], [15].) There's tons of speculation that YouTube is going to change copyright laws themselves, but until the dust settles I don't see that we're in any position to call this fight. The current language at WP:EL suggests a case-by-case basis examination; that seems reasonable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Due care" seems reasonable and responsible at WP:EL. It seems that videos are pulled if they have content from labels that Google does not have agreements with. See this Jan. 27, 2009 CNET article: [16]. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
They respond to DMCA take-down requests. We already knew that. I'd call that "minimal care." "Due care" seems to me what Wikipedia does; we remove copyrighted content whenever we discover it. We don't wait for the owner of the stolen material to complain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see also: Wikipedia talk:External links#YouTube official channels. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
About the DMCA take-down requests, here is another relevant page and quote:
YouTube Copyright Policy : Copyright infringement policy - YouTube Help: "YouTube respects the rights of copyright holders and publishers and requires all users to confirm they own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder to upload content. We comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other applicable copyright laws and promptly remove content when properly notified. Repeat infringers' videos are removed and their accounts are terminated and permanently blocked from using YouTube. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, read our Copyright Tips." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
They respond to DMCA take-down requests, yes. DMCA take-down requests must be filed by the copyright holder or the copyright holder's designated agents. I'm not sure how that's new information? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not disagreeing. I mainly wanted to document the intro page that mentioned DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). You are correct about the notification procedure. See also: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 30#Template:YouTube where one finds this interchange:

  • Comment - This FAQ page, for example, says: "Anytime YouTube becomes aware that a video or any part of a video on our site infringes the copyrights of a third party, we will take it down from the site as required by law." The entry goes on to tell copyright holders how to report copyvios, but does not say YouTube ignores reports from other parties. YouTube is required by law to remove copyright violations (just as Wikipedia is), so it wouldn't seem to matter who reports them. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to make sure we document this correctly, so let me know if you've found a source that I missed. --Teratornis (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Those pages are:

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"which is rare" phrase at Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites

"which is rare" phrase is being added to Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites as a near blanket ban of YouTube and many historic videos like "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King.

Consensus has been "due care" for YouTube links, not "rare" or "infrequent". Especially when there are thousands of official channels, and hundreds of thousands of videos on those channels of news organizations, and notable organizations of all kinds.

See:

and the previous sections of that multi-part discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:DR? I myself think the "due care" phrasing is sufficient, but wouldn't feel comfortable weighing in, since the notice has a clear bias and there could be canvassing concerns. No reason to muddy the waters. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"Consensus has been "due care" for YouTube links, not "rare" or "infrequent" -- Considering how many times it's been pointed out to him that the "rare and infrequent" wording is a SEPARATE issue from "due care", continuing to insist that a vote for "due care" means a vote against "rare or infrequent" is misleading. I do not know if he's intentionally trying to deceive people or if his stubborn refusal to admit he was wrong is coloring everything he sees. Based upon the straw man argument he set up above, it appears he is misrepresenting what other people say to try to get people to show up and blindingly support him without knowing the accurate situation. DreamGuy (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I pointed out his bias to him above and refrained from offering my opinion for that reason. Unfortunately, though, I don't think your notice about the RfC below is any better from a canvassing perspective, as it is also non-neutral. Perhaps you should consider rephrasing it so that those who choose to respond do so from a neutral perspective? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus for "rare" or "infrequent". Twist that up any way you want, DreamGuy. But it is a fact. The only consensus is for "due care". I did not say that a consensus for "due care" is a consensus against "rare or infrequent". I am not making straw man arguments, or being deceptive, or misrepresenting what people say. You are making frequent personal attacks and misrepresentations. Please see WP:NPA. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Video section of Wikipedia:Copyright

Wikipedia copyright
Policy
Guidelines
Advice
Processes
Resources

Maybe a section of Wikipedia:Copyright can be started for videos. There is a sidebar at the top of that page. I don't see a page about videos. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like something that should be addressed (audio is not covered, either), though I'm not sure there's enough to say to warrant a full section. It seems to me that both could be covered with a sentence or two under Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image guidelines if, say, that were altered to Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files. It shouldn't take long to note that these, and could be done simply so:
Voila. Coverage for video. Says it all from a copyright standpoint. The question of FU is all at WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I am glad someone, you, is spending time on this. Thanks. I may be losing steam on this issue. :)
I think the above paragraph is good for this type of summary page. Another video-only page linked from the sidebar would be really helpful. Hopefully it would eventually cover all the issues in this thread and at the recent multi-part threads at Wikipedia talk:External links. It is rare to see all this covered in one thread, both here and there. There have been many YouTube discussions, but little was resolved before. A separate page on videos and copyright issues would prevent many problems, and stop a lot of bad feeling. I think many people leave Wikipedia editing after being hassled mercilessly and incomprehensibly over external links issues.
I have found nothing creates as much bad feeling among as many editors as these external links issues. Even editing of Israeli-Palestinian conflict pages, and other ethnic and nationalist issues, does not cause as many editors to lose Wikipedia enthusiasm in my opinion! For more history on those issues, and how the bad feeling was partially resolved see: WP:ARBPIA and {{Banner WPIPC}}. Maybe there needs to be some kind of collaboration project concerning external links issues. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you've found the process so frustrating. :/ I have to warn you that attempting to create a separate policy page (or even guideline) on videos & copyright issues isn't likely to be any easier. Ordinarily, I would start something like that in userspace. I would put a {{Proposed}} on it, Village Pump it and publicize it all relevant fora, including depending on the scope of the proposed page WT:EL, WT:NFC and Wikipedia talk:Media copyright questions. Given the long-time ongoing controversy at EL, though, I'd be concerned that doing it that way could result in accusation of forum shopping, which would only distract from the real question and make consensus harder to reach. Your best bet would probably be to open a whole new section at EL proposing your policy or guideline page, clearly indicating where at WT:EL controversy about this has been ongoing, mention it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), WT:NFC and Wikipedia talk:Media copyright questions, and list it neutrally at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Neutrally listing it is very important, obviously. Ideally, nobody who sees the listing should be able to guess your position. Language like: "Should Wikipedia adopt a guideline addressing copyright and fair use concerns related to videos and video links?" might work. I'll go ahead and implement the above changes to WP:C, as I believe they don't alter policy but only codify it more clearly. I may, of course, stand to be corrected. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. You're elected! :) I don't have the energy necessary. I am not sure there is a need to go through all that though right now. I think slightly expanding Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works a little more would help a lot. Maybe discuss YouTube official channels, and link to a few references on the various issues. This info would not change Wikipedia copyright policy. There seems to be agreement that YouTube videos that contain copyrighted material outside official channels are doing it without the permission of the copyright owner. Since YouTube does not indicate which videos outside official channels have been "monetized" [17], and which have not, then I guess there is a danger of copyright infringement by linking to some YouTube videos that contain copyrighted material. Has anyone ever been sued for linking to YouTube videos, and what was the result? If the copyright owner really cared all they have to do is notify YouTube, and they will take down the video.
I somehow doubt that this is a serious problem for Wikipedia to link to videos with many hits. Maybe we could name a number of hits (10-20-50-100 thousand hits) at WP:External links. Especially with historic videos I think the media/news companies may see the public service (and free advertising and good will) to allow easy, free, popular access to some of their copyrighted material via YouTube. Once the current lawsuits against Google are settled we might have some more guidance on all this. But I think we at Wikipedia are worrying too much about linking to YouTube. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
How does that speech go? "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." :D I've been down that road a few times, and I'm not up for the frustration myself. Changing this policy substantially would also require consensus, which would mean publicizing the matter at Village Pump and WP:EL and, again, noting the ongoing controversy there. While I believe that clarification of multimedia use and links on Wikipedia might be valuable, I have to say that I'm not really sympathetic to the view that "If the copyright owner really cared all they have to do is notify YouTube, and they will take down the video." That's enough to technically to satisfy the DMCA, but puts a heavy burden on the copyright holders to monitor for infringement. Wikipedia has always respected the rights of copyright holders. The question of # of hits is one for WT:EL, but I don't know that popularity is a good judge of legality. Napster had 26.4 million users in February of 2001, according to our article, right before their crash. And, well, [18]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Copublished from eLib.at

Can someone look at Category:Copublished from eLib.at and articles contained within it to check to see if this is possible? Or is there some incompatibility with GFDL? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The only way that we can republish content from elib.at, if it is truly licensed for educational & scientific purposes only, is if it is not protected by copyright law, either by the nature of the material or if elib is reproducing something in public domain. The only article currently in that category seems to be an alphabetical list of science fiction writers and their bibliographies, also alphabetical. Unless there is something idiosyncratic in elib's definitions, this is probably not copyrightable in the US, in the same way that phone directories are not. However, the category itself seems misleading, if it encourages people to think that creative text from elib can be reproduced here under GFDL. That may need clarification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to note: I've asked the category's creator for input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for contacting me so fast. I am the Admin from eLib.
BACKGROUND: eLib publishes texts with a variety of licences. CC, GFDL, limited rights for republishing, exclusive rights - they all exist together in the database. If there is still copyright, we have at least a non-exclusive right to publish for science and education. Besides these texts, authors are also encouraged to participate and create new articles - these texts are under the projects own licence. I ask authors, if they allow a copublishing in the german or english wikipedia, if there is still no article or just a stub. If they agree, I publish a version in wikipedia and put the notice about the copublishing in it.
REASON: Due to the peculiarities of the GFDL the authorship and the rights of the text could be put in question - to prevent any problems from the start, I make it clear, that now there are two texts with different rights - one in eLib where the author has all the rights he wants to have - especially for future versions - and one in wikipedia, where the community holds the rights under the GFDL. These texts are seperate and so an author could still publish the article from eLib in a for-profit book, giving the publisher all rights, which would be problematic if his text would be under the GFDL.
Is it any clearer? Cheers, --Gego (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear on a few points, so I'll reiterate the situation as I see it, and you can let me know if there's misunderstanding. If the authors of the text are willing to release copyright under GFDL and they have not previously published the material, then there's no problem. If they have previously published it, say on eLib, then the GFDL release must be noted there for us to use it here (or, of course, other compatible license), unless they choose to verify permission by the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This is because we have no process within Wikipedia's registration to verify identity, so we cannot otherwise positively assert authority to release. If you are publishing the text on their behalf and it has previously been published, then you need to verify that you are entitled to license it under GFDL through the process at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission (either by noting GFDL at the site or by forwarding their written permission to the Communication Committee). As long as those processes are done, then it's all good. It's only an issue if a text previously published at eLib under incompatible license is placed here without that verification procedure. But the author of text on Wikipedia does not relinquish his rights; authors still may republish and relicense their material in any way they want, although they cannot retract the GFDL release from the versions they have placed here. (This according to WP:C.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Computer Screenshots & Threshold of Originality

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality, a screenshot from a DOS-based program or other textual program could be held to be Uncopyrightable, since they contain simply text (eg: see the Boeing example on the article). Furthermore, since the same software or program would display the exact same text on every computer, then it couldn't be original.

Further-furthermore, could not this also apply to graphic screenshots of software, etc., since these cannot clearly be 'original' - ie: they would HAVE to be unique, and since they are standard, they could not be copyrighted. Only registered as a design/trademark (like the Boeing logo). Which they are not.
In essence, the copyright holder of a screenshot would be the person who took the screenshot, as it was their recording down of the screen contents in digital form that could qualify for originality.

Since the graphics displayed in most computer screenshots of software are technically Information, they are ineligible for copyright. 'Information' cannot be copyrighted (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service#Ruling_of_the_Court)

71.34.228.129 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Information can't be copyrighted, but particular interfaces which convey information in original ways can be. It's generally accepted that unsophisticated widgets are too insubstantial to be subject to copyright (see e.g. Apple v. MS), but screenshots containing lots of widgets are a little questionable, and the developer of an application might have a reasonable copyright claim over the layout of the widgets. I think it's usually okay to use fair use screenshots of an application in an article about that application, though, as they tend to convey a great deal of information that can't be succinctly expressed in prose. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Scanned magazines

We are wondering if AMIGA Magazine Rack violates this policy or not before putting it up as a Video game reliable source.じんない 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploading the scans here would, but you can still use the magazines as sources... just reference them as you would reference any other written sources. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You can refer to the magazines, but you cannot link to the copyright violations in a reference. DreamGuy (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

shorten the page

The page is somewhat long and rambleing at the moment. I would like to strip out everything between about image guidelines and the reusers section and replace it with a paragraph or so of general principles. Specialist country by country stuff should be elsewhere.Geni 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that the page wasn't too long. We want people to read policy pages which means keeping them short.Geni 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If anything, here's an idea - most of this page reads like a guideline, we should maybe make some sort of Wikipedia:Copyright notices page containing any disclaimers and such involving this status, and then maybe make the top of the page something like this:


If we want, we could transclude some of this stuff like on WP:NFC but still. ViperSnake151 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the more complex licenseing stuff relates to images which would probably be best delt with by dirrecting people to Commons:Commons:Licensing.Geni 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Should an article link to a website that list where to get illegal copies of copyrighted material?

I was discussing this on the talk page of The Pirate Bay. The article for it has a link to their page. If you click on "browse torrents," and then any of their categories that appear after that, you can see a list of obviously copyrighted material. Is this allowed under wikipedia copyright laws? Isn't a site that has links to where to get illegal copies of copyrighted material, against a rule? I couldn't find it on the wikipedia pages on links, or anywhere else, so I'm not entirely sure, thus the reason I'm asking here. Dream Focus 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically TPB is only practicing contributory copyright infringement themselves, not direct copyright infringement. Generally we don't worry about linking to websites which only contain links to illegally-distributed content as the contribution is so indirect, but TPB might warrant an exception given the sheer volume of blatant contributory infringement on the website. We don't really have a clear guideline on where to draw the line; the closest we have is WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

License

Hi.

I saw this: "If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content, this entails the following: <...>" Does this also include adding small portions of Wikipedia articles to much larger original works, and so that the entirety of that original content must also be released under GFDL? mike4ty4 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends. If the GFDL material and the larger volume each stand as "separate and independent" works, then the result is generally termed an "aggregate" and the license on one does not affect the other. If however, the larger work incorporates and depends upon the GFDL content, then the larger work would generally be considered a "derivative" and such use is only allowed if the larger work is also released under the GFDL. An exception to this is that the right of fair use may allow you to quote and otherwise include small amounts of GFDL material without concern for the license. Dragons flight (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking: sites vs. pages

The current wording of the policy is unclear as to whether it is allowable to link to a website that may have copyright violations on some other page.

  • However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.

The first sentence implies that the problem would be with linking directly to the copyrighted work. The second sentence doesn't make that distinction and just refers to the site as a whole. Even if we know or suspect that a site has copyright violations somewhere, does that prohibit linking to any part of the website? I can't find a clear discussion of this in the talk page archives, though this thread touches on it briefly. Once we decide, I think we should clarify the wording of the policy.   Will Beback  talk  08:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really addressed here, but common practice seems to be in line with the implicit approach at Wikipedia:EL#Rich media, where contributors are urged to evaluate sites like youtube on a case by case basis. We know there are massive copyvios on youtube, but they are not banned from Wikipedia by any means. It might be a good idea to mirror some of that language here, but I'm wondering if we should be careful with whatever we do to avoid inviting wikilawyering. I can all too easily imagine people arguing that the link to the "main page" of a site hosting bittorrents of all of Whitesnake's greatest hits is not technically in violation, since the copyvios are on subpages. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:COPYLINK states that "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." What about when you don't know, but have at least some reason to believe it isn't a violation? It's tempting to say that the burden should be squarely on the one who wants to add/keep the link, but does it work that way in practice? At Talk:Bates method/Archive 12#Meir Schneider, an External link to a Youtube video of a five-minute segment of an Israeli news broadcast has been deleted due to copyright concerns. If this video were hosted on some random account, I would have no argument with removing the link to it. But, as has been pointed out in the discussion, the account hosting it is verifiably connected to the individual, Meir Schneider, featured in the news segment. In this situation, is it best to assume good faith on his part, that he made sure this was OK? Here's an example I recently cited (with some hesitation as I feared it would have a result I didn't like.) Currently in the same article there is a reference to a chapter of a book published in 1956. The citation links (and has for a long time) to a reproduction of the chapter contained on the Quackwatch website. However, the site gives no explanation as to why that is OK. So should we de-link it as a possible copyright violation, or assume good faith on Stephen Barrett's part, that somehow he made sure the use was permissible? Furthermore, I suspect that both cases but especially the first one fall under Fair use. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem appropriate for us to come up with a general policy that "individuals who appear in works copyrighted by others are presumed to have permission if publishing same themselves" or that they don't. While this policy does not indicate as much, WP:EL specifies that "each such link must be evaluated with due care for inclusion on a case-by-case basis." That seems reasonable. It seems that conversation about this matter is already underway at the article's talk page and also at Wikipedia talk:External links#Youtube link where we cannot find any copyright info. Interested contributors may want to weigh in there to avoid fracturing the debate, making informed consensus more difficult to evaluate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I should have posted a link to that discussion, but I felt this page would have been a better place to ask about this to begin with. Actually, Talk:Bates method would be the best place to discuss this particular case. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-licensing?

Hi. As we creep towards August, I'm beginning to get concerned about all those sites that give us permission to use their text under GFDL. If they're not "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Sites" like Wikipedia and we do make the transition, we're going to have to stop publication until and unless they relicense.

I'm wondering if we should note this potential and recommend flexible licensing in the various places where instructions are given for verifying permission: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, WP:C and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I'm happy to work on drafting appropriate text, but I would be grateful for feedback first on whether it is be good idea to suggest that donors of copyrighted text explicitly license their previously published material under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Moonriddengirl. The boilerplate responses in the OTRS already mention that text should be dual-licensed, but this could and should be better publicized. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that User:ViperSnake151 made changes to Requesting copyright permission. Based on his text there, I've updated Example requests for permission and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. I've also updated the Copyright FAQ. User:Stifle has handily updated Declaration of consent for all enquiries. I've made note of the issue at WP:C. Do you think copyright advisory templates, such as Template:Nothanks-web, also be updated to reflect this, or is it sufficient to have made note at the various policies & guidelines? The advisory templates are only likely to contribute to a problem when content owners follow their directions in noting release at the website. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, anything saying GFDL should be updated to multi-license. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Be a little careful with that. We aren't yet dual licensed, and we don't want to give anyone the false impression that wiki content can be used under CC-BY-SA until it is actually official. Dragons flight (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. Do you think the language implemented so far has been clear? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Which sites are you referring to when you say "all those sites that give us permission to use their text under GFDL"? Ideally, we should encourage those sites to take advantage of the dual-licensing window as well. Can you provide some sites we should be contacting? Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Generally to all the sites for which permission has been supplied both after listing at WP:CP and otherwise. I have no specific sites in mind, unfortunately, since I haven't been tracking the ones that come through CP and would probably never know about the ones that haven't, but simply link to release at the article's talk per Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. So far as the ones that make it to CP, those are usually verified through OTRS, so perhaps they've aleady been dually licensed, but since I have no access to the OTRS letters I don't know (one example Talk:Low plasticity burnishing, randomly selected through the old CP listings...first one I came to, moving forward from 12/12. :)). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
That's GFDL only. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, there you go. This is going to be a pain...but evidently a much bigger pain for those of you who can access OTRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan art status

Both Fan fiction and slash fiction currently have depictions of fan art. One is claimed as fair use, with copyright presumed to be the fanzine creators, and ther other has an OTRS ticked for free use. But in both cases, doesn't the copyright belong to the original creators? So i wanted to know if this means they must be deleted, even though it is not wikipedia doing the infringing directly. The slash fiction image is up for deletion (at commons), should the other be too? Can someone who knows more about copyright do that?YobMod 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to address this question at media copyright questions, which is a forum dedicated to addressing issues related to images and copyright. Alternatively, you can also bring it up at non-free content review, since it is claimed under fair use, for evaluation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Is File:Ireland_Flag_Rugby.svg allowed since it is based on [19] Gnevin (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Ordinarily, this would be a question for "media copyright questions", where contributors experience in image work are usually available. However, I can say that it's actually the other way around. If you read the description on the Wikipedia image page, File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg, it says, "The logo is from the commons.wikimedia.org (an archived version which was overwritten since its copyright means it is not acceptable for commons) website.http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ireland_Flag_Rugby.svg&diff=prev&oldid=7758062 uploaded and created by commons:User:Caomhan27 = User:Caomhan27". Evidently, Commons at one point was hosting the logo of the Irish Rugby League (you can see the flat here). Commons does not host "fair use" images, and it was deleted. Another contributor brought it to Wikipedia, which does host fair use images in accordance with our non-free content policy. While the new image on Commons is different from the logo, I'm unsure if it's different enough. I'll ask a Commons admin to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Its Union not league!!! . Just kidding , thanks for your help , I await your reply Gnevin (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. When it comes to sports of any sort, I'm pretty much out of my league. :D I've requested feedback and if that admin is unable to assist will follow up with another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gnevin - the issue here is that although the components of the flag may be public domain coat-of-arms (and I'm not certain of that), their selection and arrangement is subject to copyright, and the IRFU flag sets a precedent for this. You must determine who created the flag and what license it's under like any other work. The copyright issue would only be eliminated if you designed the flag yourself. Dcoetzee 18:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So by just replacing the IRFU logo is not enough to avoid copyright issues . Thanks too both of you Gnevin (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Right - also a modified flag is much less useful because it doesn't accurately represent the flag it's intended to. Dcoetzee 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with that, the primary use the icon would be under would be in a 22x20px size, it would hardly be possible to see the difference. And I would also like to ask then, if its not as useful because something doesn't accurately represents something, what about stuff like these: Sweden's coat of arms original, Stockholm's coa original, Stockholm's län coa original, Härjedalen coa original which none are 100%, some might say not even 50% accurate, but a similar unaccuary is used on all coa when it comes to Swedish coa's... So my wonder would be, wouldn't they fall under the same category as just as much or little usable? ch10 · 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I would also argue that the selection is based on the File:Four Provinces Flag.svg which precedes the IRFU flag when it comes to selection and placement. ch10 · 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I see, that is very similar. That makes this much more of a borderline case, especially if the clover leaf image is free. And of course an image being less useful is not a reason to delete it. I'd like to see more people give an opinion about this one, it may be fine. Dcoetzee 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The IRFU clover is presumably under copyright (someone else has to confirm, I've tried to search the IRFU website for any license info on the flag or logo but haven't found any), the clover on the File:Ireland_Flag_Rugby.svg is probably free, otherwise a free can be found I guess. ch10 · 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesnt COA's are against guidelines and policy but that doesnt affect the copyright of the IRFU flag above Gnevin (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't affect the copyright of the IRFU flag, but it might affect our usability of the copy.. Now the self-made COA's might be just as much against policy as the flag copy, but I at least think they're in the same category, if self-made COA look-alikes are allowed and usable as a free alternative to illustrate them (and don't fall under copyright even if they're pretty similar), wouldn't File:Ireland Flag Rugby.svg do that as well? ch10 · 09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Charts, Creativity, Sweat of the Brow, Feist

This article is listed at WP:CP on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 March 4 and comes ripe for closure in a few days. I wanted to seek feedback on it. It is a chart listing of vehicles alphabetically with various facts about them, such as fuel economy and etc. I would like feedback on whether it is copyrightable or not. Of course, straightforward lists of noncreative facts are not copyrightable, ala Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, even if they do represent "sweat of the brow." While formatting and display of information can be copyrighted, I don't know if the chart here would be. Also, I am almost as unfamiliar with cars as I am with sports, and I have no idea what some of these categories mean or if they do represent copyrightable elements, as some "hit" music charts do, balancing straightforward facts in a creative way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The data on this page comes from this website, which is Crown copyright. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. :) I should clarify that I know that they claim copyright; the question here concerns whether they can do so, whether this material is copyrightable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Although the page unhelpfully fails to explain what the entry codes mean for the transmission and green rating column, I strongly suspect that the Green rating may be exactly the kind of copyrightable information you mentioned. The rest of the table probably isn't. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see what I can find out about that Green rating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

←I've written Mike Godwin. Hopefully, he'll be able to come up with a definitive. (Or at least take a stance. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike has very kindly (and quickly!) resolved this one. Given known circumstances—that the chart does not actually duplicate at least the one I compared through Excel—we're okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

um...

Bored with editing for a short while, I googled my userpage and was surprised to see it come up under several other websites. Does the Wikipedia copyright mean that content can be redistributed within Wikipedia or on the whole web as well? I know this must be in the page somewhere; can someone point it out for me? Wikiert T S C 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia's license, GFDL, means material can be reprinted and reproduced anywhere, on the web or otherwise. WP:C says, "If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." GFDL allows modification and reproduction, commercial or otherwise, as long as authorship is attributed. Mind you, some websites violate GFDL by reproducing text without attribution, but many of them do give credit. For example this site is compliant, because at the bottom it says, "Article from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." (You might also want to read WP:GFDL.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lessons in paraphrasing

I suggest adding the heading "External links" and the following external link.

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of those look like valuable links (some of them are already in use at places like Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, but I'm unsure about the actual website, which seems to be advertiser supported. Do you know anything about EduHound? Why not simply locate the good links from that page and utilize those directly where they seem appropriate? This link looks like a good resource for teachers, but I'm not sure it would add value to WT:C, for instance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I discovered EduHound only yesterday, via the 25th link listed at Google Directory - Reference > Education > Directories. I am not familiar with the background (organization and support) of EduHound, and I did not pay much attention to advertising on the website. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The link above fails WP:EL, as it's just a colection of links, is primarily advertising-drivem. etc. DreamGuy (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: since I've received the recommended 5 supporters at the Proposal page, with several others who have indicated interest elsewhere, I've gone ahead and moved this into project namespace for further development. Please consider joining the project if you have time and interest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been through the FAQ's, and a number of pages relevant to copyright, but can't seem to find a satisifactory - or consistent answer to the my question, ' why is wikipedia not able to use works released on condition of not being used commercially?' and maybe include it in the FAQ's L∴V 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a satisfactory answer, but it's an answer: Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Non-commercial licenses. :) A fairly brief explanation is visible at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials: "because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for education use or even for general non-commercial use." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It still goes back to 'a decree by Jimbo' , but delving deeper a recent discussion of the subject (regarding images), a pointer to an essay [20]] provides a general reasoning behind the decree, in short (as I read it) 'commercial use of GFDL material, must include licensing terms ( and be released under same terms), any use of materials spread information/ free advertising and to make any real money must add value by modifying material, since this must also be GFDL a free version could easily be made available thus limiting the commercial viability of ripping off free material'. I feel more comfortable now I've looked into this - but we could do with a more thorough description in the FAQ, maybe as part of the requesting permissions, have I read this correctly ? L∴V 12:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting conversation. I'm always surprised at areas that I presume are relatively undramatic that turn out to be controversial. :) I believe that you have read the debate correctly, but I'd personally suggest that we wait until August to go through the hassle of revising FAQs and policy pages to clarify, since they're likely to have a major overhaul then if we transition to CC as seems likely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully that period of clartification will solve these questions for t' future, many thanks L∴V 14:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive of the changes to the Copyright policy, I disagree with this one. Its placement suggests that contributors do not transfer copyright to Wikipedia "In the first case." In fact, in no case do contributors transfer copyright to Wikipedia--whether they've previously published, it's been previously licensed under GFDL, or they are making it up as they go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that a compromise is reachable. I've made it its own sentence and strengthened it to make clear that this is universally true. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal logos and noncommercial use

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Federal logos and noncommercial use- I'm looking for more eyes on the matter. Is this a copyright issue, or is it concerning something else? J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoping to get a simple definition of copyvio included

Some of us are fresh from dealing with a major copyvio problem [21]. I for one would very much like to see copyvio policy made clearer and simpler for beginners early on in their experience of Wikipedia. I think that the majority of Wp copyvio problems arise because many people are naive about what is OK and not OK in terms of copying. I do understand that at the bottom of every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted", and that beneath the "save page" button, it says again, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted" and at the bottom, under "Please note", it says, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." This is all well and good, but I think that the problem appears to be that quite a few people don't read those sentences at the bottom of the edit pages, or don't read them soon enough, or don't understand them. And if a newcomer follows the link to the policy pages on Copyright [22] and CopyVio [23], well, currently these pages do not have a simple and clear introduction that any beginner could grasp.

I think it would help if we had some wording about copyvio that is very clear and simple to understand, and the sooner that the info is encountered by new editors the better. I have mentioned this on the talk page of the 5 Pillars page [24]. Here is a draft I put together of something that could go maybe on the Copyright and CopyVio pages.

"Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain or are covered by GFDL. Even when you use other people's prose which you have slightly altered or paraphrased, this is still almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must in almost all cases be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "


Thanks for your attention, Invertzoo (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Licensing update progress notice

See message at the village pump. The global vote on the WMF licensing update proposal will be starting several days from now. Dragons flight (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That page doesn't exist. Rmhermen (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the link. --83.253.250.70 (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia sample in breach of court order?

Wikipedia has a sample of a song called "Signifying Rapper" by Schoolly D [File:Schoolly_D_-_Signifying_Rapper.ogg]. A Federal Court had ordered all copies of this song be destroyed in 1994, for copyright infringement. Is Wikipedia in breach of a court order by hosting a sample of that song? HelenWatt (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has never been made formally aware of this court order, no. --Carnildo (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking further into it, I wouldn't even be sure the lawsuit exists. The section of Smoke Some Kill was sourced to The Onion, which is about as reliable a source as Uncyclopedia. --Carnildo (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've restored this section. Interviews from The A.V. Club are not "fake". I'm also the person who uploaded this audio clip. Led Zeppelin has not destroyed my copy of this CD.
The lawsuit existed—Schoolly D refers to it in other interviews that have apparently been removed from the Schoolly D article—but specific information on it is hard to find. IANAL, but I suspect this is as valid a fair use claim as any other. Incidentally, Last.fm hosts another clip of the same track. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I really question the validity of some of those links. It seems to be nothing more than an unbalanced POV foul-mouth personal attack on Jimmy Page, rather than actually discussing any major valid legal issue from a neutral perspective, ie. it's juvenile sour grapes from Schoolly D and his director. HelenWatt (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
While I'm here I should ask: on my To Do list was to re-edit that audio clip to feature more of the Led Zepplin sample (the current clip emphasizes the work of a live band on that track). Would featuring a few more seconds of the disputed Zeppelin sample be inviting trouble? Either way, I'm certainly in no hurry to do this. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If a court order said all copies should be destroyed, then they have effectively stated that its use IS a copyright violation. Saying that we need a court order before we have to follow it is just nonsense: we are supposed to use good faith in taking care of copyright problems once we see them, doing otherwise is bad faith and destroys any potential defense to copyright infringement accusations on this or other cases. It's like saying, "Meh, I don't care, sue us." DreamGuy (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this not fair use when the clip conforms to Wikipedia's non-free content rules for audio clips? The lawsuit creates unique historical relevance for this particular track. I believe by Wikipedia's guidelines, we could add a similar excerpt of the Zeppelin original to Kashmir (song), and it is not considered WP:COPYVIO. (Again, I am in no hurry to stress test Wikipedia in this fashion.) How is the short, article-relevant, low-quality, (per WP:FU) "Signifying Rapper" clip any different? If in good faith we ban any audio that (but for a court order) would be copyvio in a movie soundtrack, that could include most music clips on Wikipedia. I don't think the legal threshold is Jimmy Page getting ticked off.
Is there a legal authority we can run this past? / edg ☺ ☭ 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing historical about this event. Lots of artists get caught and sued for breach of copyright. Kashmir had not breached copyright, Signifying Rapper did, so I don't see the relevance of your point on Kashmir. HelenWatt (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Because this audio clip has the same claim to fair use as any other copyrighted material. See earlier post below. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Except Signifying Rapper was found in breach of copyright therefore it's not comparable with other songs. When other songs have been found guilty of a breach, they award credit to the song and proper royalties are adjusted, in this instance the judge ordered the song to be withdrawn. HelenWatt (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
We have an attorney, but I'm not sure it's necessary. If the article is correct, the court order dealt with destroying unsold copies of the soundtrack and film, and it was targeted specifically at the distributor & producer. (I haven't been able to locate any online sources for this yet.) They haven't issued a requirement that all copies be destroyed. :) I think you're quite right that this has the same claim to fair use as any other copyrighted material. We can use excerpts of copyrighted material under certain circumstances, and this one seems to apply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
[The correct spelling is breach. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)]

It would be pretty useful, thanks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry this went unnoticed until now. :) In case you are unfamiliar with it, {{Editprotected}} can draw quicker response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I forgot about that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The current page reads: "Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a bookseller website's page on a particular book, even if it presents an image of that book (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by publishers or allowed under fair use)."

This is simply not so. We do not link to any individual bookseller's page, per marketing concerns, not choosing one site to purchase the book over other sites selling the book (why we have the ISBN code link to libraries and different pages before booksellers), etc. And to say that we need to link to a site to show an image of the cover is absurd, as we can just upload the cover to Wikipedia for fair use purposes and put it in the article... any article that wouldn't meet fair use terms shouldn't be lining to a bookseller site to see the iamge in the first place, as it would be off topic.

Context is important, but the example given is worthless and encourages editors to do something we wouldn't do. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps better language would be to note that we could link to a film review that includes a still of the film. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
That could work. DreamGuy (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
All right. Since there's no fundamental change in meaning, just a switching out of examples, I think that's no-drama doable. :) Does the change work for you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Later versions?

Are wikipedia contributions automatically licensed under the GFDL with the "later versions" clause saying that you can license GFDL content under the current GFDL or any more recent versions? The copy of the GFDL linked at the bottom of every page contains the clause but I'm in disbelief that the WMF could allow such a potentially destructive clause in the license. What if tomorrow Richard Stallman came out with GFDL Final consisting simply of "All GFDL Final licensed content is completely free of restrictions"? Not something I'd object to at all but we should be the ones voting to approve of such a change, not the brains up at FSF. .froth. (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll confirm your eyes: so the text at the bottom of the edit screen says. :) Some have questioned whether one can legally agree to conditions that don't exist at the time of the agreement. I suspect that in the event GFDL were ever drastically, fundamentally changed, disgruntled users might seek to challenge based on the language at WP:C, which forms a reasonable expectation, if not a contract ("The English text of the GFDL is the only legally binding restriction between authors and users of Wikipedia content."). It says, "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and that acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under the GFDL and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom." What if Stallman's GFDL Final said, "All ur text r belong to me"? I think the firestorm would be interesting, to say the least. :) And I would stay out of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to set up servers in other countries/regions?

Since currently the servers are located in United States, it is vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits brought by DMCA. Besides, the burdens for contributing foreign contents to Wikipedia becomes problematic when US copyright law last longer and many other countries, who are still using the 50-year after after death law. For it to be a viable international project, it has to stay functional even when the legality of content is challenged in certain parts of the world. I am not saying Wikipedia staff should not act upon good faith when dealing with legal issues, but having all servers in one country means that one lawsuit, however insignificant as it appears, can shutdown Wikipedia access for the entire world, not just in the disputed regions. - Jacob Poon (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is probably a Foundation issue that probably can't really be resolved here. I could be wrong, but I suspect you'd likely find more fruitful discussion on this somewhere on Meta. Meta:Talk:Copyright seems like a natural, but I'm not sure if anybody watches that at all. If it were mine, I'd probably ask at Meta:Help Forum for a suggestion of where it might be proposed. If you want to continue to pursue it here, I'd probably take it somewhere over to Wikipedia:Village pump. This page gets a rather limited viewership. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's a great topic for discussion. I agree that the Foundation folks would probably have lots of good thoughts on it. I'd love to be informed if it goes anywhere, if you think of it Jacob. (Also, it might be the sort of discussion that's easier to have on somebody's blog somewhere, rather than on a wiki page...just a suggestion.) -Pete (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There are actually Wikimedia servers in the Netherlands and South Korea, among other places. And the number of valid DMCA notices we actually get and act upon is in the low double-digits from what I have been told. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Permissions Letter

I am working with a CC by 3.0 license, copy left. I am helping the wife of a deceased artist show her late husbands gallery on Wikipedia. I am about to have her sign a permissions letter and scan it, then email it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The woman does not have a computer.

Now, my instructions I believe are to send this permissions letter, listing the images.jpg and the picture of the images.

My question is this: I have probably over 70 images that I am going to put and have already put in the wikipedia commons). Now, do I have to list every image, past, present, and future and include a picture of every image. Or, can I just say in the permissions letter that she (the copyright owner) is granting me permission to download for view on Wikipedia all of her late husbands work and history (Artist's Name).

Thank you (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi. Though I'm an OTRS volunteer, I don't do much with Commons. I would suggest that you might want either to ask your question at [25] or e-mail it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Any e-mail you send there will generate a ticket #. Whichever agent addresses your e-mail will also receive your responses, so long as you reply or include that ticket # in your subject line. It may take several days to receive a response, since the commons permission queue is typically backlogged. The advantage of seeking a response that way is that you won't have to explain your situation repeatedly. It's always possible, of course, that you'll get a response here from somebody who can answer your question directly. Just to increase those odds, I'll notify the most active OTRS agent that I know in case he can give a response. :) But if you don't get a response within a day or two, you might want to try one of those other avenues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a specific policy on it, but it's necessary for an image permission to identify, somehow, the image or images to which it refers. In the past, we've accepted permissions phrased "all images on www.somesite.net" or "all images from Foo collection uploaded by User:Bar". The issue that this particular case raises is that without a specific list of all the image names, there is no way for the OTRS agents to connect a certain permission to the image. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. I want to do this permissions letter by tomorrow, as they are going to delete my images if I don't have this permissions letter asap. I don't want to wait a few days for them to email me. What I will do is what you said above "all images from Foo collection uploaded by User:Bar"." This will work fine. Thank you (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Images can be undeleted if you're late, so don't worry. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: Should WP:EL state that the majority of YouTube videos do not meet our external links guideline?. There are some other issues involved, but WP:COPYLINK is intimately tied into the discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, San Marino, Yemen

This section needs two updates.

1. The URL http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.html is a 404 and should be updated to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf .

2. The passage:

Works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries (see 17 USC § 104, quoted in the circular).

should be changed to

Published works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries. See 17 U.S.C. § 104(b), quoted in the Circular. Unpublished works, however, are copyrighted regardless of their origin or of the nationality of the works' authors, as long as they remain unpublished. See 17 U.S.C. § 104(a).

TJRC (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones

Talk:Georgia_Guidestones#Other_languages.3F

Someone is making the argument that the inscriptions in that monument need copyright clearance to be quoted in Wikipedia, or if it is found that the inscriptions have been put in the public domain, placed in Wikisource. I find this argument laughable. I'm the only one?

Are there any policies in place that relate to quoting verbatim inscriptions in monuments' articles? Pergamino (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure under what basis Pergamino is asserting that the text isn't copyrighted. If I'm not mistaken, the text is posted in its entirety, not merely excerpted. So if the material is copyrighted then it would be a violation.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Pergamino may want to re-read United States copyright law. No copyright mark is required. "[C]opyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship,.." and " ...the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright,..." The text of the monument is copyrighted unless someone can show that the text isn't an original work of authorship, or that it was created under the auspices of the federal government.   Will Beback  talk  03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Will Beback may want to apply some common sense, and read the numerous books that quote the text inscribed in that monument. He may also want to allow other people to comment. Pergamino (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not stopping anyone from commenting.
The fact that there are many copyright violations out there doesn't mean that they aren't copyright violations. Wikipedia holds itself to a high standard when it comes to copyrights.   Will Beback  talk  03:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Another opinion: Will Beback is right that copyright is automatically bestowed. Sometimes, US law is not exactly commonsensical. Unless the text has been explicitly released by its author or is otherwise public domain (as in by age or if it was created by a federal US employee in the commission of his duty), then it is copyrighted. It should be used on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:NFC, like all copyrighted text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have read the NFC page. The question is if it applies to an inscription on a monument that is accessible to the public, and which has been quoted profusely in books and magazines. Pergamino (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how publicly accessible is. For example, the sculpture itself is copyrighted, though it is viewable by the public. A song that is broadcast on the radio may be listened to by the public, but it is also copyrighted. Copyright doesn't require restriction of access. Likewise, unlike with trademark, there is no "watering down" of copyright. Protection of copyrighted material remains in full force until copyright is released by the copyright holders or until it expires. I cannot say whether those books and magazines have licensed the right to reproduction, are using it under fair use, have verified that the copyright holders have released protection or are simply ignoring the rights of the copyright holders. But unless Wikipedia can verify that the material is free, we are bound to use it within WP:NFC. (Under some circumstances, Wikisource is more liberal. I'm not sure if they would be with this or not, but would be happy to invite a Wikisource admin to weigh in.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

←Hmm. I believe we need to do something about that image and will speak to a commons admin about it. We should be able to assert fair use for the image on Wikipedia, but according to my understanding of freedom of panorama in the US, a picture of the sculpture can only be licensed by the copyright holder. I'll ask User:Dcoetzee, who is an admin on both projects, to help out. (Images are by no means a major focus of mine.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I see your point, although there needs to be a way to decide if a monument is a structure or a work of art. Also, while copyright may be asserted on an inscription, that does not mean that we cannot make the text of that inscription available in an article, as we are citing other sources that describe them, so the onus of copyright would not fall on wikipedia, or if we can assert the fair use doctrine. Pergamino (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, given that copyright law and fair use state that we should consider "the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work", I don't see how this would apply to a monument and its inscriptions. Pergamino (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The "onus of copyright" is on anyone who published the material. The fact that someone else has previously violated copyright doesn't break the copyright and allow us to publish the material without violating the law. Otherwise we'd be free to publish all sorts of copyrighted pictures and text that have been widely copied across the internet. As for the matter of harming future profits, that's not a decision for us to make here unless we're proposing a change to WP:NFC. "Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law." Quoting the entire text, as opposed to an excerpt, is unlikely to pass as a fair use.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
People can spell postcards of monuments. If my experiences at tourist traps are accurate, they often do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In short, Moonriddengirl has the right idea here - the sculpture and text on it are copyrighted, and it's certainly not a "structure," a term meant to apply to buildings. As such the image does not belong on Commons, which does not permit fair-use images, and it should be uploaded to Wikipedia at a lower resolution and a fair-use rationale added.
Regarding the text: while our non-free image policy is well-established, our policies about fair-use quoting are virtually nonexistent; I wrote some stuff at Wikipedia:Quotations#Quotations_and_fair_use, but it does not carry the weight of policy. As such the following is only my own analysis. In the U.S., as soon as text is placed in a fixed form (and well, written in stone is as "fixed" as it gets) it acquires copyright. The only case in which the text may be public domain is if the sculptor copied it from a public domain source. As such, any quotation would be a fair-use quotation, and would have to ensure that it does not quote a substantial portion of the work; the fact that others have done so and "gotten away with it" merely means that the sculptor has not yet elected to assert their legal rights. In this case, the best course is I believe to roughly summarize the text, and/or describe its nature, with a short illustrative quote or two. Dcoetzee 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback; I guess I was wrong... Basically, what you all are saying is that low-resoution images are OK for fair use, and that quoting a portion but not all the inscribed text, as well as summarizing the rest, is also OK. Right? That leaves me with one additional question: there are also inscriptions in the monument that describe the "astronomical features" in it, as well as the overall measures of the granite stones. I am right to assume that it will be OK to quote these without infringement? I do no think that measurements of physical objects or a description of a phenomenon can be copyrighted. Please let me know if I got this right or not. Pergamino (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, you've got the right idea. The part you quote would have to be pretty small, since the text as a whole is insubstantial. Measurements are simple facts, and are not copyrightable (as there is essentially no other way of presenting this information). I'm less certain of the "astronomical features," which I don't know very much about. Dcoetzee 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I am clear now and I'll work on the article implementing your suggestions. Pergamino (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights/Archive_12&oldid=1148077544"