Solution to BJAODN criss - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Solution to BJAODN criss

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wiki-comics (was...

Re: [WikiEN-l] Well, I guess...

Steve Bennett

4 Jun 2007 4 Jun '07

11:37 p.m.

It's pretty obvious isn't it?: 1) Undelete it all. 2) Download it, converting all internal links to external links 3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL. 4) Link to it from Wikipedia. 5) Redelete it on Wikipedia. Steve

Reply

Show replies by date

The Cunctator

4 Jun 4 Jun

11:42 p.m.

On 6/4/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It's pretty obvious isn't it?: 1) Undelete it all. 2) Download it, converting all internal links to external links 3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL. 4) Link to it from Wikipedia. 5) Redelete it on Wikipedia.

Better would be 1) Undelete it all 2) Add contributor listings (since nearly every BJAODN entry was added by one person, it's really not that hard) 3) For entries whose contribution history has been lost, the rational thing would be to recognize that NOONE WILL EVER CARE. But since we don't have to be rational, those can be shunted off to some external site. Oh wait, we're done.

Reply

Jimmy Wales

9 Jun 9 Jun

10:02 p.m.

There is an implied license when people put stuff on the site for us to use it in all kinds of ways that would not be possible on other websites. MOST interpretation/translation from one language to another does NOT bother with the contribution history, nor does it need to do so. It's all within the same project. On Jun 5, 2007, at 1:42 AM, The Cunctator wrote:

On 6/4/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It's pretty obvious isn't it?: 1) Undelete it all. 2) Download it, converting all internal links to external links 3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL. 4) Link to it from Wikipedia. 5) Redelete it on Wikipedia.

Better would be 1) Undelete it all 2) Add contributor listings (since nearly every BJAODN entry was added by one person, it's really not that hard) 3) For entries whose contribution history has been lost, the rational thing would be to recognize that NOONE WILL EVER CARE. But since we don't have to be rational, those can be shunted off to some external site. Oh wait, we're done. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

David Mestel

10 Jun 10 Jun

8:38 a.m.

IANAL, but that would seem quite unlikely, since the GFDL is specifically mentioned in detail and defined precisely... Perhaps the answer would be to modify the move feature such that one could duplicate a page, as well as replacing it, while retaining the history? David On 09/06/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

There is an implied license when people put stuff on the site for us to use it in all kinds of ways that would not be possible on other websites. MOST interpretation/translation from one language to another does NOT bother with the contribution history, nor does it need to do so. It's all within the same project. On Jun 5, 2007, at 1:42 AM, The Cunctator wrote:

On 6/4/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It's pretty obvious isn't it?: 1) Undelete it all. 2) Download it, converting all internal links to external links 3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL. 4) Link to it from Wikipedia. 5) Redelete it on Wikipedia.

Better would be 1) Undelete it all 2) Add contributor listings (since nearly every BJAODN entry was added by one person, it's really not that hard) 3) For entries whose contribution history has been lost, the rational thing would be to recognize that NOONE WILL EVER CARE. But since we don't have to be rational, those can be shunted off to some external site. Oh wait, we're done. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- David

Reply

Charlotte Webb

1:47 p.m.

On 6/10/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote:

IANAL, but that would seem quite unlikely, since the GFDL is specifically mentioned in detail and defined precisely... Perhaps the answer would be to modify the move feature such that one could duplicate a page, as well as replacing it, while retaining the history?

Warning: If you go to bugzilla and mention "BJAODN" I'm almost certain the devs will summarily ignore you, and I wouldn't blame them. Like I've said before it would probably be adequate to just list the name(s) of the contributor(s) above each "bad joke". —C.W.

Reply

David Mestel

2:32 p.m.

Warning: If you go to bugzilla and mention "BJAODN" I'm almost certain the devs will summarily ignore you, and I wouldn't blame them.

Well, it would have other uses: presumably userfications or copy and pastes to other wikis are technically GFDL violations. David On 10/06/07, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/10/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote:

IANAL, but that would seem quite unlikely, since the GFDL is

specifically

mentioned in detail and defined precisely... Perhaps the answer would be to modify the move feature such that one

could

duplicate a page, as well as replacing it, while retaining the history?

Warning: If you go to bugzilla and mention "BJAODN" I'm almost certain the devs will summarily ignore you, and I wouldn't blame them. Like I've said before it would probably be adequate to just list the name(s) of the contributor(s) above each "bad joke". —C.W. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- David

Reply

geni

3:15 p.m.

On 6/10/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Warning: If you go to bugzilla and mention "BJAODN" I'm almost certain the devs will summarily ignore you, and I wouldn't blame them.

Well, it would have other uses: presumably userfications or copy and pastes to other wikis are technically GFDL violations. David

eh the big issue is splitting of articles into sub sections. -- geni

Reply

David Mestel

3:32 p.m.

eh the big issue is splitting of articles into sub sections.

Good point. Presumably the model would be a history-inclusive duplication, and then an edit to remove all the stuff you didn't want. David On 10/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/10/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Warning: If you go to bugzilla and mention "BJAODN" I'm almost certain the devs will summarily ignore you, and I wouldn't blame them.

Well, it would have other uses: presumably userfications or copy and

pastes

to other wikis are technically GFDL violations. David

eh the big issue is splitting of articles into sub sections. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- David

Reply

Ray Saintonge

6:54 p.m.

David Mestel wrote:

IANAL, but that would seem quite unlikely, since the GFDL is specifically mentioned in detail and defined precisely...

It's a shallow view of law to believe that everything is defined so precisely. A great deal of law depends on interpretation, and how the courts apply what they see. "Fair use" is a very common topic of debate in this list, and there is no consensus around exactly what it means. Ec

Reply

David Mestel

8:05 p.m.

Hence the word "unlikely". David On 10/06/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

David Mestel wrote:

IANAL, but that would seem quite unlikely, since the GFDL is specifically mentioned in detail and defined precisely...

It's a shallow view of law to believe that everything is defined so precisely. A great deal of law depends on interpretation, and how the courts apply what they see. "Fair use" is a very common topic of debate in this list, and there is no consensus around exactly what it means. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- David

Reply

Anthony

11 Jun 11 Jun

12:57 a.m.

On 6/9/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

There is an implied license when people put stuff on the site for us to use it in all kinds of ways that would not be possible on other websites.

I tend to agree with this interpretation. MOST interpretation/translation from one language to another does NOT

bother with the contribution history, nor does it need to do so. It's all within the same project.

The thing is, any implied license that is given *does not*, in my opinion, include the right to remove attribution for the contribution one makes. This is especially true in the numerous jurisdictions in which the right to attribution cannot be waived even by an explicit license, but I believe it is also true in jurisdictions where the right to attribution can be waived by license. On Jun 5, 2007, at 1:42 AM, The Cunctator wrote:

On 6/4/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It's pretty obvious isn't it?: 1) Undelete it all. 2) Download it, converting all internal links to external links 3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL. 4) Link to it from Wikipedia. 5) Redelete it on Wikipedia.

Better would be 1) Undelete it all 2) Add contributor listings (since nearly every BJAODN entry was added by one person, it's really not that hard) 3) For entries whose contribution history has been lost, the rational thing would be to recognize that NOONE WILL EVER CARE. But since we don't have to be rational, those can be shunted off to some external site. Oh wait, we're done. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Thomas Dalton

4 Jun 4 Jun

11:47 p.m.

3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL.

Now *that* is definitely a copyvio.

Reply

Steve Bennett

7 Jun 7 Jun

6:37 a.m.

On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL.

Now *that* is definitely a copyvio.

Maybe, maybe not. But it's someone else's copyvio, not the WMF's. And it's someone else who can deal with the zero percent risk of being sued by someone because you repasted their joke contribution without attributing it properly. Remember, Wikipedia holds itself *above* normal standards of respect for others' contributions, because it's an open source project, and an ideological one at that. There's no reason for the rest of us mortals to behave the same way. Steve

Reply

Gabe Johnson

4 Jun 4 Jun

11:57 p.m.

On 6/4/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip>

3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL.

<snip> That would defeat the purpose in two ways. Firstly, we have a policy against linking to copyvios. Secondly, and more importantly, is that part of the point of BJAODN is that we can poke fun at ourselves, and shunting it off would defeat that purpose. A better solution would be to give us some time to recover the ones that aren't copyvios. (I think a week would be enough, just tell us whaen it starts.) ~~~~ -- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y

Reply

Ray Saintonge

5 Jun 5 Jun

7:48 a.m.

Gabe Johnson wrote:

On 6/4/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip>

3) Host it on some external site that doesn't claim to respect the GFDL.

<snip> That would defeat the purpose in two ways. Firstly, we have a policy against linking to copyvios.

That's assuming that they are copyvios. The allegation that they were was never more than a phony excuse to justify deletion. At the very least, fair use doctrine would likely apply to the bulk of the material, and fair use is not copyright infringement.

Secondly, and more importantly, is that part of the point of BJAODN is that we can poke fun at ourselves, and shunting it off would defeat that purpose.

Sure, that's one reason why I would prefer that it stay.

A better solution would be to give us some time to recover the ones that aren't copyvios. (I think a week would be enough, just tell us whaen it starts.) ~~~~

For about 70 articles? Not if all of them came out at once. If you want to keep such a short period, it would be easier to batch them with a few randomly chosen ones coming out each week until they are done. Ec

Reply

Thomas Dalton

1 p.m.

That's assuming that they are copyvios. The allegation that they were was never more than a phony excuse to justify deletion. At the very least, fair use doctrine would likely apply to the bulk of the material, and fair use is not copyright infringement.

A website made up entirely of copyrighted works does not constitute fair use. Fair use is for when you are discussing a work and wish to quote it to illustrate the discussion, or something similar, it is not for simple compilations of short copyrighted works.

Reply

Bryan Derksen

4:37 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

That's assuming that they are copyvios. The allegation that they were was never more than a phony excuse to justify deletion. At the very least, fair use doctrine would likely apply to the bulk of the material, and fair use is not copyright infringement.

A website made up entirely of copyrighted works does not constitute fair use. Fair use is for when you are discussing a work and wish to quote it to illustrate the discussion, or something similar, it is not for simple compilations of short copyrighted works.

Counterexample: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale A short film explaining the concept of fair use that was cobbled together entirely from clips of Disney movies. One could well consider BJAODN as an example of parody, in fact. :)

Reply

Thomas Dalton

5:10 p.m.

Counterexample: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale A short film explaining the concept of fair use that was cobbled together entirely from clips of Disney movies.

That's not a collection of copyrighted works for the sake of it, that's using a copyrighted works to illustrate the discussion about fair use.

One could well consider BJAODN as an example of parody, in fact. :)

A parody of what? "parody" doesn't just mean something funny. It has to be a parody of something, and then you can use that something under fair use. BJAODN would have to be a parody of itself for that to work, which is obviously nonsense.

Reply

The Cunctator

5:20 p.m.

On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Counterexample:

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale

A short film explaining the concept of fair use that was cobbled together entirely from clips of Disney movies.

That's not a collection of copyrighted works for the sake of it, that's using a copyrighted works to illustrate the discussion about fair use.

One could well consider BJAODN as an example of parody, in fact. :)

A parody of what? "parody" doesn't just mean something funny. It has to be a parody of something, and then you can use that something under fair use. BJAODN would have to be a parody of itself for that to work, which is obviously nonsense.

Most of the content of BJAODN is pretty clearly a parody of normal Wikipedia content. It has a lot in common with the Uncyclopedia (though frankly Uncyclopedia is amazing).

Reply

Thomas Dalton

5:24 p.m.

Most of the content of BJAODN is pretty clearly a parody of normal Wikipedia content. It has a lot in common with the Uncyclopedia (though frankly Uncyclopedia is amazing).

Firstly, I think to be a parody it has to be intentional. A lot of BJAODN isn't intentionally a parody. Secondly, that only means the authors of the BJAODN can use Wikipedia content under fair use, it doesn't mean other people can use the BJAODN under fair use. Fair use protects parodies, it doesn't allow people to use someone else's parody.

Reply

George Herbert

5:31 p.m.

On 6/5/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Most of the content of BJAODN is pretty clearly a parody of normal Wikipedia content. It has a lot in common with the Uncyclopedia (though frankly Uncyclopedia is amazing).

Firstly, I think to be a parody it has to be intentional. A lot of BJAODN isn't intentionally a parody. Secondly, that only means the authors of the BJAODN can use Wikipedia content under fair use, it doesn't mean other people can use the BJAODN under fair use. Fair use protects parodies, it doesn't allow people to use someone else's parody.

If the original authors uploaded it to Wikipedia, then they GFDL'ed their parody, so we most certainly can make use of it... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Reply

Thomas Dalton

5:44 p.m.

If the original authors uploaded it to Wikipedia, then they GFDL'ed their parody, so we most certainly can make use of it...

If we can use it under GDFL, then we have no problem. This whole discussion is about the fact that BJAODN violates GDFL by not attributing the content. If someone goes through the attributes everything they can and deletes the rest, then there is no copyright issue - that's the best solution I've seen so far.

Reply

Bryan Derksen

10:18 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

> Counterexample:

> > http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-us=

e-tale

A short film explaining the concept of fair use that was cobbled together entirely from clips of Disney movies.

=20 That's not a collection of copyrighted works for the sake of it, that's using a copyrighted works to illustrate the discussion about fair use.

None of which changes the fact that this is a fair use work composed entirely of copyrighted material, which your previous posting claimed was not possible. It's a counterexample to your assertion, not a perfect analogy for BJAODN. Once the notion that it's possible to have a fair use work composed entirely of copyrighted material is accepted, _then_ we can progress on further quibbling about BJAODN specifically.

One could well consider BJAODN as an example of parody, in fact. :)

=20 A parody of what? "parody" doesn't just mean something funny. It has to be a parody of something, and then you can use that something under fair use. BJAODN would have to be a parody of itself for that to work, which is obviously nonsense.

I'm suggesting it could be considered a parody of Wikipedia, not of BJAODN itself.

Reply

Ray Saintonge

5:41 p.m.

Bryan Derksen wrote:

Thomas Dalton wrote:

That's assuming that they are copyvios. The allegation that they were was never more than a phony excuse to justify deletion. At the very least, fair use doctrine would likely apply to the bulk of the material, and fair use is not copyright infringement.

A website made up entirely of copyrighted works does not constitute fair use. Fair use is for when you are discussing a work and wish to quote it to illustrate the discussion, or something similar, it is not for simple compilations of short copyrighted works.

Counterexample: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale A short film explaining the concept of fair use that was cobbled together entirely from clips of Disney movies. One could well consider BJAODN as an example of parody, in fact. :)

Disney's failure to sue should be taken as proof that this is indeed fair use. ;-) Ec

Reply

Angela Anuszewski

5:53 p.m.

On 6/5/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Bryan Derksen wrote:

Thomas Dalton wrote:

That's assuming that they are copyvios. The allegation that they were was never more than a phony excuse to justify deletion. At the very least, fair use doctrine would likely apply to the bulk of the material, and fair use is not copyright infringement.

A website made up entirely of copyrighted works does not constitute fair use. Fair use is for when you are discussing a work and wish to quote it to illustrate the discussion, or something similar, it is not for simple compilations of short copyrighted works.

Counterexample: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale A short film explaining the concept of fair use that was cobbled together entirely from clips of Disney movies. One could well consider BJAODN as an example of parody, in fact. :)

Disney's failure to sue should be taken as proof that this is indeed fair use. ;-) Ec

The only reason they don't sue is probably the cost in the court of public opinion being greater than the immediate (and fleeting) monetary gain.

Reply

Anthony

6 Jun 6 Jun

1:54 a.m.

On 6/5/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

A website made up entirely of copyrighted works does not constitute fair use. Fair use is for when you are discussing a work and wish to quote it to illustrate the discussion, or something similar, it is not for simple compilations of short copyrighted works.

Counterexample: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale A short film explaining the concept of fair use that was cobbled together entirely from clips of Disney movies.

Heh, that's awesome. Except for the incorrect line claiming that "fair use is not a right", that is.

Reply

geni

2:02 a.m.

On 6/6/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Heh, that's awesome. Except for the incorrect line claiming that "fair use is not a right", that is.

It is posible to argue both ways. -- geni

Reply

Anthony

2:07 a.m.

On 6/5/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/6/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Heh, that's awesome. Except for the incorrect line claiming that "fair

use

is not a right", that is.

It is posible to argue both ways.

Absolutely, I'd just expect the people who made that video to be on my side of the argument :).

Reply

Ray Saintonge

5 Jun 5 Jun

5:04 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

That's assuming that they are copyvios. The allegation that they were was never more than a phony excuse to justify deletion. At the very least, fair use doctrine would likely apply to the bulk of the material, and fair use is not copyright infringement.

A website made up entirely of copyrighted works does not constitute fair use. Fair use is for when you are discussing a work and wish to quote it to illustrate the discussion, or something similar, it is not for simple compilations of short copyrighted works.

So who is proposing a "website made up entirely of copyrighted works", apart from the fact that all contributors retain copyrights? Also fair use is not determined before usage, but after usage. There is nothing in the law to say that fair use cannot apply to anthologies of short extracts from a range of authors. In such an anthology the fair use criteria need to be considered separately for each individual item. If one happens to fail the criteria it is severable. Ec

Reply

Thomas Dalton

5:27 p.m.

So who is proposing a "website made up entirely of copyrighted works", apart from the fact that all contributors retain copyrights?

Steve Bennett in the first email in this thread, step 3.

Also fair use is not determined before usage, but after usage. There is nothing in the law to say that fair use cannot apply to anthologies of short extracts from a range of authors. In such an anthology the fair use criteria need to be considered separately for each individual item. If one happens to fail the criteria it is severable.

The suggestion isn't for short extracts, it's for the whole thing. Just because the BJAODN is short doesn't make the whole thing count as a short extract.

Reply

6200

days inactive

6207

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

29 comments

13 participants

tags (0)

participants (13)

Angela Anuszewski
Anthony
Bryan Derksen
Charlotte Webb
David Mestel
Gabe Johnson
geni
George Herbert
Jimmy Wales
Ray Saintonge
Steve Bennett
The Cunctator
Thomas Dalton