[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee
<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

>> I am not the only one who thinks that "if not one then the other"
>> applies here, and we should not include the list in its entirety.

>As I've said, "if not one then the other" ignores the fact that Wikipedia's
>definition of "original research" is not the same as any legal definition
>related to copyright.  It does *not* follow that if not one then the other.

So you say.  We define it somewhat differently.  That is a legitimate
difference of opinion.

>> But
>> my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC
>> says it is not copyright then I will add it back.  I have asked them.

>Why?  You claim that either it's copyright, or it's OR.  If you truly
>believed this, surely if the BBC says it is not copyright, you would conclude
>it's OR and still leave it out for that reason.

Because OR is an editorial judgment, while copyright theft is a legal
issue.  I would have hoped this was obvious.

>(And what are we doing using British copyright laws in a Wikipedia run in the
>US anyway?  Surely the BBC won't tell you if it's copyright under *American*
>law.)

The BBC will tell me whether they assert copyright over the list
itself.  If they do not assert copyright, then it essentially does not
matter.  If they do assert copyright, then we should respect that, per
our mission, our copyright policy, and not being foolish.  The issue
is not so tremendously important that we should risk breaking the law
to include it.  Hell, Top Gear don't even bother putting it on their
website! It really is pretty trivial, as facts go.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG