At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
You are not addressing my point. I did not say "reject" statute law. My
point is that we cannot add interpretations to statute law except based on case
law. Many if not most questions about copyright, like this one, are not
specifically addressed in statute law. It is rather case law that is
interpreting what "published" means, what "product" means, what "derivative" means, and
so on.
So we cannot address the question of whether trailers are the same or a
different product, since this is not addressed directly in statute law, but only
addressed or partially addressed in case law.
In that case, I would lean toward adding no additional interpretations on
our part, and letting the case law determine the situation.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 11:30:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Most life+whatever laws have not technically been tested so rejecting
statute law until we have some case law isn't practical.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
I take the opposite tack. Until we find some case law that "exercises" the
statute law, we really have no clear way to interpret what that statute law
really means. We can make interpretations of it, but we cannot rule out other
interpretations that could be gleaned from it as well. And we all know how
widely disparate various interpretations of the same law can be.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 3:01:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
It could but until we find some case law that goes against statute law
we accept state law.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
In a message dated 9/30/2008 3:00:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
To focus only on the resultant behaviors, without understanding the
condition, is pejorative journalism, and unfair to the person who is the
subject of that article.>>
------------------------------------
Giving a paragraph to describe "alcoholism" in every article which mentions
it, would be undue weight.
Better to simply add a link to our article on that topic.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 9/30/2008 2:13:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
whereas someone that's been
constantly in the headlines because of the alcoholism would be very
exceptional.>>
---------------
Agreed. Esp so if his soccer career is actually less well-known than his
alcoholic antics.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 9/30/2008 2:11:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
I'd read "it's all behind me now" as "the material that is mentioned is no
longer important", which is implicitly an accusation of undue weight.>>
-------------
I don't read it that way. Not even that he is making the accusation, let
alone that it is substantive.
"It's all behind me" could just as well mean "it is and was an important
part of my life at one time, it no longer is." But biographies are not about
what the subject themselves considers important. They are about what the
general reading public would so consider.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
Can somebody enlighten me about fair-use of music samples in articles about
musicians / music genres et cetera. I started uploading short (20-30 sec)
sound samples of examples for artists such as Eric Clapton (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Clapton ). Is this allowed / appreciated /
encouraged ?
Ian
[[User:Poeloq]]
(Bizarre, Unique, Curious, Odd, Amusing) Kazoo introductions to each song....
I suppose some fastidious editor might fact-tag your adjective but it's
really difficult to convey in text-alone how singular the kazoo introductions
actually were. I mean at-the-time I thought to myself, "Did I take acid before
I put this record on?"
Will Johnson
In a message dated 9/28/2008 1:27:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
Though with a
little modification my example stands: you could make some point about
kazoo harmonization or kazoo acoustic texture which text would fail to
adequately convey...
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:46:05 +0100
From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 62, Issue 41
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<fbad4e140809260946i2d58180cx31e7d70e0bf7267e(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2008/9/26 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>:
> What you describe is an administrator investigating a ban-evading
> sockmaster, discovering instances of further ban-evasion, and properly
> blocking to enforce the ban. Given your history as you describe it, I doubt
> you will ever be allowed to return to editing.
It's possible - we've welcomed back worse who've then behaved
themselves - but the attitude expressed makes it unlikely IMO. (I
speak only as an observer, of course - my estimation is not in any way
binding.)
- d.
I don't know so much about that, I was never welcomed back.