Mark Wagner wrote:
On 5/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Yeah, it's a copyvio. Since the user doesn't appear to have explicitly released the material under a GFDL-compatible license, and since the user has not provided an proof that they are who they say they are, it's correct to consider it a copyvio. Please note, the original says:
*Copyright (c) 1997-2005 CBS International All rights reserved.*
Such notices are irrelevant to the determination of whether something is copyright, except perhaps in establishing when the copyright will expire, but that problem is moot until 2067.
Release under GFDL is implicit whenever anyone saves an edit. Why should it be any more explicit in this case?
Because they may not own the copyright in the first place. If you don't own the copyright, you can't release your contributions under the GFDL -- it's why we delete copy-and-pastes from Britannica.
It wasn't stated before that the material was from Britannica. I was under the impression that it was from another source. In the more general situation when a person grants a license under GFDL it includes a prima facie claim that he has the right to make that grant.
Ec