On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)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?
Whether she is who she says she is is more problematic. What kind of
proof are you looking for? Can we ever be sure that anyone who posts
with his "real" name is identifying himself truthfully? "Assume good
faith" favours keeping the material. If you doubt the good faith, you
would do better by trying to contact the person through independant
channels.