Paraphrasing is okay. (Otherwise, writing an article about an oft cited fact can be impossible.) Just changing a few words isn't. The difference can be hard to spot.
Mgm
On 10/19/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
No idea how we're going to unravel this one.
We have received, over a period of months, numerous reports to OTRS regarding copyvios from the www.marvunapp.com web site. That site publishes character summaries for scores of comic book characters ranging from the well-known to those obscure figures that make only cameo appearances. The summaries are written by a fairly small number of contributors to the the site and are generally not edited once they are posted.
Their site content is making its way to Wikipedia. There are three problems: a) Cut and paste copying of text b) Paraphrasing of text c) Unattributed copying of images the site has scanned from comic books
(a) and (b) are copyright violations. The problem goes back at least six months and is ongoing.
(c) while not strictly speaking a copyvio since marvunapp.com is merely making scans of flat art, is upsetting the site operators due to the volume of material involved and the lack of attribution. If left unaddressed (c) is likely to make them more pedantic about their rights regarding (a) and (b). So far they've been pretty understanding and supportive, considering.
Just for clarification: (c) is a copyvio too. "flat art" is under copyright too. Their site presumably has no permission to host these pictures either though? Unless they are claiming fair use? (b) on the other hand is not a copyvio in general, unless it is really (a).
Justin
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l