What is the policy on copyrights that are disputed on suspicion?
Suppose there exists a photograph donated under GFDL and the uploader says that it was produced by him. Is the assertion of doubt by a third party _alone_ reason to post this as a "possible" copyright violation and recommend it for deletion on that basis? I'm not talking about the case where circumstantial evidence or other evidence exists to suggest that the image is a copyright violation. Only that someone has voiced the possibility that it is one.
I haven't seen written policy on this, but practice has been that the word of a respected contributor with a history of accurate copyright specification is generally respected, while there have been incidents of new users claiming ownership of images that look like professional studio photos that have been removed.
I'd say that, as in most things, rough consensus is the way to go. The word of any particular user does not win out over the general consensus of everyone else.
Is there a specific incident you have in mind? It sounds like there is.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Tony Sidaway wrote:
What is the policy on copyrights that are disputed on suspicion?
Suppose there exists a photograph donated under GFDL and the uploader says that it was produced by him. Is the assertion of doubt by a third party _alone_ reason to post this as a "possible" copyright violation and recommend it for deletion on that basis? I'm not talking about the case where circumstantial evidence or other evidence exists to suggest that the image is a copyright violation. Only that someone has voiced the possibility that it is one.
A third party should have something more than mere suspicion or doubt for making his claim. "Assume good faith" implies that we believe that the contributor is telling the truth when he says that he took the picture himself.
The reality of third party claims is that most of the time they come from do-gooders who don't have a clue about what they are saying. It is with good reason that one of the conditions in issuing a takedown order is that the person issuing the order must have some relationship to the copyright work before he can ask for it to be taken down.
Another thing to keep in mind is the three-year limitation for taking action on a copyright violation. If something has been on the site for at least three years it is probably safe to keep. The argument that continuing availability may result in new limitation periods can probably be countered by invoking the doctrine of laches.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is the three-year limitation for taking action on a copyright violation. If something has been on the site for at least three years it is probably safe to keep. The argument that continuing availability may result in new limitation periods can probably be countered by invoking the doctrine of laches.
However, republishing in another medium, such as publishing a print edition of Wikipedia, probably would easily restart the limitation period.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is the three-year limitation for taking action on a copyright violation. If something has been on the site for at least three years it is probably safe to keep. The argument that continuing availability may result in new limitation periods can probably be countered by invoking the doctrine of laches.
However, republishing in another medium, such as publishing a print edition of Wikipedia, probably would easily restart the limitation period.
That's debateable. With GFDL the history of the material should be traceable. A fairly recent case involving laches went against the Church of Scientology because they had delayed the enforcement of their rights. This was despite the fact that the limitation period had not yet expired when they started their action. It then becomes a question of our dilligence in tracking the history of the article versus the copyright owner's dilligence in protecting his copyright. A downstream user of the Wikipedia material should have both the benefits and responsibilities of the GFDL. If he doesn't give the proper credits he is violating the GFDL, and can't rely on the accumulated history in his defence.
Ec
The question is what we are concerned about: being sued, or about being above board with what we use and properly redistributable?
Certainly, in most cases, Wikipedia is safe from being sued.
Have you noticed, by the way, that the current trend on image copyright is NOT 'assume good faith' on Wikipedia? We no longer assume that reading a statement and clicking yes to agree is sufficient -- we require people to justify.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Matt Brown (morven@gmail.com) [050115 08:32]:
Have you noticed, by the way, that the current trend on image copyright is NOT 'assume good faith' on Wikipedia? We no longer assume that reading a statement and clicking yes to agree is sufficient -- we require people to justify.
That would be bitter experience with idjits who pull an image off the front page of their hero's website and put it on Wikipedia as 'public domain'. Or 'fair use' with no justification and a barrage of flames if one dares question them.
- d.
That would be bitter experience with idjits who pull an image off the front page of their hero's website and put it on Wikipedia as 'public domain'. Or 'fair use' with no justification and a barrage of flames if one dares question them.
Ah, the 'Fair Use' definition of 'That's not fair, I wanna use it!'
-Matt
Matt Brown (morven@gmail.com) [050115 08:40]:
That would be bitter experience with idjits who pull an image off the front page of their hero's website and put it on Wikipedia as 'public domain'. Or 'fair use' with no justification and a barrage of flames if one dares question them.
Ah, the 'Fair Use' definition of 'That's not fair, I wanna use it!'
Check [[Talk:Keith Richards]] for a recent example of my experience. Canadian law?! If anyone else cares to try to achieve communication ...
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Matt Brown (morven@gmail.com) [050115 08:32]:
Have you noticed, by the way, that the current trend on image copyright is NOT 'assume good faith' on Wikipedia? We no longer assume that reading a statement and clicking yes to agree is sufficient -- we require people to justify.
That would be bitter experience with idjits who pull an image off the front page of their hero's website and put it on Wikipedia as 'public domain'. Or 'fair use' with no justification and a barrage of flames if one dares question them.
When someone's reply on a copyright question seems founded on ignorance I'm more inclined to put on an asbestos suit and take a hard line. Although I believe in a very liberal approach to copyright, such a stance still needs to be based on facts.instead of wishful thinking.
Ec
since we are on the copyright topic, what is currently done with articles where there is a certainty of copyright but are not new, or even worse, have been edited since then ?
Are they reverted ? Or, is the cp content just removed ? Or is it commonly practiced to remove in the history of the article the place where it is under copyright to avoid cp to be in history ?
Anthere
Tony Sidaway a écrit:
What is the policy on copyrights that are disputed on suspicion?
Suppose there exists a photograph donated under GFDL and the uploader says that it was produced by him. Is the assertion of doubt by a third party _alone_ reason to post this as a "possible" copyright violation and recommend it for deletion on that basis? I'm not talking about the case where circumstantial evidence or other evidence exists to suggest that the image is a copyright violation. Only that someone has voiced the possibility that it is one.