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)
On 02/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
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.
How *on earth* do you get this as being a violation of copyright? The BBC don't own facts about the show.
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.
You appear to be looking for any excuse. Whether this is the case or not, that's how it comes across.
- d.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:03:04 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
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.
How *on earth* do you get this as being a violation of copyright? The BBC don't own facts about the show.
The same way that the UK Top Ten is the property of the company that publishes it, and a list of No. 1 hits in the UK is asserted by them to violate that copyright.
Do you actually *know*, David? That's what I was after, a better-informed opinion. Where the answer is a competition between educated guesses, the precautionary principle argues for exclusion. I'm actually trying to find out if anyone can do better than an educated guess, perhaps from personal experience.
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.
You appear to be looking for any excuse. Whether this is the case or not, that's how it comes across.
Thank you so much for that. Of course you are right: I went out clicking Special:Random looking for content to delete and found this, then thought of a Really Good Reason for removing it. You have rumbled my evil plan to waste whole days of worthless Wikitime, and rightly imply that I have nothing better to do.
Oh, wait, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it? I know you included "whether or not". You are right: I dislike lists taken from external sources and dumped into Wikipedia. Especially when the sources are primary. It does not feel right. WP:FREE.
Specifically, then, this is a list of cars which is assembled into categories by the show. It seems to me to be functionally identical to, say, the "100 greatest humans" or "100 worst pop sings" lists which are broadcast or published - the list is the compilation of the show, and the intellectual property is likely to be vested in the show's owners. In terms of the 100 greatest humans, consensus was to include a selection (and I'd be happy with that on the cool wall too). Some other "top 100" lists have been deleted by consensus as violating copyright. So: BBC compiles a list of cars, broadcasts it on the show, and we reproduce the list. Can you not see why that would look like a copyright violation? But I want a more informed view.
Is it not the case that the onus is on the editors seeking to include the content, to show that it does not violate policy?
The fact that it is apparently assembled from watching numerous shows and writing stuff down is a separate issue, and plagues many popular culture articles. If we are the *first* source outside of the original media to publish some fact, that does rather indicate to me that we are doing something wrong. Encyclopaedia = tertiary source.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
The fact that it is apparently assembled from watching numerous shows and writing stuff down is a separate issue, and plagues many popular culture articles. If we are the *first* source outside of the original media to publish some fact, that does rather indicate to me that we are doing something wrong. Encyclopaedia = tertiary source.
I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia being the first source to bring together a group of facts from disparate sources (in this case from each individual show) and publishing them together in one article. Fundamentally, that's what _all_ of our articles are supposed to be. Would there be something wrong with Wikipedia having a list of American Presidential veterinarians (for the pets of presidents) that had been compiled in a similar manner from an assortment of presidential biographies rather than being copied from a single source?
And I agree with David, this really looks like you're just searching for any excuse you can get to get rid of that list. Copyvio and OR are almost diametrically opposed to each other as reasons to delete something; copyvio means it's a direct copy of something creative that someone else came up with and OR means it's something creative that was come up with ''de novo''. They can't both be true. Accusing this stuff of being both in the same message seems like you're just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.
On 4/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And I agree with David, this really looks like you're just searching for any excuse you can get to get rid of that list. Copyvio and OR are almost diametrically opposed to each other as reasons to delete something; copyvio means it's a direct copy of something creative that someone else came up with and OR means it's something creative that was come up with ''de novo''. They can't both be true. Accusing this stuff of being both in the same message seems like you're just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.
I read Guy's argument to be "if collating the information is creative, it's original research; if it's not, it's a copyright infringement; either way, delete".
Which is reasonable.
The counter-argument is for how it can be non-creative and exempt from copyright. I don't have that argument.
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And I agree with David, this really looks like you're just searching for any excuse you can get to get rid of that list. Copyvio and OR are almost diametrically opposed to each other as reasons to delete something; copyvio means it's a direct copy of something creative that someone else came up with and OR means it's something creative that was come up with ''de novo''. They can't both be true. Accusing this stuff of being both in the same message seems like you're just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.
I read Guy's argument to be "if collating the information is creative, it's original research; if it's not, it's a copyright infringement; either way, delete".
The copyright for every legitimate nontrivial edit to Wikipedia is held by the editor who made it, so every edit is in some sense a creative act. OR doesn't ban any conceivable creative act or we'd be in serious trouble. Its scope has crept larger over the years, but I still think it's stretching it rather far out of the bounds of common sense to claim that watching a set of shows and noting down a list of all the cars that are covered in them is OR.
What would happen if there'd been individual articles on each episode each with its own little list of cars, and after discussion it had been decided to merge all of them into one big main article? We could put the individual little lists in separate sections of the main article but not concatenate them together in one section? That's just silly.
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:19:35 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia being the first source to bring together a group of facts from disparate sources
[[WP:SYNTH]] does, I think.
[[WP:ATT]] talks a lot about *secondary* sources. This is collected by watching *primary* sources. And the categorisation in the four categories of coolness is the creative work of the programme makers.
You seem to be under the impression that I am so bored and underworked that I can go cruising round looking for things to build up into problems. If I want some Wikiwork to do all I need do is log on to OTRS, I have no need to go looking for problems. That said, when I find them, I try to deal with them.
Guy (JzG)
On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:19:35 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia being the first source to bring together a group of facts from disparate sources
[[WP:SYNTH]] does, I think.
Its current form does, but this is a drastic change from its classic form, which noted that primary sources were OK if they were not used to create "novel interpretations."
Personally, I advocate following the last good version here, which is to say, continuing as we were instead of paying heed to people who nitpicked this important qualification out of existence in favor of a guideline on how to write a bad encyclopedia.
-Phil
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:11:49 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I advocate following the last good version here, which is to say, continuing as we were instead of paying heed to people who nitpicked this important qualification out of existence in favor of a guideline on how to write a bad encyclopedia.
In other words, you prefer to be able to draw entirely from primary sources where no reliable secondary sources exist. Which we already know, of course. That is a matter of Wikiphilosophy.
It doesn't deal with the fact that we are republishing a categorisation of vehicles originally presented by someone else, in its entirety. I don't know of any other media where anybody on this list would seriously argue that presenting the entirety of the contents of some recently published primary source not in the public domain, was acceptable.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:11:49 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I advocate following the last good version here, which is to say, continuing as we were instead of paying heed to people who nitpicked this important qualification out of existence in favor of a guideline on how to write a bad encyclopedia.
In other words, you prefer to be able to draw entirely from primary sources where no reliable secondary sources exist. Which we already know, of course. That is a matter of Wikiphilosophy.
Wait a minute. As I understand it, the policy Phil is defending in his present post states that primary sources are acceptable where the interpretation drawn is not novel (i.e. new). This is how I understand our policy, although Phil in another post seems to have criticised this interpretation (that primary sources should not be cited unless there are secondary sources available).
If there are no extant secondary sources, any interpretation whatsoever of the primary source is novel. I suppose one could argue for the face-value, literal meaning interpretation as non-novel, but it's suprising how often people can disagree on a literal reading of a source.
Johnleemk
On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:37 PM, John Lee wrote:
If there are no extant secondary sources, any interpretation whatsoever of the primary source is novel. I suppose one could argue for the face- value, literal meaning interpretation as non-novel, but it's suprising how often people can disagree on a literal reading of a source.
Well, yes and no. First of all, this is where talk pages become useful parts of our process. Second of all, there are cases, including in academia, where you have to allow for some slippage here. My usual example here is [[Jacques Derrida]]. There are hundreds of secondary sources on him, but the good ones are A) no easier to interpret than the primary sources, and B) POV to high hell about what it is his philosophy means. The accessible general overviews are of mediocre quality at best, and are far from respected by any important Derrida scholars.
Attempting to write an article primarily from secondary sources about Derrida is a doomed proposition.
The way to write a good Derrida article is to have a bunch of people who use Derrida's ideas in their own scholarship write up summaries of Derrida's thought, and have points of disagreement and tension (i.e. the points where people disagree on exactly what On Grammatology means right here) sourced to secondary sources and explained in an NPOV fashion.
This is important. The best way to write this article on a major philosopher who nobody would even think to nominate for deletion is from primary sources, using secondary sources only when needed.
(This was, it should be noted, how [[Michel Foucault]], a similar article, was written and became a featured article. No citations anywhere in the "Works" section aside from the implied citation to the primary sources. Damn good artlcle, and a great overview of Foucault's work. This should be a model.)
-Phil
On 4/3/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:37 PM, John Lee wrote:
If there are no extant secondary sources, any interpretation whatsoever of the primary source is novel. I suppose one could argue for the face- value, literal meaning interpretation as non-novel, but it's suprising how often people can disagree on a literal reading of a source.
Well, yes and no. First of all, this is where talk pages become useful parts of our process. Second of all, there are cases, including in academia, where you have to allow for some slippage here. My usual example here is [[Jacques Derrida]]. There are hundreds of secondary sources on him, but the good ones are A) no easier to interpret than the primary sources, and B) POV to high hell about what it is his philosophy means. The accessible general overviews are of mediocre quality at best, and are far from respected by any important Derrida scholars.
Attempting to write an article primarily from secondary sources about Derrida is a doomed proposition.
The way to write a good Derrida article is to have a bunch of people who use Derrida's ideas in their own scholarship write up summaries of Derrida's thought, and have points of disagreement and tension (i.e. the points where people disagree on exactly what On Grammatology means right here) sourced to secondary sources and explained in an NPOV fashion.
This is important. The best way to write this article on a major philosopher who nobody would even think to nominate for deletion is from primary sources, using secondary sources only when needed.
(This was, it should be noted, how [[Michel Foucault]], a similar article, was written and became a featured article. No citations anywhere in the "Works" section aside from the implied citation to the primary sources. Damn good artlcle, and a great overview of Foucault's work. This should be a model.)
-Phil
But in this case, the secondary sources are in existence. If anyone wants to confirm that our reading of Derrida's or Foucault's works is non-novel, they can just slog through all the secondary sources. When there are no secondary sources available, however, then it's a whole different ball game: any interpretation of the primary sources is essentially novel, and thus verboten under NOR.
What I'm saying is, there's no reason we can't use primary sources if there are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available. But if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our own novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary source?
Johnleemk
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, John Lee wrote:
What I'm saying is, there's no reason we can't use primary sources if there are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available. But if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our own novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary source?
In this case, it's the word "interpretation" which you're stretching out of all reasonableness.
Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in alphabetical order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.
On 4/3/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, John Lee wrote:
What I'm saying is, there's no reason we can't use primary sources if
there
are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available.
But
if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our
own
novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary source?
In this case, it's the word "interpretation" which you're stretching out of all reasonableness.
Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in alphabetical order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.
I chose the word "interpretation" for a reason. Sorry if I didn't make this clear earlier, but I'm not debating the Top Gear case at all - truth be told, I forgot that that was the original topic in the first place. I'm speaking in general terms about policy, because it seems to me that Phil is advocating a view of policy that permits primary sources even where secondary sources don't exist.
Johnleemk
On 4/2/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I chose the word "interpretation" for a reason. Sorry if I didn't make this clear earlier, but I'm not debating the Top Gear case at all - truth be told, I forgot that that was the original topic in the first place. I'm speaking in general terms about policy, because it seems to me that Phil is advocating a view of policy that permits primary sources even where secondary sources don't exist.
We have never, AFAIK, said that primary sources are forbidden when secondary sources do not exist. It's possible that policy has been rewritten to say that at points (maybe even right now) but I'd submit that that does not reflect consensus (and is a symptom of the fact that we erroneously allow policy to be rewritten outside of consensus).
We do say that we are prohibited from drawing original conclusions from primary sources; thus, if primary sources are all an article has, there are many restrictions on what that article can say. It's possible that in many cases that means the article can never be beyond a stub. Sometimes, that may mean an article can't exist, but in many cases, having a solid stub is a good thing.
-Matt
John Lee wrote:
On 4/3/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, John Lee wrote:
What I'm saying is, there's no reason we can't use primary sources if there
are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available. But
if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our own
novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary source?
In this case, it's the word "interpretation" which you're stretching out of all reasonableness.
Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in alphabetical order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.
I chose the word "interpretation" for a reason. Sorry if I didn't make this clear earlier, but I'm not debating the Top Gear case at all - truth be told, I forgot that that was the original topic in the first place. I'm speaking in general terms about policy, because it seems to me that Phil is advocating a view of policy that permits primary sources even where secondary sources don't exist.
Sometimes that the most sensible approach. Every article giving a plot outline of a TV show episode does this.
Ec
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:37:57 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in alphabetical order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.
Not always, anyway. Lists of people by sexuality or ethnicity, for example, have been known to stray into the area of creative interpretation.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:37:57 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in alphabetical order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.
Not always, anyway. Lists of people by sexuality or ethnicity, for example, have been known to stray into the area of creative interpretation.
That's a case where subjective interpretation may be necessary in order to determine whether an item is a member of the list.
In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
If there's a show where season 1 stars Joe Bloe and Jane Foo, and season 2 stars Jane Foo and Billy dePlume, would it be original research to have the cast list
* Joe Bloe * Jane Foo * Billy dePlume
in the article about that show, even if nobody else had ever published the list in a secondary source before?
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Not always, anyway. Lists of people by sexuality or ethnicity, for example, have been known to stray into the area of creative interpretation.
That's a case where subjective interpretation may be necessary in order to determine whether an item is a member of the list.
Fine, as long as it's some named independent authority's subjective interpretation. With, for example, the list of tall men, it was entirely a construct of Wikipedia editors: some people decided what tall means, and then changed the value until the list was not "too big" (for whatever value of big might be too big) then introduced some extra criteria to exclude most basketball players because otherwise it was mainly a list of basketball players.
In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes. Like saying it was No. 1 in the charts. But, as with the charts, including the entire list violates copyright. And to get the names requires either interpretation of the pictures or watching every show. There are no independent secondary sources, and the primary source does not publish the list in text form.
If there's a show where season 1 stars Joe Bloe and Jane Foo, and season 2 stars Jane Foo and Billy dePlume, would it be original research to have the cast list
- Joe Bloe
- Jane Foo
- Billy dePlume
in the article about that show, even if nobody else had ever published the list in a secondary source before?
A show with absolutely no independently published cast lists? Sounds like it lacks sources. Is it notable? ;-)
Guy (JzG)
On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes. Like saying it was No. 1 in the charts. But, as with the charts, including the entire list violates copyright.
Huh? You keep repeating this, but the evidence for the claim just isn't there.
And to get the names requires either interpretation of the pictures or watching every show. There are no independent secondary sources, and the primary source does not publish the list in text form.
OH MY GOD! Someone watched every show! I know, let's shut down Wikipedia for three months.
(Yes, that's someone else's idea, but it does seem to be silly season right now.)
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:16:18 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes. Like saying it was No. 1 in the charts. But, as with the charts, including the entire list violates copyright.
Huh? You keep repeating this, but the evidence for the claim just isn't there.
I am looking for the OTRS ticket reference; the UK charts company wrote to us asking to take down two lists on precisely that basis. Of course, they could have been bullshitting, but why bother?
And to get the names requires either interpretation of the pictures or watching every show. There are no independent secondary sources, and the primary source does not publish the list in text form.
OH MY GOD! Someone watched every show! I know, let's shut down Wikipedia for three months.
Oh don't be silly. If we can forget all the hyperbole for a minute here, someone has copied content from a broadcast programme with a copyright statement at the end. Under the circumstances it seems reasonable to ask them to prove it is not copyright before it goes back in. That is, after all, supposed to be how it works: the onus is supposed to be on those seeking to include content, to show that it is valid.
Me, I sent an email to the BBC asking them. I thought that was smart. But hell, I thought it was smart to remove a big chunk of material taken directly from a copyright broadcast, and look where that got me.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:16:18 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes. Like saying it was No. 1 in the charts. But, as with the charts, including the entire list violates copyright.
Huh? You keep repeating this, but the evidence for the claim just isn't there.
OK, the OTRS ticket is 2007031910019141.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
OK, the OTRS ticket is 2007031910019141.
That ticket references the UK music charts, not this BBC Top Gear thing.
As far as the music charts go, their copyright status in the US would be questionable. If the charts are actually simply a sales analysis - as they claim to be - such facts would not be copyrightable, since nothing creative goes into producing them. As such, I find the automatic deletion of them based on a questionable copyright claim troubling.
I don't think their UK copyright status enters into it, as far as the legality of hosting it on Wikipedia. As I understand it, UK copyright law allows the copyrighting of uncreative works.
-Matt
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in alphabetical order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.
Not always, anyway. Lists of people by sexuality or ethnicity, for example, have been known to stray into the area of creative interpretation.
That's because the individual items in the list are interpretations, not because collecting a list is a type of interpretation.
On 4/2/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
When there are no secondary sources available, however, then it's a whole different ball game: any interpretation of the primary sources is essentially novel, and thus verboten under NOR.
This is stretching 'No original research' much further than it should be or was intended to be, in my opinion.
In this case, the list of cars in the show was assembled from a primary source using simple criteria: any car shown was listed. Reaching novel conclusions from the primary source is what is prohibited, IMO; e.g. speculating as to why these cars were chosen, or as to the show's preferences or biases, etc etc.
Simple summarizing of a primary source has always been allowed.
-Matt
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:48:30 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the list of cars in the show was assembled from a primary source using simple criteria: any car shown was listed.
Um, no. This is a classic case of "hard cases make bad law". If the list is taken to have been presented as part of the content of the show, then it is almost certainly a copyright violation (I have contacted the rights holders to check, of course). If, on the other hand, we argue that it is not a copyright violation because the list itself is not presented as part of the show's content, then the list in the article is a novel synthesis from original materials.
It rather depends on whether you count a list which identifies the vehicles by photograph rather than text label, as being equivalent to the same list translated into text labels,
Each week Clarkson and the Hamster stand up and invite the audience to help them decide whether the Ford Blah is cool or not; the decision made, it goes on the wall.
The Top Gear criterion of "coolness" has been the basis of derivative works published by the BBC (e.g. Hammond's "What Not To Drive"), but the only way to get the list as text is either to watch every show and write them down, or to recognise the pictures. Of course, I believe it doesn't actually matter which you do, because reproducing the list *in its entirety* is to a very /very/ high degree of probability a violation of the BBC's copyright.
It's further complicated by the fact that the BBC don't appear to consider it important enough to put on their website. So the one authoritative single source that might exist for the list as text, but which would at the same time unambiguously make it copyright, does not exist.
I also apply the simple man's copyright test: if something you produce is based entirely on copying from another source which asserts copyright, it's probably copyright violation. Needless to say, Top Gear has a copyright statement at the end of every broadcast.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/2/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:48:30 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the list of cars in the show was assembled from a primary source using simple criteria: any car shown was listed.
Um, no. This is a classic case of "hard cases make bad law".
I was addressing the 'original research' part of the argument; I don't think it was original research. It's quite likely that the list is copyrighted, however, since it is not a factually based list. The argument then becomes whether quoting that list in Wikipedia is permissible fair use (or the more restrictive UK equivalent, if you're located there).
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
I was addressing the 'original research' part of the argument; I don't think it was original research. It's quite likely that the list is copyrighted, however, since it is not a factually based list. The argument then becomes whether quoting that list in Wikipedia is permissible fair use (or the more restrictive UK equivalent, if you're located there).
It seems analogous to listing the recipients of other awards, which we've done quite freely throughout Wikipedia. If listing award recipients violates the copyright of the award-givers in an impermissible way this could have some rather drastic effects on other articles.
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:24:40 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It seems analogous to listing the recipients of other awards, which we've done quite freely throughout Wikipedia. If listing award recipients violates the copyright of the award-givers in an impermissible way this could have some rather drastic effects on other articles.
No. Awards are published one per year, and listing recipients is a matter of adding one per year, many secondary sources will do this. In this case the Cool Wall is a construct of the show, the list of vehicles with placements on the wall is more analogous to a pop chart, and those definitely are copyright.
But we are all guessing, albeit that I have yet to hear a robust analogy which is shown not to be copyright. Where there are competing guesses, I would suggest that we should be cautious, where copyright is concerned.
Guy (JzG)
On 03/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:24:40 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It seems analogous to listing the recipients of other awards, which we've done quite freely throughout Wikipedia. If listing award recipients violates the copyright of the award-givers in an impermissible way this could have some rather drastic effects on other articles.
No. Awards are published one per year, and listing recipients is a matter of adding one per year, many secondary sources will do this. In this case the Cool Wall is a construct of the show, the list of vehicles with placements on the wall is more analogous to a pop chart, and those definitely are copyright.
But we are all guessing, albeit that I have yet to hear a robust analogy which is shown not to be copyright. Where there are competing guesses, I would suggest that we should be cautious, where copyright is concerned.
Has anyone considered actually asking the BBC their opinion?
On 03/04/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone considered actually asking the BBC their opinion?
And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
[*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us letters claiming this after Jimbo said "sue and be damned."
- d.
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:22:06 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone considered actually asking the BBC their opinion?
And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
Did Clarkson die more than seventy years ago?
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
[*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us letters claiming this after Jimbo said "sue and be damned."
at least until now....
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery...
Mathias
I notice Mr Gerad has been actively disseminating the facts about the case and the law in the slashdot thread. Good for him!
Also, there is discussion on the Wikimedia list on the topic currently, you may be interested in joining.
--Falcorian
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
[*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us letters claiming this after Jimbo said "sue and be damned."
at least until now....
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery...
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council, House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based upon US law.
It turns out the case was heard under UK law (!). It cites as authorities a Privy Council case ruled by the UK Law Lords, *Interlego v Tyco Industries*(on which we have an article):
"Take the simplest case of artistic copyright, a painting or a photograph. It takes great skill, judgement and labour to produce a good copy by painting or to produce an enlarged photograph from a positive print, but no-one would reasonably contend that the copy, painting, or enlargement was an "original" artistic work in which the copier is entitled to claim copyright. Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality."
"Lord Oliver held that in order to afford copyright protection on a copy of a work, "[t]here must in addition be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work". He stated that such an alteration or embellishment must be "visually significant", and that it is insufficient simply for the alteration to convey "information". Thus the court held that the modifications that Interlego had made to its designs did not constitute an original work, and thus were not affored copyright protection. Although they may have involved skill, labour, and judgement, that skill, labour, and judgement lay solely in the process of copying."
Full ruling here http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1988/3.html. it also cites the UK House of Lords in a prior case, with a remarkably apposite quote:
"By attributing new periods of copyright protection to every minor alteration in the form of a brick which is recorded in, such a drawing they seek to obtain, effectively, a perpetual monopoly. In *Re Coca-Cola Go's Applications [1986] 2 All E.R. 274*, at 275, the House of Lords drew: attention to the undesirable practice of seeking to expand the boundaries of intellectual property rights beyond the purposes for which they were created in order to obtain an unintended and undeserving monopoly."
"To accord an independent artistic copyright to every such reproduction would be to enable the period of artistic copyright in what is, essentially, the same work to be extended indefinitely. Thus the primary question on Tyco's appeal can be expressed in this way: can Lego, having enjoyed a monopoly for the full permitted period of patent and design protection in reliance upon drawings in which no copyright any longer subsists, continue their monopoly for yet a further, more extensive period by re-drawing the same designs with a number of minor alterations and claiming a fresh copyright in the re-drawn designs?"
Given that Bridgeman has been cited as a purely US based precedent, this could be quite a major change in my understanding of the legal position :)
FT2
FT2 wrote:
I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council, House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based upon US law.
It turns out the case was heard under UK law (!). It cites as authorities a Privy Council case ruled by the UK Law Lords, *Interlego v Tyco Industries*(on which we have an article):
(snip some very interesting stuff, well worth reading from the parent in this thread)
Given that Bridgeman has been cited as a purely US based precedent, this could be quite a major change in my understanding of the legal position :)
Purely on grounds of curiosity (never mind the legal niceties) personally I would like to know what the photographer who actually was there in the gallery, pulling the trigger of the camera for NPG thinks today about all this stuff going on about the work she/he is/was doing. Did they think they were engaged in a noble act without revenue streams flickering in the back of the retinas of the people who actually hired that photographer for the job. That is, if one were to even provisionally stipulate, purely arguendo, that there was even a vanishingly small possibility that the NPG's case had even a rickety leg to stand on, what would the view of the "author" whose "creativity" the NPG is claiming to use as a justification for trying to "Dredd Scott" works already escaped into PD, "back south" into Copyright Protected dominion, be? Did the photographer get payed a proper artists dues? Or did they do this "ever so creative work" in largely conveyor-belt fashion, without much thought into what it was precisely that they were *reproducing*?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
FT2 wrote:
I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council, House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based upon US law.
It turns out the case was heard under UK law (!). It cites as authorities a Privy Council case ruled by the UK Law Lords, *Interlego v Tyco Industries*(on which we have an article):
(snip some very interesting stuff, well worth reading from the parent in this thread)
Given that Bridgeman has been cited as a purely US based precedent, this could be quite a major change in my understanding of the legal position :)
Purely on grounds of curiosity (never mind the legal niceties) personally I would like to know what the photographer who actually was there in the gallery, pulling the trigger of the camera for NPG thinks today about all this stuff going on about the work she/he is/was doing. Did they think they were engaged in a noble act without revenue streams flickering in the back of the retinas of the people who actually hired that photographer for the job. That is, if one were to even provisionally stipulate, purely arguendo, that there was even a vanishingly small possibility that the NPG's case had even a rickety leg to stand on, what would the view of the "author" whose "creativity" the NPG is claiming to use as a justification for trying to "Dredd Scott" works already escaped into PD, "back south" into Copyright Protected dominion, be? Did the photographer get payed a proper artists dues? Or did they do this "ever so creative work" in largely conveyor-belt fashion, without much thought into what it was precisely that they were *reproducing*?
My view is it is unlikely that the high-res images were obtained by a single photographer taking photographs in the galleries (I may be wrong here). It is more likely they were digitised professionally using a team that did proper scans with techniques that conserved the paintings and artworks in question.
Have a look here for examples of what the NPG offer:
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/about/primary-collection.php
"The Primary Collection contains more than 11,000 portraits. Of these about 4,000 are paintings, sculptures and miniatures, approaching 60% of which are regularly displayed, with the intention to show a further selection. In addition, there are almost 7,000 light-sensitive works on paper, shown on a rotating basis of about 300 items a year to avoid excessive light exposure and thus to minimise deterioration and fading. The Gallery also holds a Reference Collection and a Photographs Collection."
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/about/reference-collection.php
"The Reference Collection is held in the Heinz Archive and Library and contains more than 80,000 portraits of important and lesser known figures in British history. The majority of these portraits are prints, but the collection also includes drawings, silhouettes, caricatures, paintings, miniatures, medallions and related items."
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/about/photographs-collection.php
"The Photographs Collection consists of more than 220,000 original photographic images of which at least 130,000 are original negatives."
Take a moment to think about what is involved in cataloguing and digitising a collection like that. I know the US public institutions have done just that (think Library of Congress), but it is certainly not cheap, not easy and not quick.
I would hope it involved a lot more than pointing a camera at a portrait on a wall, even if you are mounting it on a tripod and using infrared technology as well. And where do you start on access to the library collections? If they are properly funded (not a given, I know), there is likely to be an array of hi-tech scanning machines and technologies used to produce the hi-resolution images. Think art restoration and preservation techniques. And a wide range of media and scanning techniques developed for those different media. 3D scanning techniques, scanning techniques for light-sensitive materials, ways to scan large portraits (the really big ones can be many feet across and be very heavy). Even producing a flatbed scan of a normal print or negative requires careful cleaning and scanning and then post-processing of the scan itself.
Remember that the number of (highly skilled) staff required to operate that sort of process may not show up on the NPG payroll, as they may contract that sort of work out to others.
And my guess is that the photographer or scanners or other people paid to do this were doing nothing more nor less than as professional a job as they could do, to earn the money they were contracted to be paid. Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public domain material, running through their minds all the time.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
Remember that the number of (highly skilled) staff required to operate that sort of process may not show up on the NPG payroll, as they may contract that sort of work out to others.
Granted without a question. But that just begs the question. If they are claiming a "creative act" in producing the image, and not being satisfied in acknowledging they are just copying it, is it not really even "best practices" for them to acknowledge the authorship to the person doing the creativity? Personally I think aggressive approaches by them for some purported creative function they have provided, when not even supplying the name who might have standing to declare their creative contribution was being impinged upon, is frankly ludicrous!
And my guess is that the photographer or scanners or other people paid to do this were doing nothing more nor less than as professional a job as they could do, to earn the money they were contracted to be paid. Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public domain material, running through their minds all the time.
Just being professional doesn't mean you aren't being creative. I want to be very clear about that. But even if you are being very inventive in the solutions you employ in producing a good and professional _result_; the result would in most cases aim to be "faithful" to the original image, and not to impart some "creative spark" from the forehead of the photographer themselves, which would forever mark the image as the work of that and no other fungible photographer, I rather suspect.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Remember that the number of (highly skilled) staff required to operate that sort of process may not show up on the NPG payroll, as they may contract that sort of work out to others.
Granted without a question. But that just begs the question. If they are claiming a "creative act" in producing the image, and not being satisfied in acknowledging they are just copying it, is it not really even "best practices" for them to acknowledge the authorship to the person doing the creativity? Personally I think aggressive approaches by them for some purported creative function they have provided, when not even supplying the name who might have standing to declare their creative contribution was being impinged upon, is frankly ludicrous!
And my guess is that the photographer or scanners or other people paid to do this were doing nothing more nor less than as professional a job as they could do, to earn the money they were contracted to be paid. Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public domain material, running through their minds all the time.
Just being professional doesn't mean you aren't being creative. I want to be very clear about that. But even if you are being very inventive in the solutions you employ in producing a good and professional _result_; the result would in most cases aim to be "faithful" to the original image, and not to impart some "creative spark" from the forehead of the photographer themselves, which would forever mark the image as the work of that and no other fungible photographer, I rather suspect.
Agreed. Ironically, if the NPG *had* done photographs of the portraits in their gallery settings, including the 3D frames and with lighting and angle considerations, and there had been a developed 'style' of how to frame the photographs of the pictures, that would be a greyer area than faithful archival quality scans. I think.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
Agreed. Ironically, if the NPG *had* done photographs of the portraits in their gallery settings, including the 3D frames and with lighting and angle considerations, and there had been a developed 'style' of how to frame the photographs of the pictures, that would be a greyer area than faithful archival quality scans. I think.
Carcharoth
...a developed *and distinctive* style ...
FT2
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:07 PM, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
Agreed. Ironically, if the NPG *had* done photographs of the portraits in their gallery settings, including the 3D frames and with lighting and angle considerations, and there had been a developed 'style' of how to frame the photographs of the pictures, that would be a greyer area than faithful archival quality scans. I think.
...a developed *and distinctive* style ...
Upside down pictures? Mirror reversed pictures? Sepia-tinted pictures?
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public domain material, running through their minds all the time.
I hope you will forgive me.
I know that is likely to be a "brain fart" of the type that I personally suffer from more than most, but I did smile at the thought of "freeing public domain material".
:-D
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public domain material, running through their minds all the time.
I hope you will forgive me.
I know that is likely to be a "brain fart" of the type that I personally suffer from more than most, but I did smile at the thought of "freeing public domain material".
:-D
:-)
Wording was deliberate. The point being postulated is that the NPG are imprisoning the PD material.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public domain material, running through their minds all the time.
I hope you will forgive me.
I know that is likely to be a "brain fart" of the type that I personally suffer from more than most, but I did smile at the thought of "freeing public domain material".
:-D
:-)
Wording was deliberate. The point being postulated is that the NPG are imprisoning the PD material.
That's pretty mild compared to Jussi-Ville's evocative language: "trying to 'Dred Scott' works already escaped into PD 'back south' into Copyright Protected dominion"
Since this is a UK issue, though, maybe our inflammatory rhetoric should use the tropes of imperialism.
Of course, sooner or later the rhetoric of copyright politics all ends in the same place: http://ideas.4brad.com/hitler-tries-dmca-takedown
Sage Ross wrote:
Since this is a UK issue, though, maybe our inflammatory rhetoric should use the tropes of imperialism.
I can remember it well, circa 1909: the world map was one big [[paint by number]], and all you needed was enough pink. (Shades of Terry Pratchett.) Now it is all pots and kettles trying to look less black?
Charles
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
Some more blogs on this raised some interesting points. First I'll quote what I said earlier, and then comment after it.
Take a moment to think about what is involved in cataloguing and digitising a collection like that. I know the US public institutions have done just that (think Library of Congress), but it is certainly not cheap, not easy and not quick.
I would hope it involved a lot more than pointing a camera at a portrait on a wall, even if you are mounting it on a tripod and using infrared technology as well. And where do you start on access to the library collections? If they are properly funded (not a given, I know), there is likely to be an array of hi-tech scanning machines and technologies used to produce the hi-resolution images. Think art restoration and preservation techniques. And a wide range of media and scanning techniques developed for those different media. 3D scanning techniques, scanning techniques for light-sensitive materials, ways to scan large portraits (the really big ones can be many feet across and be very heavy). Even producing a flatbed scan of a normal print or negative requires careful cleaning and scanning and then post-processing of the scan itself.
Now look at this blog and the comments on it:
http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-ge...
The comments that do a much better of job of explaining what I was trying to say above are here:
http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-ge...
http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-ge...
http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-ge...
http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-ge...
Some quotes to give a taste of the arguments being put forward:
"A large format camera with a betterlight scanback is rigidly attached to a display platform where the art is placed, along with the lighting. All the camera movements, focus, etc, are fixed except a rail allows the camera to be adjusted to match the measured depth of the frame. Images of a calibration target are taken, then the art. Basically scanner turned inside out and scaled up to a large size."
"there's actually quite a lot of skill required in using the system. Each image require individual calibration, and an appropriate lighting direction needs to be chosen. You wouldn't light a Turner in the same way as a Van Gogh. So the NPG can argue that skill has been required."
"[C]opying technology has reached a stage now where exact replicas of works of art can be created. The resulting digital files that drive the 3D printers, or CNC machines to reproduce the work may be the culmination of months of work and the expenditure of £10000s."
"The HP system involves custom calibration and lighting to produce a version of the image that gives a remarkably accurate 3D image of the paint surface and texture; it takes a lot of time (a decade for the permanent collection at the NG I think), costs a lot of money, needs training of the operators and is used as the basis of the print on demand system in the National Gallery shop."
Also here:
http://robmyers.org/weblog/2009/07/wikipedia-against-gallery-copyright-overr...
"Suppose the Van Gogh museum did produce high quality copies of their collection, such copies would be a colossal public benefit, as would the cost of creating the digitization. Now say those files leak out, should the museum have any ability to stop someone from using those files to produce and sell exact copies, and if they don't, if someone can just snag their production data, what incentive do they have in make the artifacts available in the first place? And so we return to the NPG. Just how do they protect their investment in producing their digital files?"
These issues of how to fund digitisation projects and what protection should be afforded, if any, are not going to go away.
Carcharoth
Some more blogs (including the one I mentioned in the last post):
http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-ge...
http://www.technollama.co.uk/national-portrait-gallery-copyright-row
http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2009/07/national-portrait-gallery-photographs....
http://blog.frankwales.com/2009/07/20/for-the-public-good/
One point I want to pick up from that last one.
In the comments, the blog author says:
"Dover Books has built a business that includes reprinting out-of-copyright music scores. I have several of their books, such as a volume of Brahms’s symphonies. But anyone else is able to publish this same material, and it’s perfectly legal to download those same Brahms scores from the International Music Score Library Project. That this is so hasn’t prevented Dover from being able to sustain their business model."
That is an incorrect analogy.
The equivalents here would be:
*"Download PD images from Commons" vs "download those same Brahms scores from the International Music Score Library Project"
*"Buy book from the NPG shop" vs buy "volume of Brahms’s symphonies" from Dover Books
*"Download NPG images and upload to Commons" vs "walk into Dover Books offices and copy the manuscripts of their books and then print your own copies of the books and give them away for free"
*"Pay tens of thousands of pounds for professional scans of NPG pictures" vs "pay professional orchestra to perform Brahms's symphonies and record them and sell the result
To my mind, the difference between a bog-standard point-and-click photograph of a work of art and a detailed, archival scan, done in such detail, and with care and due attention to lighting to capture the essence of the work of art, is the difference between a mere copy of a musical score, and the performance of that score by an orchestra.
Admittedly, the analogy might be being stretched to breaking point here.
But the blogs are good, so do read those!
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:23 PM, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council, House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based upon US law.
For anyone interested, we have this on Wikisource
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library,_Ltd._v._Corel_Corp.
There are a number of redlinks at the bottom.
It would be good if Wikipedia articles were written about: * Fine Arts Copyright Act 1862 (see [[Edwin Wilkins Field]]) * Graves' Case (1869, LR 4 QB 715)
I cant quickly find a copy of Graves Case on the Internet. If anyone can obtain pagescans of it, I will set it up on Wikisource as a transcription project.
-- John Vandenberg
Are UK legal rulings public domain? Or just US rulings?
FT2
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:23 PM, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council, House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based upon US law.
For anyone interested, we have this on Wikisource
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library,_Ltd._v._Corel_Corp.
There are a number of redlinks at the bottom.
It would be good if Wikipedia articles were written about:
- Fine Arts Copyright Act 1862 (see [[Edwin Wilkins Field]])
- Graves' Case (1869, LR 4 QB 715)
I cant quickly find a copy of Graves Case on the Internet. If anyone can obtain pagescans of it, I will set it up on Wikisource as a transcription project.
-- John Vandenberg
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/7/20 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com:
Are UK legal rulings public domain? Or just US rulings?
I understand that Wikisource treats all laws everywhere as public domain; don't know about court rulings.
- d.
I enjoy writing a lot on US and UK law, on wikipedia over the years, so I've had cause to notice that UK laws claim crown copyright (same as normal copyright but more extravagant title?) so it might not be correct that it's PD. But I don't know about the full text of legal case rulings. Does anyone here?
FT2
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:55 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com:
Are UK legal rulings public domain? Or just US rulings?
I understand that Wikisource treats all laws everywhere as public domain; don't know about court rulings.
On checking, of course Wikipedia would have an article on it. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright%3E
!!
FT2
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I enjoy writing a lot on US and UK law, on wikipedia over the years, so I've had cause to notice that UK laws claim crown copyright (same as normal copyright but more extravagant title?) so it might not be correct that it's PD. But I don't know about the full text of legal case rulings. Does anyone here?
FT2
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:55 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com:
Are UK legal rulings public domain? Or just US rulings?
I understand that Wikisource treats all laws everywhere as public domain; don't know about court rulings.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:55 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/20 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com:
Are UK legal rulings public domain? Or just US rulings?
I understand that Wikisource treats all laws everywhere as public domain; don't know about court rulings.
David is correct. English Wikisource does not have the a rule "must be PD in the country of origin", as we like the nice clear lines of PD-1923 and PD-GovEdict.
In the US, all laws (inc foreign) are public domain, and in the UK the laws may be reproduced with a few restrictions, such as not including images of seals and requiring accuracy. So modification is not permitted by UK residents (no UK vandals permitted) but it is PD in the US jurisdiction, meaning modification is permitted, and so it sneaks in the back door of the freedomdefined.org definition.
I would need to check whether UK residents are legally permitted to put their laws on Wikisource - there is a restriction that the website needs to have obtained permission, but I dont recall if it applies in this situation.
The Graves' Case is from 1869, so crown copyright has expired. (crown copyright is very different as the crown doesn't die.)
iirc Wikisource doesnt have any UK court rulings so that issue hasn't been raised. We do have a few AUS court rulings, and iirc they are still covered by crown copyright, and they might even have been contributed or improved by an Australian.
-- John Vandenberg
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Mathias Schindlermathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
[*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us letters claiming this after Jimbo said "sue and be damned."
at least until now....
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery...
This is now in the UK newspapers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/14/national-portrait-gallery-w...
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?National_Portrait_Gallery_sues_Wiki...
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Mathias Schindlermathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
[*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us letters claiming this after Jimbo said "sue and be damned."
at least until now....
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery...
This is now in the UK newspapers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/14/national-portrait-gallery-w...
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?National_Portrait_Gallery_sues_Wiki...
One wonders about the state of journalism in England when the people at Metro can't tell the difference between a lawyer's letter and an actual lawsuit.
I can imagine some future encyclopaedist referring to Metro as a reliable source to establish that the NPG had in fact sued Wikipedia. (not even Wikimedia). Ec
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Mathias Schindlermathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
[*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us letters claiming this after Jimbo said "sue and be damned."
at least until now....
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery...
This is now in the UK newspapers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/14/national-portrait-gallery-w...
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?National_Portrait_Gallery_sues_Wiki...
Here is the BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8156268.stm
"Wikipedia painting row escalates By Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent, BBC News"
Page last updated at 14:14 GMT, Friday, 17 July 2009 15:14 UK
Putting the above article date and timestamp to see if it changes at any point.
Carcharoth
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Oh dear, they got his name wrong.
"David Coetzee" (it is Derrick, not David)
From here:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1722735/dispute_between_wikipedia_ar...
"Thanks for running this story. A small correction: my name is Derrick Coetzee, not David Coetzee as recently misprinted by the BBC."
Carcharoth
Could someone link to Erik Moeller's blog post and to any of the press releases from the WMF?
Carcharoth
2009/7/18 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Could someone link to Erik Moeller's blog post and to any of the press releases from the WMF?
There's been no press releases from WMF as such - Mike Godwin is, funnily enough, treating this as a legal issue, i.e. a combination of chess and poker.
Though Erik's post pretty much served as a press release:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/16/protecting-the-public-domain-and-sharin...
I've started a thread on foundation-l (and on my own blog) asking what things people would like to see from a compromise agreement, and what they think would work for both sides.
- d.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:43 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/18 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Could someone link to Erik Moeller's blog post and to any of the press releases from the WMF?
There's been no press releases from WMF as such - Mike Godwin is, funnily enough, treating this as a legal issue, i.e. a combination of chess and poker.
I saw something on the en-wikinews article talk page. What was that?
Though Erik's post pretty much served as a press release:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/16/protecting-the-public-domain-and-sharin...
Thanks.
I've started a thread on foundation-l (and on my own blog) asking what things people would like to see from a compromise agreement, and what they think would work for both sides.
One thing that needs clarification is what the NPG are saying in public and private:
"But the gallery insists that its case has been misrepresented, and has now released a statement denying many of the charges made by Wikipedia."
Is there a link to that anywhere?
Also note:
"A spokeswoman also said that the two German archives mentioned in Erik Moeller's blog had in fact supplied medium resolution images to Wikipedia, and insisted that the National Portrait Gallery had been willing to offer similar material to Wikipedia."
They are now directly saying that they *had* offered medium-resolution images. That needs sorting out: when, where and who were they talking to? Possibly they thought they were talking to someone who could do something, but in fact they weren't (they were possibly talking to a random volunteer, or the WMF rejected the offer as "not free enough" - strange to laymen's eyes in light of the example of the German archives).
One more point:
"The British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has backed the National Portrait Gallery's stance."
We don't have an article on BAPLA, but we do have five references to it (article on three of their members, one of the founding members, and the current president). BAPLA is the UK trade association for the picture library industry. Wikipedia is weak on its coverage of trade associations, but if you want to get an idea of the range of picture libraries and agencies in the UK, have a look at the BAPLA website:
"With over 380 member companies, we represent the vast majority of commercial picture libraries and agencies in the UK."
"Companies range from small specialists to multinationals, collectively managing in excess of 350 million images, within an industry estimated to be worth over £500m per year in domestic revenue alone."
Most of that is the sale of contemporary copyrighted photographs (by living photographers earning money from their trade). But some of that will be the commercial sale of scans of PD stuff that gets free culture people up in arms. The root of this issue is the commercial exploitation of the public domain.
My view is that if people are prepared to spend time, money and effort in finding, collecting, keeping and conserving public domain material, and then scanning it and digitising it, then there is nothing to prevent people selling the end product of such labours. And people will pay for that service.
Whether it is morally right to exploit the public domain (by selling such scans for money), and whether it is morally right to appropriate the scans made by others (by insisting the scans are also public domain), is something I can see arguments for on both sides of this divide.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
One more point:
"The British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has backed the National Portrait Gallery's stance."
We don't have an article on BAPLA, but we do have five references to it (article on three of their members, one of the founding members, and the current president). BAPLA is the UK trade association for the picture library industry. Wikipedia is weak on its coverage of trade associations, but if you want to get an idea of the range of picture libraries and agencies in the UK, have a look at the BAPLA website:
"With over 380 member companies, we represent the vast majority of commercial picture libraries and agencies in the UK."
"Companies range from small specialists to multinationals, collectively managing in excess of 350 million images, within an industry estimated to be worth over £500m per year in domestic revenue alone."
Any chance of Wikimedia UK (the chapter) applying for a membership of BAPLA? Or would they be considered "insufficiently commercial"?
:-P
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
One more point:
"The British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has backed the National Portrait Gallery's stance."
We don't have an article on BAPLA, but we do have five references to it (article on three of their members, one of the founding members, and the current president). BAPLA is the UK trade association for the picture library industry. Wikipedia is weak on its coverage of trade associations, but if you want to get an idea of the range of picture libraries and agencies in the UK, have a look at the BAPLA website:
"With over 380 member companies, we represent the vast majority of commercial picture libraries and agencies in the UK."
"Companies range from small specialists to multinationals, collectively managing in excess of 350 million images, within an industry estimated to be worth over £500m per year in domestic revenue alone."
Any chance of Wikimedia UK (the chapter) applying for a membership of BAPLA? Or would they be considered "insufficiently commercial"?
Commons would be the equivalent constituent unit of the Wikimedia Foundation family, not Wikimedia UK. You may want to look through the BAPLA list and see if any charities or non-profit organisations are there - there might well be, as I've never looked through the whole list, but I suspect that even those ones would be selling their images, not distributing them for free reuse (or they would be doing a combination of free distribution and sales). The closest you might come would be "non-commercial use" (e.g. museums), but that, as has been made clear at Commons, is insufficiently free.
Are far as who buys images - this goes directly to the core of the commercial versus free debate (competition?). Encyclopedias like Encarta (as it was) and Encyclopedia Britannica (as it is) and any other encyclopedia you see published in a bookshop, or being sold, will obtain pictures from such sources (and pay for them). Whether any of them also obtain pictures from Commons, instead of going to traditional picture library sources (or commissioning a photographer to take photos), I don't know. The question will likely be whether they are aware of Commons, and where the best pictures are (professional photographers do still outstrip Commons in many areas, but not all).
But please do look through the BAPLA list and see what type of organisations are members. I'm going to do that now, if they have an online list, as I would be interested to see which ones we have articles on.
Carcharoth
2009/7/18 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Any chance of Wikimedia UK (the chapter) applying for a membership of BAPLA? Or would they be considered "insufficiently commercial"?
Commons would be the equivalent constituent unit of the Wikimedia Foundation family, not Wikimedia UK.
Yes. It is very important that *chapters don't do the content*, particularly in the UK. If it were ever judged otherwise, we just wouldn't be able to have a chapter in the UK at all.
You may want to look through the BAPLA list and see if any charities or non-profit organisations are there - there might well be, as I've never looked through the whole list, but I suspect that even those ones would be selling their images, not distributing them for free reuse (or they would be doing a combination of free distribution and sales). The closest you might come would be "non-commercial use" (e.g. museums), but that, as has been made clear at Commons, is insufficiently free.
BAPLA's stated ambitions appear to be to become the monopoly cartel for images in the UK - the RIAA or MPAA, with similar morals and ethics.
- d.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/18 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
<snip>
You may want to look through the BAPLA list and see if any charities or non-profit organisations are there - there might well be, as I've never looked through the whole list, but I suspect that even those ones would be selling their images, not distributing them for free reuse (or they would be doing a combination of free distribution and sales). The closest you might come would be "non-commercial use" (e.g. museums), but that, as has been made clear at Commons, is insufficiently free.
BAPLA's stated ambitions appear to be to become the monopoly cartel for images in the UK - the RIAA or MPAA, with similar morals and ethics.
Where do you get that impression? They are a trade association.
Did you look through the list?
http://www.bapla.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16...
You may also want to look at the sister organisations:
"PACA in the USA and CEPIC across Europe".
Picture Archive Council of America:
"PACA, the Picture Archive Council of America, is the trade organization in North America that represents the vital interests of stock archives of every size, from individual photographers to large corporations, who license images for commercial reproduction. Founded in 1951, its membership includes over 100 companies in North America and over 50 international members."
Co-ordination of European Picture Agencies Press Stock Heritage:
"CEPIC is a European Economic Interest Group (E.E.I.G) not for profit representing the interests of picture associations, agencies and libraries in Europe, in total 1.053 picture agencies and libraries in Europe, from the smallest to the largest, the sole trader and the global company, covering all aspects of photography, news, stock, heritage. CEPIC organises each year an Agent Congress, enabling agents from all over the world to meet. "
It's a big industry (though many of the picture libraries are vanishingly small and many get swallowed up by the giants). I think most of it is photographers taking contemporary pictures and selling them (remember this is mostly stock photography, news photography is something different - Commons is interesting in that it combines news photography and stock photography). Note the reference to "news, stock, heritage" in the CEPIC description. The bit of interest here is "heritage", though the very oldest of the news photography is now falling into the public domain.
How much of the worldwide sales of images consists of sales from scans of archives of public domain and historical material (or, for example, the commercial sale of US-PD material, such as NASA and Library of Congress), I don't know, but that is only part of the industry. The main part is living photographers selling their photographs (news and stock). The heritage or archival side of things, the historical photos and scans of pictures in old books, makes up a chunk of it, but how much I don't know if anyone knows. The different sources and provenances for such images (and the sometimes uncertain status of archives) complicates things as well.
Carcharoth
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
Picture Archive Council of America:
"PACA, the Picture Archive Council of America, is the trade organization in North America that represents the vital interests of stock archives of every size, from individual photographers to large corporations, who license images for commercial reproduction. Founded in 1951, its membership includes over 100 companies in North America and over 50 international members."
Hmm. Either there is another trade organisation in the USA, or the industry is far more consolidated than in Europe (1053 members of the European equivalent body). 100 sounds a bit low, unless there are some giants in there like Corbis. But still, it would be interesting to see how many museums and other "heritage" organisations are in that lot.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
Most of that is the sale of contemporary copyrighted photographs (by living photographers earning money from their trade). But some of that will be the commercial sale of scans of PD stuff that gets free culture people up in arms. The root of this issue is the commercial exploitation of the public domain.
My view is that if people are prepared to spend time, money and effort in finding, collecting, keeping and conserving public domain material, and then scanning it and digitising it, then there is nothing to prevent people selling the end product of such labours. And people will pay for that service.
Whether it is morally right to exploit the public domain (by selling such scans for money), and whether it is morally right to appropriate the scans made by others (by insisting the scans are also public domain), is something I can see arguments for on both sides of this divide.
What is most striking to my mind in this issue of use of images, is how the status quo differs from that with regard to _texts_.
With texts, what you have are Project Gutenberg, The Internet Archive, Wikisource etc. pretty much all of them with some form of copyleft, or at least not asserting silly Copyprotect rationales (total PD in the case of PG, with merely the proviso of *not* attributing if you don't include the full disclaimer of the "license")
I do know there have been cases of good quality scans of texts being hoarded, or being totally disallowed in the past, such as the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I don't quite see them as being relevant in this context.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Most of that is the sale of contemporary copyrighted photographs (by living photographers earning money from their trade). But some of that will be the commercial sale of scans of PD stuff that gets free culture people up in arms. The root of this issue is the commercial exploitation of the public domain.
My view is that if people are prepared to spend time, money and effort in finding, collecting, keeping and conserving public domain material, and then scanning it and digitising it, then there is nothing to prevent people selling the end product of such labours. And people will pay for that service.
Whether it is morally right to exploit the public domain (by selling such scans for money), and whether it is morally right to appropriate the scans made by others (by insisting the scans are also public domain), is something I can see arguments for on both sides of this divide.
What is most striking to my mind in this issue of use of images, is how the status quo differs from that with regard to _texts_.
With texts, what you have are Project Gutenberg, The Internet Archive, Wikisource etc. pretty much all of them with some form of copyleft, or at least not asserting silly Copyprotect rationales (total PD in the case of PG, with merely the proviso of *not* attributing if you don't include the full disclaimer of the "license")
I do know there have been cases of good quality scans of texts being hoarded, or being totally disallowed in the past, such as the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I don't quite see them as being relevant in this context.
This might be because people will pay more money for images. Picture worth a thousand words. That sort of thing. And a picture, or a sound clip, or a video clip, or a multimedia clip, is less 'editable' than a chunk of text. There is also a longer history of written and printed text. Photography is relatively recent (last 150 years), cinema even more recent. Look back at the history of written text before the printing press came along, and see how much people hoarded manuscripts, or freely copied them. Then look at how things developed after the printing press came along, and how the "hoard" vs "freely distribute" (and credit the creators and provide them with income) debates developed. And look at the various ways people developed to earn money from texts, images and cinema and video. Then throw in the internet.
Carcharoth
2009/7/18 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
What is most striking to my mind in this issue of use of images, is how the status quo differs from that with regard to _texts_.
Yes. One has to keep in mind, of course, that the NPG is qualitatively different to most museums, and behaves much more like Gollum with the One Ring. My *precioussss.*
This anonymous comment on the WMF blog was interesting:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/16/protecting-the-public-domain-and-sharin...
# A Publisher Says: July 17th, 2009 at 22:58
Excuse me for not posting under my real name, but I’m a publisher of academic books in the UK, and I don’t want to embarrass my employers, since I’m not speaking on behalf of the firm.
I’d just like to say that the National Portrait Gallery is one of the worst offenders in the world in its digital practices. The terms and conditions (quite apart from the cost) associated with getting permission to use one of their images – itself a pretty offensive idea, I know – are so bad that you can’t really afford to do business with them.
This is particularly bad because the NPG often holds the only good image of a historical figure. I’m publishing the only book in some decades about a minor 18th-century writer, for instance, whom the NPG owns the only contemporary painting of. It’s the obvious choice for a cover image. But we can’t afford the money or the legal obstacles, so it’s not on our cover. Instead we’re using an obscure etching of a sketch made towards the exact same painting.
If I had to name one museum or gallery in the UK as the chief villain in this all-too-common story, the NPG would be the one. They contrast somewhat with the British Museum and the V&A, who are opening up a little, though insisting that they own copyright and must be credited as such, and restricting free use to scholars to print only, and “non-commercial use” only, a term which of course is a little difficult to define. But at least the BM and the V&A have some sympathy with scholarship. That cannot be said for the NPG, which seems desperate to monetise something it doesn’t and mustn’t own.
Don’t think that US galleries or museums abide by the spirit of Corel v Bridgeman, incidentally; they frequently assert copyright exactly as if it had never been ruled. They can do this because a publisher can’t practicably restrict himself to one worldwide domain, and it’s only law in a few countries. And museums often supply images with an end user agreement containing amazing restrictions – e.g. that you must show them physical proofs, before press, which they can veto; that you cannot crop or show a detail of a painting now 200 years old; etc., etc.
Such “agreements” – never negotiable – mean any illustrated book published today is a mass of little contracts. The result is that second editions are never worth it any longer (the time, the renegotiation, the fresh fees, etc.), and that books are frequently unillustrated just to avoid the whole nightmare. I’ve known art historians who had to pay £2000 out of their own pockets in order to show details of painters no later than Rembrandt. We’re not talking about trivial sums and a few simple emails.
Frankly I think this particular test case is not the ideal ground for a fight, because the plundering was pretty blatant. But I’m very glad people are fighting it, all the same. If these images do somehow escape the NPG and get into anything resembling the public domain, it will be an absolute good. Indeed, it will advance exactly the cause for which the NPG was founded.
- d.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/18 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
What is most striking to my mind in this issue of use of images, is how the status quo differs from that with regard to _texts_.
Yes. One has to keep in mind, of course, that the NPG is qualitatively different to most museums, and behaves much more like Gollum with the One Ring. My *precioussss.*
This anonymous comment on the WMF blog was interesting:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/16/protecting-the-public-domain-and-sharin...
# A Publisher Says: July 17th, 2009 at 22:58
Excuse me for not posting under my real name, but I’m a publisher of academic books in the UK, and I don’t want to embarrass my employers, since I’m not speaking on behalf of the firm.
<snip>
Thanks for posting that, David. It was a fascinating read!
Carcharoth
2009/7/18 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/7/18 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
What is most striking to my mind in this issue of use of images, is how the status quo differs from that with regard to _texts_.
Yes. One has to keep in mind, of course, that the NPG is qualitatively different to most museums, and behaves much more like Gollum with the One Ring. My *precioussss.*
Questionable. Most of the national museums with 3D items are pretty liberal about photography british museum, science museum, Royal Navy Submarine Museum, royal armories, imperial war museums as long as it is on display and 3D we've never really had a problem. HMS Victory is something of an exception but it is also a still a commissioned warship warship. County museums vary. Some will let you take photos some will not. Much the same for private collections although the national trust fairly firmly says no.
For stuff not on public display there are more issues.
2D is a completely different matter. The British museum prohibits photography of much of it's 2D stuff as does every county archive I've ever dealt with. Library services also tend to be somewhat jumpy. The imperial war museum's 2D collection would cost serious money to get access to on any scale. The British library present much the same issue.
I never investigated the National Monuments Record that much but they seemed to be fairly relaxed but then English heritage generally are. Ordnance survey lost much of their collection during WW2 but they've printed so many maps over the years that getting hold of the likes of new popular edition and 7th series maps doesn't cost very much (even less if you have parents/grandparents who didn't throw them out). On the other hand their 1:500 maps from the 19th century appear to be in county archives which makes accessing them hard.
All in all for 2D images you are very often better off looking outside the major UK collections.
2009/7/18 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
What is most striking to my mind in this issue of use of images, is how the status quo differs from that with regard to _texts_.
I suspect it's simply that with images - where the physical single "master copy" is quantitatively different for publishing purposes - it's a lot easier to assert a dodgy sort-of-copyright than it is with a textual work.
The traditional approach is to say - "sorry, you can't take a photograph or a scan of it. Oh, you want to publish it? Well, as luck would have it, we can sell you a scan. $500. Oh, and there's terms and conditions on that - you've got to credit us, you've got to destroy that intermediate copy once you've set up the publication, you can only use it in specified ways... why, yes, it is still in the public domain, why do you ask? Oh. If you don't want to abide by this contract, then good luck finding someone else who'll have a good-quality print."
You can't really do that sort of footwork with a published work, since setting up a faithful copy of it requires nothing more specialised than a book and a typesetter.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Most of that is the sale of contemporary copyrighted photographs (by living photographers earning money from their trade). But some of that will be the commercial sale of scans of PD stuff that gets free culture people up in arms. The root of this issue is the commercial exploitation of the public domain.
My view is that if people are prepared to spend time, money and effort in finding, collecting, keeping and conserving public domain material, and then scanning it and digitising it, then there is nothing to prevent people selling the end product of such labours. And people will pay for that service.
Whether it is morally right to exploit the public domain (by selling such scans for money), and whether it is morally right to appropriate the scans made by others (by insisting the scans are also public domain), is something I can see arguments for on both sides of this divide.
What is most striking to my mind in this issue of use of images, is how the status quo differs from that with regard to _texts_.
With texts, what you have are Project Gutenberg, The Internet Archive, Wikisource etc. pretty much all of them with some form of copyleft, or at least not asserting silly Copyprotect rationales (total PD in the case of PG, with merely the proviso of *not* attributing if you don't include the full disclaimer of the "license")
I do know there have been cases of good quality scans of texts being hoarded, or being totally disallowed in the past, such as the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I don't quite see them as being relevant in this context.
Libraries and librarians promote wide distribution, so there is almost a race to see who can digitise books first. The culture within these organisations is different, and mean that even their rare works are digitised, but that is more expensive due to the need to be extremely careful. From their perspective, providing a very high res image to the world means that the original will not be requested very often, which will extend its life.
Historical societies usually adopt a stance more similar to the museums, because they have lots of interesting texts in their collections which are unique, _and_ they are looking for ways to stay afloat.
The art world is very different because it has been based on limited distribution (prints) of "good" art, as opposed to wide distribution of works of even dubious value, as happens with books.
-- John Vandenberg
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:14:21 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone considered actually asking the BBC their opinion?
I have done so.
Guy (JzG)
I didn't know you were a copyright lawyer.
On 4/2/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:48:30 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the list of cars in the show was assembled from a primary source using simple criteria: any car shown was listed.
Um, no. This is a classic case of "hard cases make bad law". If the list is taken to have been presented as part of the content of the show, then it is almost certainly a copyright violation (I have contacted the rights holders to check, of course). If, on the other hand, we argue that it is not a copyright violation because the list itself is not presented as part of the show's content, then the list in the article is a novel synthesis from original materials.
It rather depends on whether you count a list which identifies the vehicles by photograph rather than text label, as being equivalent to the same list translated into text labels,
Each week Clarkson and the Hamster stand up and invite the audience to help them decide whether the Ford Blah is cool or not; the decision made, it goes on the wall.
The Top Gear criterion of "coolness" has been the basis of derivative works published by the BBC (e.g. Hammond's "What Not To Drive"), but the only way to get the list as text is either to watch every show and write them down, or to recognise the pictures. Of course, I believe it doesn't actually matter which you do, because reproducing the list *in its entirety* is to a very /very/ high degree of probability a violation of the BBC's copyright.
It's further complicated by the fact that the BBC don't appear to consider it important enough to put on their website. So the one authoritative single source that might exist for the list as text, but which would at the same time unambiguously make it copyright, does not exist.
I also apply the simple man's copyright test: if something you produce is based entirely on copying from another source which asserts copyright, it's probably copyright violation. Needless to say, Top Gear has a copyright statement at the end of every broadcast.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:41:28 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't know you were a copyright lawyer.
Where did I say that? I said I *think* it's copyright, and gave my reasoning. In this thread we've seen some sound reasons supporting the idea it's copyright, and some (IMO) rather weaker ones saying it's not. Obviously I have asked the BBC and will await their response.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:41:28 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't know you were a copyright lawyer.
Where did I say that? I said I *think* it's copyright, and gave my reasoning. In this thread we've seen some sound reasons supporting the idea it's copyright, and some (IMO) rather weaker ones saying it's not. Obviously I have asked the BBC and will await their response.
Do you really believe that they can answer objectively when they are the putative copyright holder>
Ec
On 06/04/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:41:28 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't know you were a copyright lawyer.
Where did I say that? I said I *think* it's copyright, and gave my reasoning. In this thread we've seen some sound reasons supporting the idea it's copyright, and some (IMO) rather weaker ones saying it's not. Obviously I have asked the BBC and will await their response.
Do you really believe that they can answer objectively when they are the putative copyright holder>
I think their opinion is crucial, since if they see no copyright violation, there can be no claim.
James Farrar wrote:
On 06/04/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:41:28 -0400, "The Cunctator" wrote:
I didn't know you were a copyright lawyer.
Where did I say that? I said I *think* it's copyright, and gave my reasoning. In this thread we've seen some sound reasons supporting the idea it's copyright, and some (IMO) rather weaker ones saying it's not. Obviously I have asked the BBC and will await their response.
Do you really believe that they can answer objectively when they are the putative copyright holder>
I think their opinion is crucial, since if they see no copyright violation, there can be no claim.
A not copyrighted response would simplify things, but not so for the contrary view.
Ec
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:23:01 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A not copyrighted response would simplify things, but not so for the contrary view.
If they assert copyright, then we should simply exclude the list. It's not like it matters, we can have some examples, preferably in prose. This does not prevent us discussing the topic of the Cool Wall, and it does not materially degrade the article, in that it's not actually necessary to have the entire list in order to understand the concept.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:23:01 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A not copyrighted response would simplify things, but not so for the contrary view.
If they assert copyright, then we should simply exclude the list. It's not like it matters, we can have some examples, preferably in prose. This does not prevent us discussing the topic of the Cool Wall, and it does not materially degrade the article, in that it's not actually necessary to have the entire list in order to understand the concept.
Guy (JzG)
Here is where I see the crux of the issue in this thread: you are not interested in keeping the information in question. You do not value it. You are willing to eliminate it at request (which is all that their reply could possibly be seen as).
Wikipedia/Wikimedia was established (and I hope continues to exist) to make information freely available. Caving in to unreasonable claims of copyright is not the way to do that.
Note that I'm not saying that their claim would be unreasonable--I am not an expert in copyright law. But your position is that their mere request should result in our removing the information, when the question of whether this is a copyright violation is still very much in question.
-Rich
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:26:50 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Here is where I see the crux of the issue in this thread: you are not interested in keeping the information in question. You do not value it. You are willing to eliminate it at request (which is all that their reply could possibly be seen as).
And you are wrong in your assertion. I am interested in the article subject, I just don't think we may or should include the list in its entirety.
Yes, I am prepared to eliminate it on request. I am prepared to eliminate *any* asserted copyright on request, and allow it back in only when it is established that it does not violate copyright. We get a steady trickle of complaints of copyright violation, and we generally *do* remove them.
Wikipedia/Wikimedia was established (and I hope continues to exist) to make information freely available. Caving in to unreasonable claims of copyright is not the way to do that.
You are, I think, confusing free-as-in-beer with free-as-in-speech. We are not allowed to include content that violates other people's copyright, and this is not in any way seen as incompatible with Wikipedia's mission. The subject of the Cool Wall can be discussed perfectly satisfactorily without including the list, just as we can discuss popular songs without including mp3s or lyrics of the songs.
In fact, that is probably a good example: a song is part of an album, as the Cool Wall is part of Top Gear; the song is published in the form of a performance; the lyrics are in some cases transcribed by fans; it is generally accepted that these lyrics are copyright. Not only do we not allow them to be included, we don't even allow links to them unless on the official site of the band.
Removing unfree content has never been incompatible with Wikipedia's mission to make information freely available. We do it all the time.
Note that I'm not saying that their claim would be unreasonable--I am not an expert in copyright law. But your position is that their mere request should result in our removing the information, when the question of whether this is a copyright violation is still very much in question.
Yes. The request of any rights owner should always be respected, even if that respect takes the form of removing the content, debating, proving that the claim to rights is invalid, and re-inserting. Someone is right now claiming that some material in [[KRISTI snowcat]] violates his copyright. After taking advice from Brad, I removed some and left other facts in with {{fact}} tags.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:26:50 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Here is where I see the crux of the issue in this thread: you are not interested in keeping the information in question. You do not value it. You are willing to eliminate it at request (which is all that their reply could possibly be seen as).
And you are wrong in your assertion. I am interested in the article subject, I just don't think we may or should include the list in its entirety.
You have more than once referred to the list as "cruft" (or at least suggested that it was). To me "cruft" is a term of disparagement. Others have pointed out that you seem to be looking for a good reason to get rid of the list (your original post suggested that it was either copyvio, OR, or "cruft").
While I may have stepped over the line by stating as a given what I perceive to see as your motives, I still hold the opinion that if you thought this information to be more important than "cruft", you would be more willing to listen to those opinions that differ from yours. After asking for "guidance", you have argued strenuously that it is in fact copyvio (or original research).
Yes, I am prepared to eliminate it on request. I am prepared to eliminate *any* asserted copyright on request, and allow it back in only when it is established that it does not violate copyright. We get a steady trickle of complaints of copyright violation, and we generally *do* remove them.
No, I don't really think you are. I think that, before you acted on *any" asserted copyright, you would check things out. If someone said that certain content was from their web page, you would first go to their web page, would you not? Before deleting the information? And you'd see if the content was "really" a copyvio? If it was paraphrased, wouldn't you try to explain to the complainant why it was not copyvio? If the alleged source was a printed book that you happened to have on a shelf, wouldn't you look at the book first? If you didn't have the book, wouldn't you at least check to see if anyone else had quick access to it? These things seem to be minimal steps to take before acting on "any" asserted copyright violation. Even though you're not a copyright lawyer, you still see if it is an obvious case (one way or the other) before acting on it.
In fact, isn't that why you're asking here now?
I really don't *know* what you'd do in any of these cases, but I sure hope that you are not so paranoid about copyrights that you immediately act on any allegation of copyvio.
Wikipedia/Wikimedia was established (and I hope continues to exist) to make information freely available. Caving in to unreasonable claims of copyright is not the way to do that.
You are, I think, confusing free-as-in-beer with free-as-in-speech. We are not allowed to include content that violates other people's copyright, and this is not in any way seen as incompatible with Wikipedia's mission.
No, I understand the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech. Of course we're not "allowed" to include content that violates copyright, nor am I suggesting that we do. But I am suggesting that we not cave to unreasonable claims of copyright. I'd even go as far as saying that we should push back when copyright claims are not obvious and go against free-as-in-speech.
This is *not* a clear copyvio. We should fight to include it, and relent only when it is established that it is a copyvio, which in my mind requires more than a reply to your inquiry. We have a process for authors who believe that their copyright is being violated. See [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright]]. Again, I don't know how the volunteers at info-en-c@wikimedia.org behave, but I'd be surprise if they removed without some level of verification.
The subject of the Cool Wall can be discussed perfectly satisfactorily without including the list, just as we can discuss popular songs without including mp3s or lyrics of the songs.
In fact, that is probably a good example: a song is part of an album, as the Cool Wall is part of Top Gear; the song is published in the form of a performance; the lyrics are in some cases transcribed by fans; it is generally accepted that these lyrics are copyright. Not only do we not allow them to be included, we don't even allow links to them unless on the official site of the band.
I'm not interested in discussing the merits of this case. As I said before, I am not a copyright lawyer. Nor do I consider myself to have anything beyond a basic acquaintance with copyright law.
Removing unfree content has never been incompatible with Wikipedia's mission to make information freely available. We do it all the time.
Note that I'm not saying that their claim would be unreasonable--I am not an expert in copyright law. But your position is that their mere request should result in our removing the information, when the question of whether this is a copyright violation is still very much in question.
Yes. The request of any rights owner should always be respected, even if that respect takes the form of removing the content, debating, proving that the claim to rights is invalid, and re-inserting. Someone is right now claiming that some material in [[KRISTI snowcat]] violates his copyright. After taking advice from Brad, I removed some and left other facts in with {{fact}} tags.
Guy (JzG)
You see, I was right about you. You didn't "eliminate on request". You got Brad's advice, and then only partially complied with the request for removal (if I understand correctly). Something led you to ask for Brad's advice--could it be that it was not an obvious copyvio (i.e. not a direct copy-and-paste)?
We do make decisions about removing non-free content from Wikipedia. In some cases (biographies of living people), we often remove first and ask questions later. In those sort of cases, we need to begin from a position of not causing harm via unsubstantiated/unreferenced "facts".
But this is a different type of situation, and our position should not be so quick-to-delete. We can be more deliberate (at least, until we get an official take-down-request). We can be more assertive of our rights and of our mission.
-Rich
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:49:45 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not interested in discussing the merits of this case. As I said before, I am not a copyright lawyer. Nor do I consider myself to have anything beyond a basic acquaintance with copyright law.
Ah, right, so you just want to have a go at me for taking an action ha conflicts with your view that we should include copied conflict unless someone actually sends us a takedown notice or sues us. I can see why this is an unproductive discussion.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:49:45 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not interested in discussing the merits of this case. As I said before, I am not a copyright lawyer. Nor do I consider myself to have anything beyond a basic acquaintance with copyright law.
Ah, right, so you just want to have a go at me for taking an action ha conflicts with your view that we should include copied conflict unless someone actually sends us a takedown notice or sues us. I can see why this is an unproductive discussion.
"Having a go"? Or offering critique. I suppose it's based on your point of view.
But it's not so much the action that I object to. It's the presumptions that you're basing the action on.
I believe you wanted to get rid of this content, because you saw it as "cruft", did not value it, and were looking for any excuse.
I believe your stated presumption of our guilt at any claim of copyright violation is not good for Wikipedia. It hurts the project. For obvious (or apparently obvious) copyright violations, of course we act. For those that are much less obvious, it's much better for the project to push back. Which is what I'm doing. You apparently don't like that.
But, if you want to drop this topic, I'll drop it. I believe I've made my point. I'll even let you get the last word in, if you want.
-Rich
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:10:19 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe you wanted to get rid of this content, because you saw it as "cruft", did not value it, and were looking for any excuse.
And you are wrong. That would apply if I AfD'd the article, but what I said was that the list is, in my view, copyvio, we can give some examples from each category but we should not repeat in its entirety a list which is the creative work of someone else.
I don't think it degrades Wikipedia at all not to have the entire list. Clearly the show doesn't think it's that important, it's not even on the website.
Guy (JzG)
----- Original Message ----- From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net Date: Saturday, April 7, 2007 3:23 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:10:19 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe you wanted to get rid of this content, because you saw
it as
"cruft", did not value it, and were looking for any excuse.
And you are wrong. That would apply if I AfD'd the article, but what I said was that the list is, in my view, copyvio, we can give some examples from each category but we should not repeat in its entirety a list which is the creative work of someone else.
Here's what you wrote in your initial email on this subject (at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067483.html):
Original research? You decide. Copyright? I think so, but what do I know? Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
The smiley on the fancruft question implies that you're being sarcastic, so you don't in fact find it to be a tricky question. I guess that could mean that you think it's obviously _not_ fancruft, but I somehow doubt that. Why even bring it up if that was the case?
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:39:03 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Here's what you wrote in your initial email on this subject (at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067483.html):
Original research? You decide. Copyright? I think so, but what do I know? Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
The smiley on the fancruft question implies that you're being sarcastic, so you don't in fact find it to be a tricky question. I guess that could mean that you think it's obviously _not_ fancruft, but I somehow doubt that. Why even bring it up if that was the case?
Is it (the article, that is, not the list) fancruft? Tricky. As a fan of the show I am not well-placed to judge.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:39:03 -0700, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Here's what you wrote in your initial email on this subject (at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067483.html):
Original research? You decide. Copyright? I think so, but what do I know? Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
The smiley on the fancruft question implies that you're being sarcastic, so you don't in fact find it to be a tricky question. I guess that could mean that you think it's obviously _not_ fancruft, but I somehow doubt that. Why even bring it up if that was the case?
Is it (the article, that is, not the list) fancruft? Tricky. As a fan of the show I am not well-placed to judge.
Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the wrong impression. You've been around long enough to be aware of the uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis in a message. :-)
Ec
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the wrong impression. You've been around long enough to be aware of the uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis in a message. :-)
Well yes, that's true. What I hadn't realised was that there appears to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright, or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing anything. That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Well yes, that's true. What I hadn't realised was that there appears to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright, or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing anything. That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned.
The opposition at least in my case is about how far some people and corporations will go to claim copyright (or trademark, or indeed patent, although the latter doesn't affect Wikipedia nearly so much) in ways that range from laughable through questionable and dubious to unlikely.
-Matt
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 02:15:19 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
The opposition at least in my case is about how far some people and corporations will go to claim copyright (or trademark, or indeed patent, although the latter doesn't affect Wikipedia nearly so much) in ways that range from laughable through questionable and dubious to unlikely.
Oh sure. I recently handled a complaint from someone who claimed that sales figures for a product which he quoted on his website were copyright, and we may not reproduce the figures. That is clearly complete bollocks. On the other hand we had someone complaining that a formatted list of tour dates was a direct lift out of his book. He was right; it was a direct lift.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 02:15:19 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
The opposition at least in my case is about how far some people and corporations will go to claim copyright (or trademark, or indeed patent, although the latter doesn't affect Wikipedia nearly so much) in ways that range from laughable through questionable and dubious to unlikely.
Oh sure. I recently handled a complaint from someone who claimed that sales figures for a product which he quoted on his website were copyright, and we may not reproduce the figures. That is clearly complete bollocks. On the other hand we had someone complaining that a formatted list of tour dates was a direct lift out of his book. He was right; it was a direct lift.
The problem in both of these cases hinges on the popular misconception that information can be copyright. In the first case I would be inclined to consider whether the material was proprietary data, but that's a whole other field outside of copyright. In the second case the formatting is likely the deciding factor. The tour dates themselves (probably historical since they're from a book) are not protected. Any two people doing original research on the matter should come up with the same dates.
In any event, you need to deal with the factual situation in front of you. Anyone challenging your decision should exhibit a bit of cluefulness about copyright, and a good whinge is not particularly cluefull.
Ec
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the wrong impression. You've been around long enough to be aware of the uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis in a message. :-)
Well yes, that's true. What I hadn't realised was that there appears to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright, or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing anything. That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned.
Not really. The initial burden of proof lies with the person bringing the matter to court. He must establish
1. that the material was copyright in the first place 2. that he has a legal right to claim copyrights, and 3. he must identify exactly what infringed upon the copyright.
Only then does the defence need to say anything on any of a number of bases such as the material was not copyrightable, the plaintiff did not properly inherit the copyright, or fair use. These are not the only ones. The recent case against Dan Brown shows that it's not always easy to win a significant copyvio case..
In many of these situations only a court decisiion can determine what is clean. All we have is opinions with not enough at stake to make a lawyer's opinion worthwhile. What the lawyer says is still nothing more than an opinion.
Philosophical opposition is fine as long as one approaches copyright with a sense of respect for the person who may be the holder of those rights. Simply saying that humanity needs to have this information is not a sufficient rationale for copyright violation. Our rules are perhaps already more restrictive than what might be required by the courts. That's fine. Still, there must be a place for legitimate challenges to particular copyright claims, and the first thing that I would look at when a person seeks to add what could be copyright protected material is some element of clue about copyright law.
Ec
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the wrong impression. You've been around long enough to be aware of the uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis in a message. :-)
Well yes, that's true. What I hadn't realised was that there appears to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright, or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing anything. That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on TV series would be decimated. If a list of 20 names of cars is copyrighted, what about a list of 20 character names? Seems to me that would be even *more* likely to be copyrightable, as the individual names themselves are creative.
At that point, maybe it's time to start a new project for fictional works.
Anthony
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:03:09 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
You think. I think it's reasonable to assert that a list which is compiled according to novel criteria is itself subject to copyright. I have no problem with examples from each category, the entire list I find problematic.
If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on TV series would be decimated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights suggests that we already have such a policy.
Discuss a fictional work: fine. Reproduce it: not fine.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:03:09 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on TV series would be decimated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights suggests that we already have such a policy.
I'm sorry, which part is that? And where is there evidence that this "policy" is followed?
When has a lawyer gone through and approved the listing of characters and plot summaries from [[Lost (TV series)]], or [[Mission: Impossible]]? Or should this all be deleted too? Is there an article on a television series which in your opinion *shouldn't* have major sections of it removed until a lawyer has signed off on them?
Discuss a fictional work: fine. Reproduce it: not fine.
You can't discuss a fictional work without reproducing at least a little bit of it.
[[Dangerfield (TV series)]] has a list of characters in it. You agree with me that this list is copyrighted, correct? Do you feel it should be removed?
Anthony
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 09:50:46 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
You can't discuss a fictional work without reproducing at least a little bit of it.
Fair Use. For example (as I am getting a bit sick of pointing out), examples from each section. But not the whole list, any more than we reproduce the whole list of the film institute's hundred best films. And for precisely the same reason: a compilation based on non-objective criteria which cannot therefore be duplicated, so includes a creative element.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 09:50:46 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
You can't discuss a fictional work without reproducing at least a little bit of it.
Fair Use. For example (as I am getting a bit sick of pointing out), examples from each section. But not the whole list, any more than we reproduce the whole list of the film institute's hundred best films.
And who is supposed to determine whether or not a use is fair use, you? There is absolutely no principle in law that reproducing an entire list cannot be fair use. In fact, case law shows exactly the opposite, that reproduction of an entire work *can* be fair use. I (and many others here) are saying that the text in question as used in [[The Cool Wall]] *was* fair use.
And how do you define "the list"? If you're going to say that the list of cars which are on the cool wall is the copyrighted work, then surely you can point us to when and how that list was first published. But this list was never published as a list. Rather, a wall with a bunch of photographs was published as part of a tv show, and the article in question was giving a textual description of that wall.
Anthony
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:03:09 -0400, Anthony wrote:
I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
You think. I think it's reasonable to assert that a list which is compiled according to novel criteria is itself subject to copyright. I have no problem with examples from each category, the entire list I find problematic.
As I suggested before, if it's possible to devise a category that would produce the same results as the list, we should be safe. This does not mean that we have to create the category; it should be enough that we can.
If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials
from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional
opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on TV series would be decimated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights suggests that we already have such a policy.
I see nothing in there about lists of the kind we are discussing.
Ec
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:03:09 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
You think. I think it's reasonable to assert that a list which is compiled according to novel criteria is itself subject to copyright. I have no problem with examples from each category, the entire list I find problematic.
A list which is compiled according to novel criteria probably is itself subject to copyright.
But I think a lot of people have a philosophical opposition to *that*. Not to copyright itself, but to copyright being granted to an unordered list of things someone thinks is cool.
Again, I'm not denying that copyright protection probably is available to such a list. Just that it's ridiculous to do so, and that it doesn't really matter because use of such a tiny amount of copyrighted materials is almost always fair use, especially in the context of an encyclopedia article about it, distributed by a non-profit charity.
Anthony
On 10/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:03:09 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
You think. I think it's reasonable to assert that a list which is compiled according to novel criteria is itself subject to copyright. I have no problem with examples from each category, the entire list I find problematic.
A list which is compiled according to novel criteria probably is itself subject to copyright.
But I think a lot of people have a philosophical opposition to *that*. Not to copyright itself, but to copyright being granted to an unordered list of things someone thinks is cool.
Again, I'm not denying that copyright protection probably is available to such a list. Just that it's ridiculous to do so, and that it doesn't really matter because use of such a tiny amount of copyrighted materials is almost always fair use, especially in the context of an encyclopedia article about it, distributed by a non-profit charity.
Has anyone tried contacting the BBC to ask them whether they claim copyright over it?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:13:59 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone tried contacting the BBC to ask them whether they claim copyright over it?
Yes. They have not yet replied.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:13:59 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone tried contacting the BBC to ask them whether they claim copyright over it?
Yes. They have not yet replied.
Isn't Top Gear produced by one of the indies now? That might explain it.
On 10/04/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:13:59 +0100, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone tried contacting the BBC to ask them whether they claim copyright over it?
Yes. They have not yet replied.
Isn't Top Gear produced by one of the indies now? That might explain it.
The copyright notice is "(c) BBC MMVII" though, is it not?
On 4/10/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Just that it's ridiculous to do so, and that it doesn't really matter because use of such a tiny amount of copyrighted materials is almost always fair use, especially in the context of an encyclopedia article about it, distributed by a non-profit charity.
Just a side-note, without any comment on the debate concerning list copyright: we intentionally restrict how we use fair use so that it would not hurt downstream users who happen not to be non-profit charities like us. That's why [[WP:FU]] is more restrictive than US law.
Johnleemk
On 09/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the wrong impression. You've been around long enough to be aware of the uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis in a message. :-)
Well yes, that's true. What I hadn't realised was that there appears to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright, or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing anything. That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on TV series would be decimated. If a list of 20 names of cars is copyrighted, what about a list of 20 character names? Seems to me that would be even *more* likely to be copyrightable, as the individual names themselves are creative.
At that point, maybe it's time to start a new project for fictional works.
Creating a content fork would be a rather dramatic solution that would harm Wikipedia.
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on TV series would be decimated. If a list of 20 names of cars is copyrighted, what about a list of 20 character names? Seems to me that would be even *more* likely to be copyrightable, as the individual names themselves are creative.
At that point, maybe it's time to start a new project for fictional works.
Creating a content fork would be a rather dramatic solution that would harm Wikipedia.
Excluding absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles would be a rather dramatic action. As for it harming Wikipedia, I think that would all depend on how the fork was executed. But it's not likely to happen, so maybe it's best to just ignore this argument.
Anthony
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:19:10 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Excluding absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles would be a rather dramatic action.
Which is probably why nobody is suggesting it. Under Fair Use, we can include short extracts for the purpose of critical review.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:19:10 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Excluding absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles would be a rather dramatic action.
Which is probably why nobody is suggesting it. Under Fair Use, we can include short extracts for the purpose of critical review.
And that's exactly what was done in [[The Cool Wall]].
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:46:59 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Which is probably why nobody is suggesting it. Under Fair Use, we can include short extracts for the purpose of critical review.
And that's exactly what was done in [[The Cool Wall]].
Bong! Wrong answer. The list was reproduced in its entirety.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:46:59 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Which is probably why nobody is suggesting it. Under Fair Use, we can include short extracts for the purpose of critical review.
And that's exactly what was done in [[The Cool Wall]].
Bong! Wrong answer. The list was reproduced in its entirety.
What list?
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:46:59 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Which is probably why nobody is suggesting it. Under Fair Use, we can include short extracts for the purpose of critical review.
And that's exactly what was done in [[The Cool Wall]].
Bong! Wrong answer. The list was reproduced in its entirety.
That's an uncivil and overly categorical way of saying your opinion differs.
Calling the list "the entirety" of a copyrighted work is quite dubious. The "cool wall" segment consists of more than just the list of cars, and the "top gear" show consists of much more than just the "cool wall" segment. As an analogous example, you didn't have a problem with reproducing the entirety of the first page of several copyrighted works on Wikipedia (those sheet music scans I mentioned earlier); it's qualitatively different from reproducing the entire score.
At some point you get down to the individual atoms of creativity that simply cannot be copyrighted themselves. A symphony can be copyrighted, a single note cannot. A TV show about cars can be copyrighted, the name of a single car cannot. Somewhere between these is a fuzzy gray dividing line and I think most of the participants in this thread are in the camp that simply listing the cars that have been on the Cool Wall is on the safe side of that line.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:44:16 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
That's an uncivil and overly categorical way of saying your opinion differs.
You say. Me, I feel that this has been a complete waste of everybody's time. People who know copyright have generally erred on the side of excluding the list *in its entirety* as being covered by compilation copyright, just like the AFI 100 lists which have recently been removed following almost identical discussions, and the balance is philosophical argument about whether we believe it *should* be copyrightable.
The ironic thing is that if the show considered it significant and put it on their website, the copyright violation would e unambiguous, so the only reason the argument exists at all is because the show considers it too trivial to post on their site.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/12/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:44:16 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
That's an uncivil and overly categorical way of saying your opinion differs.
You say. Me, I feel that this has been a complete waste of everybody's time.
I hope that it's been at least somewhat educational. What happens with this list itself is rather irrelevant, but if at least some people have grown in their understanding of copyright and fair use then the discussion hasn't been a waste of time.
The ironic thing is that if the show considered it significant and put it on their website, the copyright violation would e unambiguous, so the only reason the argument exists at all is because the show considers it too trivial to post on their site.
I don't see how that's ironic, I don't agree with you that the copyright violation would then become unambiguous, and I don't think it's necessarily true that the reason the list isn't on their site is because they consider it trivial.
And even if the list *was* on the site, which it apparently isn't, that wouldn't change the argument at all, because the list on Wikipedia was not copied from the (nonexistant) list on the site.
But the fact of the matter is *there is no list* being published by the TV show producers, so to say that the list has been copied in its entirety is entirely unfounded. In order for something to be copied in its entirety it has to exist in the first place. Wikipedians did not copy a list. They copied elements from an entire series of shows and described a work which appeared on that show (the cool wall).
Wikipedia has an article on [[The Cool Wall]]. You may consider this work too trivial to have an encyclopedia article about, but the fact is Wikipedians have decided to have it. Claiming that a description of the wall is a copyright violation seems to me to be a bad way of appealing that decision.
Anthony
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:44:16 -0600, Bryan Derksen wrote:
That's an uncivil and overly categorical way of saying your opinion differs.
You say. Me, I feel that this has been a complete waste of everybody's time. People who know copyright have generally erred on the side of excluding the list *in its entirety* as being covered by compilation copyright, just like the AFI 100 lists which have recently been removed following almost identical discussions, and the balance is philosophical argument about whether we believe it *should* be copyrightable.
Saying that those who know copyright agree with excluding the list is tantamount to saying they know copyright because they agree with you. There have been several participants "who know copyright" that have the opposite view.
The ironic thing is that if the show considered it significant and put it on their website, the copyright violation would e unambiguous, so the only reason the argument exists at all is because the show considers it too trivial to post on their site.
I still haven't received any response to my previous question. If a category tag were placed in the article for each and every car in the list, and only those cars, would the resulting category page also be a copyright infringement just because it contained the same information?
Ec
Anthony wrote:
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the wrong impression. You've been around long enough to be aware of the uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis in a message. :-)
Well yes, that's true. What I hadn't realised was that there appears to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright, or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing anything. That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on TV series would be decimated.
This is an interesting point. Some of our plot summaries go into considerable detail. Why do we not hear complaints from the producers? It they could commit themselves to a policy of saying, "You can do this, but you can't do that," it would make our task much easier. A lot of what happens reflects custom rather than law. They realize that a certain amount of public discussion and information helps sell their product. Taking a clear stand on some of this, even the most obvious, would be a loss of tactical advantage.
Ec
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:26:50 -0500, Rich Holton wrote:
Here is where I see the crux of the issue in this thread: you are not interested in keeping the information in question. You do not value it. You are willing to eliminate it at request (which is all that their reply could possibly be seen as).
And you are wrong in your assertion. I am interested in the article subject, I just don't think we may or should include the list in its entirety.
Yes, I am prepared to eliminate it on request. I am prepared to eliminate *any* asserted copyright on request, and allow it back in only when it is established that it does not violate copyright. We get a steady trickle of complaints of copyright violation, and we generally *do* remove them.
While the development of the thread makes it easy to impute motives to Guy, those motivations do not help us to solve the copyright question.. I have never supported the idea that just because somebody alleges their ownership of a copyright they must presumably be right. It is a clear basis for further investigation. If, after a very brief investigation, the facts do not support the claim, there should be no obligation to take down the material. The claimant should then be invited to make a formal request, and fairly guided to the proper procedure.
Even when material has a prima facie basis for take down, he should be advised that since his claim was essentially made ex parte, other views of the law may arise, that the deleted material may be restored, and if so he should again be prepared to make a formal request.
Wikipedia/Wikimedia was established (and I hope continues to exist) to make information freely available. Caving in to unreasonable claims of copyright is not the way to do that.
Absolutely.
You are, I think, confusing free-as-in-beer with free-as-in-speech. We are not allowed to include content that violates other people's copyright, and this is not in any way seen as incompatible with Wikipedia's mission.
Nobody is arguing that we should violate the copyrights of others. Disagregating the two types of freedom is not always a straightforward task.
Removing unfree content has never been incompatible with Wikipedia's mission to make information freely available. We do it all the time.
It doesn't matter if the inputs are free as long as the outputs are free. If an unfree input can be transformed into a free output that is consistent with our mission.
Note that I'm not saying that their claim would be unreasonable--I am not an expert in copyright law. But your position is that their mere request should result in our removing the information, when the question of whether this is a copyright violation is still very much in question.
Yes. The request of any rights owner should always be respected, even if that respect takes the form of removing the content, debating, proving that the claim to rights is invalid, and re-inserting.
A rights claimant is not necessarily the rights owner. That can be an important factor in copyright suits. As a part of his suit the claimant must prove that he owns the right to sue. This effectively prevents claims from people who have no business making them.
Ec
On 06/04/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 06/04/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:41:28 -0400, "The Cunctator" wrote:
I didn't know you were a copyright lawyer.
Where did I say that? I said I *think* it's copyright, and gave my reasoning. In this thread we've seen some sound reasons supporting the idea it's copyright, and some (IMO) rather weaker ones saying it's not. Obviously I have asked the BBC and will await their response.
Do you really believe that they can answer objectively when they are the putative copyright holder>
I think their opinion is crucial, since if they see no copyright violation, there can be no claim.
A not copyrighted response would simplify things, but not so for the contrary view.
True, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:07:17 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Where did I say that? I said I *think* it's copyright, and gave my reasoning. In this thread we've seen some sound reasons supporting the idea it's copyright, and some (IMO) rather weaker ones saying it's not. Obviously I have asked the BBC and will await their response.
Do you really believe that they can answer objectively when they are the putative copyright holder>
They can certainly say whether they assert copyright.
Guy (JzG)
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
If, on the other hand, we argue that it is not a copyright violation because the list itself is not presented as part of the show's content, then the list in the article is a novel synthesis from original materials.
That doesn't follow, because Wikipedia's definition of "novel synthesis" isn't a legal definition. It's entirely plausible that a list can be "novel" in a legal sense, yet non-novel by Wikipedia standards.
This smells highly of an attempt to delete listcrufy by whatever means and stretching definitions. I've seen a lot of stretched definitions lately, and they can really hurt us in the future. You are creating Wikipedia's Commerce Clause.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
This smells highly of an attempt to delete listcrufy by whatever means and stretching definitions. I've seen a lot of stretched definitions lately, and they can really hurt us in the future. You are creating Wikipedia's Commerce Clause.
This is not a list article. It's an article that reproduces someone else's list within the text. If you want listcruft, look at the list of tall men.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:37:38 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Wait a minute. As I understand it, the policy Phil is defending in his present post states that primary sources are acceptable where the interpretation drawn is not novel (i.e. new). This is how I understand our policy, although Phil in another post seems to have criticised this interpretation (that primary sources should not be cited unless there are secondary sources available).
If there are no extant secondary sources, any interpretation whatsoever of the primary source is novel. I suppose one could argue for the face-value, literal meaning interpretation as non-novel, but it's suprising how often people can disagree on a literal reading of a source.
That's pretty much how I see it, too. A subject which has *no* reliable secondary sources is probably unencyclopaedic, a subject which is primarily drawn from reputable secondary sources may undoubtedly contain individual facts drawn directly from primary sources, provided no novel conclusions are proposed as a result.
And I suspect Phil and I would agree on the majority of calls either way, although we might well disagree as to what constitutes a reliable secondary source for a given article.
In some cases we have articles where the level of quality of the source is reduced and reduced until a non-trivial one can be found, on the grounds that it is "obviously notable", like bands that have appeared on Eurovision.
And in some cases people are still psychologically back in the "good old days" of 2004 and earlier, when we actually needed lots more content. By now a pretty high proportion of new articles are vanity, spam or both. And the spammers are getting smarter - some companies now employ SEOs directly. But I digress.
Guy (JzG)
On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:11:49 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I advocate following the last good version here, which is to say, continuing as we were instead of paying heed to people who nitpicked this important qualification out of existence in favor of a guideline on how to write a bad encyclopedia.
In other words, you prefer to be able to draw entirely from primary sources where no reliable secondary sources exist. Which we already know, of course. That is a matter of Wikiphilosophy.
No. I want to be able to write good, usable articles on important topics in a manner unencumbered by pointless and onerous requirements designed to keep idiots from breaking Wikipedia.
It doesn't deal with the fact that we are republishing a categorisation of vehicles originally presented by someone else, in its entirety. I don't know of any other media where anybody on this list would seriously argue that presenting the entirety of the contents of some recently published primary source not in the public domain, was acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Cup_2006-07
Not substantively different - a compilation of results from a variety of events in list form. And, hell, if you go down to the qualifying rounds you get some really strange moments - the Atherton Laburnum Rovers/Parkgate game was only witnessed by 17 people. For these more obscure games, they weren't televised, and the only results are going to be reprintings of the official results. So it's primary source material at its finest.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
It doesn't deal with the fact that we are republishing a categorisation of vehicles originally presented by someone else, in its entirety. I don't know of any other media where anybody on this list would seriously argue that presenting the entirety of the contents of some recently published primary source not in the public domain, was acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Cup_2006-07
Not substantively different - a compilation of results from a variety of events in list form.
Really? It seems to me that the difference is substantial: it's one of creative effort. The list Guy is pointing to is one that adds information, information about personal judgments. Like a novel or a tune, there's only one theoretically possible source: the authors. Game scores are game scores; they're facts, and even if only one entity bothered to collect them, many could have. The Sports Illustrated list of the 100 Best Games of All Time may include facts, but it's mainly judgment.
One way to distinguish it is that we should only ever have one listing of the FA Cup results, but it's perfectly reasonable that we could have articles about several different lists of best games or of cool cars, distinguished by who said so.
Don't we also remove the lists from the various college ranking scales on grounds similar to what Guy is suggesting?
William
On Apr 2, 2007, at 1:07 PM, William Pietri wrote:
Really? It seems to me that the difference is substantial: it's one of creative effort. The list Guy is pointing to is one that adds information, information about personal judgments. Like a novel or a tune, there's only one theoretically possible source: the authors. Game scores are game scores; they're facts, and even if only one entity bothered to collect them, many could have. The Sports Illustrated list of the 100 Best Games of All Time may include facts, but it's mainly judgment.
The issue becomes how it's being reported, then. Is the list of cars being compiled in relation to cars, or in relation to the list- makers? If it's the latter, it's much more like FA cup results.
-Phil
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:13:10 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The issue becomes how it's being reported, then. Is the list of cars being compiled in relation to cars, or in relation to the list- makers? If it's the latter, it's much more like FA cup results.
The article is on the Top Gear Cool Wall. It lists the cars which Top Gear put on the Top Gear Cool Wall, grouped by the section of the wall in which the Top Gear presenters and audience decided to place them. It is broadcast as part of Top Gear, a copyright BBC programme. There is no objective standard by which the list could be independently derived, the way it is derived is an intrinsic part of the Top Gear show. Specifically, one of the criteria is "would Kristin Scott Thomas be seen driving this?" And this is not based on asking her, as was made abundantly clear when she appeared on the show and trashed a number of the cars which Clarkson had rated as cool using the Scott Thomas test.
Put that way it looks a bit less ambiguous than even I had thought...
Guy (JzG)
On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:13:10 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The issue becomes how it's being reported, then. Is the list of cars being compiled in relation to cars, or in relation to the list- makers? If it's the latter, it's much more like FA cup results.
The article is on the Top Gear Cool Wall. It lists the cars which Top Gear put on the Top Gear Cool Wall, grouped by the section of the wall in which the Top Gear presenters and audience decided to place them. It is broadcast as part of Top Gear, a copyright BBC programme. There is no objective standard by which the list could be independently derived, the way it is derived is an intrinsic part of the Top Gear show. Specifically, one of the criteria is "would Kristin Scott Thomas be seen driving this?" And this is not based on asking her, as was made abundantly clear when she appeared on the show and trashed a number of the cars which Clarkson had rated as cool using the Scott Thomas test.
Put that way it looks a bit less ambiguous than even I had thought...
I disagree entirely. If this is a list within an article on the content of the list then I don't see a meaningful difference between it and the FA cup results being yanked from the FA website. In both cases we're taking primary source information directly. We're not offering it as a list about the coolness of the cars - we're offering it as information about the tastes of the cool wall, which is wholly sensible for an article about the Cool Wall.
I'd agree with you entirely if we were talking about cars here, but we're not - we're talking about the ranking system itself. Thus the subjective judgment of the rankings is immaterial to the discussion.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
The issue becomes how it's being reported, then. Is the list of cars being compiled in relation to cars, or in relation to the list- makers? If it's the latter, it's much more like FA cup results.
I'm not quite following.
Are you saying that if we are compiling the list rather than them, then it's more like putting up the game scores?
That makes some sense to me. We don't kick at plot summaries. Or in TV show episode pages, we list the songs used for shows where music is a significant element. That seems to be documenting somebody else's creative work rather than stealing it, which seems legit to me. IANAL, natch.
William
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:14:14 -0700, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Are you saying that if we are compiling the list rather than them, then it's more like putting up the game scores? That makes some sense to me. We don't kick at plot summaries. Or in TV show episode pages, we list the songs used for shows where music is a significant element. That seems to be documenting somebody else's creative work rather than stealing it, which seems legit to me. IANAL, natch.
A bi like documenting a book by reproducing it in its entirety :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:14:14 -0700, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Are you saying that if we are compiling the list rather than them, then it's more like putting up the game scores? That makes some sense to me. We don't kick at plot summaries. Or in TV show episode pages, we list the songs used for shows where music is a significant element. That seems to be documenting somebody else's creative work rather than stealing it, which seems legit to me. IANAL, natch.
A bi like documenting a book by reproducing it in its entirety :-)
No, we're not reproducing the contents of Top Gear in its entirety. Not even remotely close.
Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79th_Academy_Awards a reproduction of the 79th Academy Awards show in its entirety? It lists the winners.
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:29:50 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
No, we're not reproducing the contents of Top Gear in its entirety. Not even remotely close.
We are, however, listing the cool wall in its entirety. If we list the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright. If we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate that copyright. It is quite possible the list of Academy Award winners *is* copyright, but it has never been enforced. I would not know. At least there we have numerous precedents in other sources, I can't find any other source that duplicates the Cool Wall list in its entirety.
Guy (JzG)
On 03/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
We are, however, listing the cool wall in its entirety. If we list the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright. If we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate that copyright.
Cite?
It is quite possible the list of Academy Award winners *is* copyright, but it has never been enforced.
You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.
"It's a copyright violation *and* it's original research. Probably violates a patent too, if I looked closely enough."
know. At least there we have numerous precedents in other sources, I can't find any other source that duplicates the Cool Wall list in its entirety.
Is that an argument for or against its inclusion this message? Could be either, depending whether you're calling it a copyright violation or original research.
- d.
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:17:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We are, however, listing the cool wall in its entirety. If we list the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright. If we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate that copyright.
Cite?
I'll find the OTRS ticket ref for you if you like. The company sent us an email asking us to remove the list.
It is quite possible the list of Academy Award winners *is* copyright, but it has never been enforced.
You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.
Convenience? In what way is it convenient to me to have a days-long argument over the removal of cruft from a crufty article? Frankly I don't give a flying fuck about the content, but I *do* care if we violate copyright. Silly of me, I know - and evil, apparently, in that I'm just trying to wreck Wikipedia. I thought I was doing the right thing removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status, perhaps I will know better last time.
Is that an argument for or against its inclusion this message? Could be either, depending whether you're calling it a copyright violation or original research.
Yup. But first and foremost I think it's a copyvio. I still don't think Wikipedia should *ever* be the first place to publish a concept, but copyright is the big problem here in my view.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:17:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.
Convenience? In what way is it convenient to me to have a days-long argument over the removal of cruft from a crufty article? Frankly I don't give a flying fuck about the content, but I *do* care if we violate copyright. Silly of me, I know - and evil, apparently, in that I'm just trying to wreck Wikipedia. I thought I was doing the right thing removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status, perhaps I will know better last time.
Noone thinks you're evil or trying to wreck Wikipedia.
But "removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status" is generally copyright paranoia.
We all make mistakes.
And sometime's we're right but the community consensus is in a strongly different direction. Discretion can be the better part of valor in those instances.
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:20:01 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
"removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status" is generally copyright paranoia.
Paranoia? Or reasonable caution? Paranoia, I'd say, would be a fair judgment if I'd removed - what - three or four examples from each category. That would be paranoid. Reproducing the entire list, that looks a lot like copyright carelessness. We delete hundreds of images a day for this kind of copyright carelessness.
One man's cautious is another man's paranoid, clearly.
Guy (JzG)
On 03/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:29:50 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
No, we're not reproducing the contents of Top Gear in its entirety. Not even remotely close.
We are, however, listing the cool wall in its entirety. If we list the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright. If we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate that copyright.
That's interesting.
So it *is* OK to have a thousand and something articles that all state "this song was number one in the UK from (x) to (y)", but it *is not* OK to have a single article listing them all in chronological order?
And if that is the case, how does the succession box fit in?
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:41:59 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So it *is* OK to have a thousand and something articles that all state "this song was number one in the UK from (x) to (y)", but it *is not* OK to have a single article listing them all in chronological order?
According to the rights owner, yes.
And if that is the case, how does the succession box fit in?
Probably shows too few at once to be a big deal. I suspect their concern is their ability to sell for profit books detailing the chronology of the charts. But that's only a guess.
Guy (JzG)
On 04/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:41:59 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
And if that is the case, how does the succession box fit in?
Probably shows too few at once to be a big deal. I suspect their concern is their ability to sell for profit books detailing the chronology of the charts. But that's only a guess.
In which case, we'd better remove it. Just in case we get sued.
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:54:52 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
In which case, we'd better remove it. Just in case we get sued.
Oh sure. And we'd better remove the articles on any books because they use the book title in its entirety, yes? Or we could be perhaps just a tad more realistic and recognise the difference between reproducing all of the Cool Wall in the Cool Wall article, and reproducing the precursor and successor in an article on a pop single.
Mind you, it is possible that *would* turn out to violate fair use, but it's less likely than, say, a list of all the top ten singles, which is what the chart company was complaining about.
Guy (JzG)
On 04/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:54:52 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
In which case, we'd better remove it. Just in case we get sued.
Oh sure. And we'd better remove the articles on any books because they use the book title in its entirety, yes? Or we could be perhaps just a tad more realistic
Realism is hardly the first characteristic I'd apply to the recent copyright paranoia I've seen here.
On 04/04/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:54:52 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
In which case, we'd better remove it. Just in case we get sued.
Oh sure. And we'd better remove the articles on any books because they use the book title in its entirety, yes? Or we could be perhaps just a tad more realistic
Realism is hardly the first characteristic I'd apply to the recent copyright paranoia I've seen here.
s/apply/attribute (whoops...)
On Apr 2, 2007, at 6:14 PM, William Pietri wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
The issue becomes how it's being reported, then. Is the list of cars being compiled in relation to cars, or in relation to the list- makers? If it's the latter, it's much more like FA cup results.
I'm not quite following.
Are you saying that if we are compiling the list rather than them, then it's more like putting up the game scores?
That makes some sense to me. We don't kick at plot summaries. Or in TV show episode pages, we list the songs used for shows where music is a significant element. That seems to be documenting somebody else's creative work rather than stealing it, which seems legit to me. IANAL, natch.
I think you're roughly getting my point, yes. :)
-Phil
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:44:17 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
No. I want to be able to write good, usable articles on important topics in a manner unencumbered by pointless and onerous requirements designed to keep idiots from breaking Wikipedia.
I which case discussing NOR in the context of something the BBC Top Gear team don't think is even worth putting on their website is probably a waste of your time :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:44:17 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
No. I want to be able to write good, usable articles on important topics in a manner unencumbered by pointless and onerous requirements designed to keep idiots from breaking Wikipedia.
I which case discussing NOR in the context of something the BBC Top Gear team don't think is even worth putting on their website is probably a waste of your time :-)
Guy (JzG)
Having followed this thread, I have to voice some frustration with your tactics, Guy. At one point you argue strongly that it's a copyvio. At the next moment that it's OR. And you seem to slip back and forth as is convenient for your argument. When someone makes a point in support of it not being a copyvio, you bring out the OR defense. And when someone makes a point about it not being OR, you bring out the copyvio defense.
As I say, this leaves me frustrated. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with any particular position, but because the conversation does not seem to be headed toward any conclusion.
-Rich
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:21:17 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Having followed this thread, I have to voice some frustration with your tactics, Guy. At one point you argue strongly that it's a copyvio. At the next moment that it's OR. And you seem to slip back and forth as is convenient for your argument. When someone makes a point in support of it not being a copyvio, you bring out the OR defense. And when someone makes a point about it not being OR, you bring out the copyvio defense.
As I say, this leaves me frustrated. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with any particular position, but because the conversation does not seem to be headed toward any conclusion.
So let me be clear: I think it's a copyvio, and should be excluded on that basis. That is my reason for removing it from the article. Reproducing the list in its entirety is very very likely to violate the BBC's copyright, which is asserted in the show.
I *also* think it's original research, in that we are to my knowledge the only place where this list is reproduced outside of the BBC, but that is a separate issue.
I am not the only one who thinks that "if not one then the other" applies here, and we should not include the list in its entirety. But my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC says it is not copyright then I will add it back. I have asked them.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I am not the only one who thinks that "if not one then the other" applies here, and we should not include the list in its entirety.
As I've said, "if not one then the other" ignores the fact that Wikipedia's definition of "original research" is not the same as any legal definition related to copyright. It does *not* follow that if not one then the other.
But my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC says it is not copyright then I will add it back. I have asked them.
Why? You claim that either it's copyright, or it's OR. If you truly believed this, surely if the BBC says it is not copyright, you would conclude it's OR and still leave it out for that reason.
(And what are we doing using British copyright laws in a Wikipedia run in the US anyway? Surely the BBC won't tell you if it's copyright under *American* law.)
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I am not the only one who thinks that "if not one then the other" applies here, and we should not include the list in its entirety.
As I've said, "if not one then the other" ignores the fact that Wikipedia's definition of "original research" is not the same as any legal definition related to copyright. It does *not* follow that if not one then the other.
So you say. We define it somewhat differently. That is a legitimate difference of opinion.
But my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC says it is not copyright then I will add it back. I have asked them.
Why? You claim that either it's copyright, or it's OR. If you truly believed this, surely if the BBC says it is not copyright, you would conclude it's OR and still leave it out for that reason.
Because OR is an editorial judgment, while copyright theft is a legal issue. I would have hoped this was obvious.
(And what are we doing using British copyright laws in a Wikipedia run in the US anyway? Surely the BBC won't tell you if it's copyright under *American* law.)
The BBC will tell me whether they assert copyright over the list itself. If they do not assert copyright, then it essentially does not matter. If they do assert copyright, then we should respect that, per our mission, our copyright policy, and not being foolish. The issue is not so tremendously important that we should risk breaking the law to include it. Hell, Top Gear don't even bother putting it on their website! It really is pretty trivial, as facts go.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
(And what are we doing using British copyright laws in a Wikipedia run in the US anyway? Surely the BBC won't tell you if it's copyright under *American* law.)
The BBC will tell me whether they assert copyright over the list itself. If they do not assert copyright, then it essentially does not matter. If they do assert copyright, then we should respect that, per our mission, our copyright policy, and not being foolish. The issue is not so tremendously important that we should risk breaking the law to include it. Hell, Top Gear don't even bother putting it on their website! It really is pretty trivial, as facts go.
Wikipedia allows fair use of copyrighted material, and furthermore it follows American copyright law rather than British so even if the BBC claims "the list is copyright us, don't touch!" and a British lawyer says "they're right, you know" that doesn't necessarily mean we can't include the list. It may be uncopyrighted in the US, and at the very least I expect it's easy fair use.
On 4/4/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Wikipedia allows fair use of copyrighted material, and furthermore it follows American copyright law rather than British so even if the BBC claims "the list is copyright us, don't touch!" and a British lawyer says "they're right, you know" that doesn't necessarily mean we can't include the list. It may be uncopyrighted in the US, and at the very least I expect it's easy fair use.
I suspect so too. Of course, Wikipedia's US hosting doesn't affect the legal liability of British contributors, who must follow UK copyright law.
-Matt
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:53:18 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Wikipedia allows fair use of copyrighted material, and furthermore it follows American copyright law rather than British so even if the BBC claims "the list is copyright us, don't touch!" and a British lawyer says "they're right, you know" that doesn't necessarily mean we can't include the list. It may be uncopyrighted in the US, and at the very least I expect it's easy fair use.
You suspect. But I suspect that reproducing in its entirety a list which constitutes original creative work is not an "easy" fair use. If you look lower down you'll see that Ray Saintonge agrees. So: probably not "easy".
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:53:18 -0600, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Wikipedia allows fair use of copyrighted material, and furthermore it follows American copyright law rather than British so even if the BBC claims "the list is copyright us, don't touch!" and a British lawyer says "they're right, you know" that doesn't necessarily mean we can't include the list. It may be uncopyrighted in the US, and at the very least I expect it's easy fair use.
You suspect. But I suspect that reproducing in its entirety a list which constitutes original creative work is not an "easy" fair use. If you look lower down you'll see that Ray Saintonge agrees. So: probably not "easy".
Wow! I agreed with something before I even started reading the thread!
I generally support the concept of fair use, but I prefer not to use it when something else will do. If something is not copyrightable in the first place, why worry about fair use?
Another way to look at this present problem is to consider the fact that every car on the list is a link to a Wikipedia article. We could just as easily go to each of these articles and add [[Category:Cool Wall Car|Uncool]] with the sort element depending on which classification the show used for that car. The result would be the same list on a category page. Would anybody argue that that is a copyvio?
Ec
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:07:17 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Wow! I agreed with something before I even started reading the thread!
It was lower down in threaded view, in my mail client anyway.
Guy (JzG)
Ken Arromdee wrote:
But my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC says it is not copyright then I will add it back. I have asked them.
Why? You claim that either it's copyright, or it's OR. If you truly believed this, surely if the BBC says it is not copyright, you would conclude it's OR and still leave it out for that reason.
(And what are we doing using British copyright laws in a Wikipedia run in the US anyway? Surely the BBC won't tell you if it's copyright under *American* law.)
In all fairness, since the programme is produced in Britain then British law would apply to determine whether the work is copyright. If US law differs the work could be reproduced in the USA, but not world-wide. Having the servers and company offices in the US does imply that we must consider US copyright law, but not exclusively so.
Ec
How *on earth* do you get this as being a violation of copyright? The BBC don't own facts about the show.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. However, for certain reasons, this particular subtopic of copyright is, err, very dear to my heart, and I will immodestly boast of having argued down at least one mistaken lawyer over it.
Under US law, the keywords you would want to understand are called "compilation copyright".
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
"A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship."
And actually, "facts about the show" CAN be owned!
http://www.rcfp.org/news/1998/0824i.html
"SECOND CIRCUIT--A trivia quiz book testing readers' knowledge and recollection of lines from the 'Seinfeld' television show does not qualify as a "fair use" and as such constitutes copyright infringement ..."
In general, you really, really, don't want to try to get useful answers to questions of copyright law by throwing them out to a mailing list and debating them from intuition.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:05:57 -0400, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
In general, you really, really, don't want to try to get useful answers to questions of copyright law by throwing them out to a mailing list and debating them from intuition.
Amen to that. Actually, though, I was looking for past experience, as much as anything, and you have provided some, thank you.
Guy (JzG)
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Under US law, the keywords you would want to understand are called "compilation copyright".
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
"A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship."
But if this list was compiled by Wikipedia editors (as JzG claimed when arguing that it's OR) then the _editors_ own the compilation copyright and are perfectly within their rights to release it under the GFDL.
And actually, "facts about the show" CAN be owned!
http://www.rcfp.org/news/1998/0824i.html
"SECOND CIRCUIT--A trivia quiz book testing readers' knowledge and recollection of lines from the 'Seinfeld' television show does not qualify as a "fair use" and as such constitutes copyright infringement ..."
In general, you really, really, don't want to try to get useful answers to questions of copyright law by throwing them out to a mailing list and debating them from intuition.
But we the editors have to make these sorts of decisions dozens or hundreds of times per day. We _have_ to try to figure out what copyright law means, we can't go running to a professional lawyer with every question. And personally, I believe that any law that is so byzantine and obscure that a layperson it applies to cannot figure out what's legal most of the time is a really bad law. If copyright law was like that we might as well just give up because if someone wants to sue there's really nothing at all we could do to avoid it.
In this case, I've had a look at the list and I don't see how it could reasonably be considered a sufficiently detailed summary of facts about the show to violate fair use. It's much less so than our oft-mentioned compilation of Pokemon trivia or hundreds of other such examples. Unless a professional IP lawyer decides to pipe up at this point with contradictory information to convince me otherwise I feel comfortable with my interpretation.
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:34:03 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
But if this list was compiled by Wikipedia editors (as JzG claimed when arguing that it's OR) then the _editors_ own the compilation copyright and are perfectly within their rights to release it under the GFDL.
No. The list exists in the form of a series of judgments made by the show's presenters, to categorise various cars in various places. The Cool Wall is the Top Gear "car coolness" chart, just as the 100 greatest people list is the author's own view and can't be reproduced without violating his copyright.
The reason you have to watch shows is that they blank it at the start of each series, cars move down or up sometimes, and they don't publish the list on the website. It's not that big a thing that they consider it worth republishing, I think.
It's still the Top Gear Cool Wall, as arbitrarily decided by Top Gear presenters on the Top Gear show. I'd need a pretty compelling argument that this was not covered by copyright, and I've yet to see one. Which is not to say none exists, I just have yet to see one.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:34:03 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
But if this list was compiled by Wikipedia editors (as JzG claimed when arguing that it's OR) then the _editors_ own the compilation copyright and are perfectly within their rights to release it under the GFDL.
No. The list exists in the form of a series of judgments made by the show's presenters, to categorise various cars in various places. The Cool Wall is the Top Gear "car coolness" chart, just as the 100 greatest people list is the author's own view and can't be reproduced without violating his copyright.
So I take it you'll be putting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79th_Academy_Awards_nominees_and_winners up for deletion, then? That list also records a copyrighted series of judgments. Doesn't matter if it's more widely known, it's still copyrighted under this interpretation.
You're taking an extreme fundamentalist position here that IMO can't possibly work if Wikipedia is to have meaningful coverage of anything post-1920s.
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:08:44 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
So I take it you'll be putting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79th_Academy_Awards_nominees_and_winners up for deletion, then? That list also records a copyrighted series of judgments. Doesn't matter if it's more widely known, it's still copyrighted under this interpretation.
Has anyone asked the Academy if they assert copyright over the list?
You're taking an extreme fundamentalist position here that IMO can't possibly work if Wikipedia is to have meaningful coverage of anything post-1920s.
Oh thank you so much. And there was I thinking that reproducing chunks of stuff directly out of primary sources was forbidden by law, and I was just trying to stop us getting sued. Now I realise that I am just trying to prevent us covering anything at all that happened in the last seventy-odd years. Excuse me while I go and nominate Wikipedia for deletion.
Oh, wait, I didn't actually nominate the article for deletion, did I?
Once upon a time there was a presumption that the editor seeking to include text was responsible for justifying it. Seems that's changed, then.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Oh thank you so much. And there was I thinking that reproducing chunks of stuff directly out of primary sources was forbidden by law, and I was just trying to stop us getting sued.
With the exception of fair use, of course - which is in fact more useful AND more defensible in text than in pictures. (For UK contributors, of course, replace that with 'fair dealing' which is much more restrictive, but I believe DOES still allow for criticism and commentary - though someone better versed in it would be useful).
-Matt
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:46:12 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
With the exception of fair use, of course - which is in fact more useful AND more defensible in text than in pictures. (For UK contributors, of course, replace that with 'fair dealing' which is much more restrictive, but I believe DOES still allow for criticism and commentary - though someone better versed in it would be useful)
Indeed. So some examples would be fine, and a discussion of the process would be fine. I am completely behind both. What is not fine, in any case I can think of, is reproducing the content *in its entirety* as part of that.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:46:12 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
With the exception of fair use, of course - which is in fact more useful AND more defensible in text than in pictures. (For UK contributors, of course, replace that with 'fair dealing' which is much more restrictive, but I believe DOES still allow for criticism and commentary - though someone better versed in it would be useful)
Indeed. So some examples would be fine, and a discussion of the process would be fine. I am completely behind both. What is not fine, in any case I can think of, is reproducing the content *in its entirety* as part of that.
The Cool Wall is only a small portion of the show, as is my understanding, and there's more to it than simply the name of the car that winds up on the board. It is ridiculous to claim that including a listing of cars that have been on it is reproducing the show *in its entirety*. You're stretching really hard here.
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:31:41 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It is ridiculous to claim that including a listing of cars that have been on it is reproducing the show *in its entirety*. You're stretching really hard here.
And indeed I did not. I claimed that we were reproducing the cool wall list in its entirety. A chapter in the book that is Top Gear, if you like.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:31:41 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It is ridiculous to claim that including a listing of cars that have been on it is reproducing the show *in its entirety*. You're stretching really hard here.
And indeed I did not. I claimed that we were reproducing the cool wall list in its entirety. A chapter in the book that is Top Gear, if you like.
I thought you said the Cool Wall list doesn't ever appear in its entirety on the show.
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:48:48 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I thought you said the Cool Wall list doesn't ever appear in its entirety on the show.
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:48:48 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I thought you said the Cool Wall list doesn't ever appear in its entirety on the show.
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
What if we were to include a screenshot of that?
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:26:21 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What if we were to include a screenshot of that?
What purpose would that serve? To get form one to the other you either have to listen to the script week by week, or recognise the pictures. I don't think you would dispute that the latter is original research.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:26:21 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What if we were to include a screenshot of that?
What purpose would that serve? To get form one to the other you either have to listen to the script week by week, or recognise the pictures. I don't think you would dispute that the latter is original research.
Even better than wave-particle duality, ladies and gentlemen!
It's both derivative and original!
On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:26:21 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What if we were to include a screenshot of that?
What purpose would that serve? To get form one to the other you either have to listen to the script week by week, or recognise the pictures. I don't think you would dispute that the latter is original research.
We recognise pictures all the time for Wikipedia content.
-Matt
----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com
We recognise pictures all the time for Wikipedia content.
As a concrete example, whenever I see a cast photo in an article I make sure the caption includes a "from right to left: John Smith, Jane Doe, etc" description of who is in the image. I do this via a process of recognizing the faces of the people in the image and translating that into textual names. If this is "original research" I'll eat my hat (assuming I recognize it).
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:48:48 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I thought you said the Cool Wall list doesn't ever appear in its entirety on the show.
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
What if we were to include a screenshot of that?
Would it be readable?
Ec
On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:48:48 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I thought you said the Cool Wall list doesn't ever appear in its entirety on the show.
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
So the use in question is highly transformative. That's one factor in favor.
And the Cool Wall *doesn't* appear in its entirety, if you're claiming that is the work in question. Only the text of the wall appears, rearranged in a non-creative order. That's another factor which is neutral at worst.
I'd say there's no way this is copyright infringement. On the other hand, it's not free content either. So the question shouldn't be whether or not this falls under fair use, but whether or not it's the type of fair use which belongs in a free encyclopedia.
Anthony
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:54:56 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
So the use in question is highly transformative. That's one factor in favor.
Not really, no. It's no more transformative than transcribing a radio script. Which is, of course, a violation of copyright.
And the Cool Wall *doesn't* appear in its entirety, if you're claiming that is the work in question. Only the text of the wall appears, rearranged in a non-creative order. That's another factor which is neutral at worst.
I miss about one in three, so obviously I have only seen the ones where it does.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:54:56 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
So the use in question is highly transformative. That's one factor in favor.
Not really, no. It's no more transformative than transcribing a radio script.
One consists of transforming spoken words in a particular order to written words in that same order. The other consists of transforming a bunch of photos of cars arranged on a wall to a list of the types of cars in each section of the wall, arranged alphabetically per section.
Seems different to me.
Which is, of course, a violation of copyright.
No, that may or may not be a violation of copyright, depending on the details of the situation.
And the Cool Wall *doesn't* appear in its entirety, if you're claiming that is the work in question. Only the text of the wall appears, rearranged in a non-creative order. That's another factor which is neutral at worst.
I miss about one in three, so obviously I have only seen the ones where it does.
I mean that the Cool Wall didn't appear in its entirety in the article. If it had a photo of the wall, that would be a copy of the wall in its entirety.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
[previous eleventy-seven exchanges snipped]
I'd say there's no way this is copyright infringement. On the other hand, it's not free content either. So the question shouldn't be whether or not this falls under fair use, but whether or not it's the type of fair use which belongs in a free encyclopedia.
Not that I'd want to spoil the fun, but I'll put $25 toward an intellectual property lawyer's professional opinion. Anybody want to pass the hat around? I would, but I'm off on vacation shortly.
William
On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:48:48 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I thought you said the Cool Wall list doesn't ever appear in its entirety on the show.
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
So the use in question is highly transformative. That's one factor in favor.
And the Cool Wall *doesn't* appear in its entirety, if you're claiming that is the work in question. Only the text of the wall appears, rearranged in a non-creative order. That's another factor which is neutral at worst.
I'd say there's no way this is copyright infringement. On the other hand, it's not free content either. So the question shouldn't be whether or not this falls under fair use, but whether or not it's the type of fair use which belongs in a free encyclopedia.
I actually think that merely describing lists of photos, or transcribing what is in them, doesn't infringe their copyright at all. We're not transforming artwork (Rogers case), we're transforming a list of facts from one format (images of cars) into another (text); in the US, mere lists of facts aren't copyrightable (cf all the phone book copyright-doesn't-apply rulings).
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd say there's no way this is copyright infringement. On the other hand, it's not free content either. So the question shouldn't be whether or not this falls under fair use, but whether or not it's the type of fair use which belongs in a free encyclopedia.
I actually think that merely describing lists of photos, or transcribing what is in them, doesn't infringe their copyright at all. We're not transforming artwork (Rogers case), we're transforming a list of facts from one format (images of cars) into another (text); in the US, mere lists of facts aren't copyrightable (cf all the phone book copyright-doesn't-apply rulings).
This isn't a mere list of facts, though. It's a mere list of opinions (what cars are cool, which are uncool, etc).
Actually, it's not a *list* of opinions, because order isn't preserved. It's a mere *collection* of opinions. This is, sadly, probably copyrightable.
Anthony
BTW, regarding the suggestion that we waste any money asking a lawyer about this, I say no way. If we're going to waste money on a lawyer, let's get him or her to explain how the DMCA protects the foundation even *if* this is a copyright infringement.
On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd say there's no way this is copyright infringement. On the other hand, it's not free content either. So the question shouldn't be whether or not this falls under fair use, but whether or not it's the type of fair use which belongs in a free encyclopedia.
I actually think that merely describing lists of photos, or transcribing what is in them, doesn't infringe their copyright at all. We're not transforming artwork (Rogers case), we're transforming a list of facts from one format (images of cars) into another (text); in the US, mere lists of facts aren't copyrightable (cf all the phone book copyright-doesn't-apply rulings).
This isn't a mere list of facts, though. It's a mere list of opinions (what cars are cool, which are uncool, etc).
Actually, it's not a *list* of opinions, because order isn't preserved. It's a mere *collection* of opinions. This is, sadly, probably copyrightable.
Anthony
BTW, regarding the suggestion that we waste any money asking a lawyer about this, I say no way. If we're going to waste money on a lawyer, let's get him or her to explain how the DMCA protects the foundation even *if* this is a copyright infringement.
It's the TV show/ magazine's opinion that gets a car on the Wall.
That it's on the wall is factual.
Any detailed description or justification they give is content, and copyrightable. The mere fact of appearance isn't, under US law, with as I understand it rare exceptions.
It's not a US show, but here we run into the "ok, just what *are* the trans-national copyright law difference practical effects, particularly on the Internet?" hard problems, which nobody really has any firm solution for.
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'd say there's no way this is copyright infringement. On the other hand, it's not free content either. So the question shouldn't be whether or not this falls under fair use, but whether or not it's the type of fair use which belongs in a free encyclopedia.
I actually think that merely describing lists of photos, or transcribing what is in them, doesn't infringe their copyright at all. We're not transforming artwork (Rogers case), we're transforming a list of facts from one format (images of cars) into another (text); in the US, mere lists of facts aren't copyrightable (cf all the phone book copyright-doesn't-apply rulings).
This isn't a mere list of facts, though. It's a mere list of opinions (what cars are cool, which are uncool, etc).
Actually, it's not a *list* of opinions, because order isn't preserved. It's a mere *collection* of opinions. This is, sadly, probably copyrightable.
Anthony
BTW, regarding the suggestion that we waste any money asking a lawyer about this, I say no way. If we're going to waste money on a lawyer, let's get him or her to explain how the DMCA protects the foundation even *if* this is a copyright infringement.
It's the TV show/ magazine's opinion that gets a car on the Wall.
That it's on the wall is factual.
Any detailed description or justification they give is content, and copyrightable. The mere fact of appearance isn't, under US law, with as I understand it rare exceptions.
If that's true, then collections can't be copyrighted, as whether or not an item is in a collection is always a fact. If that's what you're saying, I don't actually have any case law in mind that directly contradicts it, but the text of the law dealing with "compilations" (as well as the dicta of Feist) seems to suggest that collections *can* be copyrighted, *if* they're creative.
But then, you could change pretty much any creative work into a fact. Want to copy page 3 of War and Peace? Just add "Page 3 of War and Peace says..." to the beginning.
Anthony
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:31:41 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It is ridiculous to claim that including a listing of cars that have been on it is reproducing the show *in its entirety*. You're stretching really hard here.
And indeed I did not. I claimed that we were reproducing the cool wall list in its entirety. A chapter in the book that is Top Gear, if you like.
Or like the first page of a copyrighted musical score, perhaps?
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:54:35 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Or like the first page of a copyrighted musical score, perhaps?
Unlikely. The test, as I understand it, is significance, and whether the use impacts on the rights owner's ability to profit from the work. The rights owner in this case does publish derivative works based on the Cool Wall.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:54:35 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Or like the first page of a copyrighted musical score, perhaps?
Unlikely. The test, as I understand it, is significance, and whether the use impacts on the rights owner's ability to profit from the work. The rights owner in this case does publish derivative works based on the Cool Wall.
Cite? I thought you said they considered it so trivial they didn't even include a listing on their homepage, part of your "original research" claim on this subject. Now it's a major revenue stream instead?
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:24:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Unlikely. The test, as I understand it, is significance, and whether the use impacts on the rights owner's ability to profit from the work. The rights owner in this case does publish derivative works based on the Cool Wall.
Cite? I thought you said they considered it so trivial they didn't even include a listing on their homepage, part of your "original research" claim on this subject. Now it's a major revenue stream instead?
"What not to drive", Hammond, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2005, ISBN 0297848003
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Oh thank you so much. And there was I thinking that reproducing chunks of stuff directly out of primary sources was forbidden by law, and I was just trying to stop us getting sued.
Such as your image uploads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chichester-Psalms.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Durufl%C3%A9-Requiem-Kirie.jpg for example? Those particular pages of sheet music aren't even directly discussed in the articles they're used in, they're just there for decoration.
You're taking a radically extreme interpretation of copyright in this one case of "fancruft", but clearly you realize that Wikipedia's copyright guidelines actually aren't that stringent or you wouldn't have uploaded those copyrighted scans.
In the first post of this thread you ended your description of the situation with:
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Well, you've been getting plenty of guidance; lots of editors have chimed in to agree that we're highly unlikely to get sued over this and that it isn't original research in any significant way. But you don't seem to be appreciating it, you seem to have had your mind made up to the contrary from the start. So much for "you decide" and "what do I know?"
IMO it's looking more and more like you just wanted to find excuses to back up the removal of some content you didn't like. You may win individual battles that way but if you really want to rid Wikipedia as a whole of fancruft then I'd suggest debating _fancruft itself_ rather than trying to warp other unrelated policies to the task. You'll just wind up annoying people and possibly causing unintended side effects.
On 4/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
IMO it's looking more and more like you just wanted to find excuses to back up the removal of some content you didn't like. You may win individual battles that way but if you really want to rid Wikipedia as a whole of fancruft then I'd suggest debating _fancruft itself_ rather than trying to warp other unrelated policies to the task. You'll just wind up annoying people and possibly causing unintended side effects.
I suspect Guy knows quite well that project consensus does not back him as far as he'd like on the 'fancruft' issue.
Unfortunately the end result is that topics disliked by some editors who think they shouldn't be in an encyclopedia are subjected to stricter interpretations of Wikipedia policies than those in subject areas not normally contentious.
-Matt
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:20:31 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Such as your image uploads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chichester-Psalms.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Durufl%C3%A9-Requiem-Kirie.jpg for example? Those particular pages of sheet music aren't even directly discussed in the articles they're used in, they're just there for decoration.
That might have some merit if I had included the entire score. I didn't. That is the point here: the list was included *in its entirety*. A few examples? No problem.
Guy (JzG)
Just a few observations offered for consideration; probably superfluous for most editors here but possibly helpful for some:
Form is subject to copyright, ideas or information are not (for the protection of information itself, look at patents, UK's OSA, etc.) (See [[WP:Copyright]], [[Copyright]] and [[Idea-expression divide]])
Regarding the copyvio aspect in this discussion:
Copyright is about *form*. When WP contains the same expression of the same information provided by a copyrighted source, it's a copyvio. Ultimately this is decided in lawsuits etc. and such precedents provide useful guidance. But only in the more outlandish cases do we *need* the such guidance to decide what consitutes a sufficiently different form. Guy deems this case outlandish enough to ask for a precedent. If I understand him correctly, his personal opinion is that it's a copyvio because the form is not sufficiently different.
Regarding the OR aspect:
Original research is about *information*. When WP contains more or different information than can be found in reliable sources, it's OR. According to a number of editors, to escape being OR, information found in reliable primary sources also has to be mentioned in one or more reliable secondary sources. Guy seems to be arguing the list may be OR in view of the latter criterion.
AvB
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, AvB wrote:
Copyright is about *form*. Original research is about *information*. Guy seems to be arguing the list may be OR in view of the latter criterion.
He seems to be arguing "if it's not copyright, then it must be OR, because if it's novel enough to not count as copyright, it's novel enough to be OR". Since as you've pointed out, copyright and OR aren't the same thing, this doesn't make sense.
On 4/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Under US law, the keywords you would want to understandare called "compilation copyright".
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
"A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship."
But if this list was compiled by Wikipedia editors (as JzG claimed when arguing that it's OR) then the _editors_ own the compilation copyright and are perfectly within their rights to release it under the GFDL.
And actually, "facts about the show" CAN be owned!http://www.rcfp.org/news/1998/0824i.html
"SECOND CIRCUIT--A trivia quiz book testing readers' knowledge and recollection of lines from the 'Seinfeld' television show does not qualify as a "fair use" and as such constitutes copyright infringement
..."
In general, you really, really, don't want to try to getuseful answers to questions of copyright law by throwing them out to a mailing list and debating them from intuition.
But we the editors have to make these sorts of decisions dozens or hundreds of times per day. We _have_ to try to figure out what copyright law means, we can't go running to a professional lawyer with every question. And personally, I believe that any law that is so byzantine and obscure that a layperson it applies to cannot figure out what's legal most of the time is a really bad law. If copyright law was like that we might as well just give up because if someone wants to sue there's really nothing at all we could do to avoid it.
Exactly the point of avoiding copyright paranoia.
On 4/2/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
"A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship."
The particular question was quite interesting from this point of view: 1) TV show randomly presents a different fact each episode 2) TV show never explicitly publishes the list of facts. 3) A third party collects them (mechanically) and publishes it.
Who owns copyright over that list? Is the list "objective", because it was created by slavishly watching the episodes and simply noting the random fact each time, or is it "subjective" because the items in it were creatively invented by the show's producers?
It must depend on what "preexisting materials" means. I can't see that the list would satisfy the rest of that definition of selection, coordination etc.
Steve
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:47:21 +1000, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The particular question was quite interesting from this point of view:
- TV show randomly presents a different fact each episode
- TV show never explicitly publishes the list of facts.
- A third party collects them (mechanically) and publishes it.
Almost: the list does exist, not just as a one-per-week thing; the Cool Wall uses pictures not text, though. At the end of the show, the Cool Wall is there with all the vehicles on it.
Guy (JzG)
Probably more logic than law - it looks like a classical deadly embrace to me: either OR or a copyvio. If there's something special about the list, it's the fact that it describes a selection created by the BBC. In order to get around any copyright issues, one would need to argue that the BBC did not compile the list, selecting cars one at a time: compiling the list was an original creation. However, that's where NOR kicks in and the list needs to be sourced elsewhere. Which then would by a copyvio again.
Fancruft? You must be a deletionist looking for easy prey then! Shame on you! (NOT)
AvB
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Chapman aka JzG" guy.chapman@spamcop.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:48 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question
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.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l