SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Guy (JzG)
On 03/05/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
This uninformed panel member thinks that people have a general right to upload photos of themselves to their user pages.
Steve
On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Yeah, it's a copyvio. Since the user doesn't appear to have explicitly released the material under a GFDL-compatible license, and since the user has not provided an proof that they are who they say they are, it's correct to consider it a copyvio. Please note, the original says:
*Copyright (c) 1997-2005 CBS International All rights reserved.*
Guettarda wrote:
On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Yeah, it's a copyvio. Since the user doesn't appear to have explicitly released the material under a GFDL-compatible license, and since the user has not provided an proof that they are who they say they are, it's correct to consider it a copyvio. Please note, the original says:
*Copyright (c) 1997-2005 CBS International All rights reserved.*
Such notices are irrelevant to the determination of whether something is copyright, except perhaps in establishing when the copyright will expire, but that problem is moot until 2067.
Release under GFDL is implicit whenever anyone saves an edit. Why should it be any more explicit in this case?
Whether she is who she says she is is more problematic. What kind of proof are you looking for? Can we ever be sure that anyone who posts with his "real" name is identifying himself truthfully? "Assume good faith" favours keeping the material. If you doubt the good faith, you would do better by trying to contact the person through independant channels.
Ec
On 5/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Yeah, it's a copyvio. Since the user doesn't appear to have explicitly released the material under a GFDL-compatible license, and since the user has not provided an proof that they are who they say they are, it's correct to consider it a copyvio. Please note, the original says:
*Copyright (c) 1997-2005 CBS International All rights reserved.*
Such notices are irrelevant to the determination of whether something is copyright, except perhaps in establishing when the copyright will expire, but that problem is moot until 2067.
Release under GFDL is implicit whenever anyone saves an edit. Why should it be any more explicit in this case?
Because they may not own the copyright in the first place. If you don't own the copyright, you can't release your contributions under the GFDL -- it's why we delete copy-and-pastes from Britannica.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 5/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Yeah, it's a copyvio. Since the user doesn't appear to have explicitly released the material under a GFDL-compatible license, and since the user has not provided an proof that they are who they say they are, it's correct to consider it a copyvio. Please note, the original says:
*Copyright (c) 1997-2005 CBS International All rights reserved.*
Such notices are irrelevant to the determination of whether something is copyright, except perhaps in establishing when the copyright will expire, but that problem is moot until 2067.
Release under GFDL is implicit whenever anyone saves an edit. Why should it be any more explicit in this case?
Because they may not own the copyright in the first place. If you don't own the copyright, you can't release your contributions under the GFDL -- it's why we delete copy-and-pastes from Britannica.
It wasn't stated before that the material was from Britannica. I was under the impression that it was from another source. In the more general situation when a person grants a license under GFDL it includes a prima facie claim that he has the right to make that grant.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Yeah, it's a copyvio. Since the user doesn't appear to have explicitly released the material under a GFDL-compatible license, and since the user has not provided an proof that they are who they say they are, it's correct to consider it a copyvio. Please note, the original says:
*Copyright (c) 1997-2005 CBS International All rights reserved.*
Such notices are irrelevant to the determination of whether something is copyright, except perhaps in establishing when the copyright will expire, but that problem is moot until 2067.
Release under GFDL is implicit whenever anyone saves an edit. Why should it be any more explicit in this case?
Whether she is who she says she is is more problematic. What kind of proof are you looking for? Can we ever be sure that anyone who posts with his "real" name is identifying himself truthfully? "Assume good faith" favours keeping the material. If you doubt the good faith, you would do better by trying to contact the person through independant channels.
"Assume good faith" ignores one important fact: people lie.
On 5/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
"Assume good faith" ignores one important fact: people lie.
"Assume good faith" doesn't mean, believe that someone is telling the truth despite all evidence to the contrary. It simply means, make a reasonable effort to interpret people's actions, in the absence of other evidence, in a positive way. If someone claims to be Celine Dion, by all means, be skeptical - but don't block them right off the bat.
Steve
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Whether she is who she says she is is more problematic. What kind of proof are you looking for? Can we ever be sure that anyone who posts with his "real" name is identifying himself truthfully? "Assume good faith" favours keeping the material. If you doubt the good faith, you would do better by trying to contact the person through independant channels.
"Assume good faith" ignores one important fact: people lie.
The general statement that "people lie" is true enough, but the majority don't usually lie. In specific circumstances it would be unjust to begin with the assumption that that person lied.
Ec
On 5/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
"Assume good faith" ignores one important fact: people lie.
Or are wrong for a variety of other reasons (ignorance, accident, confusion, translation issues, etc.). One can still assume good faith and also assume that people are, well, people. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "be unskeptical." It just means, "don't assume maliciousness" -- it doesn't mean "assume they are correct."
In copyright issues I assume first that the user does not understand our copyright policy or copyrights in general. After that, I move into the realm of "...and maybe they don't care." After that, I move into, "well, whatever the case, they're doing the wrong thing and that won't do." In rare cases do I suspect people of being legitimately malicious in their actions (though there have been more than a handful of that, of course).
FF
On 03/05/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template. Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner. Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en/Author%27s_claim_of_license is the standard reply to "someone keeps tagging my material as copyvio, but I wrote it, damnit"
Simply claiming to be someone doesn't magically mean everyone has to assume you are them...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 5/3/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en/Author%27s_claim_of_license is the standard reply to "someone keeps tagging my material as copyvio, but I wrote it, damnit"
From that page: "In order to accept into Wikipedia content which is
published on another website, we usually require a clear statement from the author of the content that the content is being licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) [...]. This statement must come from an email address that we can clearly recognize as being from the operator of the website, or be in reply to a message sent to the operator of the website."
Umm, what if the operator of the website isn't the author of the content?
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/3/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en/Author%27s_claim_of_license is the standard reply to "someone keeps tagging my material as copyvio, but I wrote it, damnit"
From that page: "In order to accept into Wikipedia content which is published on another website, we usually require a clear statement from the author of the content that the content is being licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) [...]. This statement must come from an email address that we can clearly recognize as being from the operator of the website, or be in reply to a message sent to the operator of the website."
Umm, what if the operator of the website isn't the author of the content?
Then they're violating the author's copyright? They can demand them to fix it?
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/3/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en/Author%27s_claim_of_license is the standard reply to "someone keeps tagging my material as copyvio, but I wrote it, damnit"
From that page: "In order to accept into Wikipedia content which is
published on another website, we usually require a clear statement from the author of the content that the content is being licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) [...]. This statement must come from an email address that we can clearly recognize as being from the operator of the website, or be in reply to a message sent to the operator of the website."
Umm, what if the operator of the website isn't the author of the content?
Then we rephrase the boilerplate :-)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template.
Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International,
Looking at user contributions, I don't see this to be the case. Was there a deleted edit you're referring to?
and therefore presumably the copyright owner.
The copyright owner of that website is more likely to be CBS International. The website is most likely a work for hire.
Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Who's "the panel"?
What I think is that you're both arguing over something completely pointless. It's just a user page.
Anthony
"Work for hire" means CBS International is the copyright owner rather than the person who took the photograph or who's in it. If it has not been released under a free license by the copyright owner it can be deleted.
Mgm
On 5/4/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm. I refused to speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio template.
Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS International,
Looking at user contributions, I don't see this to be the case. Was there a deleted edit you're referring to?
and therefore presumably the copyright owner.
The copyright owner of that website is more likely to be CBS International. The website is most likely a work for hire.
Since this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit excessive. On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess. What does the panel think?
Who's "the panel"?
What I think is that you're both arguing over something completely pointless. It's just a user page.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l