What constitutes a copyvio?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Adam [name omitted...

Adam [name omitted for privacy...

Rick

11 Sep 2003 11 Sep '03

6:24 a.m.

I put [[Thomas Sutpen]] on the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/copyvio]] page because it is a word-for-word copy from [[http://www.uic.edu/depts/engl/projects/dissertations/kdorwick/engl214/juan/…. [[User:Stevertigo]] rolled back the copyvio boilerplate I'd put on the page and said in [[Talk:Thomas Sutpen]]: "I rolled the copyvio deletion back because this little text --even if copied from an edu site does not constitute a problem for us. There was no copyright notice on the source page, it was not copied in full, and theres no reason why the effort placed in calling this a copyviolation cant be better put toward changing the text to make it unique." I'm certainly not qualified to do anything to this article. I had no idea who Thomas Sutpen was until I read this article. Am I then not allowed to discuss the article because I can't change the text? I don't know what to change it to, I don't have the background to do so. In the meantime, does that mean that I have to leave all texts alone that I know are copyright violations because I don't have the expertise to change them? Is Stevevertigo correct that, because the page doesn't specifically have a copyright on it, it's fair game to be stolen and incorporated onto Wikipedia? I can't believe that. RickK --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 1.6 KB)

Show replies by date

Fred Bauder

11 Sep 11 Sep

12:59 p.m.

on 9/10/03 10:24 PM, Rick at giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com wrote: Is Stevevertigo correct that, because the page doesn't specifically have a copyright on it, it's fair game to be stolen and incorporated onto Wikipedia? I can't believe that. You should not believe that. Everything is copyright by its author, if no one else, notice or no notice, unless it has been released into the public domain either by the passage of time, some specific license to use it or simply a declaration that people are "free to use it" as one sometimes sees. You did the correct thing. If User:Stevertigo wishs to do enough editing to create a credibly new article using the factual material in the copywrited material (thus conserving energy as he alleges) that is fine. But in fact he did not. He just reverted. User:Stevertigo's demand that you edit it rather than request deletion is inappropriate. Fred

Steve Vertigum

2:06 p.m.

--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

...

You should not believe that. Everything is copyright by its author, if no one else, notice or no notice, unless it has been released into the public domain either by the passage of time, some specific license to use it or simply a declaration that people are "free to use it" as one sometimes sees.

Certainly.

...

You did the correct thing. If User:Stevertigo wishs to do enough editing to create a credibly new article using the factual material in the copywrited material (thus conserving energy as he alleges) that is fine. But in fact he did not. He just reverted. User:Stevertigo's demand that you edit it rather than request deletion is inappropriate.

Sorry Fred -- I didnt "just revert" --I edited the material down to stub with barely the smell of the original on it. (the sites copynotice just said "fine to copy for noncommercial reasons, just link here" - are we "commercial"?) Since I have neither the time nor patience, I copy here the discussion from Talk:Thomas Sutpen: Do read section *** at leaste. Wikilove be upon you and all you wikilove, ~S~ I rolled the copyvio deletion back because this little text --even if copied from an edu site does not constitute a problem for us. There was no copyright notice on the source page, it was not copied in full, and theres no reason why the effort placed in calling this a copyviolation cant be better put toward changing the text to make it unique. --戴眩sv 04:09, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC) Why not discuss it on the VfD page before arbitrarily rolling it back? This little bit of text is word for word from the original page, and just because there's no copyright notice on a page doesn't mean that it is free for us to steal. I'm going to put the copyvio boilerplate back. Please take it to the VfD page. RickK 04:14, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) Ditto. Just because there is not a copyright notice on the source site does not mean that the owner of the site does not hold the copyright on it. Chances are s/he does even without the notice. The original text here was extremely close to what was on the page and would need to be deleted out of page history before rewriting the article I think. Am I correct?Ark30inf 04:18, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) There are two issues -- one an anon user who insists on adding copied text -- I think its probably our autist friend Merritt who mails the list. He should be temporarily blocked. The second issue is the use of small amounts of copied text and simple ability of us to modify it enough to remove any direct connection to it. I understand that this is hard to do if your goal is to be the current m:top cop but I also see a lack of effort -- of simply copying a boilerplate while "not using sysop powers" to take more decisive action, as suspect behaviour. I suggest adding a boilerplate without removing the text, and letting people modify it. Yes there are other editors here. -戴眩sv 04:36, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC) I was under the impression that copyvio stuff needed to be deleted from the page history before rewriting. I'm not sure that the amount of copyrighted text makes any difference.Ark30inf 04:39, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) *** The only explicit answer to this is that its unclear. There are incredible limits to how Wikipedia can or cannot be in danger of a copyvio -- it is likely that there are plenty of things that are technically in violation now. The history cannot seriously be called into question -- if you have to dig into history to find a vio, how can it be argued that its a current violation? Its also true that if we know about it we can change it, and if *they know about it, they can change it too, cant they? With an openly editable content system it is just as much the responsibility of an owner to change a specific entry that violates their copyright, as it is our obligation to accomodate them if they ask us to remove it. In otherwords, while we can't simply copy text willy-nilly we also can't be worried about it too much either. As a general rule its just as easy to edit something down to a stub - (that it may grow into something) than it is to waste time going through VFD. I have no interest in being anyone's cop. That is not and never was my goal, and resent your assertion. How am I supposed to change an article when I have no clue what to change it to? RickK I dont mean to offend you. Please dont take my comments personally. If Ive been rough with you its because I was under the impression that you were being rough with the newbies. If I am mistaken in that impression I apologize. -戴眩sv 04:42, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC) You didn't answer my question as to how I'm supposed to change an article if I don't know how to change it. RickK 04:48, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) Cut it down to a stub-- a WP:STUB is an ugly duckling that may grow to be a swan. --Im taking a break...-戴眩sv 04:51, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC) I understand, just thought that it was preferred that copyvios be deleted to get them out of page history and then rewritten/stubbed.Ark30inf 04:55, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Copyvios should be listed for a week to see if they are copyvios. Not having a (c) symbol does not make it copyright free. Accusing people of laziness for not wanting to correct a copyvio is out of order. Different people have different priorities, perhaps at different times of day. If I saw a copyvio when I was not awake, I would not want to rewrite it as it would be no good. If someone has no interest in a topic, they can not be forced to write about it. Listing it in the appropriate place for someone else is the best idea. RickK - please stop not using your sysop powers. The same goes for Martin. It's very annoying. Angela 06:32, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC) While I would trust your sleepytime edits over the bright and awake edits of many others, Angela, I would prefer to believe that the difference between your asleep and awake skills would by reason be astronomical. The merits of an article, although always at the mercy of human fancy, might best be judged when our high officials are sober. As for Rick and Martin to chose moderation--this is to be encouraged, but to deliberately choose (redundant?) to not use their powers for good might constitute a dereliction of duty. Listing it in the appropriate place for someone else? -- If were interested in efficiency (which I assume is the premise for following our autist copyswipers around to immediately undo what they do) then perhaps a simple call out on recent changes, and an adding of a copyvio notice to the top might prove a good balance between throwing baby and bathwater out. Spectrefully-戴眩sv 07:28, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Fred Bauder

2:59 p.m.

on 9/11/03 6:06 AM, Steve Vertigum at utilitymuffinresearch2(a)yahoo.com wrote:

...

Commercial uses are foreseeable and permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License. I don't see your name on any edit other than: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Thomas_Sutpen&oldid=1418240 Which is not materially different from the copyrighted text: "Sutpen, Thomas. The founder of the Sutpen family in Yoknapatawpha County. He was born in the mountain country of western Virginia in 1807, and around 1820 went to Haiti, where he married Eulalia Bon, the daughter of a French planter there. They had one son, Charles Bon. When Sutpen discovered that his wife had Negro blood he divorced her. He arrived in Jefferson in 1833, and built himself a large plantation in the northwestern part of Yoknapatawpha County on a hundred acres of land gotten from the Chickasaws. He married Ellen Coldfield of Jefferson in 1838. They had two children, Henry and Judith. His whole life was dedicated to establishing a family, and when his son disappeared he tried other means of getting a male heir. When he spurned Milly Jones because her child by him was female, he was killed by Wash Jones, Milly's grandfather. This was in 1869. Appears in Absolam, Absolam!" Fred

Jimmy Wales

3:25 p.m.

Steve Vertigum wrote:

...

*Yes*, we should proceed as if we are. I can't repeat this often enough, I think. We likely fit any reasonable definition of noncommercial on our own website. The website is owned by a nonprofit organization. The website does not have advertising. The website is created by volunteers working for the betterment of humanity, etc. However, we are *also* releasing everything under the GNU FDL, which does *not allow* discrimination against commercial endeavors. So we must assume that some of our licensees will be using the text for expressly commercial purposes. In this case, I can totally envision that some enterprising writer deciding to publish a book on William Faulkner, called "The Faulkner Encyclopedic Companion". The book would consist completely of entries lifted from wikipedia, and sold for profit. That's totally legitimate. And it's also why we can't use anything that *only* grants the right of reuse for 'noncommercial' purposes. Also, you write 'copy' -- the site gave permission, you say, to 'copy'. But we don't just copy, we edit. We produce derivative works. Everyone should take a good hard look at the SCO/Linux/IBM lawsuit. I think SCO is wrong in most details, but nonetheless the whole affair raises a lot of troubling questions. Now fast forward 5 years. We are by far the dominant encyclopedia in the world. People view Britannica as a quaint old relic, but nothing compared to the scope and quality of Wikipedia. Super, and at that point we will be a target for FUD charges that all we did was plagiarize stuff from the net. This need not be a matter of technical legal copyright problems! Our standards go far beyond that of mere obediance to the law. Even if there were some legal gray area here (and there is not, IMHO), it's still plagiarism. --Jimbo

Alex R.

9:48 p.m.

From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com>

...

This need not be a matter of technical legal copyright problems! Our standards go far beyond that of mere obediance to the law. Even if there were some legal gray area here (and there is not, IMHO), it's still plagiarism.

I agree with all of Jimbo's point. The dichotomy commercial v. non-commercial is not really applicable because of the GFDL. As well, even if one were to use the fair use defense under US law, this fair use may not be fair use for downstream licensees. The problem is that fair use does not primarily depend on the third sector (what some people call non-profits as being the "third Force in democractic societies); fair use is a specific use defense. Thus it might be allowed in Wikipedia, copying a whole text might not be considered a copyright infringement, but someone downstream that does not have notice of that fact is going to infringe and may not have the same fair use defense as Wikipedia will be found an infringer. While anyone who releases a text has the burden to prove that they did not engage in an infrnging act (thus the burden IMHO should be on the editor contributor and the downstream licensee) Wikiepedia may not have any direct absolute liability because "Wikipedia" as such, did not contribute the text (a reason that the editors should retain authorship attribution and copyright IMO) the goal is to create a base of knowledge that can be used, not sidelined because the due dillegence could not be done to show who actually owns the co-author copyright on any Wikipedia article thus effectively making the GFDL license scheme useless except to non-income producing downstream licensees ( not-for-profit publishers will probably be considered no different than commercial publishers, the only difference is that the money in a not-for-profit does not go to the shareholders (there are none) it goes to' salaries and the assets of the corporation, there is still plenty of income from the exploited intellectual property. Thus, copyright violation vigilance will do at least two things, first make it easier for third parties to do their due dillegence, second make it harder for Wikipedia (be that the volunteers or the not-for-profit structure in Wikimedia) to be held liable for failure to take reasonable steps to prevent any infringement (or defamation/personality rights issues from cropping up). This is important when dealing with non-US nationals that browse Wikipedia, Wikipedia's problem will not be copyright so much as it will be the problems that might arise with defamation and privacy/publicity rights; in those cases the person that posts the tortious material is not shielded by US law. the law in the place of the defamation applies (and that can be any country in the world). We should also remember that copyright law itself provides the best "out" for this kind of problem. sec. 102(b) of Title 17 USC states: "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." Thus any material that is rewritten to the point where the only resemblance with the original material are ideas, concepts, facts, that will never be a copyright infringement. As far as history pages are concerned my current thinking on copyright infringements appearing on these pages is to invoke sec. 108 of the Copyright Act. Thus while a current page version is released under the GFDL, prior versions of an article should have the famous 108 notice so that if some one has downloaded copyright infringing material at least Wikimedia will not be responsible as it is acting as a non-commercial archive (this cannot apply to the current version of any page as it would be in violation of the GFDL). Alex756

Jimmy Wales

10:02 p.m.

Alex R. wrote:

...

As far as history pages are concerned my current thinking on copyright infringements appearing on these pages is to invoke sec. 108 of the Copyright Act. Thus while a current page version is released under the GFDL, prior versions of an article should have the famous 108 notice so that if some one has downloaded copyright infringing material at least Wikimedia will not be responsible as it is acting as a non-commercial archive (this cannot apply to the current version of any page as it would be in violation of the GFDL).

Can you explain more about the "famous 108 notice"? I read this article, but found it only partially helpful: http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/notice.html And this: http://www.mlc.lib.mi.us/services/copyill.php And finally, a marked-up copy of the law itself: http://www.groton.k12.ct.us/mts/eg13a.htm --Jimbo

Alex R.

12 Sep 12 Sep

1:13 a.m.

From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com>

...

The 108 notice is the notice frequenters to physical paper libraries often encounter. Usually the notice is affixed to the photocopy machines. At the NYPL (New York Public Libary) the notice has actually appeared on each photocopy page, marginally on the copy and the NYPL has stopped allowing individuals to make copies, they must order the copies from the Copyright service in the Main Library on 42nd Street. The glass platen has the photocopy notice pasted to it, so all copies have the notice on it. You also have to sign a form stating that you are aware of the copyright law. Most libraries still allow self service photocopying and they just put a notice near the photocopy machine. I often see them in law libraries: "NOTICE: Photocopys may be protected by Copyright Title 17 United States Code." This section was advocated by library association lobbyists who were worried that libraries might be held responsible for copyright violations that occurred on their premises due to the proliferation of photocopy machines. It is seen as a way to give notice to the person that their use of copying devices provided by the library or archive, may result in potential copyright infringement. The original requirement was either to provide a copy of the notice from the work (i.e. copy the copyright notice page when any photocopies were made by library staff or to affix a notice) the law was interpreted different ways and there was not one way in which it was applied. THE DMCA clarifed the confusion about the notice that was required and the legal opinion your cited below Jimmy deals with the minimal notice requirements, i.e. "a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright" if there is no notice on the work itself (the copy is only of a page out of a book is a good example and it seems this might apply to the kind of potential infringement that occur when people paste stuff from copyrighted web sites onto Wikipedia that later end up in the history pages. This article gives a pretty good background and explanation of the provision: http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/super_copying.htm. It is pretty clear to me, but then again IAAL! Also 108(f) might be a good reason to place a notice on all of Wikipedia as it will put users on notice that it is there responsiblity to check copyright (actually this is equivalent to a copyright warranty disclaimer, though specifically mentioning sec. 108 might give Wikipedia some added protection, it is another argument to use if infringement is alleged). Alex756

Daniel Ehrenberg

7:29 p.m.

--- "Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com> wrote:

...

I don't want to have to say on every page "We might not have written this, so you should use it as if it was coppied from something". And a cryptic "Use of Wikipedia is protected under Title 17" won't do anything, except placate the non-existant lawyers who are prosecuting us for temporary copyright infringment that we've fixed by the time it goes to court. LDan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Alex T.

13 Sep 13 Sep

1:16 a.m.

From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>

...

But aren't the history pages an archive? At least we could do that, no? It would not have to be written on every page, it would just have to be added onto the renamed Copyrights (copyrights and warranty disclaimers) page. Alex756

Daniel Ehrenberg

6:38 p.m.

--- "Alex T." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com> wrote:

...

From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>

I don't want to have to say on every page "We

might

not have written this, so you should use it as if

was coppied from something". And a cryptic "Use of Wikipedia is protected under Title 17" won't do anything, except placate the non-existant lawyers

who

are prosecuting us for temporary copyright

infringment

that we've fixed by the time it goes to court. LDan

Still, it would either send the message that we didn't write it or not send a message at all. LDan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Steve Vertigum

7:25 p.m.

--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Still, it would either send the message that we didn't write it or not send a message at all. LDan

It would be some reasonable protection (just in case) under established law. What could be wrong with that? Knowing such a thing lets us loosen our belts a little bit -- allowing for some better circulation and stress reduction. Now if we can all take our shoes and socks off... :) ~S~ <==Wavy lines indicate "vertigo." __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Steve Vertigum

12 Sep 12 Sep

12:38 a.m.

--- "Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com> wrote:

...

I agree with all of Jimbo's point. The dichotomy commercial v. non-commercial is not really applicable because of the GFDL.

Ok.

...

As well, even if one were to use the fair use defense under US law, this fair use may not be fair use for downstream licensees. The problem is that fair use does not primarily depend on the third sector (what some people call non-profits as being the "third Force in democractic societies); fair use is a specific use defense. Thus it might be allowed in Wikipedia, copying a whole text might not be considered a copyright infringement, but someone downstream that does not have notice of that fact is going to infringe and may not have the same fair use defense as Wikipedia will be found an infringer.

You say "will be found" as if this were a "legal certainty." Is there such a thing where hyper-transmission of materials is concerned? Please dont point to the current RIAA case-- its likely to recieve a severe case of public-advocacy backlash.

...

While anyone who releases a text has the burden to prove that they did not engage in an infrnging act (thus the burden IMHO should be on the editor contributor and the downstream licensee)

This is pretty straightforward. It comes down to a contract between contributor and Wikipedia. A deliberate and repeated violation of this contract is the real issue. Understood.

...

Wikiepedia may not have any direct absolute liability because "Wikipedia" as such, did not contribute the text

This is exactly what I said. (a reason that the editors should retain

...

authorship attribution and copyright IMO)

Is this going to happen? How does this jive with the open-wiki model? Again, the democratizing, open-source model was never really inline with the privatized proprietary model in any case-- it's just a matter of time for these things to come to a head -- I see no point in changing horses in mid-stream now.

...

the goal is to create a base of knowledge that can be used, not sidelined because the due dillegence could not be done to show who actually owns the co-author copyright on any Wikipedia article

And I take it that "due diligence" does not mean "an excess of zeal" either right? We all are *not in disagreement. Should we (for clarity's sake) now better define the term "due diligence" -- or must it remain as subjective as the law is itself? :-)

...

effectively making the GFDL license scheme useless except to non-income producing downstream licensees

I see, so the whole notion of open-encyclopedia, generated by free editor labor, is somehow predicated on the possibilty that it will someday must be used by someone "for-profit" -- and not merely maintained as a perennial world resource ? Is'nt this--philosophically in contradiction to your first paragraph--more subject to laws dealing with non-profit, for-profit distinctions?

...

not-for-profit publishers will probably be

considered

...

no different than commercial publishers, the only difference is that the money in a not-for-profit

does not go to the shareholders (there are none) it goes to'

...

salaries and the assets of the corporation, there is still plenty of income from the exploited

intellectual >property.

...

Thus, copyright violation vigilance will do at least two things, first make it easier for third parties to do their due dillegence, second make it harder for Wikipedia (be that the volunteers or the not-for-profit structure in Wikimedia) to be held liable for failure to take reasonable steps to prevent any infringement (or defamation/personality rights issues from cropping up).

This is quite clear. What at issue now are specific technicalities --1. Copyviolations in the article history only--not in the current version. -- is it necessary to delete an article --or can it simply be refactored? 2. The creation of stubs from copyvio sources. 3. Proper attribution to article source as a mitigating factor in a hypothetical claim of violation. 4. The inefficiency of deferential preference to the VFD process over refactoring.

...

This is important when dealing with non-US nationals that browse Wikipedia, Wikipedia's problem will not be copyright so much as it will be the problems that might arise with defamation and privacy/publicity rights; in those cases the person that posts the tortious material is

not

...

shielded by US law. the law in the place of the defamation applies (and that can be any country in the world).

As long as people are made better aware of this fact--essentially, that they are personally responsible for the material they submit specifically in a civil defamation context. The issue then is, since WP itself is shielded, how much can or will or should WP shield its contributors?

...

We should also remember that copyright law itself provides the best "out" for this kind of problem. sec. 102(b) of Title 17

USC

...

states: "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." Thus any material that is rewritten to the point where the only resemblance with the original material are ideas, concepts, facts, that will never be a copyright infringement.

Tadaa. ( Meaning: Similar to Violá ). Never say never though?

...

Thank goodness! But this new notice will take maybe an hour for one of the developers to implement. I hope the Firmament does'nt get sued before then. Thank you Alex. I think that all of this actually cleared something up. My spidey-sense is getting back to normal. Ah the sweet swell of indication, ~S~ "I don't believe in nothin nomore--I'm going to law school." -The dark-cap wearing teenage bully from 'The Simpsons' __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Alex R.

3:13 a.m.

From: "Steve Vertigum" <utilitymuffinresearch2(a)yahoo.com> ...

...

is going to infringe and may not have the same fair use defense as Wikipedia will be found an infringer.

I think my logic is straightforward. If they have a fair use defense (o.k., maybe not the exact same fair use defense as every fair use defense is fact specific) they they will not have infringed, but if they don't have any fair use defense, yes, they will have infringed (that is assuming that the infringement is straightfoward). That is why I put it in as a certainty. The uncertainty revolves around the application of the fair use defense to downstream users. I am trying to focus the legal uncertainty there. ...

...

(a reason that the editors should retain

authorship attribution and copyright IMO)

My understanding of the "open wiki model" is that it is a model of collaboration. Collaboration, in the artistic sense, translates into coauthorship in the copyright context. If you, I and Jimbo all contribute to an article, we are all the joint copyright owners of that article. If someone wants to publish it under the GFDL, they can, if they want to republish it some other way they will have to get permission from the coauthors. We remain the co-authors, we have all contributed to the same text (note that the collective Wikipedia copyright is held by all contributors "collective" is a copyright term that differs from coauthorship under the law. I don't see that authors do not retain copyright (they are only giving a non-exclusive license to Wikipedia, they can still do whatever they want with the original text, and author attribution (within the GFDL) is retained; I am not proposing any changes here.

...

the goal is to create a base of knowledge that can be used, not sidelined because the due dillegence could not be done to show who actually owns the co-author copyright on any Wikipedia article

It is not for us to define due diligence, but apply how the courts interpret it contemporaneously with it being applied. (that it is why it is better left to the downstream licensee, perhaps).

...

effectively making the GFDL license scheme useless except to non-income producing downstream licensees

I don't know if libertarians would agree with the notion of privatization of public knowledge as being contrary to the libertarian ideal. Remember it is liberatarians who believe that the profit motive will make public services more effective. If someone will buy all the lamp posts, they will probably figure out a way to make money out of them (or they would not have purchased them) and ultimately the public good will be better served (though we may have to look at advertisements on every lamp post in exchange for this commercialization of the public realm). This is another example of why the commercial non-commercial dichotomy does not really work (though I don't agree with McDonalds outlets in hospitals or consumer advertising geared to grade and high school students, but that is another discussion.

...

I still think it is better to delete than preserve anything in the archives, but my proposal below is an interesting alternative regarding the history pages being considered an archive under sec. 108 of the copyright law. The history pages are not really for public consumption the _same_ way as the current version of any article, are they?

...

2. The creation of stubs from copyvio sources.

As long as they are rewritten before posted to Wikipedia this is a valid way to contribute. It imports the facts without any infringement (or even fair use); ideas or facts cannot be copyrighted; that is what we are doing here at Wikipedia (and why the NPOV is also important, there is no agenda to an article, it presents all points of view because from a copyright law perspective they belong to no one, they are part of the "marketplace of ideas" (that is a famous quote from a famous American jurist, any guess who?) 3. Proper attribution to article source as a

...

mitigating factor in a hypothetical claim of violation.

If there are article sources they should _always_ be attributed, my suggestion is to always put notes about one's sources in the hidden text; this is different than putting it on the talk page. If it is in the  it is still part of the article, the downstream licensee can check the sources and decide for themselves if there is any infringment or fair use that might not transform under changed circucumstances. The same kinds of information goes for fair use attribution. I have also posted a link to a pdf checklist on the fair use page. This is the kind of information that should be used whenever any fair use is claimed. Remember, fair use is use specific, there is no such thing as general fair use. It _always_ depends on the circumstances (I have noticed lots of images on Wikipedia that are fair use, my question is: Have people been contributing fair use in text as liberally as they do on photos? If they have, let us only hope that there was attribution information posted somewhere so that someone can figure that out.

...

4. The inefficiency of deferential preference to the VFD process over refactoring.

I am not quite sure I understand this. If one deletes and starts over, one is not encouraging any copyright violation in any way. Refactoring is still copying. Better to cite one's sources and rewrite from scratch rather than cut, paste and refactor, no? ...

...

It is not just civil defamation, but all kinds of information based torts that might occur. If someone commits a tort why should Wikipedia shield them? It should shield the person who is the object of the tort, no? Wikipedia is not an insurance company (now that is a way to control the world, make Wikipedia an insurance company! hee, hee!) ...

...

Thank goodness! But this new notice will take maybe an hour for one of the developers to implement. I hope the Firmament does'nt get sued before then.

I hope so! But damages are not likely. After all even if "we" do get sued, the question is always what are the damages and how much did the volunteers work to mitigate them for the "victim". We need to watch out for the Wikipedia victim, not the vandals, violators and defamers.

...

Thank you Alex. I think that all of this actually cleared something up. My spidey-sense is getting back to normal.

No. Thank you, Steve for following my argumentation, just please don't get that spider goo all over the net! And remember, even thought IAAL, Wikipedia (i.e. its contributors) does not give legal advice! Alex756

Alex R.

11 Sep 11 Sep

3:27 p.m.

From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>

...

Before 1989 (when the US adopted the Berne Convention) a work that was published in the United States without a copyright notice did not assert copyright. Some such works may have fallen into the public domain. However the law passed allowed for works in which a copyright notice did not appear to have copyright restored if certain steps were takens. This was not generally true for works who first country of publication was/is a Berne Convention signatories as one of the principals of Berne is that there are no formalities to copyright; copyright subsists by the act of fixation. There is no concept of copyright "theft"; only copyright infringement. There are criminal statutes that cover copyright infringment that can incur a criminal penalty. One does not deprive the owner of their property when one misappropriates intellectual property; one deprives them of the rights they have over that property. Alex756

Jimmy Wales

3:17 p.m.

Rick wrote:

...

[[User:Stevertigo]] rolled back the copyvio boilerplate I'd put on the page and said in [[Talk:Thomas Sutpen]]: "I rolled the copyvio deletion back because this little text --even if copied from an edu site does not constitute a problem for us. There was no copyright notice on the source page, it was not copied in full, and theres no reason why the effort placed in calling this a copyviolation cant be better put toward changing the text to make it unique."

I disagree with Stevertigo on every point. I think that he should refrain from making any comment on copyright violations until he has studied the law more fully. First, copyright notice is not required in any way shape or form for copyright to be valid. Second, while it can make a difference whether something is copied in full or in part, this far exceeds the allowable legal bounds. But more importantly, it *drastically* exceeds the allowable _moral_ bounds as it amounts to pure and simple plagiarism. And finally, changing a text to make it unique may be problematic from a 'derivative works' point of view. For a text as short as this, the right thing to do is get rid of the copyright violation completely and write a new article *from scratch*, using facts gleaned from the original _and_ other sources.

...

Is Stevevertigo correct that, because the page doesn't specifically have a copyright on it, it's fair game to be stolen and incorporated onto Wikipedia? I can't believe that.

Well, you are right and Stevertigo was wrong. --Jimbo

Steve Vertigum

7:18 p.m.

New subject: What constitutes copyvio apologethletics?

Well that clears some things up, but it appears I confused two things -- my alteration of the [[The Wind Done Gone]] page, with the [[Thomas Sutpen]] page -- the talk page being the place where the discussion took place. I apologize for that. The Sutpen article was clearly a vio. But of course nobody gave any hint that they even read the attached discussion -- let alone answer any of the points made there --Centrally the one the Jim and I seem to be in agreement with-- namely take a second to create a Stub. The secondary issue of purging the history of copyvios seems paranoid and I wont comment further. IANAL, Im sure this issue has been thought out -- it seems to stop at the assumption that anything that "may potentially cause a problem is bad." Certainly to be lax might be the wrong signal to send, but a scrorched earth approach to copyvios seems silly. (Pardon my French ;) While its not in anyones interest to maintain copyrighted text, the automatic adding of boilerplate and move to VFD -- if enough people get into "top cop" mode and carry this to extremes, it will mean a serious reduction in articles, (lets be realistic) and lead new contributors (even autist ones) to leave. Not to mention cause more people to drop from the [[m:academic standards kick]] disease. So I called for some reasonable moderateness. My disagreement is not practical--IANAL (thus you people with business degrees may not understand it) but it was an attempt to correct an attitude that says "lets copyvio text added by a repeat offender, (but dont actually ban the repeat offender, nor ask anyone else to) and do nothing about adding a stub because 'I just dont know how." Mr. "wrong-on-all-points", ~S~ "I'd love to be in a world where women grow penises because its fashionable, or you can have an eye replacement of a different color or from a different species. All the adults will say, "Tut, tut, tut, girls never had penises in my day." -Neil Gaiman __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Jimmy Wales

7:52 p.m.

New subject: What constitutes copyvio apologethletics?

Steve Vertigum wrote:

...

points made there --Centrally the one the Jim and I seem to be in agreement with-- namely take a second to create a Stub.

Yes, it's nice to do that, but if a person knows nothing about the topic, I can see why they might not want to bother. --Jimbo

Steve Vertigum

8:22 p.m.

New subject: What constitutes copyvio apologethletics?

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:

...

Steve Vertigum wrote:

points made there --Centrally the one the Jim and

seem to be in agreement with-- namely take a

second to

create a Stub.

Yes, it's nice to do that, but if a person knows nothing about the topic, I can see why they might not want to bother.

Yes, I can understand _____ in the name of efficiency, too. But do we make _____ policy by enforcing the hard rule? Id simply like to see the standard procedure mitigated with some reason, rather than deference to fear of repercussion. Enough for today, ~S~ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

7531

days inactive

7533

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

18 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

Alex R.
Alex T.
Daniel Ehrenberg
Fred Bauder
Jimmy Wales
Rick
Steve Vertigum