It is possible they have used that text from someone else who has taken it from Wikipedia. I sometimes find this in the line of work I do, where people submit information on the items they submit to us (with no indication of where this information has come from), and I then double-check and sometimes find they have copied direct from Wikipedia. It is how information can spread, sometimes. In this case, of course, you would expect the curators of the NPG to do their own research. One thing you (Scott) would need to check is precisely where the sentences in the lead of the article came from and when they were written.
I've been flicking forward from the initial version of the article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Michael_Wright&oldid=1803...
It is clear that the current lead emerges gradually over time, with changes in wording over time. You would need to identify the point in times at which the word structure of the current sentences emerge and who wrote them. Given that others have contributed to this article, you would need to be sure that they did not contribute to the wording of the copied text. If they did contribute, you would need to work together with them on what action (if any) to take.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
After the confrontation between Derrick Coetzee and the National Portrait Gallery, I thought people would enjoy this irony.
I wandered on to this page of theirs on John Michael Wright:
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?search=sa&LinkID=mp0... &role=art&wPage=0
Hm, that description of Wright sounds familiar I though. Unsurprising really, since *I* wrote it.
It is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Wright which is mainly my work.
Of course, the only note on the page is C National Portrait Gallery, London 2011. No mention of Wikipedia on CC licence unless I've missed it.
Which means, they are engaged in intellectual theft. Or have I missed something?
Can I sue them? And they seem to have taken other work from Wikipedia. I wonder if this is quite deliberate.
Scott
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20 March 2011 18:13, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You would need to identify the point in times at which the word structure of the current sentences emerge and who wrote them. Given that others have contributed to this article, you would need to be sure that they did not contribute to the wording of the copied text. If they did contribute, you would need to work together with them on what action (if any) to take.
There are other approaches, of course, than that of full-frontal action for copyright violation.
The first thing is likely to be to quietly approach them and ask nicely for licence compliance, since it's really easy. I would *always* advise this as the first approach to take, since it's the thing we actually want and we're all really nice and stuff.
(Escalation, should that fail conclusively, would probably usefully involve the blogosphere and then the media, in that order. This will then rekindle the debate over enclosure of public domain resources, which we would want to approach with care so as not to joggle the elbow of those working productively with pretty much every other museum in the world, who have all been a lot saner and who we don't want to frighten unduly. Etc., etc. We *could* make a big public fuss, but I'm not entirely sure that would actually get us what we want.)
(This does not, of course, in any way say that pissed-off Wikipedia contributors are not absolutely entitled to be pissed off, especially considering that the NPG *still* thinks they can enclose the public domain, and that the NPG's idea of flagging a problem is to start with lobbing a nuke, never mind it went off in their faces. I merely mean to gently suggest taking a deep breath for consideration before taking further action.)
- d.
I guess I was mainly enjoying the irony that people so prickly about their own asserted copyrights can be so slapdash with material that is someone else's copyright. They threw bricks at Derrick, now it appears they are inhabiting a glass-house.
I doubt I'm much motivated to do anything about it beyond chuckle with a little righteous indignation, but if someone else wants either to contact them and ask them to acknowledge Wikipedia and the correct license, or to use the whole thing to throw a publicity brick back at them, they are very welcome. I will chuckle more.
Any way you look at it, they have (probably carelessly) asserted copyright over material that they certainly do not have copyright over, and (probably inadvertently) violated my rights and those of Wikipedia. Given the circumstances, that's somewhat funny.
Scott
I discovered the NPG's infringement after the article [[John Michael Wright]] was slated for TFA (due in an hour or two). As I say, I wrote 95% of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_the_summar y_of_today.27s_or_tomorrow.27s_featured_article
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Michael_Wright#CopyVio.3F
The joke is now on me as people actually want to pull the TFA because of a perception that I violated the NPG's copyright. To say I'm pissed off it to put it mildly.
Scott
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Scott MacDonald Sent: 20 March 2011 20:54 To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPG copyright irony
I guess I was mainly enjoying the irony that people so prickly about their own asserted copyrights can be so slapdash with material that is someone else's copyright. They threw bricks at Derrick, now it appears they are inhabiting a glass-house.
I doubt I'm much motivated to do anything about it beyond chuckle with a little righteous indignation, but if someone else wants either to contact them and ask them to acknowledge Wikipedia and the correct license, or to use the whole thing to throw a publicity brick back at them, they are very welcome. I will chuckle more.
Any way you look at it, they have (probably carelessly) asserted copyright over material that they certainly do not have copyright over, and (probably inadvertently) violated my rights and those of Wikipedia. Given the circumstances, that's somewhat funny.
Scott
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21 March 2011 01:21, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
(Escalation, should that fail conclusively, would probably usefully involve the blogosphere and then the media, in that order.
Escalation via the media strikes me as a completely inappropriate approach even in theory.
Escalation strikes me as a bad idea. In any case, I understand that various GLAM volunteers will be having a quiet word with their NPG contacts (we are, after all, on speaking terms with them) first thing Monday, at which point I would expect licence compliance or text removal in pretty short order.
- d.
Compliance, and a desire for collaboration, will of course be the best outcome here.
An engraved invitation for Scott M. and guest to attend their next gala opening would also be in order.
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 March 2011 01:21, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
(Escalation, should that fail conclusively, would probably usefully involve the blogosphere and then the media, in that order.
Escalation via the media strikes me as a completely inappropriate
approach
even in theory.
Escalation strikes me as a bad idea. In any case, I understand that various GLAM volunteers will be having a quiet word with their NPG contacts (we are, after all, on speaking terms with them) first thing Monday, at which point I would expect licence compliance or text removal in pretty short order.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
An apology would be nice.
Scott
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Newyorkbrad Sent: 21 March 2011 01:28 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPG copyright irony
Compliance, and a desire for collaboration, will of course be the best outcome here.
An engraved invitation for Scott M. and guest to attend their next gala opening would also be in order.
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 March 2011 01:21, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
(Escalation, should that fail conclusively, would probably usefully involve the blogosphere and then the media, in that order.
Escalation via the media strikes me as a completely inappropriate
approach
even in theory.
Escalation strikes me as a bad idea. In any case, I understand that various GLAM volunteers will be having a quiet word with their NPG contacts (we are, after all, on speaking terms with them) first thing Monday, at which point I would expect licence compliance or text removal in pretty short order.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l