On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's on the talk page of CSD now. Why? Why do we *need* to delete material before a proper check has been made? Even a forum website would normally have a discussion between moderators before deleting material that wasn't an obvious copyright violation.

On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Absolutely. We should delete infringing material. But before we do so we should actually look to see if it is infringing material. That speedy deletion criterion says we can delete material *on suspicion* and without carrying out the slightest bit of research.

On 12/4/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's newbie-biting, and it's putting too much meaning into a simple google search. The process is apparently this: single editor finds material that looks like a cut-and-paste job, does google, finds copy. Source doesn't look to single editor like a GFDL source, so single editor without consulting a single other human being deletes the article. Why is it not enough to have more than one person make the decision, and the decision to be made over a reasonable period? I've seen all kinds of excuses, but not explanation of why this extension is needed. It almost seems to me like a CSD proposal deliberately crafted to delete articles that do not infringe copyright.

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: There are two sides to that story. A lot of time a copyright notice is posted without thinking when the author really doesn't give a damn. IMDB is a good example. I have added a few bits to it in the past, but copyright was the furthest thing from my mind when I did so. I'm sure that if I looked at those pages I would find the routine copyright notice whether I want it or not. Is there anything in the IMDB terms of use that says that you give up copyrights to anything you contribute to them? The thought that anyone would sue himself for copyright infringement strikes me as a little offbeat. Ec

I'm not worried about IMDB either, IMD like Amazon and a bunch of other places claims copyrights that they can't actually claim since it isn't their stuff to begin with. A good example of this is actor/actress listings in movies which aren't theirs to copyright same with book cover images since the publisher not amazon holds the right to the image on the book cover and amazon cannot take that away from them just from being a resaler of the book. It should be noted though that I am not an expert on copyright law so I could be entirely wrong on this but even though common sense and copyright law almost never go together it's just common sense that this would be the way it is. -Jtkiefer

Jtkiefer wrote: The big problem with copyright notices is that they don't mean anything. For the US since 1989 copyright subsists whether or not there is a notice. IMDB pages are copyright only to the extent that they are copyrightable. They have a clear copyright in the general presentation of a page, the information itself is not coyrightable, and the copyright on the commentary or reviews is owned by whoever wrote it. If you want permission to use a commentary you need to ask that individual. Ec

I would be interested in commenting on this article. I have seen letters on the help desk asking why they were accused of a copyvio when they owned the page in question. Usually, they submitted the edit anonymously so there is no way of knowing. However, we need a process to ensure that they are quickly gotten rid off or edited mercilessly although speedy is taking it a bit far. I would think a fortnight would be a more suitable period. Unless they are specifically written as encyclopedia articles (in which case they should be speedy deleted or on the public domain), most pieces on the web are not written to be used in a encyclopedia. As such, they make very problematic articles for Wikipedia as they inevitably designed to push a point of view. Some examples of problematic articles: (a) a piece on an elected representative copied from his or her web page will talk about all the wonderful things he and his party have done - the negatives will not get a mention: (b) a piece copied from a corporate website will mention all the wonderful things a company or product has done leaving out the criticisms; (c) a piece copied from an activists page about a corporation say Greenpeace will only mention the negatives about that company or its products; (d) an article copied from a musicians web page will discuss the singers latest album in great detail while passing over a twenty year career in a couple of paragraphs. Irrespective of copyright laws, stuff copied from other websites generally make very poor Wikipedia articles. Further, it usually takes a couple of minutes to cut and paste so it isn't as if the creator has put a lot of effort into it. In conclusion, my suggestion is: (a) articles that are copyright violations from sites that provide their content commercially should be speedy deleted. (b) other material that has been identified as a copyright violation should sit in copyvio for a fortnight after which an admin should make a decision as to whether they are encyclopedic in quality and should stay or should be nominated for Afd (similar to pages needing translation). We should see if we can send an e-mail to the copyright holder advising them that this page has been uploaded and seeking their permission. If this permission is not given, the page should be speedy deletions. In short, copyright violations are not only a breach of copyright law but usually advocate a point of view and are often original research so break other guidelines as well. We need a process that will ensure that they do not stick around. Regards Keith Old Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster On 12/4/05, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Backlog at CP and a heck of a lot were missed. A few turned up at cleanup wikify. -- geni