It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking school essays, I'm sure.
Anyhow, I was packing up some boxes today, and happened across the box for the Nokia 770 (a really useful little bit of kit, incidentally), which shows someone merrily using the device to chatter away to a friend on an instant messenger. For some reason, the friend is writing something to them about poetry.
I looked at the sentence. Something went click.
"Kim: A poem is a composition usually written in verse. Poems rely heavily on imagery, precise word choice, and metaphor, may be written in measures consisting of" [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literature&oldid=3562677
I'm used to seeing our content reused all over the place, but somehow I didn't expect to see fragments used as lorem-ipsum filler on a box cover...
On 8/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking school essays, I'm sure.
Anyhow, I was packing up some boxes today, and happened across the box for the Nokia 770 (a really useful little bit of kit, incidentally), which shows someone merrily using the device to chatter away to a friend on an instant messenger. For some reason, the friend is writing something to them about poetry.
I looked at the sentence. Something went click.
"Kim: A poem is a composition usually written in verse. Poems rely heavily on imagery, precise word choice, and metaphor, may be written in measures consisting of" [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literature&oldid=3562677
I'm used to seeing our content reused all over the place, but somehow I didn't expect to see fragments used as lorem-ipsum filler on a box cover...
OMG COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
:p
Remarkably, it seems that Wikipedia was already being used so extensively by 2004. Back then, we were big, but...I didn't really expect the first example of lorem ipsum to date back so early.
Johnleemk
On 17/08/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
OMG COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
:p
Remarkably, it seems that Wikipedia was already being used so extensively by 2004. Back then, we were big, but...I didn't really expect the first example of lorem ipsum to date back so early.
It's not from 2004, I'm afraid - it's a little odd that the *text* is, though. (That sentence was subtly modified in 2004, getting a semicolon and a rephrase after "metaphor", so we can date the variant used) The device was released in 2005, and the box is showing a version running "OS 2006" (which included the IM functionality); this dates the packaging to May 2006 or later.
Google finds a few copies of the 2004 text here and there; presumably it got out in a database dump. I can only assume they reused it from there...
I've found, while looking for copyvios, that large blocks of Wikipedia text are being used as search engine magnets for completely irrelevant things.
On 8/17/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking school essays, I'm sure.
Anyhow, I was packing up some boxes today, and happened across the box for the Nokia 770 (a really useful little bit of kit, incidentally), which shows someone merrily using the device to chatter away to a friend on an instant messenger. For some reason, the friend is writing something to them about poetry.
I looked at the sentence. Something went click.
"Kim: A poem is a composition usually written in verse. Poems rely heavily on imagery, precise word choice, and metaphor, may be written in measures consisting of" [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literature&oldid=3562677
I'm used to seeing our content reused all over the place, but somehow I didn't expect to see fragments used as lorem-ipsum filler on a box cover...
OMG COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
:p
Remarkably, it seems that Wikipedia was already being used so extensively by 2004. Back then, we were big, but...I didn't really expect the first example of lorem ipsum to date back so early.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
OMG COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
:p
Don't joke, that *is* copyright infringement. I can't see how lorem-ipsum text would qualify as fair use, and I very much doubt the Nokia 770 box is GDFL. While I have no real problem with people using our content in such a way, it would be nice if they would do so properly (at least giving credit).
On a lighter note, I know exactly what you mean about being able to spot Wikipedia text a mile off. I find the best clues are the words "neologism" and "portmanteau", I've never seen them used anywhere else, but one of them is in the first sentence of pretty much every Wikipedia article.
I was reading the programme for a theatre show once and as I'd been reading our entry for one of the performers an hour or so before I instantly recognised the text of their profile in it :).
On 8/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking school essays, I'm sure.
Anyhow, I was packing up some boxes today, and happened across the box for the Nokia 770 (a really useful little bit of kit, incidentally), which shows someone merrily using the device to chatter away to a friend on an instant messenger. For some reason, the friend is writing something to them about poetry.
I looked at the sentence. Something went click.
"Kim: A poem is a composition usually written in verse. Poems rely heavily on imagery, precise word choice, and metaphor, may be written in measures consisting of" [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literature&oldid=3562677
I'm used to seeing our content reused all over the place, but somehow I didn't expect to see fragments used as lorem-ipsum filler on a box cover...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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 17/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
OMG COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
:p
Don't joke, that *is* copyright infringement. I can't see how lorem-ipsum text would qualify as fair use, and I very much doubt the Nokia 770 box is GDFL. While I have no real problem with people using our content in such a way, it would be nice if they would do so properly (at least giving credit).
It's a sentence and a half of essentially unremarkable text with no easily identifiable author or significance. Good luck sorting out who they ought to credit...
On a lighter note, I know exactly what you mean about being able to spot Wikipedia text a mile off. I find the best clues are the words "neologism" and "portmanteau", I've never seen them used anywhere else, but one of them is in the first sentence of pretty much every Wikipedia article.
Yeah, our first sentences are the easy bits. "PAGENAME is an (adjective) noun, contextual-phrase other noun"; restate the topic in a really simple way.
It's a sentence and a half of essentially unremarkable text with no easily identifiable author or significance. Good luck sorting out who they ought to credit...
At the very least they could say "[Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature]". While not anywhere near enough for GDFL compliance, it's still much better than nothing.
On 17/08/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Google finds a few copies of the 2004 text here and there; presumably it got out in a database dump. I can only assume they reused it from there...
There was a tool for doing HTML dumps from a MediaWiki installation, the last version of which was from 2004. It was deprecated in favour of the raw HTML renderer now included in the code. (Download and import a dump, render it.) There are quite a few mirrors that just use a dump from 2004 rendered with that tool.
- d.
On 17/08/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
I was reading the programme for a theatre show once and as I'd been reading our entry for one of the performers an hour or so before I instantly recognised the text of their profile in it :).
It can be useful for the more erudite variety of Uncyclopedia article, e.g. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/List_of_one_letter_words_starting_with_A
- d.
On 8/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
OMG COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
:p
Don't joke, that *is* copyright infringement. I can't see how lorem-ipsum text would qualify as fair use, and I very much doubt the Nokia 770 box is GDFL. While I have no real problem with people using our content in such a way, it would be nice if they would do so properly (at least giving credit).
Credit to whom? 205.201.7.96? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literature&diff=750968&old...
Between fair use, de minimis use, and implied license, I think it's pretty safe to say any allegations of copyright infringement are a joke.
On 17/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's a sentence and a half of essentially unremarkable text with no easily identifiable author or significance. Good luck sorting out who they ought to credit...
At the very least they could say "[Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature]". While not anywhere near enough for GDFL compliance, it's still much better than nothing.
lol, I think the same phrases appear about a hundred times on google without a mention. the problem that we have is that plagerism only seems real if it can be googled (or in our case if we know the text quoted). Text from books could go unnoticed for months unless an editor smells a rat. Four sentences from a Wikipedia article (albeit follow through sentences) have shook enough people to respond, how about if four verbatum sentences from a book were posted in wikipedia? would we be shocked at the copyvio?
Not sure how the theatre guide thing works - all the biogs seem to follow the same flow. Maybe the editor of the programme is also a wikipedia editor and finds our styleguide more helpful than the puff of most programmes.
mike
On 8/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's a sentence and a half of essentially unremarkable text with no easily identifiable author or significance. Good luck sorting out who they ought to credit...
At the very least they could say "[Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature]". While not anywhere near enough for GDFL compliance, it's still much better than nothing.
How is it better than nothing? Wikipedia didn't write the text, a person did.
lol, I think the same phrases appear about a hundred times on google without a mention. the problem that we have is that plagerism only seems real if it can be googled (or in our case if we know the text quoted). Text from books could go unnoticed for months unless an editor smells a rat. Four sentences from a Wikipedia article (albeit follow through sentences) have shook enough people to respond, how about if four verbatum sentences from a book were posted in wikipedia? would we be shocked at the copyvio?
Plagiarism is real and (as far as I'm concerned, and I would imagine pretty much everyone else) seems real regardless of the source, it's simply very difficult to spot when it's from an unfamiliar offline source. If we found out about four sentences in a Wikipedia article copied from a book we would immediately remove them, we're just quite unlikely to ever find out, which is unfortunate, but unavoidable.
On 8/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
How is it better than nothing? Wikipedia didn't write the text, a person did.
It's better than nothing because Wikipedia records who wrote the text.
Well, as I showed you, in this instance, Wikipedia *didn't* record who wrote the text.
They could give a url directly to the history page, but that's just likely to confuse people.
And linking to the article won't confuse people? Linking to the article is less of an attribution than linking to the history page, but neither is particularly good attribution if you consider that the majority of people are going to have no clue how to search for an author through either such link.
On 17/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
How is it better than nothing? Wikipedia didn't write the text, a
person did.
It's better than nothing because Wikipedia records who wrote the text.
Well, as I showed you, in this instance, Wikipedia *didn't* record who wrote the text.
They could give a url directly to the history page, but that's just likely to confuse people.
And linking to the article won't confuse people? Linking to the article is less of an attribution than linking to the history page, but neither is particularly good attribution if you consider that the majority of people are going to have no clue how to search for an author through either such link.
I think there is a problem between copyright licencing. Yes Creative Commons would presume that you link to the main contributor - GFDL Wikipedia does fine - on mirror sites like answers there is no need to show history or even link back to the article (? could be wrong about the back link?)
mike
Andrew Gray schreef:
On 17/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On a lighter note, I know exactly what you mean about being able to spot Wikipedia text a mile off. I find the best clues are the words "neologism" and "portmanteau", I've never seen them used anywhere else, but one of them is in the first sentence of pretty much every Wikipedia article.
Yeah, our first sentences are the easy bits. "PAGENAME is an (adjective) noun, contextual-phrase other noun"; restate the topic in a really simple way.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_article:
A '''Wikipedia article''' is an encyclopdic article written for [[Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia articles are generally written in a distinctive and recognizable style, which has often been described as boring[1][2][3][4][5][6], although some articles are said to contain "brilliant prose".{{fact}}
Contents 1 Introduction 3 History of Wikipedia articles 4 Writing a Wikipedia article 5 Criticism 5 Wikipedia articles in popular culture ...
About a month ago I was reading the report of the Commission looking into the future of British railway pensions (an obscure subject, but of interest to me as I'm a deferred pensioner!), when round about page 60 I noticed a couple of paragraphs which looked distinctly familiar (since I wrote them), which explained some of the history of railway privatisation and its effects on the railway pension scheme, which came from an old version of [[Privatisation of British Rail]]. That particular wording isn't in the current version of the article, however.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Kirk" gary.kirk@gmail.com To: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Our content gets *everywhere*
I was reading the programme for a theatre show once and as I'd been reading our entry for one of the performers an hour or so before I instantly recognised the text of their profile in it :).
On 8/17/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking school essays, I'm sure.
Anyhow, I was packing up some boxes today, and happened across the box for the Nokia 770 (a really useful little bit of kit, incidentally), which shows someone merrily using the device to chatter away to a friend on an instant messenger. For some reason, the friend is writing something to them about poetry.
I looked at the sentence. Something went click.
"Kim: A poem is a composition usually written in verse. Poems rely heavily on imagery, precise word choice, and metaphor, may be written in measures consisting of" [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literature&oldid=3562677
I'm used to seeing our content reused all over the place, but somehow I didn't expect to see fragments used as lorem-ipsum filler on a box cover...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
-- Gary Kirk
Thomas Dalton wrote:
OMG COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
:p
Don't joke, that *is* copyright infringement. I can't see how lorem-ipsum text would qualify as fair use, and I very much doubt the Nokia 770 box is GDFL. While I have no real problem with people using our content in such a way, it would be nice if they would do so properly (at least giving credit).
I think it is squarely and cleanly fair use. It's a sentence and a half for goodness sake!
--Jimbo
On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is squarely and cleanly fair use. It's a sentence and a half for goodness sake!
There is more to fair use than just using a small amount.
I also think there is a philosophical point here: we are supposed to be the shining beacon of Free Culture, and while that doesn't mean that we don't protect our content, it also means that we don't go around suing everyone RIAA-style. Whether or not it's "Fair Use", legally speaking, it is certainly not super-nefarious-evil-"Unfair Use" by common sense standards. It's just a random sentence
Let them have it.
--Oskar
On 18/08/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Don't joke, that *is* copyright infringement. I can't see how lorem-ipsum text would qualify as fair use, and I very much doubt the Nokia 770 box is GDFL. While I have no real problem with people using our content in such a way, it would be nice if they would do so properly (at least giving credit).
I think it is squarely and cleanly fair use. It's a sentence and a half for goodness sake!
Maybe, but that's no reason not to at least ask them :-)
- d.
On 8/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/08/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Don't joke, that *is* copyright infringement. I can't see how lorem-ipsum text would qualify as fair use, and I very much doubt the Nokia 770 box is GDFL. While I have no real problem with people using our content in such a way, it would be nice if they would do so properly (at least giving credit).
I think it is squarely and cleanly fair use. It's a sentence and a half for goodness sake!
Maybe, but that's no reason not to at least ask them :-)
Sure, but ask them what? The sentence was contributed anonymously, so there's no one to credit. I guess you could ask them to release the box cover under the GFDL, and if there was actually some use to that I think it'd be a good idea. But it's just a box cover.
I vote someone scans in the box cover and puts it up on in the [[Nokia 770 Internet Tablet]] article as a GFDL image. Then hope they sue, just for the irony or whatever it'd be called. :)
On 8/18/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
I think it is squarely and cleanly fair use. It's a sentence and a half for goodness sake!
Thomas Dalton wrote:
There is more to fair use than just using a small amount.
Indeed. Care to go down the list at [[Fair use]] and check the others for applicability?
First I'd argue the use is de minimis, but that might fail...
purpose and character - highly transformative nature of the copyrighted work - non-fictional work that anyone can download for free over the internet amount and substantiality - not much effect on the work's value - zero
4/4, I declare fair use the winner
On 18/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe, but that's no reason not to at least ask them :-)
Sure, but ask them what? The sentence was contributed anonymously, so there's no one to credit. I guess you could ask them to release the box cover under the GFDL, and if there was actually some use to that I think it'd be a good idea. But it's just a box cover.
I was thinking to at least credit Wikipedia, since the text was written by an anonymous contributor.
I vote someone scans in the box cover and puts it up on in the [[Nokia 770 Internet Tablet]] article as a GFDL image. Then hope they sue, just for the irony or whatever it'd be called. :)
The Wikipedia copyright police are a bit too humorless for that to stand :-)
- d.
Anthony schreef:
On 8/18/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Indeed. Care to go down the list at [[Fair use]] and check the others for applicability?
First I'd argue the use is de minimis, but that might fail...
purpose and character - highly transformative nature of the copyrighted work - non-fictional work that anyone can download for free over the internet amount and substantiality - not much effect on the work's value - zero
4/4, I declare fair use the winner
But this list of conditions is irrelevant, as it is preceded in the copyright act by: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".
Which one of these purposes applies to this case?
Eugene (not a lawyer)
On 8/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe, but that's no reason not to at least ask them :-)
Sure, but ask them what? The sentence was contributed anonymously, so there's no one to credit. I guess you could ask them to release the box cover under the GFDL, and if there was actually some use to that I think it'd be a good idea. But it's just a box cover.
I was thinking to at least credit Wikipedia, since the text was written by an anonymous contributor.
Why not at least credit Microsoft, since the text was written by an anonymous contributor?
I vote someone scans in the box cover and puts it up on in the [[Nokia 770 Internet Tablet]] article as a GFDL image. Then hope they sue, just for the irony or whatever it'd be called. :)
The Wikipedia copyright police are a bit too humorless for that to stand :-)
Yeah, frankly I'm not even sure if I was serious.
On 8/18/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 8/18/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Indeed. Care to go down the list at [[Fair use]] and check the others for applicability?
First I'd argue the use is de minimis, but that might fail...
purpose and character - highly transformative nature of the copyrighted work - non-fictional work that anyone can download for free over the internet amount and substantiality - not much effect on the work's value - zero
4/4, I declare fair use the winner
But this list of conditions is irrelevant, as it is preceded in the copyright act by: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".
Which one of these purposes applies to this case?
No court has ever held that to be an exclusive list.
On 8/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No court has ever held that to be an exclusive list.
I made this point before, but I think I need to make it again: are we actually discussing whether or not this is ok and what we should do about it?
We're wikipedia! We're the people that look at the culture of ownership and lawsuits and say "No! Free content can be as good as non-free!" We're supposed to stand for something profound. The policies could have been created so that every contributor licenses his contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation to do with what they wish and it would probably not have hurt wikipedia one bit (it certainly works well for YouTube). But we didn't! Because we're not those kind of people, that's not what we believe!
Seriously, are we really discussing this? There are times when I read this list and I just can't believe what some people are saying.
--Oskar
On 8/18/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No court has ever held that to be an exclusive list.
I made this point before, but I think I need to make it again: are we actually discussing whether or not this is ok and what we should do about it?
Not at all. We're just engaging in a fun debate over an issue which doesn't make any difference about anything at all, and hopefully learning a little bit about copyright law in the process.
We're wikipedia! We're the people that look at the culture of ownership and lawsuits and say "No! Free content can be as good as non-free!" We're supposed to stand for something profound. The policies could have been created so that every contributor licenses his contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation to do with what they wish and it would probably not have hurt wikipedia one bit (it certainly works well for YouTube). But we didn't! Because we're not those kind of people, that's not what we believe!
Seriously, are we really discussing this? There are times when I read this list and I just can't believe what some people are saying.
There are a multitude of opinions among Wikipedians on copyright law, litigiousness, ownership, etc. There's also a multitude of levels of knowledge among Wikipedians on the applicable laws.
Personally I'm pretty much of the opinion that copyright law is evil and should be repealed. I've had conversations with other Wikipedians who fall nearly on the opposite end of that spectrum. And the vast majority fall somewhere in between. And yet, I think it's possible for us all to get along, so long as we can agree that Wikipedia is going to A) be a free work; and B) work within the law.
I made this point before, but I think I need to make it again: are we actually discussing whether or not this is ok and what we should do about it?
We're wikipedia! We're the people that look at the culture of ownership and lawsuits and say "No! Free content can be as good as non-free!" We're supposed to stand for something profound. The policies could have been created so that every contributor licenses his contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation to do with what they wish and it would probably not have hurt wikipedia one bit (it certainly works well for YouTube). But we didn't! Because we're not those kind of people, that's not what we believe!
Seriously, are we really discussing this? There are times when I read this list and I just can't believe what some people are saying.
Wikipedia is released under the GDFL and not released to the public domain for a reason. If we aren't willing to enforce the terms of the GDFL, we should just release it to the public domain. We don't do that because people like to be credited for their work and very few people would contribute if people could just do whatever they like with it.
But this list of conditions is irrelevant, as it is preceded in the copyright act by: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".
Which one of these purposes applies to this case?
No court has ever held that to be an exclusive list.
Nor has any court, to my knowledge, determined that decoration of something having nothing to do with the work itself was fair.
Not at all. We're just engaging in a fun debate over an issue which doesn't make any difference about anything at all, and hopefully learning a little bit about copyright law in the process.
Hear, hear! The example in question isn't really relevant, it's the basic principles behind it we are debating. I certainly enjoy these debates, and I'm glad you do too. I very much doubt this debate will actually result in any action or change in policy, but hopefully it will get people thinking and learning while having a bit of fun.
On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But this list of conditions is irrelevant, as it is preceded in the copyright act by: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".
Which one of these purposes applies to this case?
No court has ever held that to be an exclusive list.
Nor has any court, to my knowledge, determined that decoration of something having nothing to do with the work itself was fair.
Bah, I can't find a case either. Though, I can't find one *either way*.
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 8/18/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Indeed. Care to go down the list at [[Fair use]] and check the others for applicability?
First I'd argue the use is de minimis, but that might fail...
purpose and character - highly transformative nature of the copyrighted work - non-fictional work that anyone can download for free over the internet amount and substantiality - not much effect on the work's value - zero
4/4, I declare fair use the winner
But this list of conditions is irrelevant, as it is preceded in the copyright act by: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".
Which one of these purposes applies to this case?
Criticism!
Ec
Anthony wrote:
But this list of conditions is irrelevant, as it is preceded in the copyright act by: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".
Which one of these purposes applies to this case
No court has ever held that to be an exclusive list.
Indeed! Please note the use of the words "purposes such as". If exclusivity had been intended it would have been better accomplished without those three words.
Ec
Thomas Dalton wrote:
We're wikipedia! We're the people that look at the culture of ownership and lawsuits and say "No! Free content can be as good as non-free!" We're supposed to stand for something profound. The policies could have been created so that every contributor licenses his contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation to do with what they wish and it would probably not have hurt wikipedia one bit (it certainly works well for YouTube). But we didn't! Because we're not those kind of people, that's not what we believe!
Wikipedia is released under the GDFL and not released to the public domain for a reason. If we aren't willing to enforce the terms of the GDFL, we should just release it to the public domain. We don't do that because people like to be credited for their work and very few people would contribute if people could just do whatever they like with it.
We do strongly discourage the ownership of articles, so being credited for something that has been ruthlessly edited is not the factor here. Largely, downstream users _can_ do whatever they like with the work, with only very few key restrictions. A lot of our discussions about free vs. fair use have been concerned with how Wikipedia can be used by downstream users.
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit. This would give WMF standing to go after people who violate those copyrights when ever it deems it appropriate. Most important is the viral nature of the material, and the way his carries through several generations of publication. It is noteworthy in this regard, when liability is involved, that insurance companies will pay a claim while reserving the right to recover from the person who is responsible for the damages.
The public domain is part of the "res publica", and that kind of means that the "republic" should be protecting what belongs to the public. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to understand that.
We should be enforcing our claims in selected appropriate cases, but the way we use the GFDL has made this very difficult or nearly impossible without action being taken by individual editors.
Ec
Anthony wrote:
There are a multitude of opinions among Wikipedians on copyright law, litigiousness, ownership, etc. There's also a multitude of levels of knowledge among Wikipedians on the applicable laws.
Also extreme variation in terms of personal risk tolerance and aversion, also in understanding the way that the legal system works.
Personally I'm pretty much of the opinion that copyright law is evil and should be repealed. I've had conversations with other Wikipedians who fall nearly on the opposite end of that spectrum. And the vast majority fall somewhere in between. And yet, I think it's possible for us all to get along, so long as we can agree that Wikipedia is going to A) be a free work; and B) work within the law.
Even if we agree to that, interpreting "B" depends on our knowledge of the law. Those of us supporting a more aggressive legal position are not advocating breaking the law.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
On 18/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe, but that's no reason not to at least ask them :-)
Sure, but ask them what? The sentence was contributed anonymously, so there's no one to credit. I guess you could ask them to release the box cover under the GFDL, and if there was actually some use to that I think it'd be a good idea. But it's just a box cover.
I was thinking to at least credit Wikipedia, since the text was written by an anonymous contributor.
I vote someone scans in the box cover and puts it up on in the [[Nokia 770 Internet Tablet]] article as a GFDL image. Then hope they sue, just for the irony or whatever it'd be called. :)
The Wikipedia copyright police are a bit too humorless for that to stand :-)
And if it hasn't been reported elsewhere we'd have the no-original-research purists complaining about it.
Ec
Anthony wrote:
On 8/18/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
I think it is squarely and cleanly fair use. It's a sentence and a half for goodness sake!
Thomas Dalton wrote:
There is more to fair use than just using a small amount.
Indeed. Care to go down the list at [[Fair use]] and check the others for applicability?
First I'd argue the use is de minimis, but that might fail...
purpose and character - highly transformative nature of the copyrighted work - non-fictional work that anyone can download for free over the internet amount and substantiality - not much effect on the work's value - zero
4/4, I declare fair use the winner
I have no doubt that the usage would pass the fair use tests. It would be more interesting to look at this in terms of the right of attribution. This fits more correctly into the package of moral rights that Europeans care so much about. Nokia is, after all, a European company.
Ec
On 03/01/80, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit. This would give WMF standing to go after people who violate those copyrights when ever it deems it appropriate. Most important is the viral nature of the material, and the way his carries through several generations of publication. It is noteworthy in this regard, when liability is involved, that insurance companies will pay a claim while reserving the right to recover from the person who is responsible for the damages.
In practice it's not onerous because Wikipedia editors have so far been pretty free and easy with reuse of their work. "Use our stuff! Just release your changes too!"
Remember that free software and free content licenses are, in this context, defences by people who are reusing the stuff, against a theoretical insane or vindictive copyright owner.
The public domain is part of the "res publica", and that kind of means that the "republic" should be protecting what belongs to the public. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to understand that.
heh.
We should be enforcing our claims in selected appropriate cases, but the way we use the GFDL has made this very difficult or nearly impossible without action being taken by individual editors.
It's a lot easier with images, which tend to (a) have a single named creator (b) just get reused without much if any transformation. A case like this, with a line of text written by an IP number a few years and many edits ago ... As I said, asking Nokia nicely for an acknowledgement note is about 100% more likely to get us something beneficial to the project and to free content :-)
- d.
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit.
That's as may be, but the fact of the matter is that the WMF is *not* a non-exclusive agent. In fact, the WMF didn't even exist when many of the edits were made. It is far too late to change the way copyright of Wikipedia content works. It is released under the GDFL and only the GDFL and will only ever be released under the GDFL. Accept it.
On 18/08/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, are we really discussing this? There are times when I read this list and I just can't believe what some people are saying.
I posted it here because it amused me. But watchng wikien-l impersonate Rabid Copyright Attack Ferrets is, if anything, funnier...
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit.
On 8/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's as may be, but the fact of the matter is that the WMF is *not* a non-exclusive agent. In fact, the WMF didn't even exist when many of the edits were made. It is far too late to change the way copyright of Wikipedia content works. It is released under the GDFL and only the GDFL and will only ever be released under the GDFL. Accept it.
This was brought up a few years ago and I was in the group who opposed giving the WMF enforcement power over violations of our copyright(s). While I may technically release my writing under the GFDL I am actually *much* more lenient on what rights I care to enforce.
Even if it weren't too late, it'd still be a bad idea.
"Wikipedia is released under the GDFL and not released to the public domain for a reason. If we aren't willing to enforce the terms of the GDFL, we should just release it to the public domain. We don't do that because people like to be credited for their work and very few people would contribute if people could just do whatever they like with it."
The reason I don't release my writing into the public domain has nothing to do with attribution and everything to do with copyleft. If I had a choice I'd use Sharealike 1.0, not the GFDL. We all have different rights we want to enforce. Wikipedia is released under the GFDL (not the GDFL) due to historical accident more than anything else. From what I understand it was chosen mainly to shut Stallman up.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit.
That's as may be, but the fact of the matter is that the WMF is *not* a non-exclusive agent. In fact, the WMF didn't even exist when many of the edits were made. It is far too late to change the way copyright of Wikipedia content works. It is released under the GDFL and only the GDFL and will only ever be released under the GDFL. Accept it.
Where do you get the idea that I was rejecting GFDL? There is nothing in GFDL about appointing agents ''ad-litem''. There is nothing in appointing such agents that alters the copyright status of anything. It could easily be written into the editing conditions. Perhaps, in theory, WMF would not be able to represent those who never edited a given article after the effective date of such a policy, but in all likelihood that article would have plenty of other editors who could be represented. It only takes one of them to grant standing to an agent.
The "non-exclusive" aspect is only there to say that granting such agency does not prevent the individual from himself launching any lawsuit that he sees fit.
Ec
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I have no doubt that the usage would pass the fair use tests.
On what grounds? It's purely decorative. The list of purposes given my not be exhaustive, but it is intended to give a general idea of what kind of things are acceptable. Decoration does not fit into that general idea.
I suppose you're free to challenge Nokia on the basis of your theory that their usage is purely decorative. I suppose though we could expand the notion of fair use to anything where starting an action would make the plaintiff look silly. :-P
Ec
I suppose you're free to challenge Nokia on the basis of your theory that their usage is purely decorative. I suppose though we could expand the notion of fair use to anything where starting an action would make the plaintiff look silly. :-P
That would fall under de minimis, not fair use. And, in this case, the violation probably is de minimis, that doesn't stop it being a violation, it just means it's not worth the court's time. But, as I've said before, this isn't really a discussion about a Nokia box, it's about the principles behind it.
On 20/08/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit.
That's as may be, but the fact of the matter is that the WMF is *not* a non-exclusive agent. In fact, the WMF didn't even exist when many of the edits were made. It is far too late to change the way copyright of Wikipedia content works. It is released under the GDFL and only the GDFL and will only ever be released under the GDFL. Accept it.
Where do you get the idea that I was rejecting GFDL? There is nothing in GFDL about appointing agents ''ad-litem''. There is nothing in appointing such agents that alters the copyright status of anything. It could easily be written into the editing conditions. Perhaps, in theory, WMF would not be able to represent those who never edited a given article after the effective date of such a policy, but in all likelihood that article would have plenty of other editors who could be represented. It only takes one of them to grant standing to an agent.
The "non-exclusive" aspect is only there to say that granting such agency does not prevent the individual from himself launching any lawsuit that he sees fit.
You make a good point. Since this only adds to the GFDL and doesn't contradict it, it could be added as applying only to new edits, and, as you say, it only requires one (signifiant) edit to give WMF the power to sue.
However, I still don't think it's a good idea. There is nothing stopping the WMF from paying the legal fees of an individual editor, and that's the most likely thing holding individuals back in cases of major violation (yes, appearing in court is rather a pain, but it only needs one editor to do so, it shouldn't be difficult to find one, just difficult to find one with enough money), so granting it an additional license would be unnecessary. The WMF is not intended to have any real power over the content, and that intention is an important part of what Wikipedia stands for. Making legal action a little more convenient is not worth going against that principle.
Anthony wrote:
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit.
On 8/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's as may be, but the fact of the matter is that the WMF is *not* a non-exclusive agent. In fact, the WMF didn't even exist when many of the edits were made. It is far too late to change the way copyright of Wikipedia content works. It is released under the GDFL and only the GDFL and will only ever be released under the GDFL. Accept it.
This was brought up a few years ago and I was in the group who opposed giving the WMF enforcement power over violations of our copyright(s). While I may technically release my writing under the GFDL I am actually *much* more lenient on what rights I care to enforce.
Even if it weren't too late, it'd still be a bad idea.
Why do you think it's such a bad idea? I don't expect that the WMF would go mad starting lawsuits all over the place. Most likely it could happen when there has been a serious corruption of the underlying copyleft principles by some person in the distant future. It's a matter of looking ahead. Individuals just do not have the clout to deal with serious breaches of copyright, and when their efforts are masked by a long series of subsequent edits the abusers can get around that by challenging the individual's right to litigate. An infringement suit still needs to be preceded by a registration of one's claims. How do you propose that such a registration be formulated? Can one individual act on behalf of all the other individuals in making such a registration. I think the WMF would do better periodically sending in a data dump of the entire site for copyright registration.
Ec
On 20/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose you're free to challenge Nokia on the basis of your theory that their usage is purely decorative. I suppose though we could expand the notion of fair use to anything where starting an action would make the plaintiff look silly. :-P
That would fall under de minimis, not fair use. And, in this case, the violation probably is de minimis, that doesn't stop it being a violation, it just means it's not worth the court's time. But, as I've said before, this isn't really a discussion about a Nokia box, it's about the principles behind it.
In this case, I suggest the principle of "what would be good for the project?" Ask Nokia nicely to acknowledge the usage, even if they could get away with not doing so, and they get niceness and we get niceness.
And, importantly it sets the tone for others. Note the press tone from Wikimedia about the WikiScanner - we don't make suggestions that companies be burned in effigy, we just suggest ways to set the record straight without an apparent conflict of interest. One thing company PR people have just learnt is that "conflict of interest" is public perception, not just words on a Wikipedia policy page.
There's considerable public good will to be gained from being seen to play nice with Wikipedia, and - as the frankly quite boggling wave of press coverage of the WikiScanner has just demonstrated - considerable public oppobrium to be gained from being seen not to. We don't even have to mention sticks, just carrots ;-)
- d.
In this case, I suggest the principle of "what would be good for the project?" Ask Nokia nicely to acknowledge the usage, even if they could get away with not doing so, and they get niceness and we get niceness.
Well yes, if anyone can be bothered, that would be the best first (and probably only) step to take in this particular case.
On 20/08/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why do you think it's such a bad idea? I don't expect that the WMF would go mad starting lawsuits all over the place. Most likely it could happen when there has been a serious corruption of the underlying copyleft principles by some person in the distant future. It's a matter of looking ahead. Individuals just do not have the clout to deal with serious breaches of copyright, and when their efforts are masked by a long series of subsequent edits the abusers can get around that by challenging the individual's right to litigate. An infringement suit still needs to be preceded by a registration of one's claims. How do you propose that such a registration be formulated? Can one individual act on behalf of all the other individuals in making such a registration. I think the WMF would do better periodically sending in a data dump of the entire site for copyright registration.
For an example of an unrepentant GFDL violator, look at Baidupedia. We're dealing with them merely by Anthere publicly saying "this isn't the right way to do it." And they could comply to the standard of other mirror sites *really easily*. They don't even have to link back to Wikipedia, they could just include dumps of the history page and release their changes under GFDL. That would pass in any sensible court, I'd think.
Note the way the FSF and gpl-violations.org do it - they don't seek cash or takedowns, they seek *compliance*. Because compliance isn't that hard and isn't that onerous. But people need to be helped to understand copyleft and free content if they don't get it, and helping them do that is thoroughly in line with the aims of the projects and the Foundation.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/01/80, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit. This would give WMF standing to go after people who violate those copyrights when ever it deems it appropriate. Most important is the viral nature of the material, and the way his carries through several generations of publication. It is noteworthy in this regard, when liability is involved, that insurance companies will pay a claim while reserving the right to recover from the person who is responsible for the damages.
In practice it's not onerous because Wikipedia editors have so far been pretty free and easy with reuse of their work. "Use our stuff! Just release your changes too!"
Sure. And this last point is the problematic one. It is not just a matter of what the first user does. Through successive generations of uncredited changes the material risks losing its viral nature. By insisting on proper credits and the application of the licence to modified works we can better expand the corpus of free material throughout the various modifications which lead to a result quite dissimilar from the originally licensed material.
Remember that free software and free content licenses are, in this context, defences by people who are reusing the stuff, against a theoretical insane or vindictive copyright owner
These licences are still conditional on a flow through of the licences. I am more concerned with the people who wrongly claim copyrights on material that is not copyrightable.
The public domain is part of the "res publica", and that kind of means that the "republic" should be protecting what belongs to the public. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to understand that.
heh.
Sorry if the subtleties of my thinking aren't recognizable. To me "public domain" means that it belongs to everybody rather than nobody. Whose responsibility is it to protect what belongs to everybody from usurpation by some profit motivated individual or company?
We should be enforcing our claims in selected appropriate cases, but the way we use the GFDL has made this very difficult or nearly impossible without action being taken by individual editors.
It's a lot easier with images, which tend to (a) have a single named creator (b) just get reused without much if any transformation. A case like this, with a line of text written by an IP number a few years and many edits ago ... As I said, asking Nokia nicely for an acknowledgement note is about 100% more likely to get us something beneficial to the project and to free content :-)
Absolutely! Often a little quiet shaming can be more effective than a silly and ostentatious lawsuit.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
On 20/08/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why do you think it's such a bad idea? I don't expect that the WMF would go mad starting lawsuits all over the place. Most likely it could happen when there has been a serious corruption of the underlying copyleft principles by some person in the distant future. It's a matter of looking ahead. Individuals just do not have the clout to deal with serious breaches of copyright, and when their efforts are masked by a long series of subsequent edits the abusers can get around that by challenging the individual's right to litigate. An infringement suit still needs to be preceded by a registration of one's claims. How do you propose that such a registration be formulated? Can one individual act on behalf of all the other individuals in making such a registration. I think the WMF would do better periodically sending in a data dump of the entire site for copyright registration.
For an example of an unrepentant GFDL violator, look at Baidupedia. We're dealing with them merely by Anthere publicly saying "this isn't the right way to do it." And they could comply to the standard of other mirror sites *really easily*. They don't even have to link back to Wikipedia, they could just include dumps of the history page and release their changes under GFDL. That would pass in any sensible court, I'd think.
Note the way the FSF and gpl-violations.org do it - they don't seek cash or takedowns, they seek *compliance*. Because compliance isn't that hard and isn't that onerous. But people need to be helped to understand copyleft and free content if they don't get it, and helping them do that is thoroughly in line with the aims of the projects and the Foundation.
Fair enough. I agree that compliance is our ultimate aim in these disputes. Getting things taken down has no real benefit for copyleft. The right of agency would be a means rather than an end. Having a tool in your toolbox means it's available to be used in the right circumstances. When your rival knows that, he can be more easily convinced that he is not dealing with a paper tiger.
Ec
On 8/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit.
On 8/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's as may be, but the fact of the matter is that the WMF is *not* a non-exclusive agent. In fact, the WMF didn't even exist when many of the edits were made. It is far too late to change the way copyright of Wikipedia content works. It is released under the GDFL and only the GDFL and will only ever be released under the GDFL. Accept it.
This was brought up a few years ago and I was in the group who opposed giving the WMF enforcement power over violations of our copyright(s). While I may technically release my writing under the GFDL I am actually *much* more lenient on what rights I care to enforce.
Even if it weren't too late, it'd still be a bad idea.
Why do you think it's such a bad idea?
Because while I may technically release my writing under the GFDL I am actually *much* more lenient on what rights I care to enforce.
For instance, I don't care all that much if I'm attributed. And I certainly don't care at all if Wikipedia is attributed. I'm not going to sue over merely an issue of attribution (though I might decide to bring up attribution issues in the case of someone I'm going to sue anyway).
Mostly though, I don't have any plans or desire to sue anyone. Those who want to give the foundation the right to sue apparently do.
I don't expect that the WMF would go mad starting lawsuits all over the place. Most likely it could happen when there has been a serious corruption of the underlying copyleft principles by some person in the distant future.
If it happens in the distant future I care even less.
It's a matter of looking ahead. Individuals just do not have the clout to deal with serious breaches of copyright, and when their efforts are masked by a long series of subsequent edits the abusers can get around that by challenging the individual's right to litigate. An infringement suit still needs to be preceded by a registration of one's claims. How do you propose that such a registration be formulated? Can one individual act on behalf of all the other individuals in making such a registration.
That's a huge legal question which is pretty much anyone's guess until it gets litigated. Personally I feel the strongest argument would be that Wikipedia articles are joint works of authorship, in which case any individual can register the entire work. But that certainly isn't an open and shut issue.
Anthony
David Gerard wrote:
And, importantly it sets the tone for others. Note the press tone from Wikimedia about the WikiScanner - we don't make suggestions that companies be burned in effigy, we just suggest ways to set the record straight without an apparent conflict of interest. One thing company PR people have just learnt is that "conflict of interest" is public perception, not just words on a Wikipedia policy page.
There's considerable public good will to be gained from being seen to play nice with Wikipedia, and - as the frankly quite boggling wave of press coverage of the WikiScanner has just demonstrated - considerable public oppobrium to be gained from being seen not to. We don't even have to mention sticks, just carrots ;-)
For some, carrots are just another kind of stick. A bigger carrot will more effectively beat someone over the head. ;-)
The tone of what you say above is just as important at the micro-level of how Wikipedians get along with each other. Some just move too quickly into an enforcement mode.
This can also apply to articles about companies. A company that insists on believing its own company PR in the face of contradictory public information can only harm the perception that the public has of its products. It is now much easier to find information that challenges the companies.
Ec
On 8/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Personally I feel the strongest argument would be that Wikipedia articles are joint works of authorship,
For some reason I keep calling that "joint works of authorship" while the correct term is "works of joint authorship".
On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
At the very least they could say "[Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature]". While not anywhere near enough for GDFL compliance, it's still much better than nothing.
We really make it incredibly difficult for anyone to reuse our text in this way. It's difficult to find out what you're allowed to do. It's difficult to work out who the author is. It's difficult to know how you're supposed to credit them.
It's very easy for us to say that they broke the rules. What were they supposed to do? We proudly proclaim that Wikipedia is free content. Then when someone uses it (probably naively), we bitch at them for not including a verbatim copy of the entire GFDL in their commercial product and spending hours attempting to determine who to credit for the lame sentence they took.
It's really one of the greatest failings of Wikipedia so far.
Steve
On 18/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's a sentence and a half of essentially unremarkable text with no easily identifiable author or significance. Good luck sorting out who they ought to credit...
At the very least they could say "[Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature]". While not anywhere near enough for GDFL compliance, it's still much better than nothing.
Would they have to recall their boxes if wikipedia decided to destroy the contribution history and they couldn't find any way to reference it? Can their competitors now use the same designs for their boxes if they reference wikipedia? Seems a little farcical to talk about all this stuff as none of GNU's licenses have been tested in court yet right?
Would they have to recall their boxes if wikipedia decided to destroy the contribution history and they couldn't find any way to reference it? Can their competitors now use the same designs for their boxes if they reference wikipedia? Seems a little farcical to talk about all this stuff as none of GNU's licenses have been tested in court yet right?
I specifically said that it wasn't anywhere near enough for actual compliance, and it was never intended to be. It was intended to be a suggestion for how to show good faith and do what normal people (ie. not lawyers) would consider fair. Satisfying the lawyers is far harder, and, as you say, until it's tested in court we're not even sure how to do that.
On 17/08/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking school essays, I'm sure.
Perhaps if it's that obvious, it's a sign that you (like me!) have been around too long.
My company is currently producing the calendars we distribute to our customers on the last proper working day before Christmas (cutting it fine this year!)
Six different front covers, each one with text lifted straight out of enwiki... I hit the roof - GFDL is not public domain! - but Management don't seem to care. Someone should sue ;-)
On 21/12/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/08/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking school essays, I'm sure.
Perhaps if it's that obvious, it's a sign that you (like me!) have been around too long.
My company is currently producing the calendars we distribute to our customers on the last proper working day before Christmas (cutting it fine this year!)
Six different front covers, each one with text lifted straight out of enwiki... I hit the roof - GFDL is not public domain! - but Management don't seem to care. Someone should sue ;-)
Management might not, Legal probably will, though.
On 12/21/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Six different front covers, each one with text lifted straight out of enwiki... I hit the roof - GFDL is not public domain! - but Management don't seem to care. Someone should sue ;-)
Prior to sueing, someone with a bit of initiative could send an invoice. I suspect many companies, when faced with an actual invoice of some reasonable amount (<$1000) would simply pay it. Some text to the effect of "You didn't contact me before using my text. However, I'm willing to grant a retrospective licence for $.... under the terms at my website [...]".
Steve
On 23/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/21/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Six different front covers, each one with text lifted straight out of enwiki... I hit the roof - GFDL is not public domain! - but Management don't seem to care. Someone should sue ;-)
Prior to sueing, someone with a bit of initiative could send an invoice. I suspect many companies, when faced with an actual invoice of some reasonable amount (<$1000) would simply pay it. Some text to the effect of "You didn't contact me before using my text. However, I'm willing to grant a retrospective licence for $.... under the terms at my website [...]".
Will the WMF let me keep half the proceeds? ;-)
Prior to sueing, someone with a bit of initiative could send an invoice. I suspect many companies, when faced with an actual invoice of some reasonable amount (<$1000) would simply pay it. Some text to the effect of "You didn't contact me before using my text. However, I'm willing to grant a retrospective licence for $.... under the terms at my website [...]".
Will the WMF let me keep half the proceeds? ;-)
It's nothing to do with the WMF, it's not their content. The people that wrote the articles need to send the invoices.