At my urging in IRC chat, this and the redirects from it are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements#Marc... .
A meaningful selection of a subset is copyrightable and the selection of articles to include in an encyclpedia is such a meaningful selection.
The company has a major financial incentive to take us to court bcause we are competitors. Our normal transformative use fair use argument doesn't exist because they are an encyclopedia and so are we, so fair use is far, far tougher to argue. We also lose our unwritten fifth fair use factor "are they good people?" positive result in this case.
They would take us to court and this is free ammunition forthem to use to do it. Whether they do it before a print edition or after, to do the greatest possible harm by requiring all copies to be recalled or destroyed, is not knowable by us.
We must not use the selection of articles made by another encyclopedia as a checklist for articles we want. If individual Wikipedians do so, that's their problem but we must not conspire with them to facilitate it.
It's not a problem to do things like noting that it's common for encyclopedias to use "lastname, firstname" form for names and add redirects of that sort for every individual we have in the Wikipedia. It's not a problem to note that encyclopedias often use the names of popes not preceded by the word pope and create redirects for that. But it is a problem if a large subset is selected and systematically worked on in this way. It's also a very big giveaway if they see lots of referrers from a Wikipedia page to their site.
It was a good and helpful thought Timwi, but it does lots of potential harm and shouldn't be done in this way. If you instead make a bot to create lastname, firstname redirects, that would be useful and not a problem.
-----Original Message----- From: Timwi To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:01:07 +0000 Subject: [WikiEN-l] Columbia encyclopedia article titles
It is now official! :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Columbia_Encyclopedia_article_titles
If you have a minute of spare time, please take a peek at some of the links. If Wikipedia articles exist on some of the topics, create redirects to them and remove them from the list.
If you are certain that a particular topic does not have a corresponding Wikipedia article, it would probably make sense to mark them somehow - perhaps move them to the bottom of the page into an extra section.
Thanks! Timwi
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
user_Jamesday wrote:
At my urging in IRC chat, this and the redirects from it are listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements#Marc h_2 .
A meaningful selection of a subset is copyrightable and the selection of
articles to include in an encyclpedia is such a meaningful selection.
See the decision of the US Supreme Court in [[Feist v. Rural]], 1991. (Thanks to Raul654 to pointing out our article on it) It's directly connected to this.
It's worth noting that we're not even listing their entire set of titles- only the difference between us and them. This could be considered comparative advertising- see Sony v. Bleem (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2000) for a recent case in which fair use was upheld for what many called an edge case.
Also, nearly all the redirects created are obvious- <lastname>, <firstname> naming, different formulations of titles, transliteration of foreign characters (a-ring to double-a, c-cedilla to c, accent marks, tildes), and so forth. The more esoteric Biblical names, mentioned earlier, all come from texts or translations that are within the public domain (typically via Easton's). Moreover, the suggestion on the discussion page that we should also delete all the redirects created as a result is ludicrous.
Based on all of these and a number of other factors (our nonprofit status among them, but that's relatively minor), I'd say we're well within bounds. [[meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia]], people.
-- Jake
PS: IANAL. I miss Alex.
user_Jamesday wrote:
A meaningful selection of a subset is copyrightable and the selection of articles to include in an encyclpedia is such a meaningful selection.
It MAY be copyrightable. The matter is far from clear.
The company has a major financial incentive to take us to court bcause we are competitors. Our normal transformative use fair use argument doesn't exist because they are an encyclopedia and so are we, so fair use is far, far tougher to argue.
We are not planning to publish the list; it is solely for internal use; items which have been considered would be deleted from the list. The titles are only a small part of the entire work. If it would turn out that there is no actual copyright, then fair use is not an issue.
We also lose our unwritten fifth fair use factor "are they good people?" positive result in this case.
This emotional argument would be totally irrelevant in a law suit.
They would take us to court and this is free ammunition forthem to use to do it. Whether they do it before a print edition or after, to do the greatest possible harm by requiring all copies to be recalled or destroyed, is not knowable by us.
Have they said that they would? Has anyone received a takedown notice? You are speculating about what they might do; that's what copyright paranoia is all about. The print edition would not even resemble their list, and nobody is suggesting that it would. That alone would establish that we are only using the list for research purposes. If their position is so unknowable we should give ourselves the benefit of the doubt.
We must not use the selection of articles made by another encyclopedia as a checklist for articles we want.
It's only a list of articles to consider; we may not even use them.
If individual Wikipedians do so, that's their problem but we must not conspire with them to facilitate it.
If I had a functioning website, and adequate technical skills, I would have no paranoia about including the material.
It's not a problem to do things like noting that it's common for encyclopedias to use "lastname, firstname" form for names and add redirects of that sort for every individual we have in the Wikipedia. It's not a problem to note that encyclopedias often use the names of popes not preceded by the word pope and create redirects for that. But it is a problem if a large subset is selected and systematically worked on in this way.
Creating all those redirects would be an utter wast of time when we could easily reformat the names on the lists. We already have articles on most (if not all) the popes, so those names would soon be removed from the list.
It's also a very big giveaway if they see lots of referrers from a Wikipedia page to their site.
They should be happy with that.
It was a good and helpful thought Timwi, but it does lots of potential harm and shouldn't be done in this way. If you instead make a bot to create lastname, firstname redirects, that would be useful and not a problem.
That would make no difference; the items in the list would be the same.
I see Jamesday's position as nothing better than extreme copyright paranoia. It's important to respect copyright in clear cases, but where there is a serious and reasonable doubt we deserve to take a more favorable interpretation.
Since Jimbo would be the one in position to be sued, he should declare the level of risk that he wants to accept in this. If he is highly risk avers, than maybe someone else with appropriate software can put it on his site.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
user_Jamesday wrote:
A meaningful selection of a subset is copyrightable and the selection of articles to include in an encyclpedia is such a meaningful selection.
It MAY be copyrightable. The matter is far from clear.
Solution: Fill out every article before they notice, then delete the list ;-)
Magnus
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see Jamesday's position as nothing better than extreme copyright paranoia. It's important to respect copyright in clear cases, but where there is a serious and reasonable doubt we deserve to take a more favorable interpretation.
Since Jimbo would be the one in position to be sued, he should declare the level of risk that he wants to accept in this. If he is highly risk avers, than maybe someone else with appropriate software can put it on his site.
I agree with Ray completely. This is not problematic in the least.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see Jamesday's position as nothing better than extreme copyright paranoia. It's important to respect copyright in clear cases, but where there is a serious and reasonable doubt we deserve to take a more favorable interpretation.
Since Jimbo would be the one in position to be sued, he should declare the level of risk that he wants to accept in this. If he is highly risk avers, than maybe someone else with appropriate software can put it on his site.
I agree with Ray completely. This is not problematic in the least.
Is this an official statement that the list can be reinstated?
Timwi wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I see Jamesday's position as nothing better than extreme copyright paranoia. It's important to respect copyright in clear cases, but where there is a serious and reasonable doubt we deserve to take a more favorable interpretation.
Since Jimbo would be the one in position to be sued, he should declare the level of risk that he wants to accept in this. If he is highly risk avers, than maybe someone else with appropriate software can put it on his site.
I agree with Ray completely. This is not problematic in the least.
Is this an official statement that the list can be reinstated?
I'll defer to community judgment following the usual procedures on deleting things. But I think the whole protest against it is confused and paranoid.
--Jimbo
I don't agree with user_Jamesday at all here.
user_Jamesday wrote:
At my urging in IRC chat, this and the redirects from it are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements#Marc... .
A meaningful selection of a subset is copyrightable and the selection of articles to include in an encyclpedia is such a meaningful selection.
The company has a major financial incentive to take us to court bcause we are competitors. Our normal transformative use fair use argument doesn't exist because they are an encyclopedia and so are we, so fair use is far, far tougher to argue. We also lose our unwritten fifth fair use factor "are they good people?" positive result in this case.
They would take us to court and this is free ammunition forthem to use to do it. Whether they do it before a print edition or after, to do the greatest possible harm by requiring all copies to be recalled or destroyed, is not knowable by us.
We must not use the selection of articles made by another encyclopedia as a checklist for articles we want. If individual Wikipedians do so, that's their problem but we must not conspire with them to facilitate it.
It's not a problem to do things like noting that it's common for encyclopedias to use "lastname, firstname" form for names and add redirects of that sort for every individual we have in the Wikipedia. It's not a problem to note that encyclopedias often use the names of popes not preceded by the word pope and create redirects for that. But it is a problem if a large subset is selected and systematically worked on in this way. It's also a very big giveaway if they see lots of referrers from a Wikipedia page to their site.
It was a good and helpful thought Timwi, but it does lots of potential harm and shouldn't be done in this way. If you instead make a bot to create lastname, firstname redirects, that would be useful and not a problem.
-----Original Message----- From: Timwi To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:01:07 +0000 Subject: [WikiEN-l] Columbia encyclopedia article titles
It is now official! :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Columbia_Encyclopedia_article_titles
If you have a minute of spare time, please take a peek at some of the links. If Wikipedia articles exist on some of the topics, create redirects to them and remove them from the list.
If you are certain that a particular topic does not have a corresponding Wikipedia article, it would probably make sense to mark them somehow - perhaps move them to the bottom of the page into an extra section.
Thanks! Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l