Hi, list,
I'm not sure I'm in the right place to ask such questions, so please point me to more correct place if you know it.
There was an ArbCom case in ruwiki about removing links to some website. One of the arguments was the fact that this website contains copyright-protected materials in such a way that violates right of copyright holder. As an evidence we had clear license statement from the copyright holder that explicitly forbid usage of copyright-protected materials in such a way as they were used on the website. So ArbCom ruled that due to absence of editorial necessity links to this site are violation of copyright policy and therefore are forbidden. ArbCom cited the policy en:WP:C and the case Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry which is cited by that policy.
However, some editors argue that en:WP:C is neither ruwiki nor Foundation policy, but just a policy of English Wikipedia, and therefore Russian Wikipedia and ArbCom don't have to follow it. (We don't have such copyright-based restrictions in our "External link" policy yet.) They say that we put excessive burden on the editors and it is simply not necessary to investigate facts of copyright violation on third-party websites (at least, since there are no requests from copyright holders), because we have no explicit statements of the Foundation that we have to do it.
So my question is: are there any Foundation policy or statement about it? Should Russian Wikipedia obey en:WP:C here, or we can make our own decisions on this matter?
Thanks,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ilya Schurov ilya.schurov@noo.ru wrote: <snip>
They say that we put excessive burden on the editors and it is simply not necessary to investigate facts of copyright violation on third-party websites (at least, since there are no requests from copyright holders), because we have no explicit statements of the Foundation that we have to do it.
<snip>
On the narrow issue of en:WP:C and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, neither is expected to impose a positive burden on editors. The court case is predicated on the fact that they already knew they were linking to copyright violations and continued to do so intentionally.
The enwiki policy is simply a statement that we will remove links if we become aware that they are associated with copyvios, but it is fine for an ordinarily editor to link to anything unless he has already become aware of a problem. No editor is required or expected to do copyright investigations before adding a normal link.
-Robert
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ilya Schurov ilya.schurov@noo.ru wrote:
<snip> > They say that we put excessive burden on the editors and it is simply > not necessary to investigate facts of copyright violation on third-party > websites (at least, since there are no requests from copyright holders), > because we have no explicit statements of the Foundation that we have to > do it. <snip>
On the narrow issue of en:WP:C and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, neither is expected to impose a positive burden on editors. The court case is predicated on the fact that they already knew they were linking to copyright violations and continued to do so intentionally.
The enwiki policy is simply a statement that we will remove links if we become aware that they are associated with copyvios, but it is fine for an ordinarily editor to link to anything unless he has already become aware of a problem. No editor is required or expected to do copyright investigations before adding a normal link.
Yes, it's clear. Nobody is going to require editors to do copyvio investigation of third-party resources before linking them. It's a conflict resolution matter: e.g. one editor claim that some site violates copyright and therefore we shouldn't link there, while the other editor try to put this link into the article and argue that copyright issues are not important here. ArbCom believes that the site under consider indeed violates copyright. Should we consider this as an argument to remove such link, or just ignore it?
Ilya Schurov wrote:
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ilya Schurov ilya.schurov@noo.ru wrote:
<snip> > They say that we put excessive burden on the editors and it is simply > not necessary to investigate facts of copyright violation on third-party > websites (at least, since there are no requests from copyright holders), > because we have no explicit statements of the Foundation that we have to > do it. <snip>
On the narrow issue of en:WP:C and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, neither is expected to impose a positive burden on editors. The court case is predicated on the fact that they already knew they were linking to copyright violations and continued to do so intentionally.
The enwiki policy is simply a statement that we will remove links if we become aware that they are associated with copyvios, but it is fine for an ordinarily editor to link to anything unless he has already become aware of a problem. No editor is required or expected to do copyright investigations before adding a normal link.
Yes, it's clear. Nobody is going to require editors to do copyvio investigation of third-party resources before linking them. It's a conflict resolution matter: e.g. one editor claim that some site violates copyright and therefore we shouldn't link there, while the other editor try to put this link into the article and argue that copyright issues are not important here. ArbCom believes that the site under consider indeed violates copyright. Should we consider this as an argument to remove such link, or just ignore it?
OK, let me put my question in the following way:
What is the status of this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright, which says: "Giving external links to copyright-violating content is prohibited"? Is it a policy every project should follow?
Thanks,
Ilya Schurov wrote:
OK, let me put my question in the following way:
What is the status of this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright, which says: "Giving external links to copyright-violating content is prohibited"? Is it a policy every project should follow?
Yes, they should, that's part of our general respect for copyright laws. Note that this is phrased specifically in terms of links to infringing content, rather than talking about links to a site, since parts of a site may be free of infringements. And as was pointed out earlier, this does not mean there's a duty to investigate, just that we should act appropriately when infringements are discovered.
--Michael Snow
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org