Fortunately nobody is suggesting deletion :-) However there is a good learning point for future projects, in that on any start of a project the question of copyright needs to be taken on, to ensure all possible tees are crossed and ies dotted so that volunteers can avoid getting bogged down in post-event copyright debate.
As a counterexample to this case of probable 'accidental' copyright, a real problem for Wikimedians has been the Wikiloves Monuments projects. In the UK we had many long and difficult discussions about how to access regional lists of protected monuments and deal with the fact that many are copyrighted by institutions that actively protect their copyright. Again, they are just lists of things, so you can do great stuff like scrape databases and create free apps with interactive maps of monuments, however you can't just reuse the lists without considering whether your actions are against the potentially enforceable copyright terms.
Fae
On 9 December 2016 at 11:10, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 December 2016 at 10:49, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
That's interesting. How was the issue handled with A History of the World in 100 Objects a few years back?
I don't think that the issue was ever mentioned by anyone. In cases like [[A History of the World in 100 Objects]], [[Our Top Ten Treasures]], and [[Britain's Secret Treasures]] the lists are notable and of public interest because they have been featured in TV programmes, and it is impossible to write an article on the subject without giving the listed objects. To not list the items would be an extreme disservice to our readers, and would not be any benefit to the original compilers of the lists.
Personally, I think that in such cases and for 100 women where no-one is claiming the list as their intellectual property we should not be overzealous in protecting imaginary copyright concerns. I hope that for 100 women common sense will prevail over legalistic arguments.
Andrew [[User:BabelStone]]