I agree with you but not for the same reasons.
Inserting a copyrighted text in an article is not creating a derivative
work from the insterted text, but a derivative work from the original
article.
The use of the copyrighted text is prohibited, that's for sure.
But the article is not a derivative work of this copyrighted text. It
is a derivative work of the original article, including a copyrighted
work without proper authorization. This derivative work is not
forbidden because it derivates of a copyrighted text, but because it is
a derivative work including a copyrighted text.
Then, removing this part should be far enough.
I will provide some jurisprudence about this when I can.
I disagree with this. Do you really intend to allow
that if you add
something to an article that has later found to have a bit of text
that is copyrighted, your text should be removed because it 'could be
derived from the copyrighted work'? But what then with using a source?
That 'could be derived' too. Wikipedia is very pro-active when there
are copyright violations, and I think rightfully so. But to delete
non-violating pieces of texts because they appear in one article with
violating pieces is a level of destruction that even as a rather
strong deletionist I find abhorrent.
Now, if I were to *change* a paragraph that later appeared to be a
copyright violation, that's another issue. But adding something
separate or changing another part of the article are changes I don't
think should be undone. We might as well rollback the whole Wikipedia
(what if we consider Wikipedia as a single work, then it is derived
too, right?)
Andre Engels
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:25:23 -0500, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am concerned that the current handling of
copyright problems on
wikipedia may be insufficient. As it stands, after detection the
offending text is completely removed.
Unfortunately, if there has been a long time span since the insertion
of the infringing text there may have been a substantial number of
valuable contributions to the article. With the way that most content
grows organically over time, it may be very difficult to say if the
new text would have been created without the infringing text with any
certainty.
In the United States the recent tendency in court appears to be to
favor the most expansive definition of a derived work possible.
Because of this, I suspect that it would be likely that at least some
of the contributions made to an article after the insertion of
infringing text would be found by a US court to be derived, thus
placing their ownership in question. This interpretation of derived
isn't necessitated by current international treaty, and would likely
be different (and possibly more sane) in other locations, but I
suspect that US legality is a substantial concern.
Determining if a piece of text is derived from another, at least in
the over broad sense favored by US courts, is an intractable problem,
but the policy could do a better job of avoiding these concerns.
Reverting to the point where a substantial amount of infringing text
was added, and deleting *all* modifications after that point would be
much more certain to avoid impinging on the intellectual property
rights of others.
The cost of destroyed improvements might be mitigated by the benefit
of creating a greater incentive for frequently contributors to quickly
catch and remove violating text.
Of course, none of this is legal advice...
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l