I don't believe we're referring to
existing articles to which
copyrighted text is added, but rather articles that were 100% copyvio
but which are edited and thus become "derived works".
Mark
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:34:18 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
<jbsoufron(a)free.fr> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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