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...
I think, at least in the US, substantial changes to every paragraph of the article are good enough for it to be considered a "derived work", but I don't know if that would include just adding a sentence or two onto the end of each paragraph.
Mark
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:25:23 -0500, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I agree with you but it would request to have specific discussions about wikipedia legal issues. Of coursre I am voluntary for this if necessary...
Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Doctorant CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2 http://soufron.free.fr
Le 18 mars 05, à 05:25, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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@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@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Yes, we are talking about an existing article to which a copyvio is added. The proposal we are talking about is:
"Reverting to the point where a substantial amount of infringing text was added, and deleting *all* modifications after that point..."
That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping additional paragraphs as well.
Andre Engels
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:40:27 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com writes:
That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping additional paragraphs as well.
As long as someone can claim the additional paragraphs are "derived" from the copyvio, you would better remove the additional paragraphs as early as possible.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:35:38 +0100, Karl Eichwalder ke@gnu.franken.de wrote:
As long as someone can claim the additional paragraphs are "derived" from the copyvio, you would better remove the additional paragraphs as early as possible.
Right. Keeping all changes in a publicly accessible version control system is beyond fantastic, but it's also a liability.
Elseware the past expansive definition of derived works has been tolerable largely because normal writing models don't have so much copyvio risk, and the lack of (open) version control makes proving a transitory risk near impossible.
I think I would have a good chance, equipped with a video like the 'heavy metal umlat', of convincing a court in the US that years of wikipedia contributions on an article are the derived works of a couple of paragraphs of copyvio that spent a few months in the text early on and then were surgically removed.
I agree that this makes no sense, but thats what intellectual property law has become in the US. At wikipedia we have two additional complicating factors as well, a public history that makes making the case easy, and a court system which is likely to view the work of wikipedia as unimportant compared to the properties of, say, corbis because we don't charge for it, but they charge for their content.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:35:38 +0100, Karl Eichwalder ke@gnu.franken.de wrote:
Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com writes:
That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping additional paragraphs as well.
As long as someone can claim the additional paragraphs are "derived" from the copyvio, you would better remove the additional paragraphs as early as possible.
But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
Andre Engels
But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
Don't troll.
Someone can claim for the copyright when they are in the same article. That's enough for us to worry and to define a precise policy.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:04:42 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
Don't troll.
Someone can claim for the copyright when they are in the same article. That's enough for us to worry and to define a precise policy.
Right. We're not worrying about some ignorant policy compiler in the sky.... The concern is convincing a court of law (i.e. a human or a few humans) in a climate where increasingly copyright is being regarded as a very expansive, and infectious, natural right.
You couldn't convince a court that the entirety of wikipedia was derived from some text in a Nintendo article, but given a substantial enough copyvio contribution you could easily argue that most of the after-the-fact edits were derived and thus the article is tainted. The space of possibilities where it might be decided either way is huge, so the decision would be difficult to make with a programmatic policy.
So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges (copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( ) and make the argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to untaint derived text, is any number sufficient), in a court which is likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...
or..
We revert to the post copyvio state in any nontrivial state, lose a little work, and as a side result encourage more people to be diligent about finding copyvios sooner rather than later. Indirectly reminding everyone of the costs of our current copyright environment, which will hopefully drive lobbying for an improvement.
Both of these are valid options, but I think we should understand which one the project is taking so that we are prepared for the repercussions.
The copyright climate today is a huge burden on our increasingly information drive society, we can pay the price every edit, or we can roll the dice and pay it all at once, but it will be paid unless the laws are changed.
If everyone takes the bet that the laws will change, there will be little direct incentive for anyone to go and change them.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:25:43 -0500, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges (copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( ) and make the argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to untaint derived text, is any number sufficient), in a court which is likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...
Come on!!!! That's not a "huge bet", that's being ridiculous on the face of it. Basically, if I write something and add it to another text, does that make my text a copyright violation. NO. There's no issue about 1, 10 or 100 changes, there's an issue about DIFFERENT TEXTS!!!!!
The copyright climate today is a huge burden on our increasingly information drive society, we can pay the price every edit, or we can roll the dice and pay it all at once, but it will be paid unless the laws are changed.
Or until people stop worrying about every little interpretation that someone could make of the law.
If everyone takes the bet that the laws will change, there will be little direct incentive for anyone to go and change them.
So you want to go and petition to the House "Please change your copyright laws, because there are people who might argue that they could be explained in some way." They will write back "That's not how they are intended" and we're back at square one.
Andre Engels
Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Doctorant CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2 http://soufron.free.fr
Le 20 mars 05, à 21:47, Andre Engels a écrit :
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:25:43 -0500, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges (copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( ) and make the argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to untaint derived text, is any number sufficient), in a court which is likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...
Come on!!!! That's not a "huge bet", that's being ridiculous on the face of it. Basically, if I write something and add it to another text, does that make my text a copyright violation. NO. There's no issue about 1, 10 or 100 changes, there's an issue about DIFFERENT TEXTS!!!!!
That's the good way to see things. Each addition is an original work in itself. Their combination is also another original work. If you have an article = A+B, then you got 3 works... 2 normal and 1 derivative.
But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
Don't troll.
Someone can claim for the copyright when they are in the same article. That's enough for us to worry and to define a precise policy.
Right. We're not worrying about some ignorant policy compiler in the sky.... The concern is convincing a court of law (i.e. a human or a few humans) in a climate where increasingly copyright is being regarded as a very expansive, and infectious, natural right.
There are still plenty of limits to copyright. A French Appeal Court just ruled that copying movies on Internet was not copyright infringement when it was made for private purposes.
I am confident in Courts and Judges.
You couldn't convince a court that the entirety of wikipedia was derived from some text in a Nintendo article, but given a substantial enough copyvio contribution you could easily argue that most of the after-the-fact edits were derived and thus the article is tainted.
Every addition is work in itself, only the article is a derivative work. Supressing the original copyvio text results in a nice FDL text. Then doing every additions once again is only adding new works.
The only limit is that these addition must not be derivated from some parts of the copyvio text.
But as far as I know, there is no such thing as "tainting" of copyvio.
So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges (copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( )
It always was (in France at least).
and make the argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to untaint derived text,
"tainting" is not a legal concept... law only know about original work and derivative work...
is any number sufficient), in a court which is likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...
It's not a huge bed at all, it's the normal way to do.
The copyright climate today is a huge burden on our increasingly information drive society, we can pay the price every edit, or we can roll the dice and pay it all at once, but it will be paid unless the laws are changed.
I don't agree. You should take for granted what copyfight activists can say (and I can tell since I am a copyfight activist myself...) Copyright law exist and we should use it. What you say is that you don't understand copyright law and so, you would prefer to find a solution that would not rely on its exceptions because you don't understand how they apply.
Fine, but if I were an anti-copyright activist, in 5 years from now I would just say that these exceptions do not apply anymore since nobody is using it...
If everyone takes the bet that the laws will change, there will be little direct incentive for anyone to go and change them.
There is no need to change the law. Not on its core principles at least.
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com writes:
That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping additional paragraphs as well.
As long as someone can claim the additional paragraphs are "derived" from the copyvio, you would better remove the additional paragraphs as early as possible.
Anybody can "claim" anything. That does not make it so. The information is not copyright. Only the way of expressing it is copyright. Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the original but it is not legally a derivative work. Rewriting the material would be more appropriate.
Ec
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:51 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anybody can "claim" anything. That does not make it so. The information is not copyright. Only the way of expressing it is copyright. Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the original but it is not legally a derivative work. Rewriting the material would be more appropriate.
You misunderstand copyright, it is not longer limited strictly limited to the specific expression of an idea. If copyright were still strictly limited to the specific expression than translations would be nonviolating (or at worse, a grey area) rather than the strict violation that the law considers them to be today.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:51 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anybody can "claim" anything. That does not make it so. The information is not copyright. Only the way of expressing it is copyright. Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the original but it is not legally a derivative work. Rewriting the material would be more appropriate.
You misunderstand copyright, it is not longer limited strictly limited to the specific expression of an idea. If copyright were still strictly limited to the specific expression than translations would be nonviolating (or at worse, a grey area) rather than the strict violation that the law considers them to be today.
He misundertands nothing. Translations are considered to be a derivative work because judges assume that they are done word by word from transforming the original work one sentence at a time and so on. Dynamically speaking the translation was derivated from the original text even if it gives birth to a completely different one.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:15:08 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
He misundertands nothing. Translations are considered to be a derivative work because judges assume that they are done word by word from transforming the original work one sentence at a time and so on. Dynamically speaking the translation was derivated from the original text even if it gives birth to a completely different one.
I'd agree here if you'd tweak your position a little... Judges are not (all) idiots, it's clear that no useable translation is constructed 'word by word'. No good translation is created without basically rewriting the text, translating tone, flow, slang and sometimes even cultural attitudes so that the spirit of the text is understood in the target language.
Translations are derivative works because they are created by modifying the original text, through a sequence of change, revisions, substitutions, expansions... Quite literally a translated text is derived from the original text. This is the sort of stuff we do when editing an article on wikipedia. ...
We do not consider an inspired but original work to be derived because it has passed completely through the mind of the author... The law regards the mind working alone as something entirely different than it regards a process of mechanical derivations... This distinction is necessary in a strong/expansive copyright world because we would otherwise find ourselves in the odd situation of having our very thoughts owned by others. The distinction is silly because the law makers also wish to close the loophole of using a mind as a pass through to bypass copyright.
The result is a minefield to say the least.
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com writes:
That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping additional paragraphs as well.
As long as someone can claim the additional paragraphs are "derived" from the copyvio, you would better remove the additional paragraphs as early as possible.
Anybody can "claim" anything. That does not make it so. The information is not copyright. Only the way of expressing it is copyright. Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the original but it is not legally a derivative work. Rewriting the material would be more appropriate.
Exactly.
Copyright do not "protect" ideas but material creations using these ideas. Rewriting a text with your own words is not a copyright infringement in itself.
Yes, we are talking about an existing article to which a copyvio is added. The proposal we are talking about is:
"Reverting to the point where a substantial amount of infringing text was added, and deleting *all* modifications after that point..."
That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping additional paragraphs as well.
Because they would qualify as "derivative work" of the copied text. Just as I said in my previous message, you have two solutions : either to deny the copyright violation in the first place, or to delete everything and rewrite from scratch, making it clear that it is now based on an original content and not on plagiarized one.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron Intellectual Property and Contracts
Andre Engels
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:40:27 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
When the claim is that the original article was violating some copyright, then the complete derivative work should be deleted. But...
But "taking some inspiration from" is not violating a copyright. It is perfectly admissible to get inspiration from some writings, use it to write an original article. There would be no copyright violation in the first place. That's a first point.
But when the writing of the original article would be far too similar with some other text and that theo riginal copyright violation would be impossible to deny, a second point could be to re-write the article. To put it simply : there is no need to delete the article, but it is necessary to write it once again, only taking inspiration from the original text, and then to add the modifications to follow. That's a good way to "clean" the copyright on this article. Just writing it from scractch once more. It can be long under some circumnstances, but it will never be that difficult.
Then you have two lines of defense : first, to claim that there were no copyright violation in the first place; then to rewrite the article by making it clear that it is now only taking inspiration from the original text and nothing else.
Questions ?
Jean-Baptiste Soufron Intellectual Property and Contracts
Le 20 mars 05, à 01:40, Mark Williamson a écrit :
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@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@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:18:30 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
When the claim is that the original article was violating some copyright, then the complete derivative work should be deleted. But...
But "taking some inspiration from" is not violating a copyright. It is perfectly admissible to get inspiration from some writings, use it to write an original article. There would be no copyright violation in the first place. That's a first point.
Right.
But when the writing of the original article would be far too similar with some other text and that theo riginal copyright violation would be impossible to deny, a second point could be to re-write the article. To put it simply : there is no need to delete the article, but it is necessary to write it once again, only taking inspiration from the original text, and then to add the modifications to follow. That's a good way to "clean" the copyright on this article. Just writing it from scractch once more. It can be long under some circumnstances, but it will never be that difficult.
Well, you won't find my help there. Writing an article for Wikipedia is work, and I don't like to hear "Your work might just be considered a copyright violation, could you please do it all again? Oh, and you may not derive it from your previous part of course."
And then, those modifications... Either they ARE copyright violations and then we're NOT allowed to add them, or they ARE NOT copyright violations, and then there is no reason to remove them first.
If this ever gets to be official policy, remind me to never add more than one sentence to an existing page. I just don't want to run the risk of losing my work to something stupid like this.
Then you have two lines of defense : first, to claim that there were no copyright violation in the first place; then to rewrite the article by making it clear that it is now only taking inspiration from the original text and nothing else.
Questions ?
Yes. What if I get my inspiration from something else than the original text or the copyright violation. Is that allowed? And what if I want to use my own text (to which I apparently do not have the copyright) to make the new text, how are you going to stop me?
Andre Engels
But when the writing of the original article would be far too similar with some other text and that theo riginal copyright violation would be impossible to deny, a second point could be to re-write the article. To put it simply : there is no need to delete the article, but it is necessary to write it once again, only taking inspiration from the original text, and then to add the modifications to follow. That's a good way to "clean" the copyright on this article. Just writing it from scractch once more. It can be long under some circumnstances, but it will never be that difficult.
Well, you won't find my help there. Writing an article for Wikipedia is work, and I don't like to hear "Your work might just be considered a copyright violation, could you please do it all again? Oh, and you may not derive it from your previous part of course."
Yes but every modifications added to the copyvio article is a copyright infringing derivative work. There is nothing else to do when you the original article or any addition is a clear copyright violation.
And then, those modifications... Either they ARE copyright violations and then we're NOT allowed to add them, or they ARE NOT copyright violations, and then there is no reason to remove them first.
They are, what you need to do is re-write the infringing part of the article and then re-make the modifications again.
If this ever gets to be official policy, remind me to never add more than one sentence to an existing page. I just don't want to run the risk of losing my work to something stupid like this.
Your additions are recorded, aren't they ? you just need to spend some time reviewing the history of the article to choose which additions to keep.
Then you have two lines of defense : first, to claim that there were no copyright violation in the first place; then to rewrite the article by making it clear that it is now only taking inspiration from the original text and nothing else.
Questions ?
Yes. What if I get my inspiration from something else than the original text or the copyright violation. Is that allowed?
Of course
And what if I want to use my own text (to which I apparently do not have the copyright) to make the new text, how are you going to stop me?
Nobody can if you do the process once again. That's the trick.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:40:27 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
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".
Well that was the issue that I brought up, existing articles where a substantial amount of copyvio text is added.
Consider an entirely new section, all copyvio. I think it's unlikely that additions, even fairly substantial ones in that section could be considered anything but derived works.
It becomes difficult to judge which edits are derived works, ultimately you can't tell without a court opinion ... and since we'd rather not go there, I contend that the only sure course of action would be destroy all updates to an article past the point in time a copyvio was added.
That might not be the best thing to do, but I think it's important to discuss the risks of doing anything less.
Just like those running the big content distribution houses are attempting to stop the all use of p2p applications because even completely legal p2p use puts their business model at risk, wikipedia will likely find itself threatened by content hoarders whom we are outcompeating.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:32:30 -0500, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Well that was the issue that I brought up, existing articles where a substantial amount of copyvio text is added.
Consider an entirely new section, all copyvio. I think it's unlikely that additions, even fairly substantial ones in that section could be considered anything but derived works.
The *section* itself would be a derived work. But would the *changes*? If that's the case, copyright law is more stupid than I thought. If I take a copyrighted work and add my own ending to it, does that mean that later I cannot use that ending on an independent work?
It becomes difficult to judge which edits are derived works, ultimately you can't tell without a court opinion ... and since we'd rather not go there, I contend that the only sure course of action would be destroy all updates to an article past the point in time a copyvio was added.
Some cases are difficult; some are not. No need to throw away all.
Andre Engels
The *section* itself would be a derived work. But would the *changes*? If that's the case, copyright law is more stupid than I thought. If I take a copyrighted work and add my own ending to it, does that mean that later I cannot use that ending on an independent work?
No !
Your own a copyright on your addition. You just can't use the derived work of the copyrighted text (the copyrighted text + your addition). Logically, the author of the original text can neither use the derived work. In fact, nobody can use the derived work without the authorization of the other author.
You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron Intellectual Property and Contracts
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:03:06 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.
Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but have still been ruled to be derived works.
Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection. This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not, but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
Copyright law in the US needs to be reformed, but the current trends are not heading in the right direction yet.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0500, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:03:06 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.
Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but have still been ruled to be derived works.
Not because they have been 'contaminated' with the original text once, but because they are using characters, situations, etcetera from a copyrighted text. When someone starts claiming copyright on characters, events etcetera from non-fiction texts Wikipedia can stop working anyway.
Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection. This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
So I guess I should never use a copyrighted book to get my information for Wikipedia either?
Andre Engels
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:50:42 +0100, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0500, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but have still been ruled to be derived works.
Not because they have been 'contaminated' with the original text once, but because they are using characters, situations, etcetera from a copyrighted text. When someone starts claiming copyright on characters, events etcetera from non-fiction texts Wikipedia can stop working anyway.
I guess we should turn off the servers now:
Please see the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act of 2003" (http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html).
Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection. This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
So I guess I should never use a copyrighted book to get my information for Wikipedia either?
Copyright has also been extended to collections of public information (phone books, etc). If you refer to a copyrighted list to produce a "list of eagle scouts" you are indeed in violation of the law. Without the history feature in wikipedia, it would be very difficult to prove you copied the information without a verbatim copy, so such prosecutions are rare (although they do occur). Revision history makes showing the taxonomy of a segment of text trivial.
The current political culture in the US is one that rejects the importance of the public domain, you would be hard pressed to win a 'grey matter' case in court as things stand today. (For example see eldridge vs ashcroft)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
Hi Gregory,
Not because they have been 'contaminated' with the original text once, but because they are using characters, situations, etcetera from a copyrighted text. When someone starts claiming copyright on characters, events etcetera from non-fiction texts Wikipedia can stop working anyway.
I guess we should turn off the servers now:
... or move them to some-other-place.
__ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Hirschstraße 5. 79100 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . .
You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.
Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but have still been ruled to be derived works.
A Fan Fiction is a completely different problem since it will re-use characters, plot, etc.
A Fan Fiction is a derivative work without being a copy of the original work. It is an adaptation.
Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection.
Since they are only starting to fall under copyright protection, that also mean they did not fall yet !
Copyright law still has limits and we can use very easily use these limits. Not doing so would be a criminal attitude and a renouncement to the values that we are fighting for every day.
This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
Translation have always been recognized as derivative works ! Just as well as movies adaptated from books, fanfictions and so on.
We are talking about : (1) the transformation of a text by modifying it word by word, (2) the inspiration from a text.
If Wikipedia must set up a policy, I am pretty sure it is better to base it on actual copyright law rather than on some mystic "what-copyright-could-be".
Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction
Fan fiction are a completely different problem.
since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not,
It's not that much.
but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
Copyright law in the US needs to be reformed,
No, it need to be applied in a better way.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron Intellectual Property and Contracts
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:03:06 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.
Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but have still been ruled to be derived works.
Cite cases please.
Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection. This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not, but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible. You seem to ignore the fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not the ideas themselves. It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage is more frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the degree of copyright violation diminishes.
Copyright law in the US needs to be reformed, but the current trends are not heading in the right direction yet.
Certainly it needs reform. Requested submissions about what can be done to make orphan works more accessible are due this Friday. Are you making a submission?
Ec
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:36:43 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Cite cases please.
I do elsewhere in the thread, later than the post you've replied to.
Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not, but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible. You seem to ignore the fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not the ideas themselves. It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage is more frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the degree of copyright violation diminishes.
It's an intentionally paranoid POV, that doesn't make it useless. I wasn't calling for a sudden change in policy, but a discussion.
At the same time, it's important for me to be aggressive with this position, because far too many people believe that copyright is still strictly limited to a specific embodiment and never an idea itself. The matter is not that simple and hasn't been for a long time.
At the same time, it's important for me to be aggressive with this position, because far too many people believe that copyright is still strictly limited to a specific embodiment and never an idea itself. The matter is not that simple and hasn't been for a long time.
I agree with that.
But people can't just claim whatever they want. Legal rules can be used to defend yourself as well as to attack.
Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible. You seem to ignore the fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not the ideas themselves.
Of course, I don't want to deny the fact that people can claim another interpretation of the copyright law and try to argue that additions are derivative works. But that's just as like going to the police and trying to convince them that the house of my neighbour is my house.
It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage is more frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the degree of copyright violation diminishes.
That's not the trick.
Additions are original works and the good way to do is to go back to the sane situation, to erase the copyvio text and to re-add everything that is not directly based on it.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:26:17 +0100, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
The *section* itself would be a derived work. But would the *changes*? If that's the case, copyright law is more stupid than I thought. If I take a copyrighted work and add my own ending to it, does that mean that later I cannot use that ending on an independent work?
It's more stupid than you thought: We have wholly original works (fan fictions) being ruled as derived works because they use the same fictional universe.
This type of reasoning isn't applied that often outside of things like fan fiction because it's very difficult to prove that something was derived in most cases, but it would be much easier in the case of wikipedia.
Some cases are difficult; some are not. No need to throw away all.
I agree but I believe the space of cases that are difficult may be much larger and much more difficult to define with precision than you suspect.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org