Ian Monroe wrote:
I don't think the AHD has some crystal ball to
divine the definitions
of words.
I can't say; I never use it. I do have 20 or 30 other books that I can
reference as required.
How are you not saying that a dictionary has no place
being
developed in a wiki-way?
I nver said that.
Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I
have a spark of
inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me
from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I
finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make
sure I got it right.
I prefer to avoid writing new definitions; I'm not so egotistical as to
believe that something pulled out of my imagination would be correct. I
frequently make use of the Webster 1913, and will often compare with
that and the OED. The big advantage of these works is their use of
quotes which are the single most important thing to be added to a word's
definition; they are the evidence that supports the definition.
A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
language.... certainly not to create original definitions.
Information isn't under copyright, expressions of
information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for
having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the
book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what
people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever
extending, quite the opposite.
I can't comment on chord patterns, because I don't write music, but a
song is certainly much shorter than a general dictionary. Fair use (at
least under U.S. law) is guided by four criteria, one of which is
substantiality. Fair use is a right rather than an excuse; fair use is
not an infringement. (See 17 U.S.C.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code> § 107.) You need to
consider the detailed rulings in the leading cases. Whether fair us
will be legislatively extended or reduced doesn't matter, but I would
proceed under the assumption that the relevant clauses are stable. It
is really a question of interpretation, and the trend is to be a lot
less restrictive than what people think it is.
If it is possible to copy definitions in a fair-use
manner, IANAL and
probably YANAL and we'd need to have someone write down what is
precisely OK to copy. Personally, I think we shouldn't even get close.
Whatever the case we would want to discourage newcomers from copying
from dictionaries, since I imagine it isn't obvious how to do it.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a precise interpretation. And don't
expect that the lawyers will throw you a bone just because you beg at
their table. Your ANAL allusion is a logically fallacious avoidance of
action. I'm sure that we can safely get a lot closer than you would
suggest.
Of course we want to discourage newcomers from copying from copyright
dictionaries. The anonymous contributor that your mention *was* on the
wrong track, and his efforts (assuming that you did check their source)
were in need of repair. But we also haven't seen him in a week, and
don't know if he will ever come back. Maybe he found that even a
straightforward copying was too boring. Your technique for discouraging
newcomer actions by writing new rules will accomplish bugger-all. If he
is a short term anon, he probably won't get the message anyway; you
might just as well quietly fix the affected articles. If he's a
registered user a non-confrontational discussion on his user page will
be a lot more productive.
"Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern
of behaviour." What
do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the
wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what
I had in mind. Ex.
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target…
While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I
just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and
could be simplified.
??? I was quoting from the GNU-FDL. If you have a problem with that,
take it up with them.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:04:06 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>Ian Monroe wrote:
>
>
>>Now that Wiktionary 1.4 is settling in, thought I would bring up an
>>issue thats been on the en:Beer parlor for a while, which may benefit
>>
>>
>>from some ideas from other wikt's. Plus it would take a sysop,
>
>
>>{{sofixit}} isn't an option ;)
>>
>>Here it is:
>>
>>Its fairly common that we find copyright infringing articles. I
>>hypothesize this is not someone trying to poison Wiktionary, but is
>>due to ignorance. If you are like me, you've read it once and then
>>forget that it says the following at the buttom of every edit page:
>>
>> You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied
>>it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT
>>COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
>>
>>Really I think this assumes the reader understands copyright as well
>>as understands what folks in the Free Software movement consider to be
>>'free'. I mean,
dictionary.com is free as in beer, but it isn't
>>'similar free' which is kind of expecting a bit from Joe User. The
>>paragraph previous to that already gets the legal crap over with by
>>stating you are releasing under the GFDL, I don't think we need to
>>cover every case. It should talk to the anonymous junior high student
>>who sees noctilucent doesn't have a definition. I'm not claiming to be
>>a great wordsmith, but here is a try:
>>
>> All definitions must be written by yourself or borrowed from a
>>public domain resource. Do not use content from copyrighted resources
>>such as
dictionary.com.
>>
>>I think
dictionary.com is the biggest culprit, so naming it
>>specifically will be helpful. Also its a good example of what a
>>copyrighted resource is. We could also throw on something nice to it,
>>like 'we want to know what you think' or 'we apperciate your
input'.
>>I'm not sure how to put it. Just to be nice and to reiterate the
>>'your'.
>>---
>>There wasn't any further discussion of it, though Eclecticology stated
>>his belief in their being legal gray area around copyrights on
>>dictionaries.
>>
>>Any ideas?
>>
>>
>I really don't think that the problem is as bad as Ian makes out. The
>copying of any single definition from another dictionary may just as
>easily be fair use. Though when the definition is copied from another
>source that source needs to be referenced. Copyright infringement would
>depend on a pattern of behaviour. Writing one's own brand new
>definitions is not as sound a practice as Ian suggests. If one is to do
>that it should properly be accompanied by evidence of identified
>quotations that illustrate the use of the word in just that way.
>
>We've already had the argument about protologisms as original work, but
>so too are definitions that take a word into areas where it has never
>been used before. Writing one's own definitions is not as easy as it
>seems.
>
>A significant statement in the GFDL license is "You accept the license
>if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission
>under copyright law." Fair use does not require these permissions.
>
>Ec
>