[WikiEN-l] What constitutes a copyvio?

[Jimmy Wales]

Rick wrote:
>[[User:Stevertigo]] rolled back the copyvio boilerplate I'd put on the
>page and said in [[Talk:Thomas Sutpen]]: "I rolled the copyvio
>deletion back because this little text --even if copied from an edu
>site does not constitute a problem for us. There was no copyright
>notice on the source page, it was not copied in full, and theres no
>reason why the effort placed in calling this a copyviolation cant be
>better put toward changing the text to make it unique."

I disagree with Stevertigo on every point.  I think that he should
refrain from making any comment on copyright violations until he
has studied the law more fully.

First, copyright notice is not required in any way shape or form
for copyright to be valid.

Second, while it can make a difference whether something is copied in
full or in part, this far exceeds the allowable legal bounds.  But
more importantly, it *drastically* exceeds the allowable _moral_
bounds as it amounts to pure and simple plagiarism.

And finally, changing a text to make it unique may be problematic from
a 'derivative works' point of view.  For a text as short as this, the
right thing to do is get rid of the copyright violation completely and
write a new article *from scratch*, using facts gleaned from the
original _and_ other sources.

> Is Stevevertigo correct that, because the page doesn't specifically
>have a copyright on it, it's fair game to be stolen and incorporated
>onto Wikipedia?  I can't believe that.

Well, you are right and Stevertigo was wrong.

--Jimbo