[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:03:04 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>> At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
>> of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall".  I removed this
>> as being almost certainly a violation of copyright.

>How *on earth* do you get this as being a violation of copyright? The
>BBC don't own facts about the show.

The same way that the UK Top Ten is the property of the company that
publishes it, and a list of No. 1 hits in the UK is asserted by them
to violate that copyright.

Do you actually *know*, David?  That's what I was after, a
better-informed opinion.  Where the answer is a competition between
educated guesses, the precautionary principle argues for exclusion.
I'm actually trying to find out if anyone can do better than an
educated guess, perhaps from personal experience.

>>  It is now being
>> argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
>> because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
>> and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows.  It
>> is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
>> constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
>> secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
>> list
>> Original research?  You decide.

>You appear to be looking for any excuse. Whether this is the case or
>not, that's how it comes across.

Thank you so much for that.  Of course you are right: I went out
clicking Special:Random looking for content to delete and found this,
then thought of a Really Good Reason for removing it.  You have
rumbled my evil plan to waste whole days of worthless Wikitime, and
rightly imply that I have nothing better to do.

Oh, wait, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it?  I know you included
"whether or not".  You are right: I dislike lists taken from external
sources and dumped into Wikipedia.  Especially when the sources are
primary.  It does not feel right.  WP:FREE.

Specifically, then, this is a list of cars which is assembled into
categories by the show.  It seems to me to be functionally identical
to, say, the "100 greatest humans" or "100 worst pop sings" lists
which are broadcast or published - the list is the compilation of the
show, and the intellectual property is likely to be vested in the
show's owners.  In terms of the 100 greatest humans, consensus was to
include a selection (and I'd be happy with that on the cool wall too).
Some other "top 100" lists have been deleted by consensus as violating
copyright.  So: BBC compiles a list of cars, broadcasts it on the
show, and we reproduce the list.  Can you not see why that would look
like a copyright violation?  But I want a more informed view.

Is it not the case that the onus is on the editors seeking to include
the content, to show that it does not violate policy?

The fact that it is apparently assembled from watching numerous shows
and writing stuff down is a separate issue, and plagues many popular
culture articles.  If we are the *first* source outside of the
original media to publish some fact, that does rather indicate to me
that we are doing something wrong.  Encyclopaedia = tertiary source.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG