[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[Rich Holton]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:26:50 -0500, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Here is where I see the crux of the issue in this thread: you are not 
>> interested in keeping the information in question. You do not value it. 
>> You are willing to eliminate it at request (which is all that their 
>> reply could possibly be seen as).
> 
> And you are wrong in your assertion.  I am interested in the article
> subject, I just don't think we may or should include the list in its
> entirety.

You have more than once referred to the list as "cruft" (or at least 
suggested that it was). To me "cruft" is a term of disparagement. Others 
have pointed out that you seem to be looking for a good reason to get 
rid of the list (your original post suggested that it was either 
copyvio, OR, or "cruft").

While I may have stepped over the line by stating as a given what I 
perceive to see as your motives, I still hold the opinion that if you 
thought this information to be more important than "cruft", you would be 
more willing to listen to those opinions that differ from yours. After 
asking for "guidance", you have argued strenuously that it is in fact 
copyvio (or original research).

> 
> Yes, I am prepared to eliminate it on request.  I am prepared to
> eliminate *any* asserted copyright on request, and allow it back in
> only when it is established that it does not violate copyright.  We
> get a steady trickle of complaints of copyright violation, and we
> generally *do* remove them.

No, I don't really think you are. I think that, before you acted on 
*any" asserted copyright, you would check things out. If someone said 
that certain content was from their web page, you would first go to 
their web page, would you not? Before deleting the information? And 
you'd see if the content was "really" a copyvio? If it was paraphrased, 
wouldn't you try to explain to the complainant why it was not copyvio? 
If the alleged source was a printed book that you happened to have on a 
shelf, wouldn't you look at the book first? If you didn't have the book, 
wouldn't you at least check to see if anyone else had quick access to 
it? These things seem to be minimal steps to take before acting on "any" 
  asserted copyright violation. Even though you're not a copyright 
lawyer, you still see if it is an obvious case (one way or the other) 
before acting on it.

In fact, isn't that why you're asking here now?

I really don't *know* what you'd do in any of these cases, but I sure 
hope that you are not so paranoid about copyrights that you immediately 
act on any allegation of copyvio.

> 
>> Wikipedia/Wikimedia was established (and I hope continues to exist) to 
>> make information freely available. Caving in to unreasonable claims of 
>> copyright is not the way to do that.
> 
> You are, I think, confusing free-as-in-beer with free-as-in-speech. We
> are not allowed to include content that violates other people's
> copyright, and this is not in any way seen as incompatible with
> Wikipedia's mission.  

No, I understand the difference between free-as-in-beer and 
free-as-in-speech. Of course we're not "allowed" to include content that 
violates copyright, nor am I suggesting that we do. But I am suggesting 
that we not cave to unreasonable claims of copyright. I'd even go as far 
as saying that we should push back when copyright claims are not obvious 
and go against free-as-in-speech.

This is *not* a clear copyvio. We should fight to include it, and relent 
only when it is established that it is a copyvio, which in my mind 
requires more than a reply to your inquiry. We have a process for 
authors who believe that their copyright is being violated. See 
[[Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright]]. Again, I don't know 
how the volunteers at info-en-c at wikimedia.org behave, but I'd be 
surprise if they removed without some level of verification.

> The subject of the Cool Wall can be discussed
> perfectly satisfactorily without including the list, just as we can
> discuss popular songs without including mp3s or lyrics of the songs.
> 
> In fact, that is probably a good example: a song is part of an album,
> as the Cool Wall is part of Top Gear; the song is published in the
> form of a performance; the lyrics are in some cases transcribed by
> fans; it is generally accepted that these lyrics are copyright.  Not
> only do we not allow them to be included, we don't even allow links to
> them unless on the official site of the band.
>

I'm not interested in discussing the merits of this case. As I said 
before, I am not a copyright lawyer. Nor do I consider myself to have 
anything beyond a basic acquaintance with copyright law.


> Removing unfree content has never been incompatible with Wikipedia's
> mission to make information freely available. We do it all the time.
>
>> Note that I'm not saying that their claim would be unreasonable--I am 
>> not an expert in copyright law. But your position is that their mere 
>> request should result in our removing the information, when the question 
>> of whether this is a copyright violation is still very much in question.
> 
> Yes.  The request of any rights owner should always be respected, even
> if that respect takes the form of removing the content, debating,
> proving that the claim to rights is invalid, and re-inserting. Someone
> is right now claiming that some material in [[KRISTI snowcat]]
> violates his copyright.  After taking advice from Brad, I removed some
> and left other facts in with {{fact}} tags.
> 
> Guy (JzG)

You see, I was right about you. You didn't "eliminate on request". You 
got Brad's advice, and then only partially complied with the request for 
removal (if I understand correctly). Something led you to ask for Brad's 
advice--could it be that it was not an obvious copyvio (i.e. not a 
direct copy-and-paste)?

We do make decisions about removing non-free content from Wikipedia. In 
some cases (biographies of living people), we often remove first and ask 
questions later. In those sort of cases, we need to begin from a 
position of not causing harm via unsubstantiated/unreferenced "facts".

But this is a different type of situation, and our position should not 
be so quick-to-delete. We can be more deliberate (at least, until we get 
an official take-down-request). We can be more assertive of our rights 
and of our mission.

-Rich