[WikiEN-l] YouTube links

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

A group of editors set off to remove links to YouTube, requiring that
before they went back in we clarified the copyright status and
encyclopaedic merit of the links. This met with some resistance. There
appear to be two camps now, which might be summed up as follows:

* those who believe that YouTube links should go in unless you can
prove they are violating copyright

* those who believe that YouTube links should stay out unless you can
prove they are ''not'' infringing copyright

Guess which group I'm in. The argument rages at [[Wikipedia:External
links/Identifying copyrights in links]], [[Wikipedia talk:External
links/YouTube]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de
Mimsy-Porpington]] and various other places. It's been moved out of
[[WP:EL]]/[[WT:EL]].  Latest from Berberio is this revert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AExternal_links%2FIdentifying_copyrights_in_links&diff=98267778&oldid=98264236
with the summary: "Puts too much Burdon. For instance, we can assume
that the YouTube link on Adam Buxton's article is okay, since it's to
his own user account on youtube, no need for further licencing
information."  This case is already covered higher up, since we know
it was uploaded by the copyright holder, so is not actually relevant
to the clause under discussion.

So the default-in version is:
* Does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with
permission of the copyright holder or could it be rationally assumed
to be hosted with permission of the copyright holder? For example, it
is published with a user account known to be the copyright holders, or
published on their own website.

and the default-out version is:
* Does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with
permission of the copyright holder or can it be established to be
hosted with permission of the copyright holder?

The problem I have is that assumptions are not really good enough if
push comes to shove.  [[WP:COPYRIGHT]] makes it clear that
''knowingly'' linking to infringing material is contributory
infringement (also that linking to copyvios makes us look bad). Given
that many YouTube vids are copyvios, we can be argued to *nkow* that
violation is likely, and looking the other way and whistling
innocently does not seem to me to be exercising due diligence.  I
don't think it's excesive to require people to clarify copyright
before adding, but there is this committed group who are insistent
that the default should be the other way round. More input required, I
think. 

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