[Wikipedia-l] no need to remove the article nor the chapter

[Andre Engels]

Yes, we are talking about an existing article to which a copyvio is
added. The proposal we are talking about is:

"Reverting to the point where a substantial amount of infringing text
was added, and deleting *all* modifications after that point..."

That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is
*added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new
copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping
additional paragraphs as well.

Andre Engels


On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:40:27 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't believe we're referring to existing articles to which
> copyrighted text is added, but rather articles that were 100% copyvio
> but which are edited and thus become "derived works".
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:34:18 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> <jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
> > I agree with you but not for the same reasons.
> >
> > Inserting a copyrighted text in an article is not creating a derivative
> > work from the insterted text, but a derivative work from the original
> > article.
> >
> > The use of the copyrighted text is prohibited, that's for sure.
> >
> > But the article is not a derivative work of this copyrighted text. It
> > is a derivative work of the original article, including a copyrighted
> > work without proper authorization. This derivative work is not
> > forbidden because it derivates of a copyrighted text, but because it is
> > a derivative work including a copyrighted text.
> > Then, removing this part should be far enough.
> >
> > I will provide some jurisprudence about this when I can.
> >
> > > I disagree with this. Do you really intend to allow that if you add
> > > something to an article that has later found to have a bit of text
> > > that is copyrighted, your text should be removed because it 'could be
> > > derived from the copyrighted work'? But what then with using a source?
> > > That 'could be derived' too. Wikipedia is very pro-active when there
> > > are copyright violations, and I think rightfully so. But to delete
> > > non-violating pieces of texts because they appear in one article with
> > > violating pieces is a level of destruction that even as a rather
> > > strong deletionist I find abhorrent.
> >
> > >
> > > Now, if I were to *change* a paragraph that later appeared to be a
> > > copyright violation, that's another issue. But adding something
> > > separate or changing another part of the article are changes I don't
> > > think should be undone. We might as well rollback the whole Wikipedia
> > > (what if we consider Wikipedia as a single work, then it is derived
> > > too, right?)
> > >
> > > Andre Engels
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:25:23 -0500, Gregory Maxwell
> > > <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I am concerned that the current handling of copyright problems on
> > >> wikipedia may be insufficient.  As it stands, after detection the
> > >> offending text is completely removed.
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately, if there has been a long time span since the insertion
> > >> of the infringing text there may have been a substantial number of
> > >> valuable contributions to the article. With the way that  most content
> > >> grows organically over time, it may be very difficult to say if the
> > >> new text would have been created without the infringing text with any
> > >> certainty.
> > >>
> > >> In the United States the recent tendency in court appears to be to
> > >> favor the most expansive definition of a derived work possible.
> > >> Because of this, I suspect that it would be likely that at least some
> > >> of the contributions made to an article after the insertion of
> > >> infringing text would be found by a US court to be derived, thus
> > >> placing their ownership in question.  This interpretation of derived
> > >> isn't necessitated by current international treaty, and would likely
> > >> be different (and possibly more sane) in other locations, but I
> > >> suspect that US legality is a substantial concern.
> > >>
> > >> Determining if a piece of text is derived from another, at least in
> > >> the over broad sense favored by US courts, is an intractable problem,
> > >> but the policy could do a better job of avoiding these concerns.
> > >> Reverting to the point where a substantial amount of infringing text
> > >> was added, and deleting *all* modifications after that point would be
> > >> much more certain to avoid impinging on the intellectual property
> > >> rights of others.
> > >>
> > >> The cost of destroyed improvements might be mitigated by the benefit
> > >> of creating a greater incentive for frequently contributors to quickly
> > >> catch and remove violating text.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, none of this is legal advice...
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > >> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>