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

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron]

> 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.

Because they would qualify as "derivative work" of the copied text. 
Just as I said in my previous message, you have two solutions : either 
to deny the copyright violation in the first place, or to delete 
everything and rewrite from scratch, making it clear that it is now 
based on an original content and not on plagiarized one.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts

>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>