Welcome to hypercone.com on July 5 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
Wikipedia copyright
Policy
Copyright policy
Copyright violation policy
Reusing Wikipedia content
Text of CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License
Text of the GFDL
Guidelines
Public domain content
Non-free content
Copyright information index
Processes
Suspected copyright violations
Copyright problems
Resources
General help
Copyright assistance
Media copyright questions
Requesting copyright permission
Image copyright tags
Donating copyrighted material
Shortcut:
WT:C

See also:

Contents

[edit] {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} and the Philippines' law

Folks, Can someone help with this. I've followed through the links for this template, which appears widely used, and am not convinced that it is correct. The template alleges that Philippines Government works are public domain but the relevant section of the Philippines copyright laws state (my emphasis)

SEC. 176. Works of the Government. – 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties

The highlighted section seems to contradict the previous but my reading is that Philippines Government works are not free. Rather than PD my reading is the the works are covered by something similar to the CC "NonCommercial 1.0" licence which is not free for wikipedia purposes. Thoughts anyone ? - Peripitus (Talk) 06:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That you're quite right and Philippines works are not public domain. Oh, dear. :/ (I'm going to publicize this at WP:MCQ and WT:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It would help if sec. 176 wasn't so self-contradictory! But I agree, we should treat it as an unacceptable NC license, and port the hundred or so files that use it over to fair-use (where possible). Physchim62 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think these works are still public domain. The statute says that Philippine government works are not copyrighted, but the same statute give additional restrictions on exploitation for profit. This is not a copyright restriction, since the work is not copyrighted. Frequently a law will restrict publication, exploitation, or reproduction, in a way that doesn't involve copyright. (You may not reproduce NASA logos in a way that might confuse the public, even though they are not copyrighted. You may not reproduce U.S. currency in color unless certain restrictions are followed, but those are anti-counterfeiting laws, and the work is not copyrighted. In France, "personality rights" are perpetual, even after copyright has expired. In Iran, you may not reproduce photos of nude women, even if they are not held under copyright.) The plain reading of the Philippine statute is that government works are not copyrighted, but other Philippine law restricts their exploitation.
So how does this relate to us? Well, Wikipedia's servers are in the U.S., so Wikipedia must comply with U.S. law. The various copyright treaties that the U.S. is involved with require the U.S. to respect the copyrights of other nations (with various caveats), but it is not required to (and usually does not) respect other nation's laws against reproduction when those laws don't involve copyright. It's not illegal in the U.S. to copy a photo of a nude woman, even though it's illegal in Iran. It's also not illegal to exploit a PD work of the Philippine government for profit, even though it's illegal in the Philippines. The works are still PD.
"But doesn't this prevent reusers in the Philippines from reusing Wikipedia content," I hear you ask, "and wouldn't this therefore violate the GFDL?" No, it wouldn't. Think of it as analogous to non-copyrighted trademarks, or personality-rights issues, or morality-law issues on profanity. It may well be illegal to reproduce parts of Wikipedia in Iran if used to appeal to the prurient interest, or in France if used for the purpose of defaming Jacques Chirac, or in the U.S. if used for the purpose of relating yourself to a company's trademark... but that's all perfectly compatible with the GFDL. How a reuser chooses to reuse WP is his or her own problem, and he or she must adhere to all relevant laws. But copyright concerns are all we're worried about.
Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit like saying that sound recordings are not copyrighted anywhere outside of the United States, simply because other countries protect them under related rights and not under copyright (internationally, under the Rome Convention and not under the Berne Convention) You can't ignore the second sentence of section 176.1 just because you don't like it or becasue it's inconvenient for Wikipedia (not that inconvenient, as it turns out). That second sentence creates "rights in the nature of copyright", to use the English law term, or "legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright" to use the phrasing from 17 U.S.C. 301. This is a copyright concern, and we cannot escape it by a partisan choice of readings or jurisdictions. Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It plainly can't be a copyright restriction, since the previous sentence says the works aren't held under copyright. This has nothing to do with whether it's "inconvenient for Wikipedia", and I resent the statement that I'm ignoring the second sentence for "partisan" reasons. I'm simply looking at what the law says, trying to apply it plainly, and I'd appreciate it if you take back your accusation and scale back your rhetoric.
The restriction on exploiting the work for profit is no more "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright" than the restrictions on copying NASA logos for use on a ballcap, or the restriction on reproducing trademarked logos in a commercial context, or the restriction on making passable copies of currency. All these have superficial resemblances to copyright laws, but are not "in the nature of copyright", and all these are PD and widely used on Commons and the English Wikipedia. I believe the Philippine law quoted above is no different. To hold that it is actually a copyright restriction, and not a separate restriction on exploitation, one would have to ignore the previous sentence which says they are not copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You're trying to read the first sentence as if the rest of the section didn't exist. That is nonsensical, especially in statutory interpretation. There are, of course, many other restrictions on the use of intellectual property apart from copyright, as we both know. "Public domain" might be a universal concept, but it means different things in different jurisdictions: more to the point, Wikipedia does not have the right to declare something "public domain" simply because that suits us. Anti-counterfeiting laws, prohibitions of showing female nipples and your NASA logo example are clearly police powers: the restriction imposed by the second sentence here is clearly not a police power. The restriction grants the Philippine government the right to participate in the economic benefits of the reproduction of its works, whatever those works may be: if that is not "a right in the nature of copyright" then I don't know what is! It would surely be construed as such in any foreign court, regardless of the first sentence. The first sentence would be read as containing the implicit "except as explicitly provided here". Physchim62 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, the second sentence is equivalent to the exclusive right granted in 17 U.S.C. 106(c): "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending" Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly a conundrum. Peripitus and Quadell both have very good points.
  • Quadell is right. The plain reading of the quoted section certainly sounds like the government is relinquishing copyright, but has a law forbidding the exploitation of governmental works for profit without permission.
  • Peripitus is right that the spirit certainly seems to be to permit general use, but prevent commercial exploitation. What's more, if they include the prohibition against unauthorized commercial use in the same section as the first statement, it really is hard to 'pick and choose'.
  • Sorry if it's a dumb question, but are we sure that's what 'copyright' even means to them? Do we have anyone with a better understanding of law in the phillipines? I know it sounds absurd to even ask, but they're using it as an analog for a highly-constricted terms of use.
  • The tie-breaker, for me, is the fact that they explicitly retain the right to collect royalties on the work. To me, that's a copyright. A direct assertion that the creator of the work retains the right to collect profits from commercial use? I'd say that clinches it. Simply put, if this were changed to plain english ("You can use this work as you like, but you can't charge money without permission and maybe paying me royalties"), then it wouldn't even be an issue. I think it's better to play it safe, unless we can get actual legal advice from someone familiar with law in the phillipines.
That said, it certainly wasn't fair to make such an accusation against Quadell. He made a very much good-faith interpretation based on his view of the phrasing. Simplified, he suggested that declaring a work uncopyrightable might mean there's no copyright on that work. There's no need to question someone's motivations when they're being logical and honest. 209.90.133.188 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, anon. The only tweak I'd make to your analysis is that I'd say a direct English version is "This work isn't copyrighted, but you still can't make money off it without the government's permission." Consider a similar case: in Great Britain, it is illegal to copy and sell the King James Version of the Bible for profit without the permission of the crown. But it isn't a copyright, so no copyright treaty applies to it, and no other country respects this. Note that section 176, partially quoted above, is in "Chapter IV: Works Not Protected". The entire rest of the document gives information on how long copyright lasts, who holds it, etc., but none of that applies to anything in Chapter IV. Whatever that second sentence of section 176 counts as, it doesn't count as "copyright" in the same way that anything else in the document is considered copyrighted. (It has no expiration date, for instance, and no copyright holder who could potentially sue for damages.) Physchim62's argument above seems to be that we should consider this restriction to be a "copyright", despite the fact the Philippine government does not seem to. – Quadell (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... Actually... (btw, I'm the same anon as above. this is just my school ip address) I'm inclined to agree with you now, Quadell. This sounds exactly like your bible example. And your argument about it being in "works not protected" is very persuasive. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has asked the Philippine government whether it has relinquished its rights under Sec. 176.1 (or even if it could, without a change in the law), so it is presumptuous to claim that they don't see this as copyright. Section and chapter titles are not usually considered in the interpretation of statutes but, if there was any doubt in the matter, one can look at sec. 176.2, immediately following the paragraph in dispute here, which self-evidently gives force to Art. 2bis (3) of the Berne Convention. That is, it creates internationally recognised copyright where otherwise it would not exist. A reading of the paragraph which does not interpret this restriction as a copyright restriction is a reading which pretends that the paragraph ends at the first full stop. Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, this seems rather like those cases at OTRS when people write offering to license something under GFDL, *but*. When that *but* is not consistent with licensing requirements, we reject the permission. (*But* I want to be notified of modications. *But* reuse is for non-commercial publication only.) If the disclaimer is inconsistent with our requirements, it's not usable. Even if they're using terminology that works for us (GFDL, no copyright), they're explicitly redefining it in a way that doesn't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
That was how it sounded to me at first as well. (Personally, I hate it when someone licenses their image that way, and then someone else says, "sorry, they're incompatible", and then deletes everything but the GFDL licensing.) However, I think Quadell has a point here. It's very specifically listed as not protected. If we were trying to say that it fit under a specific special license, particularly one which actually did contract itself, then that'd be one thing. But the phrasing in the phillipines really isn't as contradictory as I'd first thought. It sounds perfectly analogous to the bible example. They assert no copyright, and are far more explicit than I'd realized about it, and then further instruct no one within their jurisdiction to use it for commercial purposes without permission.
That said, I would still suggest modifying the template. It seems to me that peoples within the phillipines could (at least theoretically) get in trouble for using such works freely, so the template should mention that it can't be used for commercial purposes within the phillipines. (or that it may not be eligible for commercial use, or however you'd phrase it) 139.57.100.104 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
My reading is, on the basis of having to read lots of documents written this way, is that the when they wrote in the second sentence they intended for it to have real effect. The only way I can see to regard these documents/images as free is if we disregard the second sentence and apply a western interpretation to the language in the first....both not sustainable for a legislative document. The document states that there are conditions on use and I don't see how we can ignore the stated conditions - Peripitus (Talk) 19:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Philippine WikiProject is aware of this problem for a few years now. Our view is to treat media like this as if it were fair use (of course it's not applied uniformly due to the massive amount of work needed). There's a plan to lobby to remove the second sentence in the law but that's for the future and not the here and now. --seav (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So long as documents are summarized and would not contain the same prose, it would be acceptable now for images and logos, that's another point for interpretation. --Maverx (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The practical problem isn't huge: some of the images are PD for other reasons, others are not even Philippines government works so would need to be retagged anyway. Nor is it an "oh my gode, we've got to do this tonight" problem – the images were uploaded in good faith, and nobody has complained about them, so although we may have to remove one or two of them, we can at least give ourselves a bit of time to look and see what is the best solution for each image. Physchim62 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with you here Physchim. When uploaded the uploader's thought they were ok, as indeed did those creating the template. These need to be gone through but on the scale of things here it is a small issue - Peripitus (Talk) 04:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status, Mississippi state legislature

The question has been raised as to whether or not Mississippi law is PD, specifically with regard to this document. I have not yet found any indication. Mississippi.gov says, "You should assume that everything you see or read on the Site is copyright-protected unless otherwise noted, and may not be used except as provided in these Terms and Conditions." and "You may print or download material displayed on the Site for noncommercial, personal use only, provided you also retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained on the materials. You may not, however, sell, reverse engineer, distribute, modify, transmit, reuse, repost, use, or create derivative works based on the content of the Site in whole or in part for any purpose, without written permission from Mississippi.gov, its authorized agents and contractors, or the owner of such content in each instance."[1]. I don't see anything at [2] about copyright status. Anyone have any insight? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi government works are, in general, copyrighted. But laws are never considered copyrighted in the U.S., as the courts have verified. So there are no copyright concerns with reprinting city, state, or federal laws in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure about that "never"? I know there have been cases of organizations coming up with uniform, copyrighted versions of statutes that are then licensed by the individual states, but I don't remember what the outcome of those cases was... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how those would be settled, but I've dug up reference in Stephen M. McJohn's Copyright that supports this. He quotes Compendium II in saying, "Edicts of government such as...legislative enactments...are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." (p. 119). Wow. I had no idea that the feds were overriding foreign copyright policy on laws. Interesting. Thanks for finding the source, Sarek. :) Thanks for weighing in, Quadell. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
We're not overriding foreign copyright policy; we're applying U.S. law to determine whether there is a U.S copyright within the U.S.. That's the basic premise of National treatment under which all of our copyright treaties generally operate. TJRC (talk)
Sarek, there was a private legal company that wrote "template" laws for small-town governments, claimed copyright on them, and sold the right to use them to the individual towns. That's all legit. But one small town copied the law from a different small town, and the company sued. The courts held that once a government enacts a "template" bill into law, it loses all copyright. I have more details at home (from "Fair Use" by Fishman), but I don't have it in front of me. – Quadell (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me I should explain the thanks for the source: it was Sarek who found that legislative document in the original discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
With respect to Moonriddengirl's question about laws in general, the Copyright Office's Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices says, in § 206.01, Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. I'm pretty sure that's been there since the Compendium II was released in 1978, and the prior Compendium I included a similar provision in its Supplemental Policy no. 9, Government Publications: "It should be noted, however, that public ordinances, court decisions and similar official legal documents of State and local governments are not considered copyrightable for reasons of public policy."" Courts have very consistently ruled in agreement with that policy as law.
SarekOfVulcan asks about the cases when organizations have developed unofficial codes that are subsequently enacted by a city or state government as law. I'm not current on this, but last I looked, the general thinking was that the enacted law was not copyrighted, although the original work retained copyright. See Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, Inc., No. 99-40632 (5th Cir. June 2, 2002) (en banc) ("Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, however, the organization's works retain their protected status."). However, this case had a pretty suspect factual record (the defendant apparently copied directly from the model codes, not from the actual enacted code, which strikes many commentators as contrary to the position that "as model codes ... the organization's works retain their protected status"), and I don't know how persuasive it ended up being outside the Fifth Circuit. As I said, I haven't followed the issue much in the last several years, so I cannot guarantee that's where matters stand on that particular point, even within the Fifth Circuit.
But the basic question about copyright in laws that Moonriddengirl asks is very clear. TJRC (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While on the topic, note that even foreign law is not copyright in the US. See s:Template:PD-GovEdict and s:Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-05#Crown_Copyright_waiver. The important point of that discussion is that since lawsuits for copyright infringement depend on the work in question being registered as copyrighted by the US Copyright Office. As far as I know, no law has ever been granted a copyright, and the Copyright Office has sworn black and blue that they will not grant a copyright to any enacted law - they will take it to the Supreme Court if they have to. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the laws exception has been mentioned in WP:PD for a long, long time. Dragons flight (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
And yet, Section 1-1-9 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 claims copyright over the text, and this is also mentioned elsewhere on state websites[3]. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that's dealing with the difference between the acts as passed by the legislature and the subsequent codification (although it seems to cover the former too). The latter has some creativity in arrangement, and definite creativity in margin notes. The problem is when acts reference older laws by code section. --NE2 12:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subsection, lyrics

While we're in the land of Mississippi, how about the Mississippi state song? The text describing the adoption of the song at Go, Mississippi (song) is copied from the page [4] (and there's no sign that that history is drawn from legislature). Are the lyrics themselves still governed by copyright, does anybody know? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably not. It was adopted as the state song in 1962, so it's a pre-1978 work; published, at the latest, in 1962. Those works got a two-part term of copyright; first 28 years, then another 28, which was later changed to 47 and then later changed again to 67, but it only got the second term if renewed (that was later made automatic, but too late for this song; details on request).
I see no copyright renewal for "Go, Mississippi" in the Copyright Office database ([5]). Searching in the author, William Houston Davis (you have to search on "Davis William Houston") yields only one renewal, for a song named Gotta go, baby that had been published in 1952. Assuming we can trust the CO database, even if a copyright had ever been claimed in "Go, Mississippi" (and back in those days, a copyright notice was a requirement), it was never renewed and would have gone public domain 28 years after it was first published.
Ah, rats, I see a hole here. The CO DB only covers filings made 1978 or later; pre-1978 filings are on microfiche and need to be reviewed in person. If the song had been published in, say (to pick an arbitrary date) 1942, it would have been up for renewal in 1970. If it had been properly renewed in 1970 1) it would have gotten a second (eventual) 67-year term to 2037 and 2) the renewal would not show up in the post-1978 database.
I still think the answer is that it's probably not under copyright, but if it was published before 1950, there's no way to tell for sure without looking at the physical copyright office records. TJRC (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you're good. :) Thanks. You should come lend us your expertise at WP:COPYCLEAN </shameless wheedling>. It's too bad that we can't verify, since lacking verification we can't use it. :/ You don't by any chance know of any Wikipedian who might have access to the copyright office records, do you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I'm on the left coast, and have no direct access, myself. (I think I looked at WP:COPYCLEAN once before, but it felt too much like work.:) But I'm happy doing these short little drive-bys that are kind of interesting. TJRC (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The sheet music is available in this 0.5 MB PDF (pp.5&6) on the Mississippi Secretary of State website. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearer sheet music is available on page 34 of this 5Mb PDF which says it was copyright in 1962. The only doubt is that it says "Adapted from original publication." which may be mean that it is derived from another work which may also have the same problem of having its copyright renewed (the lyrics may be the same between both). Being copyrighted in 1962 means it must have been renewed in 1990-1, and as it isnt mentioned in the online post-1978 records under "Davis William" or "Jackson Board of Realtors" I think it is in the public domain. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course it cant be that simple, can it.
Over at Wikisource, this text was deleted. I have initiated an undeletion discussion at w:Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Go,_Mississippi.
Another possible issue is that Wikisource used to attribute this song to Jimmie Davis, noted singer and Governor of Louisiana. ::John Vandenberg (chat) 13:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that it's hardly ever "that simple." :D I appreciate that you are exploring it. Only way to shed light. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated subsection

On a somewhat unrelated note, but since I saw "lyrics" pop up on my watchlist: I'm currently in discussion with Pamela at Gracenote, which hosts fully licensed song lyrics. We worked through a reliable method of linking the lyrics and she set about working with their IT staff to simplify the access method and I was going to post at WT:SONG, but then they apparently got cold feet, possibly because someone took notice of what I was saying: "we might want to massively link to your site, from the world's biggest encyclopedia and 4th most-trafficked website". I'm still waiting for the callback and discretion is appreciated, but there is a site out there with fully-licensed lyrics which we can link to on a limited basis if the lyrics are there. Limited basis at least until they buy another 75 servers or so, I doubt they'll miss the hits from en.wikipedia.org! Franamax (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be extremely cool. MTV also sometimes hosts legally licensed lyrics. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More from Mississippi

Can anyone offer any insight into the copyright status of [6]? It is not explicitly disclaimed, although it is not explicitly reserved either (images are; no mention is made of text). Footnote says, "The user must assume responsibility for compliance with federal copyright law (Title 17, United States Code) or any other issues involved in the use of the item(s) listed." WP:PD offers no guidance on Mississippi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the text is copyrighted. States are fully capable of holding copyright, even if that state isn't particularly interested in enforcing it. I doubt they would sue, but the text is nonetheless copyrighted unless some statute says it's not. – Quadell (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Governmental works were never something I had to address in my day job. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CopyLEFTvio - takes from wikipedia, claims copyright, demands takedown

What is to be done in situations where:

  • some outside business or individual has copied large portions of a Wikipedia article
  • they slap a copyright notice on it and claim it to be their original work and that peoples should link to it
  • takes the audacious step to have the original Wikipedia content cited as a copyvio of "their" work, and tries to get the wikipedia article deleted

I am right now seeing this happen to the article Plenum cable for which I have personally created several illustrations in order to make the text of the article easier to understand:

It seems recently someone has decided to rip the text and my illustrative work from Wikipedia which they are now claiming as their own work, and have recently requested a speedy deletion of plenum cable for infringing their work:

* http://www.lanshack.com/pdf/PlenumVsRiser.pdf

[edit] Which came first? There's no easy way to know

What really can be done by Wikipedia editors contributing in good faith to the encyclopedia, to assert that their uploaded material is the original content source?

  • Someone could claim that I simply made a screenshot of the illustrations they created and uploaded them to Wikipedia.
  • If the outside thieving accuser claims prior creation (and that they merely hadn't made it widely publicly available until now) there is no way to verify their claim.
  • It is effectively their word against mine.

To whom will Wikipedia typically side? Siding with the outsider is certainly the far easier option, since it merely requires a painless deletion of the disputed content from the encyclopedia. Trying to get an outsider to take down uncited content that came from Wikipedia may require an expensive civil court case that Wikipedia appears ill-prepared to take on as a nonprofit organization.

[edit] Solution (?): Don't upload original drawings as SVG

It appears that at least in terms of my stolen/uncited-source illustrations that they took, I have created my own solution to the problem. My illustrations are uploaded as "baked" PNGs and JPEGs which cannot be easily reedited or used to recreate the original drawing files. Additionally I am retaining my original drawing files used to create the PNG/JPG and this drawing information cannot be extracted from my uploaded images.

I am not going to upload my original drawing files as proof of origination since these thieving bastards would be free to download those as well to use as evidence that "they created it" as well.

Note that by doing this I am flying in the face of another unwritten policy of Wikipedia. Many editors want drawings on here uploaded in a free open re-editable standard such as SVG. If I had created these as SVGs I would have no "unbaked origination evidence" to fall back on as the original creator of the content. If an editor on Wikipedia wants to make an SVG of my uploaded work and cites back to me, that is fine but at least I retain the original drawing files as proof of origination.

According to acrobat, their document was created 23/4/2008, whereas your picture was uploaded in 2007. That means that their document is not evidence of any copyright infringement. Unless they can come up with another document that precedes your images, you're in the clear. In fact, it's the other way around, they're claiming copyright for your image, but they're probably violating your GFPL license.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need an off-wiki repository for origination evidence

Since these original drawing files (made with Office 2007 no less, ack) are my only evidence that the work is from me originally I am not particularly inclined to upload it directly to Wikipedia for all to download and claim as their own evidence of origination. I will only give this evidence to someone I trust and since most anyone can become an administrator over time, handing it to the administrators class doesn't provide sufficient safeguards. Such a copyleft/takedown thief also could strive for adminship to gain access to such materials.

Maybe I'll let Jimbo look at my origination evidence. DMahalko (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Billboard charts

Second time I've seen a question with wide-ranging implications concerning music charts come up at WP:CP. The soup du jour: Top Hot 100 Hits of 2008. The fundamental questions: is there sufficient creativity in the selection criteria of Billboard's Hot 100 rankings for Billboard to put teeth in that "© 2008 Nielsen Business Media, Inc", because those of us who were around for that DMCA takedown on sports markets TV listings know they will if they can (and even, some suggested then, if they can't). Fallout: if we can't use it, probably many of the bluelinks at Template:Top Hot 100 Hits will also represent problems. Selection criteria for the Billboard Hot 100 is a weighted evaluation of retail for singles, albums, and airplay that has been modified over the years. Wikiprecedent: New Zealand's top singles, 9/2008. So, selection criteria: objective enough to use, or selective enough to restrict? What say we? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly if I published a list of "The best songs of 2008 in my opinion", that list would be copyrighted. And if I published a list of "The top 100 most downloaded songs from iTunes", that would not be eligible for copyright. The question is, was there any choice involved in the list, given the set of criteria they came up with? Could a different group, using the same published criteria, have come up with a different list? If so, then selection was involved and the list could be copyrighted. If not then the list is a mechanical presentation of facts. – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I would imagine the debatable part here is the degree to which creativity is involved in weighting the criteria. That creativity is involved is evident in the fact that the criteria have been altered over the years to recognize changes in market realities. No doubt that the "100 Hottest People" would be a creative list, but given that this list reflects "hotness", which is subjectively defined, I'm just not sure. "Best selling", no question. "Top played?" no question. "Hottest?" Um. ? (Let me note explicitly that precedent, linked above, was for "keep", but I don't want to declare these a-ok without due consideration, particularly given our history with the publisher.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how often the criteria have changed. The question is, are the criteria (1) public, and (2) non-subjective. If yes, then it's PD. If no, then it's not. – Quadell (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I don't know if they are public. I'll have to look to see if they publish their ratio. I didn't notice in the Wikipedia article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Their current website says, "Most of the charts in Billboard are either sales charts or radio charts. The only exceptions in which we try to mingle sales numbers with radio data are three of our signature charts: The Billboard Hot 100, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and the Billboard Pop 100. We use both pools of data because while the consumer's decision to purchase is a significant vote of popularity, singles have a job that extends beyond being a sales vehicle: to capture radio play and, hopefully, stimulate album sales. Beyond that, in today's competitive market, radio programmers do not make music decisions lightly, but rather use extensive research to play songs their audiences want to hear. These three hybrid charts each use formulas to mix Nielsen SoundScan sales with BDS audience. The Hot 100 and the Pop 100 each utilize the a la carte sale of downloaded tracks with sales of the few retail-available singles that are still shipped to stores. The former chart also factors in streaming audio and video data (both on demand and passive) from AOL and Yahoo. The Hot 100 utilizes audience from all popular formats monitored by BDS -- from top 40 and hip-hop to country, Latin and rock -- while the Pop 100 confines its radio panel to mainstream top 40 stations."[7] I don't see the formula itself. Here's a reference to the formula as of 2007 at the NY POST: [8]. If the NY Post was to be trusted, at that point it was 55% radio airplay, 40% music downloads, and 5% streaming (with a ratio of 50 streams = one download = 1,000 radio plays). I don't know if the NY Post is to be trusted or where they got that info. Maybe it's tucked somewhere on Billboard site itself? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good job finding that quote. It's vague, and probably deliberately so. I was advise that we treat the list as copyrighted unless (1) Billboard says they don't think it's copyrighted, (2) Mike Godwin and/or the WMF say they think it's not copyrighted, or (3) we can find the formula and reproduce the results. Note that average price data for baseball cards was once successfully defended in court as copyrighted, since the compilers claimed they were choosing which venues to survey and which exceptions to exclude. – Quadell (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We've traditionally regarded music charts as copyright: if my memory serves me correctly, it is on the basis that there is more than one way of compiling them, and so there is creativity in selecting the sources and weighting the results. I think this a sensibly conservative approach: we shouldn't be saying things are exempt from copyright unless we're absolutely sure, and we're obviously not sure on this one, even if we accept that it's fairly borderline.
Interestingly, there is a German case (the Hit-Bilanz case, BGH 1 ZR 290/02) which treats exactly this question in the light of the EU Database Directive. It's a little difficult to extrapolate the result to the U.S., as Germany has a notoriously high threshold of originality, even though this threshold is supposedly unified throughout the EU for databases (see this European Commission report for more discussion). The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) ruled that "airplay" and "music sales" charts did not "constitute the author's own intellectual creation", and so were not protected by copyright, but did qualify for sui generis rights under Chapter III of the Directive. The test for sui generis protection ("substantial investment") is a "sweat of the brow" test, but it is failed, for example, by listings of sports fixtures or runners in a horse race (ECJ cases C-203/02, C-444/02, among others, cited in the German judgment). Physchim62 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reduced the one in question to the top 5, but have also written Mike to clarify...particularly timely since another one has been listed at CP. Poor Mike. :) I'd expect a week or so for response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Mike responds with dizzying speed that we should be okay with these as no human judgment is involved. I have restored the one that was stubbed and cleared the next one that had been listed at CP. It seems our official approach should be that these are okay unless we learn otherwise later. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect that! Alright then. Full steam ahead. – Quadell (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invariant sections

I think this material is deprecated by Wikipedia's new licensing terms, which now permit CC-BY-SA and GFDL or CC-BY-SA compatible only, since Wikimedia:Terms of Use says the GFDL source must be "unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts." Accordingly, I'm removing it. I'm tucking it here in case I'm mistaken. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's current copyright conditions, and with the current facilities of the MediaWiki software, it is only possible to include in Wikipedia external GFDL materials that contain invariant sections or cover texts, if all of the following apply,

  1. You are the copyright holder of these external GFDL materials (or: you have the explicit, i.e. written, permission of the copyright holder to do what follows);
  2. The length and nature of these invariant sections and cover texts does not exceed what can be placed in an edit summary;
  3. You are satisfied that these invariant sections and cover texts are not listed elsewhere than in the "page history" of the page where these external materials are placed;
  4. You are satisfied that further copies of Wikipedia content are distributed under the standard GFDL application of "with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts" (in other words, for the copies derived from wikipedia, you agree that these parts of the text contributed by you will no longer be considered as "invariant sections" or "cover texts" in the GFDL sense);
  5. The original invariant sections and/or cover texts are contained in the edit summary of the edit with which you introduce the thus GFDLed materials in wikipedia (so, that if "permanent deletion" would be applied to that edit, both the thus GFDLed material and its invariant sections and cover texts are jointly deleted).
Seen the stringent conditions above, it is very desirable to replace GFDL texts with invariant sections (or with cover texts) by original content without invariant sections (or cover texts) whenever possible.

[edit] Updating for licensing transition

I think I have brought it up to date. I have incorporated quite a bit of text directly from Wikimedia:Terms of Use (all noted in edit summary, for attribution). Please review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright laws by country

I'm inclined to think that almost all of that should be moved to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights—with the exception, obviously, of the US copyright information which would be patently inappropriate there. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Licensing (their version of Wikipedia:Copyrights) has a wonderful summary of copyright law in various countries. But that makes sense, because Commons takes into account an image's copyright status in the country of origin, as well as it's status in the U.S. But en.wiki only cares about its status in the U.S. (Often it's status in the U.S. is based on its status in its country of origin though.)
I think it's useful information, but it crowds up the page. Simply link to the information elsewhere. – Quadell (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that enwiki "only cares about its status in the U.S." In fact, the current section starts with a policy statement from Jimbo which shows that that isn't the case! Just because a work is PD in the U.S. doesn't make it PD in enwiki terms. A useful purpose for this section would be to tie down our policy on this issue, not to duplicate the work at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights and Commons:Licensing. I completely agree that the current coutry specific sections (with the possible exception of the U.S.) should be taken elsewhere: this was the whole rationale for creating Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights in the first place. Physchim62 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the Jimbo thing. See, it's like this: Wikipedia has from the beginning been an open-content project, accepting only public domain or freely-licensed material. But early on, we became aware that there is no "global public domain": Mexico protects works 99 years p.m.a., and the UK still considers the King James Bible to be copyrighted. So since all Wikimedia servers (at the time) were housed in the U.S., we decided that only U.S. copyright law needed to be heeded. That worked fine for a while, until someone noticed that the U.S. has no treaty with Iran, and started using Iranian material as PD. The rationale was that the material was effectively PD in the U.S. since Iranians could not bring a copyright claim in the U.S. against us. This rubbed Jimbo the wrong way, and he declared that we should treat this Iranian material as copyrighted, saying "Just because we can get away with something doesn't mean we should." This led to quite a bit of confusion; after all, we were routinely using UK works that were considered copyright in the UK, so long as they were considered PD here. It wasn't clear how to deal with international copyright issues, given the seemingly incompatible but unequivocal statements, and Jimbo did not respond to requests for clarification. After much hammering and yammering we decided that for copyright concerns, the English Wikipedia followed U.S. law exclusively, with the exception that countries that did not have a copyright treaty with the U.S. (Iran, Ethiopia, etc.) were treated as if they were signatories to the Berne Convention. And that's pretty much where things stand now. – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good summary, Quadell. It's also worth noting that Commons has some weirdness too and hosts some classes of images which are not PD in the US (some URAA restored material, some FOP stuff). Haukur (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate reference to copyleft

The paragraph:

The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft in contrast to typical copyright licenses. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom.

Should have the second sentence moved to the end, like this:

The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom. This principle is known as copyleft in contrast to typical copyright licenses.

In fact, as detailed in Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Copyleft_licenses, copyleft does not refer simply to the concept of being licensed freely, but to the more specific concept of requiring redistribution in the same terms.--Pot (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems uncontroversial to me, and I have implemented this. I'm sure others will let me know if I'm wrong. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
"No, you and Pot are right. It's the "remain free" part that makes it copyleft, not just the free part. Superm401 - Talk 00:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category for articles with imported Creative Commons text

Is there a category for articles that have imported text from Creative-Commons only sources? I think this would help both re-users and people working on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. If such a category doesn't exist, I can help create it. A possible name would be Category:Articles with imported Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 text. Superm401 - Talk 00:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree. It should be simple enough to add it to Template:CCBYSASource. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Complex copyright question, chart

There's a copyright question at WT:CP that could use more eyes concerning a chart duplicated in many points from an existing chart. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" section

Please add Wikipedia:Identifying copyrights in links. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Truman Capote article quotes short NY Times article in full.

I notice that the article on Truman Capote quotes the entire (short) New York Times article on the Clutter slayings that inspired his book "In Cold Blood". Because it is quoted in full, the quotation does not seem like fair use to me, but I'm no lawyer. Just thought I'd draw attention to it. Phiwum (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs