Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Header
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Erased sentence which is legal incorrect, welcome debate on this issue
I erased this sentence:
Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable, unless it is inherently free of copyright due to its age or source.
This is legally incorrect because it ignores fair use.
Therefore, material is useable Only because:
- (there is an) explicit statement that the material is public domain
- available under the GFDL
- it is inherently free of copyright due to its age or source.
Is fallacious and incorrect. It ignores free use.
Most people are not familar with § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Like most statutes, the wording is difficult to understand.
Because 107 is so difficult to understand, I will rely on Stanford University Library definition and guidelines of what is fair use.
Stanford University Library has an excellent discussion on what is fair use [1]:
Often, it's difficult to know whether a court will consider a proposed use to be fair. The fair use statute requires the courts to consider the following questions in deciding this issue:
-
-
- (1) Is it a competitive use? (In other words, if the use potentially affects the sales of the copied material, it's usually not fair.) § 107 (1)
-
-
-
- (2) How much material was taken compared to the entire work of which the material was a part? (The more someone takes, the less likely it is that the use is fair.) § 107 (3)
-
-
-
- (3) How was the material used? Is it a transformative use? (If the material was used to help create something new it is more likely to be considered a fair use that if it is merely copied verbatim into another work. Criticism, comment, news reporting, research, scholarship and non-profit educational uses are most likely to be judged fair uses. Uses motivated primarily by a desire for a commercial gain are less likely to be fair use). § 107 (4)
-
As a general rule, if you are using a small portion of somebody else's work in a non-competitive way and the purpose for your use is to benefit the public, you're on pretty safe ground. On the other hand, if you take large portions of someone else's expression for your own purely commercial reasons, the rule usually won't apply.
Many contributions to wikipedia clearly fall within the definition of fair use on all three counts:
- the wikipedia contribution is for noncompetive use (1),
- only one paragraph (or small percentage) of the copyright work was used out of an entire article (2), and
- ANY material on wikipeida used for noncompetitive gain (3).
I heartly welcome debate on this issue.
--Travb 22:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- The fallacy of your argument is that the header is presenting only copyright law. This isn't the case, it's a Wikipedia document. And while Wikipedia has to abide by copyright laws, we also have our own rules that we as a community choose to live by. --Duk 02:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Note the text that appears at the bottom of every Edit page: "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION. All edits are released under the GFDL (see WP:Copyrights). [...] Only public domain resources can be copied exactly—this does not include most web pages." I will wait a day or two to see if anything develops, but it seems to me that the sentence is a correct and useful addition to CP and should be restored. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting
I don't want to offend users who have only created this header to help others but the formatting and the way it fits into WP:CP is terrible. The list of options presented to a first time user of the page is totally incoherent; the speedy deletion option is first followed by a mass of legal notices, explanations, the TOC and finally more general instructions. This page does not have to be so complicated and could be much more user friendly. Mark83 18:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- You know what to do... -Splashtalk 22:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Done. --Aaron 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blanking
I have changed the page to point out that you don't need to blank pages if you mark them for speedy deletion due to copyright violation. Pages under 48 hours old are eligible for speedy deletion this way, because they aren't liable to have propagated to mirrors, and in turn do not need to be blanked. Blanking the pages just wastes admin time looking up the history. Stifle 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I do agree, and I originally wrote the page that way. But it got changed because the point of blanking is two-fold: to stop displaying text as soon as we know we cannot legally do so and to stop mirrors picking it up at the times when CAT:CSD gets backlogged. It can sometimes have stuff in it for 12hrs+, and that's enough time for it to get spidered by google and picked up by mirrors. -Splashtalk 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ??Remember to avoid copyright paranoia??
The following dialog took place on the page Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems
Begin copy and paste
This sentence is at the end of the first paragraph and links to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia the page on Meta.wikimedia has no references and seems to be rant on personal opinions of why copyrights do or do not mater. I strongly question the correctness of inlcuding a link to that page from this one. Jeepday 13:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think something along these lines does need to be said, though I agree that the current meta page is far from the best way of saying it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a page on Wikipedia that address the issue? Jeepday 16:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
End copy and paste
It is my intent to remove the sentence and link to wikimedia does anyone have a suitable replacement for the sentence or link? Jeepday 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
