User talk:Oaobregon

Baccara copyedit[edit]

Hi Oaobregon. Thanks for your feedback; I would be happy to help out with copyediting Baccara - I'll get on it over the next few days. Re foreign-language sources, from WP:CITE:

English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

This means that, if we can't find English language sources for citations, we're ok to use the original (in Spanish I'm assuming?)... if you or someone doesn't mind doing the translation ;) Regards EyeSerene^TALK 09:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments. I'll continue with the rest of the article, and try to reference what I can using the source discussed on the talk page. Please feel free to correct any mistakes I make - I try to be careful when copyediting, but proofreading from the article's real editor(s) is always very welcome! Regards EyeSerene^TALK 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Thanks for your response. I've corrected my errors, and will try to finish the ce tomorrow. I thought you were pretty quick by the way - especially given the time difference! EyeSerene^TALK 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections[edit]

Again, thank you for your corrections and explanation - especially with the list of partners (I was very confused by the websites about this). I have made the changes you suggested and I hope everything is ok now! EyeSerene^TALK 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome; I'm glad to be of help! Best wishes from Wales ;) EyeSerene^TALK 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright vio[edit]

Hi again Oaobregon - good to hear from you.

I've read the article you are concerned about - whilst it is not a verbatim copy, it is certainly derivative (and, as you say, some paragraphs are a direct copy). According to Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content, all WP articles are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. For derivative works, this means mainly that:

the author's derivative materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL
the author must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B)
the author must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J)

I can't see any links to Wikipedia on the web page, or any release of their article under the GFDL. Therefore it certainly looks like this is a clear violation of the GFDL.

Probably the best thing to try first is to e-mail them the following letter (which I have adapted from Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter):

Dear webmaster at www.baccara2007.moonfruit.com:

I am pleased to see that your website, http://www.baccara2007.moonfruit.com/, uses content from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/), the free encyclopedia. This is the sort of reuse that those of us who contribute to Wikipedia wish to promote.

However, to reuse material from Wikipedia you must follow the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GFDL), which governs all Wikipedia content and is legally binding. Your 'Biography' page includes some text that has been reused from this version of the Wikipedia 'Baccara' article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baccara&oldid=139465230. Under the GFDL, this means that your article qualifies as 'derivative', and must therefore meet certain requirements. To help you comply with the License, I can make some recommendations:

Firstly, your Biography page should include a link back to the source Wikipedia article as is suggested on Wikipedia’s copyrights page, which is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights. This acknowleges the authorship of the article (or those sections you have reused) under sections 4B and 4J of the GFDL.

Secondly, you should include a GFDL notice, because (under section 0) all materials derived from Wikipedia articles must themselves be licensed under the GFDL. One way of doing this would be, somewhere on the 'Biography' page, to add the text "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license", and provide a link to a copy of the GFDL on your own server. Also, a notice such as "This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" is a good way to acknowledge the general source of the text.

I was a contributor to this article, and text that I wrote appears on your site. Since it appears without attribution to me, or a link to the Wikipedia history, or the text of the GFDL under which I released my contributions, the existence of this page violates my copyright as well as the copyrights of other contributors to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baccara.

Please add the required links and acknowledgments to all parts of your Baccara2007 site that use Wikipedia content promptly. Thank you.

Sincerely, Oaobregon

Then we wait and see what happens. In the case of non-compliance, we follow that up with a second letter, then ultimately contact the service provider to get the site taken down. They might just decide to rewrite the article of course, in which case we no longer have a problem ;)

Hope this helps. EyeSerene^TALK 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True - I'm assuming the biography will be inside a CD sleeve or something. Do you know if the website is copied from Sony, or if the authors on the site are supplying that text to Sony? If it's the former, I suppose we'd need to let them know that they're breaching the GFDL; if it's the latter I guess we can wait to see what happens with the website. EyeSerene^TALK 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update - I'm glad they were so cooperative ;) As you say, we'll have to wait for the compilation to come out before we can see if the changes were in time. We could contact Sony-BMG directly, but this might be unfair to the Biography writers who seem keen to put things right - they are now aware of the copyright violation, so I'd guess it's up to them to inform Sony-BMG if they have already supplied copyrighted material. Glad to be of help! All the best EyeSerene^TALK 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]