Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

Wikimedia's volunteer response team (VRT) handles copyright permissions, email inquiries from the public, reuse inquiries, article errors, and a wide range of non-public inquiries. The email service is operated and managed by a cross-project team of volunteers at the Meta-Wiki level and not by the English Wikipedia community. Actions by VRT members on English Wikipedia are ultimately subject to review by the Arbitration Committee. Please be aware that there is sometimes a backlog in processing tickets sent to the permissions-en queue. This backlog is currently 0 days. This noticeboard is primarily for Permissions verification and inquiries for text and files (hosted on the English Wikipedia) said to have been granted permission via VRTS. Requests for VRT member review of matters that have been described as VRT comments or actions. Other inquiries to VRT members that do not involve, disclose or reference private material. Do not post Private information or links to private information (including but not limited to emails, phone numbers, physical addresses). Fishing requests (asking for all details of a ticket or generally probing ticket information). You should make a specific request and clearly state the reason for your request. Additional questions on a point, once a VRT member has indicated they cannot answer due to privacy issues. (Further inquiries and any complaints should be made via email.) Requests for VRTS access (use meta:VRT/Volunteering instead). Questions regarding media hosted on Wikimedia Commons (use Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard instead). Media questions unrelated to VRT (use Wikipedia:Media copyright questions instead). Disputes For disputes over VRT actions on English Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team § Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Sensitive issues and functionary actions. Useful VRT email addresses Removal of private or defamatory information Requests for oversight or oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org Submission of photos to be used in a Wikipedia article photosubmissionwikimedia.org Follow the instructions here Confirmation of copyright permission permissions-enwikimedia.org Follow the format given here Reports of threatened harm to self or others emergencywikimedia.org Guidance: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm Reports of child pornography legal-reportswikimedia.org See Wikimedia Legal Policies Issues with an article about you or your organization info-en-qwikimedia.org Guidance: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help Any other inquiries involving private information info-enwikimedia.org

Noticeboard archives

Permission to use materials related to The Beatles

I am the owner of the website: beatles1.ru, who has rights to use and dispose in the relation of any materials from the collection: ART OF THE BEATLES IN THE GLOBAL LIBRARY.
When created everything legal conditions for people to use materials related to The Beatles without copyright violations and for free, I give the permission to use such materials via (or using any other method absolutely) the website beatles1.ru. Such official permission was sent via e-mail for: permissions-en@wikimedia.org, from: beatles80yandex.com (link to this e-mail exists at the website of owners, who gave the permission). Evgeniy - 89.179.190.3 (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC).

Ticket:2011110810018756; got it, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The copyrights of most, if not all, of the audio, video and images found on the aforementioned web site are owned by EMI Records Ltd. and Apple Corps Ltd. Piriczki (talk) 8:47 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)

The problem is that Beatles' music is not fair use. The link does not have actual permission to stream Beatles music and we cannot link to it. freshacconci talktalk 02:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use and liberal copyright licensing are two very different concepts. However, you are of course correct that the actual works of The Beatles belong to the copyright holder (presumably the artists or their record company). Anything that is not licensed for liberal reuse can only be used in accordance with our policy on non-free content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Also. Currently exists the best option. The website beatles1.ru is the educational resource, as known. Such goals are declared officially. One of very important aspects of the implementation of this goal, is the usage of the educational books, related to the creative works of The Beatles band. Owners of the website beatles1.ru prefer to use e-books in the PDF format. Such books are generated from the articles of the Wikipedia, related to The Beatles. To make books more informative, the owners are implementing some changes. Including, they create for people possibility, to watch or listen a work by The Beatles in kind (video and audio on-line). This is the part of the educational conception. It should be note, a education is the part the doctrine the fair use, as and a creation of something new (textbook). Such topic contains also: almost every video clip with the songs of The Beatles, is a part of a very large movie (very small part, usually, it is not more than 2-4 minutes). Movie - 30-90 minutes. The albums with songs of The Beatles are small part of the all creativity for last 50 years. They are the part of the collection, which located at the website beatles1.ru. Every file of the collection is from the DMOZ (attribution was). All other moments, related to the beatles1.ru together with the DMOZ, are located on the page with the additional permissions. It should be note in addition: any legitimate ground, which has place in the relation of the beatles1.ru, can exists independent from each other. Some users pay attention to this nuance. Advice: reading of the different laws and codes is useful for such users. Knowledge - The Power ! - 95.29.102.210 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Um, no. You do not have permission to stream the Beatles' music. No one does. Therefore we can't link to your website. freshacconci talktalk 20:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be able to claim fair use for your own website, but Wikipedia deliberately applies a much higher standard than the law, because the creation and distribution of free (not just fair use) content is one of our key goals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• In addition to fair use and license exist a million other legal grounds on the site. About streaming. I explain in simple terms: Stream is only process. Process is not a subject matter of copyright. Read laws. Students. After clicking this link, do not write nonsense: § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general. Devices and machines have relation to copyright, but not methods to transfer information to a computer. Information directly from the U.S. Copyright office. To violate rights of man, who gave permissions for you, is very bad thing. You mix in dirty dust the own resolution. The USA - it is something ..... Russian people are cleverer. I nothing afraid (about site). Because any profit is not waiting for me. Such goal is not exists. You may put the resolution in the archive and forget. I am tired of all of you, the British and Americans. When will wake conscience, you can write me a letter. Not earlier. Read the biography of the Russian God. Listen to two of him best songs. Our idol Viktor Tsoi.
  Good-bye, people with alien culture. - 95.29.102.210 (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Well, that's entertaining if nothing else. freshacconci talktalk 23:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Attention, please! The man, who gave the permission, does not abandon him. The unhealthy situation now, possible, is the result of pressure those, who exercise the lobby for companies Apple Corps and Emi. It's only a guess. Exist hundreds of keys for only 1 gate: big number of ways to use the possibility, which currently allowed. Owners of the website beatles1.ru suggest next ways (list is not full here): fair use, additional license, public domain, cache, codes HTML outside of the website, deletion of material, which gives rise to doubts, change of conception of the website and so on...... Any human, who can create useful conditions on the website, including legal, has option to do it without problems. He will get the password. Creativity of The Beatles lays at your feet. You took permission, several days ago. If you want, you can wait 20 year else. This is your right and selection. As result: the permission to use the materials of the website beatles1.ru currently in force. Any questions: beatles80@yandex.com, or here. Thanks. - 2.93.89.18 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

• I am one of the alumni of the Saint Petersburg State University (SPbU). Basic profile: copyright. From the height of my knowledge I want to note the following: The legal situation on the website beatles1.ru is optimal now, to meet certain lawful criteria. I will not be repeated strongly. Doctrine of fair use exists in dense quantity (including educational, scientific, cultural moments and so on). Attention is drawn to such point, as the international conventions on human rights and cultural diversity on the website. This is from another topic, but has a pretty big importance. In some sense has place legal precedent: The Senate state New York uses the protocol CCPlus by the similar pattern, even more aggressively (Waiver). This is not some janitor, this is the part of the U.S. government. From side of the owners of the beatles1.ru was focused the special attention for such important point: http://beatles1.ru/CC_Plus.html (validation). The attribution in the relation of the DMOZ is simply fine, as legal ground at the context of usage of any Creative Commons license. At my professional five-point scale I put the solid rating of 4. The owners of the website suggest to use material variety of ways. Our right to select best way, if is not joke. - 178.66.149.211 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

OTRS Clerks, can we close down this discussion? beatles1.ru is very likely engaging in copyright violations in respect to the catalog works of The Beatles (Audio, pictures, etc) ergo they are most likely not the copyright owner or the appropriate asignee for their region. If the IP addresses want to continue arguing to claim Fair Use then I think a entry in the Wikipedia spam list would be appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• As the person who unselfishly gave the permission to use the content of the website beatles1.ru, I ask the volunteers from OTRS about protection of my honor (and not only of my honor, of other people also) from attack of anyone. If actions of them violate the law or rules of conduct on the Internet. If anyone makes the post in this topic and it violates my civil rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), this post should be deleted (illegal activity must and can be verifiable). If someone encourages impunity, he understands that this very bad thing. At any society such behavior not has respect. Just in case, it should be note next: rollback of edit of any violator not means, that man who made rollback, for or against any point of view in this topic. He is neutral. If violator loves play in war of edits, to him shall be applied some sanctions (any such war can be provocation, even without intent). Thanks! 95.29.224.97 (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

• I will not say much about the request of the protection, with reference to the specific international rules. As result, because I not got the protection, I will here explain the situation short: the lawyer from the St. Petersburg not has IP address from the provider CORBINA, this can be seen in the WHOIS: http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php?ip=178.66.149.211 . In addition, except for fair use, I suggested a huge number of ways. And even more. Thus, the person, who wrote the nasty comment the day before, violates my civil legal rights. Also, were violated the legal rights of the man from the St. Petersburg, at the same time (this is slander or insult). Request about fighting agains violators, is in the force. You must think about good name of the Wikipedia. At the same time, anyone can ask me on any issues (the most terrible issues even). But this must be the question (not approval). If approval, please show the proof. Otherwise, is the violation only. I not got the protection, it means, can happen again violation, and I will tolerate it. It is by accident not a discrimination on racial grounds? I am Russian. I can put here else one the convention of the UN (by this topic). I joke. http://beatles1.ru/identification_of_the_authenticity_of_the_message-1 . - 95.29.105.244 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

• It is not your privilege or right to do this whatsoever. The audio, pictures and video in question are the intellectual property of EMI Records Ltd/Apple Records/The Beatles, and these parties have not licensed this property for free streaming to anyone. Neither you, nor me, nor Jimmy Wales, nor anyone else may, in linking to this intellectual property in the manner you wish to, use Wikipedia and/or other Wikimedia Foundation projects to commit violation of copyright against per not least the laws of the U.S. state of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located. This matter is effectively considered closed and further discussion will be of no merit. WilliamH (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

Could an OTRS volunteer go through Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days and delete/tag for deletion as appropriate? Note that any edit, even those not removing the tag, will reset the 30 days. Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)