|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 12:17, 7 November 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Depending on what you think about this, I may start a larger discussion. I am concerned that information taken from the US Army Center of Military History website is not considered free content under Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia:Non-free content describes free content as "content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially" (emphasis in the original, some emphasis removed). The privacy and security page for the website states that "Unless otherwise noted, information presented on CMH Online is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes" (emphasis added). I decided to check a parent site of the website and found the security page of The Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. That page simply states that "Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is required". I also don't believe that works by the US government have some exception where we are allowed to use it if it is not allowed to be used commercially. This is due to the third bullet at Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works. The inherent copyright issue with those was that commercial re-use of those problems were prohibited. After examining all of this, I believe that a community discussion should occur at which point I believe that {{ACMH}} should be deprecated, all transclusions of {{ACMH}} should be examined and all copied material removed or refactored. Afterwards the template should be deleted. Do you have any reason to believe, in light of what I have found, that the material is still free to use? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker)My gut feeling here is that the non-commerical purposes is meaningless. If it's produced by a federal employee in the course of their duties then it's Public Domain and nothing can be done about it, this is why they can only request credit be given - as it's PD they can't require it. Given that they say that copyrighted material is credited it seems reasonable to assume that anything that isn't so credit is PD and so they can't restrict it's use. I'd suggest that your proposal is, at this stage, premature. I'd suggest as a first stage that someone contact ACMH and clarify whether any material that is not marked as copyright is indeed PD (by virtue of being the work of the federal government) in which case a "non-commercial" statement is meaningless. Dpmuk (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took your advice and sent an email to ACMH to try to receive clarification. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree with Dpmuk here. Writing to ACMH is a good first step. If they insist, I would recommend that we put it up for community review before we deprecate the template. We went through a small uproar a few years ago with the State of Florida when I took their word for their copyright assertions on their website, but in spite of their assertions, their own high court had said that their constitution does not allow state government produced materials to be copyrighted. This could be a similar case, where an employee is not himself really familiar with the governing law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Army Center for Military History is a federal government agency and none of its many publications are copyright. I agree with Dpmuk: They are all public domain. But in any case the fear that this would impact Wikipedia is misplaced. Millions of Wiki articles cite copyrighted sources, such as books and newspapers. Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a past official with a similar Army managed facility - the material is under most circumstances in the public domain. However, best to contact the Center of Military History in DC to confirm and how they might want their material cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.21.170 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have just received comment from ACMH with this explanation.
We will double check with our website operations and our publications department, but we believe that this message is on our website because not all photos or documents that appear on our website are works of the US Federal Government. Because of this, some photos and works may be under copyright and we prefer that users request permission from us so that we can verify whether a work is in the public domain or not.
I have responded with more information and I will see what they say. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you please let me know what happened to the BMW N63 article? I am new and haven't seen old edits greyed out before, what does this mean? Is there a way to access them, in case there is some useful text to be gained from them? Thanks, 1292simon (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, and welcome! As you know, since you were the one who flagged it, the BMW N63 article suffered from content pasted from previously published sources. :/ Your flag brought about an investigation, during which it was discovered that content was not only copied from the source you identified (http://www.topspeed.com/cars/bmw/2010-bmw-x5-m-ar72742.html), but from http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/14/2011-bmw-alpina-b7-review-road-test/ as well. This is okay when the sources are public domain or compatibly licensed, but not okay when they are not. The article was blanked with a note explaining the issue and inviting interested editors to repair it. I was left so for several weeks, during which the content was hidden from publication, but still accessible. Then the text was stubbed. The greying out is "revision deletion", which helps avoid the material being inadvertently restored by somebody who doesn't understand the issue. Some of the text removed is still in the history, prior to the greying out ([1]). I found duplication of that and could not determine which came first. Since I was not 100% sure, I did not restore it, but did not "revision delete" it, either. This text is not publicly visible and is usually not restored, but if you want to have a go at rewriting the material, I can temporarily restore it for you to do so. You'd have to be very careful not to create a derivative work by simply modifying the copying, but substantially and thoroughly rewrite it. Would you like to do that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks heaps for the explanation, and for your investigation once I flagged the content. Sorry, I don't understand what "derivative work" means. If possible, I would like temporary access to see if there's any useful content. Of course, anything I contribute would be my own words and with references! 1292simon (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. :) Derivative work is a legal term related to copyright. Our article uses the best quote from 17 U.S.C. § 101 to describe it:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
- This can be a slightly different kind of infringement than the obvious copy-paste. To avoid that, we have to be careful that our own works are original creations using our own structure and language. This is particularly important when we are working off of content that we know was copied from somewhere. I've removed protection from the version that you tagged ([2]) and set a note to myself to re-protect it next Saturday. If you finish with it before then, just let me know, and I'll bring the mop back. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. Mop away! I have made a copied that edit to a text file so I can see if there's anything to learn from it. 1292simon (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mop applied. Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Here is the link to the deleted article "Sponge Balls".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sponge_Balls&action=edit&redlink=1
Sincerely,
Colosiant (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! That article was "transwikiied" in 2007; it was moved (in this case by a bot) to another project. It was deleted there in 2009. The entire content of the article at the time it left us was "Sponge Balls per se, is not a single magic trick or effect, but rather, sponge balls themselves (usually in groups of 3 or more) are frequently used in performing magic tricks or entire lengthy routines." This was contributed by User:Bddmagic. I'm sorry that the article is probably not going to be much use to you. :/ As you see, it had very little substance. If you do use the content, please be sure to attribute the author by username. :) If using it, or modifying it for use, on Wikipedia, it's good enough to just list him or her in the edit summary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MRG. I've tagged a section of Supriya Sule in the normal way, but I think it needs more than the usual process and may need revdel because of the following. Only the first paragraph of the tagged section is actually copyvio, but it discusses an allegation that was due to go to court in January this year, and it hasn't been brought up to date. Also, the rest of the section, while not copyvio as far as I know, only puts the accuser's side of the case, and is poorly cited -- if the one citation even covers everything after the 1st paragraph. In my view it's a biassed presentation and thus an attack. Best, --Stfg (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I've made a note at WP:CP to take care of any BLP problems before restoring the material. It may be a week or two before it's processed. If you feel like bringing it up to date and addressing sourcing problems, you would, of course, be most welcome to do so. It'll just make processing the copyright issue that much quicker when the time comes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks for doing that. I don't feel up to the task of bringing it up to date, as it would mean searching for references on that court case. I'd hardly even know where to start. :) --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the following question of Cirt (as closing admin for the 2010 AfD of this article), and was directed here, so I'll lay out the situation again.
List of Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland was AfDed back in 2010, and interestingly enough, the creator of this article, User:Craigy144, was, subsequent to the AfD, indef blocked for persistent copyright violation. I didn't find this out until after posting the AfD this time (I couldn't notify the creator due to talk page protection because of an indef ban), but since I'm nominating this time around for a total lack of sources, I think it's fair to assume that the list was originally taken off the Grand Lodge's website (and that page is totally gone), not from the 1987 book that was falsely cited. Is that enough circumstantial evidence to pull the AfD and go for a CSD G12? MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) The questions we have to ask ourselves with any list (in terms of copyright) are: (1) is the material included fact? (2) If fact, is it creatively selected? and (3) If fact, is it creatively displayed? A list of office holders is almost certainly going to be pure fact. If it is a complete list, it should not be creatively selected. If it presents information straightforwardly, it should not be creatively displayed. The only dubious elements I see here might be the consistent addition of such facts as "(afterwards King George IV)." and the indentation of "Acting Grand Masters." These creative elements are small, though, so I don't think that WP:CSD#G12 would be appropriate. Even if they were considered creative enough for protection and even if he copied them verbatim from the source, those flourishes could be removed. If it is to be deleted, I think AFD would be the route to go, but I do not myself think copyright would be a valid reason for deletion in this case. (Stating no opinion on other factors, as I haven't really time to look into it deeply. :))
- The bit I know and have discovered about copyright issues related to lists are expanded in Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but through the course of the AfD, I've discovered that your (1) is a "guess" - it may be accurate, but I can't verify any of the information except for the current GM. The book cited for the list was a later reprint of an 1877 book, so there's no way info current to 2012 was in it. A GL of Scotland page was in the ELs, but it was not cited for that information, and it is now gone. The info is probably somewhere, but I'm not sure where yet. MSJapan (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "guess". :) Do you mean that the source that originally published this list was speculating on it or parts of it? If so, the degree of creativity is determined best by the nature of that speculation. If their speculation involves things like going through old records, looking for dates when an individual is mentioned in the role, that would still not be copyrightable in the United States, as we don't have a Sweat of the brow doctrine.
- The EL is not actually gone. :) Courtesy of internet archiving, you can see exactly what it said: [3]. Be warned, though, that the green color they used is pretty rough on the eyes! They assert in their footnote that the information is "true and accurate" to the best of their knowledge, which would mean that the list creator themselves are asserting that the content is "fact." (The fact that our list is updated with information from other sources wouldn't add any additional copyright burden.)
- The only element I can see that might be a problem is "afterwards King George IV", unless such formulation is standard in such lists. It's a small issue that could, if necessary, be easily dealt with by simply changing the method of display. For instance, those snippets of text could be removed, or the list could be turned into a table that includes a sentence or two about each individual. It kind of feels formulaic to me, though, so even that might not be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible bio, but looking at the edits by the most prolific editor there, [4], they look like a paraphrase of [5] - my question is whether the paraphrase is distant enough from the original not to be copyvio. I'm not sure, as although there are a lot of different words, it is recognisably similar. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Doug. I was a bit puzzled when I look at this one, but then I looked in the article's history. It's undergone considerable renovation since you left this. :D Because the article has changed so much, I haven't closely evaluated the earlier version. If it was a problem, it isn't now. At a glance, I saw significant differences between the two, but that doesn't mean that there weren't parts that followed too closely.
- Even if language is different, there may be infringement if other creative elements are duplicated - such as selection and structure of facts. (If it were solely a question of language, it would not be copyright infringement to translate something from Mandarin to English, as every word would be different. Similarly, you can switch out every word in a sentence for a synonym and still infringe your source.) Factors to consider here include how creative the selection and structure of facts are and how closely and extensively we follow the source. Chronological order counts in our favor, since the facts belong to everybody and organizing them in the order they happened is not creative. Choosing them still can be; for instance, everyone is going to include in a bio the date the subject was born, who his parents are, where he went to school, etc. Not everybody is going to think that the death of his Aunt Sally from creeping worm fungus was a significant factor in his development and give it a paragraph. The more such subjective detail we take, the more at risk we are. My general observation is that the more detailed our source is, the more likely it is to include subjective detail. This won't always be the case, though, obviously. A bio that includes exhaustive detail on release dates of an author's books may not be any more creative in selection than one that says, "John was born; he published books; he died." :)
- Generally, I find it safer when relying on one source with considerable subjective detail to distill it to the obvious and essential facts - the ones that are inarguably going to be common to most biographical works about the subject - and to make sure that they are presented in as obvious and ordinary a fashion as possible (chronological is a good one). Better if we can find multiple sources that incorporate a variety of details so that we are building something more transformative rather than simply recasting our original source into new form, but when this isn't possible truncating an overly detailed article may reduce the risk of creating a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much. This is how I understood the situation but I wasn't sure, and it's nice to have that confirmed. Thanks especially for expanding it more generally. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm Gary Schreckengost, author of Wheat's Tigers and would like to allow my work that I posted on Wiki. I like Wiki. Anyway, I don't really understand what I have to do. Can you make it simple? Like a link that I can fill out a form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzrschreck (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I'm glad you like Wiki, and I appreciate that you're interested in donating your work. I'll come talk about it more at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo - we've corresponded about Joseph Farey, and you know who I am!!
I've hit a problem that I can't resolve. I've lost my password for Wikisource, and posted the following message about it on the WS Adminstrator's Bulletin Board. Its followed by the reply from Jeepday(Sock) I've put the same message on the help page of w:Wikipedia:Unified login, but so far with no response. Do you have any thoughts on how I might resolve this. Whom might I contact? I am sure I am not the only person this has happened to, and there is a simple solution. many thanks, Apwoolrich (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My name is Tony Woolrich (AKA Apwoolrich). I did quite a bit of work on Wikisource 2005-6, but the work lapsed because I was involved in non-Wiki activities.
- I have been working in recent months on a project on WP, and want to place some reference texts on WS. When I try to logon to my user space, I can't because I don't remember the password, and WS can't send it to me because I have changed by email address, and my old one has lapsed. Its suggested I create a new user name, which I don't wish to do. I am sure there is a work around for this situation, but I can't find it. I have an idea there was talk about making a common logon for all Wikis. Any advice, please? Thanks 86.132.76.135 15:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- SUL for "Apwoolrich" http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/tools/sulinfo.php?username=Apwoolrich
Info on common login w:Wikipedia:Unified login
- Not sure it can be recovered with the hurdles you mention, but this is a good place to ask.
JeepdaySock (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm so sorry to hear this. I'm afraid I do not know of any work-around to this issue. :( Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? describes creating a new account as the only option, and it's the only one I know. We do now have common log-ins for Wikimedia accounts (m:Help:Unified login), but I'm afraid that it did not come in time to prevent you being in this situation. It was not retroactively applied since there was no way to know if users who shared usernames on different projects were actually the same person.
- I'll check around to see if I can find any other options for you, but I'm really concerned that this may not be possible.
- One thing that may be possible, since the account has been dormant now for six years, is to explain the problem and ask that the original account be renamed so that you can start fresh with that name. This is evidently done at Wikisource:Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#Bureaucrats, a section that is empty as of this writing, but I can see the format required in earlier listings (such as this one). If they are willing to rename your original account, you would be able to create a unified login that would allow you to use your name and password on that project as well. You would not, however, inherit any permissions from the original account (including admin status) unless the Wikisource community had some policy in place to permit that. If I were in your position, I might begin by visiting Wikisource:User talk:Hesperian. Hesperian is an admin on Wikipedia and Commons as well as being a bureaucrat on WikiSource, and I know his work. I'm sure he'd be very familiar with the WikiSource policies and approach.
- I'll let you know if I come up with any solution that allows you to retain the account, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for this. I've never heard of it being possible. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
I hereby affirm that I, Gary Schreckengost, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of The 1st Louisiana Battalion: Wheat's Tigers in the Civil War (McFarland, 2008). I have placed excerpts from that book on Wikipedia into the article Louisiana Tigers, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louisiana_Tigers&oldid=480321215.
+
+
I agree to publish those excerpts under the free licenses "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
+
+
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
+
+
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
+
+
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
+
+
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
+
+
Gary Schreckengost
+
Author and sole copyright holder
23 May 2012
|
Thanks for protecting our work...but I do like Wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzrschreck (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Large-scale constructs. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G'day,
In regards to the 'copyright violations" on this particular article, Ferries of Sydney (www.ferriesofsydney.com) is my own site - so I guess I can give myself permission to paraphrase myself :)
cheers,
Lance Lyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklord (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can. :) The steps are linked in the notice on your talk page. The simplest is to change "(c) 2005 - 2011 The Ferries of Sydney" to read:
- The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
- If you don't want to do that, that's fine. You still have to release the content as you've placed it on Wikipedia under that license, but you can instead write to permission-en
 wikimedia.org with the form letter at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you need assistance with that process, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello talk page stalkers! If you'd care to cast an eye over the contributions histories to find anything that I've missed, it would be appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late breaking news that you might like to look into: Köln-Düsseldorfer was originally copied from this WWW page. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Uncle G. If nobody else is working on this, I hope to be able to take a look at it later! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [6] copied from [7] p4
- [8] "Related content"? copied from [9] (some of this is PD, but this is just a blatant paste)
- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Sfsorrow2. MER-C 06:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much, MER-C. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, Moonrider, but "permissions-enwikimedia.org" seems to be a broken link. I'd like to send this form off--we need an easier process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzrschreck (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. What result did you get when you sent an email to it? I just tested it, and the email went through just fine. :/ I know your first email to them was received with no issue. It's in their system. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep in mind that the link you have in quotes contains an embedded template. When you actually send the email, don't copy and paste that address; it won't work, but change the template, which renders as "@" to an "@" symbol. If this isn't clear, click on the edit button, and you will see that the material in quotes isn't a proper email address.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (I added the same response to Gary's page, plus sent him an email)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank, you, SPhilbrick! I couldn't understand the problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just found James West Fraser. It's apparently been tagged G12 for two months, and I've only just found it. I live in CSD, and I'm sure the category has been empty at least one point recently..... It seems to have had a licensing email sent that wasn't up to standard - if it still isn't properly licensed, should it be deleted? And where (and how) has this thing been hiding? Peridon (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) It wasn't tagged G12 for two months. It was deleted two months ago and was just appropriately licensed and so undeleted and the tag removed. Apparently you managed to see it during the period after it was restored but before the tag was removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I was getting worried there... Peridon (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Axiomamnesia (talk · contribs)} states that [10] has no copyvio (his edit summary says "no COI and no copyrighted materials are on the site. Files obtained DIRECTLY from FL St Atty's Office via FTP download". I have no idea why he claims no COI, but do others agree there is no copyvio on this site? Thanks .Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The site is a member of the media, which is how the files were obtained directly from the Florida State Attorney's Office. On a page discussing the shooting of Trayvon Martin, it would seem prudent to included the witness interviews in their entirety. The mainstream media is releasing only clips of the witness testimony, and this does not allow people to hear what the witnesses said in their entirety--the actual source of these clips being played in the media. There is no copyright on the witness audio recordings, because they are public information.[reply]
|
