Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.104.28.176 (talk) at 23:08, 4 April 2013 (→‎Archival websites RFC: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

See also:

Commons:Licensing – Related at Wikimedia Commons

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

While participating at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Upgrade to Policy, I noticed that this page does not specifically discuss copying content within Wikipedia. Perhaps we should add a paragraph with a brief summary? How about this after the "Reusers' rights and obligations" part:

== Reusing text within Wikipedia ==
{{Main|Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia}}
When you [[Wikipedia:Merging|merge]] or [[Wikipedia:Splitting|split]] an article, or otherwise move text from one page to another within Wikipedia, the [[Help:Page history|page history functionality]] cannot by itself determine where the content originally came from. This may violate the attribution clause of the project's licenses. If you are copying text within Wikipedia, you must at least put a link to the source page in an [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] at the destination page. It is encouraged to do the same at the source page, and to add notices at the talk pages of both.
If you reuse text which you created '''yourself''', the above may still be a good idea, but it isn't mandatory.


Thoughts? - theFace 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Although I might be called a buffoon, I really didn't get most of what was on that page. I'm not fluent in lawyer-speak. In any case, I'll just assume that what you're saying is true. Feedback ☎ 12:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you write a Wikipedia article and I wish to use that article, then, somewhat simplified, I have to do three things if I don't wish to violate your copyright:
  1. I have to tell that the text was written by you (for example by including a statement saying "Text written by Feedback"). This corresponds to the "BY" part of CC-BY-SA.
  2. I have to include a link to the legal text of the licence (for example by linking to WP:CC-BY-SA). Alternatively, I can include a copy of the legal text.
  3. If I make any changes to your text, then I also have to publish my changes under the same licence. This corresponds to the "SA" part of CC-BY-SA.
Requirement 1 is solved by having a link in the page footer of all Wikipedia articles. Requirement 3 is solved by having a statement on the edit form saying that you agree to certain things when you click on "Save page". The tricky part is the second requirement if you copy and paste text from some other page, which this proposal is meant to fix. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Feedback says it all, really. This happens way too often, even amongst established Wikipedians. MER-C 10:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Per "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license", including a link is required. Putting in the edit summary I believe is sufficient. No Opinion on notes on talk page. Jeepday (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, It is now possible to transclude a single section, I am not finding the directions on Wikipedia, but they are here on Wikisource. Much of the copy and paste from one article to another could be bypassed by transcluding a section. Jeepday (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving

MiszaBot put this topic in the archive. I just pulled it out. Even though only 4 people, myself included, supported this proposal, I really think this page should have a reference to WP:CWW, certainly since that guideline was close to becoming a policy itself some time ago (see here). I'm not an admin so I can't add the above text myself. Here's an edit request tag... - theFace 17:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Although there is a consensus for the change among the editors that responded to this proposal, my instinct is that this discussion needs to be advertised more widely. Changes to policy need a broad base of support among Wikipedia editors, and that isn't really in evidence here just yet. Perhaps start an RfC and post notifications on WP:VPP, WP:VPR, and WP:CENT? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, requested feedback at VPP and VPR. Thanks, theFace 10:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mr. Stradivarius' view. Something straightforward and logical things should be just done. Changes to policy need a[n explicit declaration] broad base of support among Wikipedia editors? No. Policy pages are descriptive, and should be kept up to date. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that something this logical need not be fraught with excessive process. Yes, we want to make sure that policy changes are well advertised in advance, but a formal RFC, with its attendant timeframe, for something that will, in my estimation, likely get near-unanimous support seems like just delaying the positively inevitable. That said, the cross-posting notifications are a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question... I understand why this is proposed (and in that context, I agree with it)... but is it realistic to expect editors to actually do what is proposed? What happens when editors (whether through ignorance or laziness) neglect to leave the required edit summary? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't include attribution, then it is a copyright violation, and copyright violations should be deleted per WP:CSD#G12. However, in this case, it would be much better if the copyright violation could be repaired instead of being deleted. If the copyright violation occurred on 2013-01-02 at 12:13:14, then the reparation would seem to be to insert an extra revision with a correct edit summary dated 2013-01-02 12:13:13. This is currently only possible for stewards (by following mw:Manual:Importing XML dumps and modifying an XML file in a text editor), so it isn't easy to correct such errors for ordinary users. Would it be possible to use an approach which can at least be repaired by ordinary administrators?
Also: When accessing Wikipedia content, you won't always see the edit summaries. For example, if I use the "Download as PDF" link in the toolbar to the left, I only get a long list of user names which neither includes any statement that edits have been copied from elsewhere within Wikipedia nor the names of the authors of the original source. Aren't the PDF files copyright violations here due to the lack of attribution to certain editors? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone does not leave a proper edit summary (for what ever reason), the move/split should be undone/deleted per CSD#G12?... is that realistic? Are we really prepared to enforce it? (or is this just something we have to say, to cover our asses legally... but will ignore in practice.) Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely repair these issues in the manner described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I've only really seen these pages deleted when they were improper moves and the new page stands in the way of an actual move. Stefan, the PDF issue is concerning. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Do films linked to YouTube through external links have to be PD in both the US and source country, or is PD in just the source country okay? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's specifically addressed, but I would say we go by the same rule of thumb as the rest of Wikipedia: it would have to be PD in the US. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, of course, the copyright holder itself uploaded the video in question. Linking to such a video (when relevant) would still be fine, even if it's non-free. See also: WP:YOUTUBE. Cheers, theFace 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Club Alpbach Croatia

I originally posted the following on the WP:Donating copyrighted materials page but I see it has <30 watchers and is fairly inactive so I am also posting here for visibility:

Hi there copyright minded people.
I recently CSD'd a page: Club Alpbach Croatia for unambigous copyright infringement. The copyright owner contacted me regarding the fact that they owned the copyright. I directed them here and they contacted me to tell me they have added a copyleft notice here: http://kah.hr/cro
Would someone be able to confirm if this is all that is necessary for me to remove the CSD tag? I still have concerns about the notability of the subject in general but would like to be able to remove the G12 speedy. Cheers, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this has been resolved. :) Thank you. I've added the necessary attribution template. This is not only required to comply with teh license of the external source but also to indicate to reusers that the material is not co-licensed. Most of our content is available under GFDL or CC-By-SA, but this page is not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected violations of WP:COPYLINK

Where should we report suspected violations of WP:COPYLINK? That is where Wikipedia articles cite links to copies of documents on a website which is infringing the copyright of the document owners. 212.183.140.60 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd either go with WP:ELN or WT:CP, depending on how the link is used, unless the article has an active talk page, in which case I'd start there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Username of real name?

Sometimes authors of photos are mentioned just as nicknames of a Wikipedia user. When attributing the used photo from Wikipedia with author, is is enough just to use the nickname? Sometimes there is also a real name mentioned and nickname: in this case do I use both?

Thank you for any advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vennett (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia's editors (including me) are not authorized to give you legal advice, I will say that I myself would default to whatever it says in the author information section - nickname, real name or both - unless the specific form of attribution is set out elsewhere in the image attribution page. :) If you want a more definite answer, I'm afraid you'll have to ask them or consult an intellectual property attorney with jurisdiction in your area. (This is for your own protection, and not because I'm trying to be difficult. See the disclaimer in the lead of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. All I can do is tell you what I'd do, but I can't guarantee that I'd be right. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki

Hi, please add the urdu interwiki link to this page [[ur:منصوبہ:حقوق نسخہ]], thanks. محمد شعیب (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut needs Rcat update

A shortcut REDIRECT to this policy needs updated categories. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this...
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] {{R from shortcut}} {{R from Unicode}}
[[Category:Protected redirects]]
  • to this...
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]
Please leave one line blank.
{{Redr|to project|from shortcut|protected}}

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut that is used to categorize redirects. The Unicode category now has other uses, and {{R protected}} has replaced the use of the linked category, [[Category:Protected redirects]], on redirect pages. Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you very much! – Mr. Stradivarius – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web archives

Please remove, It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. struck, see later comments 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no reason why these certain websites are treated any differently to any other link to copyrighted work. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is policy and has been in policy for almost six years. Consensus can change, of course, but consensus requires discussion. To get consensus for the change, you may wish to visit WP:VPP and/or launch an RFC here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. Trying to keep discussion in one place, for now... 88.104.28.176 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)`[reply]

I've put back your full request. Please don't modify comments after people have responded and especially after they have quoted you. :) It confuses things. See WP:TALK. If you didn't mean to ask for that to be removed, you can strike it out and explain the issue or simply leave a note here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know all that, and didn't want to confuse anything; it's just that I noticed my request had quoted too much of the policy, not the specific sentence. I'll strike it. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Since I've quoted it in completion elsewhere, I don't want to confuse others. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archival websites RFC

It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time.

Why?

I can find no reason why websites that are 'internet archives' should be treated any differently to any other websites.

I accept that there are certain provisions within DCMA that allows such websites to avoid legal repercussions on condition that they immediately remove any content that is disputed.

However, Wikipedia does not link to copies of copyrighted websites. Full stop.

I see no reason why it's acceptable for us to link to a copy of a copyrighted work just because it is on "WayBack Machine" or any other similar site, but not link to copyrighted works on random-other-websites. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not full stop. Full stop implies there is nothing more in the policy. As per WP:COPYLINK, "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time." Unclear, except for many court cases in which claims were dismissed on the basis of fair use. We have a policy that says we can link to the WayBack Machine et al. and you're trying to change it based on a flawed interpretation of another policy (which you've been proven wrong on User talk:Jimbo Wales). So, in bold, oppose any change based on flawed interpretations and misinformation. gwickwiretalkediting 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that wmf:Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities tells that you may not be "Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law." The words "applicable law" appear at various places in the terms of use and sometimes there is a statement indicating that applicable law may include the law of the country where the editor is residing. Since it is illegal to link to copyright violations in a lot of countries, it seems that it may be against the terms of use for editors in those countries to add links to the Wayback Machine.
Please explain why. Why do you think it's acceptable to treat "WayBackMachine" differently to Joe's blog site? Thanks. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the WayBack Machine and others like it (big full fledged archiving websites) have been treated differently by the law. The courts have said that these websites who exist to archive, in full, websites for future use are not violating any copyright. Plus, since the WMF servers are in the USA, we abide by US law, in which the WayBack Machine type sites are under fair use. gwickwiretalkediting 21:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see in what way linking to material hosted by Webcite or the Internet Archive without the permission of the copyright holder is any different to linking to material hosted on Youtube without the permission of the copyright holder. I assume that the word "acceptable" needs to be changed into "unacceptable" unless the copyright holder has granted a licence to the archive which allows hosting verbatim copies of the material. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1st sentence - yep, exactly. 2nd sentence - I see no need; just remove it. No reason to specify "WayBackMachine" or "Webcite" any more than there is to specify YouTube, or Joes-blog, or whatever.
Copyvio is copyvio, why the hell are we promoting it? 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but this isn't copyvio. This is fair use, and has been determined by courts that exact replication, in whole, of a website is not a violation of copyright if for the use of archival of previous versions of websites. Therefore, not copyvio (and that has been explicitly stated, that it's not copyvio, multiple times in court cases). gwickwiretalkediting 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me that law, or those multiple court cases? 88.104.28.176 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depends which state you want, never said law by the way. Google "court cases internet archives fair use" and you'll find tons. Granted, a lot ended with the archival site removing it because they felt a moral responsibility to do so, but there rarely is a court that orders an archival site to take down something. gwickwiretalkediting 23:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that US courts apparently "look kindly" on sites that remove info when asked, but the fact remains that they're violating copyright.
I have to insist - please, substantiate your argument with direct evidence, not just saying "there are tons of cases" - I've looked, and I cannot find anywhere that US courts have said it is OK to 'archive' (ie COPY) something that is copyrighted. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights&oldid=548744118"