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 88.104.27.58 (talk) at 00:43, 7 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]
IIRC it was for this reason that WP:BJAODN was deleted. Some people didn't like it, some did, but there was never a consensus to delete it, but one guy deleted it anyway, because it's not allowed to copy text to another location without proper attribution. A lot of people were mad about that, but nothing could be done: he was right. This came up recently regarding paid editing. Because of Bright Line, paid agents typically post a complete rewrite of an an article (or sections of it) on the talk page, and somebody else has to copy and paste it into the actual article. OK, but this requires attribution, which is not being done. This leaves the possibility of someone opening a can of worms in future. Basically, my understanding is that there's no gainsaying deletion for GDFL violation, and we're not allowed to say "Yes its copyvio but the person obviously won't mind", at least I thought so. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Why is this even open to question or voting? It's a copyright violation, period. We don't allow copyvio exceptions on the basis "I'm sure he won't mind" or "It's just a technicality" or "No one is being harmed" or "He won't even know". Do we? Cos if we do I think that'd be great, we could copy text from company websites and old ads and out-of-print books with no commercial potential and so forth, and it'd make my life a lot easier. Please inform me when these types of copyvio exceptions are allowed. Until then, violating GDFL terms is copyvio, period. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Evidence

Fair use. Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement. A “cache” refers to the storage of an archival copy—often a copy of an image of part or all of a website. With cached technology it is possible to search Web pages that the website owner has permanently removed from display. An attorney/author sued Google when the company’s cached search results provided end users with copies of copyrighted works. The court held that Google did not infringe.

Source: [2]

Libraries and archives have additional preservation options under 17 USC § 108 of United States copyright law. One of the few good things included in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") was a provision that explicitly allows libraries and archives to make up to three copies of a work for preservation purposes. Unlike the rest of the provisions of Section 108, the items being preserved can be in any format (text, images, sound, etc.). Furthermore, the copies can be digital, so long as they are not distributed digitally nor made available to the public in a digital format outside the premises of the library or archives.

In order to take advantage of the exception, libraries and archives must follow certain ground rules. They must be either open to the public or allow access to non-affiliated researchers; the copying cannot be for "direct or indirect commercial advantage"; the library or archives must own a legal copy of the original item; and any copies made must carry with them a notice of copyright.[10] If the work is unpublished, preservation copies can be made for the purpose of preservation or security.[11] If the work is published, preservation copies can be made to replace an original that is "damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete." The law stipulates that a format is obsolete "if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace." The library or archives must also conduct a reasonable investigation to confirm that an unused copy cannot be obtained at a fair price. If digital copies are made, access to the digital version must be limited to the premises of the library or archives.[12]

Using Section 108, libraries and archives can start preserving old digital files in their collections. It does not help them, however, preserve materials that they do not own, such as networked resources or Web sites. Nor does Section 108 help individuals who want to preserve a digital files they may have legally acquired or obtained from the Internet. For this sort of preservation, we must rely on fair use.

Source: [3]

I figured you'd rather have the nice pretty Stanford legal team version than the court cases, so I decided to give you that, with the links. gwickwiretalkediting 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's evidence, all emphasis mine gwickwiretalkediting 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you say it's never been okay to copy something copyrighted? Why the hell do we have fair use then? Why can I copy anything I want copyrighted if I previously purchased/obtained access to it for my own personal use as long as I don't use it for commercial gain (and it's not explicitly prohibited in the terms of use of the thing)? There's TONS of exceptions to copyright violation law, and this is one of them. gwickwiretalkediting 23:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
"Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement" - fine. But, Wikipedia is not a search engine.
"make up to three copies of a work for preservation purposes" - we're not doing that either.
Wikipedia is free - and can be freely copied even for "commercial gain". That is exactly why it must be so careful not to use resources that are copyrighted. copying cannot be for "direct or indirect commercial advantage" - right.
Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined 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. - WP:FAIRUSE
Even commercially. We want people to be able to copy our work, even if their website has adverts.
It is antithesis to the mission to link to copies of copyrighted works.
"Why can I copy anything I want copyrighted if I previously purchased/obtained access to it for my own personal use as long as I don't use it for commercial gain" - because, it's copyright. And even if you could, that does not apply here on Wikipedia.
"Fair use" is, frankly, a load of shit. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're grasping at straws. Your original argument was "we can't link because these websites are violating copyrights". Now you're saying we can't host copyrighted content? We aren't doing so. We are linking to it, legally doing so. By the way, you misquoted me in your second to last, I said "Why can I do so?" because it is perfectly legal for me to do so. Your arguments are fundamentally wrong, and you've given us no good reason to feel that the policy should be changed. I'm done arguing about this now, because you seem to be failing to listen to me and others. My oppose any change vote above still stands. gwickwiretalkediting 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you accept that we're linking to copies of copyrighted content, right?
You have not explained why that is OK if it's WayBackMachine, and not OK for YouTube. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I accept that, and I'm done after this clarification: Youtube does not legally host copyrighted content, users upload copyrighted music/works all the time in violation of copyright law. Also, Youtube is almost never a reliable source, so there's rarely a reason to link to it. The WayBack Machine hosts old copies of newspapers, etc. that otherwise would be dead, unverifiable, links, and since they don't violate copyright law there's no reason for us to not link to them, but all the reason to link to them. gwickwiretalkediting 00:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that it is legal to distribute digital copies outside a company's building because you've found a document which says that it is legal to keep digital copies of a work as long as the copies aren't distributed outside the company's building? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no clue where I said that. I clearly said personal use, how is distributed personal use? You're trying to discredit me now, and that's why I'm not going to continue. There's the evidence right there, and there's more in court documents scattered across the web. gwickwiretalkediting 00:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are nonsensical; when we've asked for specific clarification, you've not given any. Please stop espousing nonsense about alleged myriad "court documents" if you cannot support it with cold hard factual references. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't really a good forum for deciding what the law is. If it's believed that links to archive sites are illegal, the best thing to do would be to raise the question with WMF. The question for this discussion should be limited to whether or not the policy is good or bad. Formerip (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already asked Jimbo about that; he didn't answer, and I was advised by Moonriddengirl (who works for the Foundation) to make this RFC instead.
It actually doesn't matter to us whether the sites are breaking the law. The question is just, should we link to suspected copyright violations. These 'web archives' clearly contain copies of copyrighted pages. DMCA provisions mean they are not likely to be libel for fines, as long as they agree to quickly remove anything if asked to do so. But that does not change the fact that they're providing copyrighted material that they do not have permission to reproduce.
We do not link to other sites that are suspected of violating copyright (example, youtube) - so why are these considered different/special? 88.110.246.208 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 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? Because the content is (to the best of our knowledge) hosted legally, and linking to legally hosted content is (to the best of our knowledge) fine. If either of those things changes, we'll have to review our position, and potentially mass-remove a boat-load of links via bot (which would be bad, but not actually very hard). That seems unlikely to happen, and I don't see why we should worry about it unless there's some actual sign of legal issues arising. There's really no need to be more Catholic than the Pope. Rd232 talk 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they're hosted legally? I can't see anything that indicates they are. Just a bunch of copyright notices. As mentioned, they're usually not fined as long as they conform to DCMA take-downs, but that doesn't mean it's legal.
If it was a legal copy, why do they have to respond to take-downs?
I've looked, and can't find any indication that they're legal copies. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use can be pretty wide-ranging, and depends on many factors. The value of having such a service may very well outweigh most copyright claims against it, in its particular form. That doesn't mean one can copy the content for other purposes, but I think they would have a pretty strong claim to fair use. What makes you think it is illegal (i.e. outside the bounds of fair use)? It has existed for years and to this point has not been ruled to be a copyright violation; the longer it goes that way tends to lead credence towards the assumption it is fair use. In the end, I think we would need an actual court ruling against it to change policy. I would agree that if the Wayback Machine archived a site which was a copyright violation in the first place (one of the reasons they have to respond to DMCA take-downs), we shouldn't link to it -- but if it had been acceptable to link to the original site I don't see any issue in linking to the archived version. A big part of Wikipedia is the need for verifiability, and the ability to continue to link to reliable content dramatically helps the stability of articles (otherwise people could somewhat control the content of Wikipedia by getting content removed from websites, forcing us to remove content which used that as a source if your proposed policy is accepted). We have a pretty strong fair-use need to continue such links. The IA documents the history of websites and little else. Google also archives content to aid in searching (both images and the web); those have been actually found fair use (even their book search) and I don't see why the IA's claim would not be at least as strong. For me, we would need actual court rulings to reverse existing policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such cases already exist - you can read about some of them in Internet_Archive#Controversies_and_legal_disputes.
If you recognize the fact that the sites contain copyright material, then the simple question remains - why are we linking to them but not to other sites that contain copyright material (such as YouTube news clips, for example)? The only argument seems to be that it's very useful to link to web archives.
An example archive, the "United States 108th Congress Web Archive", says this - which is quite pertinent;

Many, if not all, of the Web sites in the collection and elements incorporated into the Web sites (e.g., photographs, articles, graphical representations) are protected by copyright. The materials may also be subject to publicity rights, privacy rights, or other legal interests.

Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with the person desiring to use the item. You will need permission from the copyright owners or rights holders for reproduction, distribution, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. [4]

Harvard web-archive says, The Site and its content are being made available for the purpose of private study, scholarship and research. The Site and its content are protected by copyright.[5] Those purposes are not compatible with Wikipedia.
To come back to the primary point - I do not understand why the current policy considers it OK to link to a copyrighted work that happens to be stored on the WayBack website, but not if it is on YouTube, or Random-blog, or anywhere else. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume Wikipedia is compatible with "private study, scholarship and research" Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an incorrect assumption; wikipedia can - and is - freely copied on commercial websites; that's why we have to be so careful to use truly free content;

Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined 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. WP:NFC

Furthermore, let me use a simple example; a CNN news article.
1. It's copyrighted, so we cannot copy-paste it on Wikipedia.
2. We can link to the information at CNN, because it's their own site.
3. We cannot link to a copy of that copyrighted site on e.g. "joe's blog"
That makes sense.
4. (Current policy) We can link to a copy on WayBack.
Why?
If you claim some kind of 'fair use' then we could just copy the whole thing to Wikipedia - the article, the pictures, everything. If it's not "fair use" then we can't link to a copyright-violation either.
Why is it apparently magically OK if it is on "WayBack" (as the current policy says)?
If I posted the CNN article on my own website, I couldn't link to that, right? Or if I made a YouTube video of the website.
I see absolute no reason for any difference, and so far nobody has given any difference. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the person uploading it to YouTube had permission (i.e. it was a corporate account and uploaded by the copyright owners), I can't see a problem with that type of link either. If it is an unauthorized copy on YouTube (quite common), it's a completely different situation (and if the WayBack site archived that bad copy, we should not be pointing there either). There may well indeed be some problematic content on the Internet Archive -- that can happen with the automated archiving they do -- but in general all such content has been made previously available for free on public websites, which avoids some copyright pitfalls (the right of first publication for example which can outweigh many other fair use factors). They are making such copies available only on a fair-use basis, that is quite true, and that protection does not extend to other uses people make of that material if they copy it -- that is only what those terms of use sections say. That does not make their presence illegal though, and more importantly, does not make links to them illegal either (links can only be contributory infringement, not direct infringement, since no copyrightable material is actually copied). And in the end, if there are particular instances of content which should not have been made available there, the solution is to file a request to the Internet Archive itself. They can remove the content there, which additionally means that Wikipedia can no longer link to it, which would solve both issues at once. There is no need for Wikipedia to do anything in particular. Our use is also for private study and scholarship; we are not copying content and as such that content does not need to be "free"; we just need to make sure our links follow the law (the problem with contributory infringement would be pointing people to infringing copies on the net; there should be no problem referring people to non-infringing copies, and a copy covered by fair use would not be infringing). Wikimedia would be protected by fair use as well. The fact that there are likely a few instances of inappropriate content does not mean that we should avoid linking to the other 99.9999% of the material they have. I could see discretion on things like the Omni magazine being made available wholesale -- that could have just been a mistake in robots.txt on the original website with no particular intent to copy the magazine -- and we should use common sense in those situations, and probably no link to it. If an individual makes a similar copy available, it's different, as they were knowingly targeting that particular work rather than the publicly-available Internet as a whole. Fair use determinations are made based on the entire situation and all facts involved; a similar act but in different circumstances may end up with a completely different result. We do need to be somewhat careful about sites we link to -- in the Internet Archive's case though I think that would only extend to sites that were originally a problem as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I start a blog which copies CNN news articles every day, we can use that as a reference too? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights&oldid=549077831"