Talk:Substantial similarity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

February changes[edit]

I have restored the earlier version of the article pending some discussion of these changes. For instance, the lead was diminished so that it no longer summarized the complete contents of the article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Lead section, as material on the tests was removed. Some of the changes seem to be quite good, but there is also material introduced without indication of source...for example, the section beginning "Courts have relied on several factors to aid in a striking similarity analysis." Where does that come from? And why has the source been removed from the revised sentence "The substantial similarity standard is used for all kinds of copyrighted subject matter: books, photographs, plays, music, software, etc. It may also cross disciplines, as in Rogers v. Koons, where a sculptor was found to have infringed on a photograph"? I can't think of a good reason to remove a verifiable reference there. The citation was also removed from the following text, which includes direct quotes:

The second meaning, which Justice Jon O. Newman referred to in 1997 as the more proper use, defines "the threshold for determining that the degree of similarity suffices to demonstrate actionable infringement" exists, "after the fact of copying has been established."

I also do not know why the section on defenses was removed. There may be good reasons, but I'd like to hear them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Re: the sources - that was inadvertent on my part, I apologize. The Newman quote should have been cited to the source that is the citation in the previous sentence.

The "Courts have relied on several factors" material that I added comes from the general Patry source I had listed under "References." As I understand, that is acceptable policy when a source is used generally for many different parts of an article.

I removed the sections on defenses because they are irrelevant to substantial similarity. They are certainly relevant in a discussion of copyright infringement as a whole and should be included there, but substantial similarity is a standard used in one element of a copyright infringement suit so infringement defenses logically have no place here.

Hartboy (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

General references are acceptable, but as the document you link indicates, "This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic." This article is neither. :) This article has already been rated "B" class, and it would be a shame to see it downgraded. Can you provide specific page references for information cited to that source so we can continue the inline citation style already in use in the article? If we can get those sourced inline and make sure that references already provided are not removed, I would imagine that most of the changes to the body are fine. You certainly seem to know your stuff (and if you ever want to put in practice, please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, because we can use all the help we can get :)).
I take your point about the defenses. I'll go ahead and remove that and remove references to them from the lead. The material on tests should stay in the lead, though, as the lead is meant to serve as an overview of the entire article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I've re-added my edits after taking into account the discussion here. Citations are inline now, and the lead conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. I have subsumed the "Subdivisions" section into the "Tests" section since they are one and the same. Hartboy (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, there was a section on defenses, but the reason why it was removed is because substantial similarity establishes whether or not there is infringement in the first place, not the defenses against infringement, which needs no mention in this article, correct? --Shrewmania —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. :) By the way, I see that you are relatively new (and welcome!). If you don't know already, you can see how the article appeared at any given point by looking back in its history. This is how it looked before that restructuring, in which the defense section was removed amongst other changes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Substantial similarity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)