Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:C)
Jump to: navigation, search

Acceptable linking to LINKVIOs[edit]

What the policy says: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

In general, the absolutist approach to copyrights in this policy is (IMO) the correct choice. However, on this very narrow point, I think that this statement is wrong, because we accept links under two significant circumstances:

  • {{backwardscopyvio}}
  • Discussions about whether a URL is/isn't a copyright violation

I think we should consider clarifying this somehow (possibly not directly in this policy). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the policy as written (but hopefully not as intended) bans many of the links at WP:Mirrors and forks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • A backwards copy, as well as a compliant mirror, would not be in violation of the creator's copyright, so that portion of the policy would exempt those. If a user is unaware of the site's mirror status and avoids linking as a result, that is erring on the side of compliance which I see as a good thing. CrowCaw 20:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
But, Crow, the whole point of {{backwardscopyvio}} is to tell other editors that a non-compliant website is plagiarizing a Wikipedia article, in violation of the Wikipedia editors' copyrights. "Some or all of one or more webpages are secretly copyright violations of this page" is not nearly as helpful to future editors as "This exact webpage is a copyvio of this Wikipedia article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, BackwardsCopy (BackwardsCopyVio is just a RD to it) doesn't actually say anything about a violation. It merely informs the page reader that the content of the WP article has been reproduced by an external source, so not to call the page a CV of that re-user's page. The template itself doesn't differentiate between a license-compliant copy and a non-compliant one. The instructions, however, are in dire need of copyedit: it says to use BackwardsCopyVio when the re-user is confirmed to be in violation, and NotACopyVio when it is not. But both of those are just RDs to BackwardsCopy with no hidden cats or anything... CrowCaw 23:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of blocking threats - let's be nice[edit]

(Also posted in blocking) I recently created an article that in the opinion of another editor was a breach of copyright. Perhaps it was ... but I had a good reason in my own mind and felt it was fair use ... which is a separate point. Point is I did it in good faith, please take my word for it. Then one day I got this message, threatening blocking:

  • Copyright problem icon Your addition to xxxyyyxxx has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — User:somexxxuseryyy🍁 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It felt unpleasant. If someone can give some thought to how we can be a bit more pleasant to each other would be good.Supcmd (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

With more specifics provided, you will get more specific feedback. I'm sure we all can look at the history of your talk page and see who said what when, and so then we can get to the why and how. Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks ... point was not so much specifics of my case (as a side note I had copied the vision and objectives of an intergovernmental organisation that was in the treaty and published publically, technically copyright but intended for dissemination, so I thought, and it gave the reader an idea of what the org was about from the horse's mouth) but even if I was in error and had breached copyright... just the template response felt unpleasant and was wondering if it could be improved as a matter of principle as it felt negative and threatening and could discourage wikipedians from legitimate contributions.Supcmd (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of a full <=140 character Twitter message a copyvio?[edit]

At Milkshake Duck, a meme started by a Twitter message (as well-documented in sources), it would seem to make sense to include the attributable Twitter message in full since the joke is partially based on how the text message was given. Technically this is the "whole work" if we're talking fair use issues, but it's also a tiny work and one that makes no sense to try to quote only part of (we can paraphrase though). Is it reasonable that as long as we include all relevant citations to include the full <=140 character Twitter message? --MASEM (t) 16:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)