Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Legality of Referring to Flickr Images

I wanted to ask if all the images located here [1] are infringing or circumventing Wikipedia's image copyright vetting system, by referencing them to Flickr. The images were originally uploaded directly to wikipedia, but the copyright status was questioned [2] and hence the uploader had changed the rationale to point to Flicker [3]. I am completely new to this and wanted to get some external input. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to accept all flickr license claims. If there is doubt, as there obviously is in this case we usually consider them copyvios. If the wikipedian involved was the one who uploaded them to flickr I would suggest you bring this up somewhere I'm pretty sure it will violate one or more policies Nil Einne (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

External link question

Is a link to a website like this which automatically redirects to any other webpage considered a link only to ultimod or is it considered a link to the redirected webpage?-- 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

i writed here: i have writed: hello. why not to make something like but not with google because it is not gnu fdl or compatible but with nasa maps which are public domain, but they unfortunately dont have web api, i consider, do they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#CC-by content permanent link for some discussion about using CC-by text in articles. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Stupid question about trademarks

Sorry about asking this really stupid question, but I just didn't see it mentioned on the page anywhere. What part of the GFDL license allows us to talk about things like "Apple computers" or "Star Wars"? Aren't these things copyrighted? Don't we then have to provide a fair use rationale every time they are mentioned, like we do for copyrighted images? Esn (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Copyright is not the same thing as trademark. Names like "Apple Computer" and "Star Wars" are trademarked, but that just means you can't use the names in a way that would create confusion about the source of goods or services. As an example, I can talk about "Apple computers" all I want, but I can't build a computer and sell it as an "Apple computer". Further, trademarks are usually limited to a specific area of commerce, so it's quite possible for Apple Computer and Apple Records to be two different companies without infringing on each other's trademarks. --Carnildo (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. So as long as it's impossible to mistake the text on wikipedia for the thing that the word describes, it should be fine. Esn (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hehehe! The Apple computers/Apple records example was actually a terrible one to pick since they have been going back and forth through the courts over this exact thing for decades! They originally came to an agreement that Apple computers could still be Apple (despite Apple records using the name first) - PROVIDING that Apple computers didn't get into the music business...which is why they've been back in court so many times since! My personal favorite is the old DEC 'VAX' computer and the British 'VAX' vacuum cleaner...they got along just fine sharing a completely non-confusing name - right up to the point when the vacuum cleaner guys started an advertising campaign that said something to the effect that "VAXes really suck"....<sigh>. But aside from poor choices of example. Carnildo is exactly correct. SteveBaker (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wild Boys (novel)

in the article The Wild Boys (novel) was a copy of a work from Alfred Kazin [4] i did a revert to the last version were it was not included. could someone please look if it is ok now? Elvis (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Photographs of posters?

I ran across this today, and would like to know how this falls with regards to the copyright policy: Someone takes a photograph of a poster, and uploads it as their own work, copyright themselves. Image:Cunard-MenThatCount.jpg. I was under the impression that photographs of two-dimensional images did not create a new copyright, (i.e., to take a photograph of a book cover, or CD cover, does not make that copyright-free, correct?) but since the poster is from the 1930s, I thought I would check if there are other circumstances that make this a new copyrighted image. Thanks in advance, ArielGold 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ariel, I think you're on the money. If it was before 1923 in the US, there's be a case to be made, but "fair use" is the only use for what you describe. -Pete (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It depends on whether a copyright was registered, renewed, etc... not an easy thing to find out. --NE2 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

questionable image use

Interesting discussion underway, that could use more input. Nutshell: blogger posted a photo of himself with a celebrity on Flickr, under CC/SA. Wikipedia editor contacted him in a friendly gesture, to let him know we were going to use it on Wikipedia. Photo owner has expressed strong preference that the photo not be cropped (even though the license allows cropping.) Photo is valuable to the article if cropped, but pretty useless if not. So, do we go by the letter of the license, or the spirit of the owner's desires? If we decide not to crop, should we even consider it "free," or should it be removed from Wikimedia servers altogether? Please comment over there. -Pete (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The honest and fair thing to do (what I would do) is to go back to the original copyright owner, explain that he may have misconstrued the meaning of the CC/SA and offer to delete the image if he really wouldn't have given away the image otherwise. However, if someone else comes along either before or afterwards and puts it back and crops the image anyway - the guy has no leg to stand on. Failing to read the details of the license terms is his fault - not ours. If we keep the image - then it should most certainly be cropped because it's a free image and nobody has a right to dictate to others what should be done to it. I had this situation a while ago with someone who offered me a free image with a web site address written across the bottom of it. He agreed to release it under GFDL - making no stipulation about leaving the URL on it. I very carefully painted it out and the guy was most unhappy because he didn't think I'd be able to do that and had only released it under GFDL under the expectation that he'd get some free publicity from it. I explained that Wikipedia isn't allowed to give away free publicity - and gave him the offer of withdrawing the image. In the end, he agreed to leave it with us - but he wasn't AT ALL happy about it. SteveBaker (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Images from YouTube

My understanding is that linking to YouTube videos that are illegally being hosted (due to the copyright owner not giving permission for them to be uploaded). My concern is over Image:Beefcake shaves Adonis.jpg and Image:Hogan slams Andre.jpg. They are currently being used in WrestleMania III. WWE has never given YouTube permission to host their videos and has actually gotten them taken down in the past. To me, these images either should be removed or at least replaced by screencaps from the DVD release of the event (since the event has been released twice on DVD).

I have been discussing this with the uploader of the pics, and he is asking if he can list the DVD as the source for these images. I don't feel that would be acceptable though since the images came from YouTube. He also says they are acceptable under WP:FU, but doesn't that only cover the use of the images and not the source of them? What should I do about the pics? Maybe nominate them for deletion? TJ Spyke 06:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters where the image comes from - providing we can justify it under all 10 conditions of WP:FU. We shouldn't misrepresent where we got it from though. WP:FU lays it all out fairly straightforwardly. SteveBaker (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With Permission

I was given permission by the webmaster of a site to post copyrighted information, but it was deleted. Is there any way to bypass this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feilen (talkcontribs) 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. "By permission" images aren't free content, and Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia. See User:Carnildo/Image FAQ for more information. --Carnildo (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "given permission". If the copyright owner said (in writing) "I hereby licence this image under GFDL" or "I hereby place this image into the public domain" - then there is no problem. If he said "Sure, you can post it on Wikipedia" - then that's NOT GOOD. The deal is that other web sites are allowed to copy Wikipedia (and many do this) - and in so doing, they have an expectation of being able to copy the images too. If permission was only granted to Wikipedia - then that's no good. You might still be able to justify using the image under 'fair use' - but you have to be very careful to follow the guidelines in that case. See WP:FU for details. SteveBaker (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

École secondaire catholique Garneau

I was wondering about Image:Garneau Logo.jpg which I uploaded. My questions are elaborated within the fair use rational. Could this image perhaps be free? I think I kind of answered my question but another opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. --CyclePat (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ford car company claim copyrights over photos people took of their own cars.

This has been all over the car-nut blogosphere today: The Ford motor company have sent cease & desist letters to several car clubs who sell calendars containing photographs of their members cars claiming that Ford own the copyright on all images of their vehicles.

Here is a link to one car club who took the time to get the details of Ford's policy: - it kinda looks like Ford is only going after people who are making a profit from selling photos...but what they actually say doesn't limit it to that. It's really getting silly when you can't take a photo of your own car!

Is there validity to their claim? Ought we to be pulling all photos of Ford cars out of Commons and relabelling the rest under fair-use (where applicable)?

SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it, cars are "utility objects", meaning that they always have to be "car shaped" and can't show enough creativity in their design to be copyrightable. If this is the case, I doubt Ford's actions are justifiable. Can someone clarify this? Papa November (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
They're claiming trademark infringement. Since we're not selling cars, nor are we using the Ford name or appearance to sell anything, this doesn't apply to us. --Carnildo (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: For those interested, we came to an understanding with Ford directly, and resolved the issue. You can read the details here:

I am the Webmaster there.

PKRWUD (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Flight nurse

It's a direct copy of flight nurse but it's a US Government site. If it is a violation then a redirect to nurse would probably be the best. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Europe and Israel

The article on Europe and Israel copies sections of a paper that is marked as 'please do not quote without author's permission' (reference link). I know the author and I know that she did not give permission to quote from it, let alone to copy whole passages of it into a wiki. Anyone taking care of that? Ruth ds (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for all countries, but in the United States, fair use is a right, not a privilege. The author or publisher has no authority to prevent others from quoting him, her, or it, provided the quotation falls within fair use. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying linking to copyright variations

We've run into a gray area over on the Anime and Manga Project - there are a couple of sites sometimes used as sources which contain information about fansubs. One site (animenfo) merely contains the name of the group fansubbing a series, and a record of what progress they've made, but no other links. The other site (animeDB) seems to contain links to those fansubbers websites. I tend to feel like we should not be linking to either of these, but the current policy seems to suggest it is only a problem if we are linking to the fansub directly. Doceirias (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, the relevant policy WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works says "if you know 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." as well as "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." The sites in question do not carry any work in violation of the creator's copyright, nor they distribute said material. It seems clear these sites are not violating the policy as it is, but there are different opinions, so what should we do? Kazu-kun (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While technically the site "skirts" the law, I feel it should not be linked to. Both contain direct links to fansubber websites download pages and clearly advocate the downloading of fansubs. Linking to such sites violates the spirit of the policy, even if it does not directly violate the letter. Perhaps the policy needs to be updated take a stricter stance or more clearly note that linking to sites actively encouraging the distribution of copyrighted material is also inappropriate. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel like this is a really important issue; could we get some comments on it, please? Doceirias (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that can be done, AnmaFinotera. The sole purpose of this policy is to apply the relevant law. Let's take a look at Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry#Impact:
"It is clear that should the transitivity be assured, virtually not a single website would be eligible for linking, as the copyright infringement can occur in user comments (while quoting without attribution) or in links, provided by users (when linking to a material that was published without copyright owner's permission). Therefore, as long as a link leads to a material legally published, the link should be considered valid."
We link to reviews and interviews, which is "material legally published". It doesn't matter if the site has links to other sites with "copyright infringement", as long as we're not linking directly to the site with the infringement. And as Copyright infringement explains, infringements are works in violation of the creator's copyright. Altering the policy disregarding the law, just because editors think so... It doesn't make sense to me. Kazu-kun (talk) 16:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between a site that is very obviously and deliberately linking to copyvio material, and one where links may inadvertantly exist through user comments, and places like YouTube or eBay where copyvio exists, but is policied and removed when found. All of the sites being discussed very clearly fall into the first one: they link to and give the appearance of advocating stealing copyrighted works.AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
An scanlation (or fansub) site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright. That's a copyright infringement. A site linking to one of those sites is not. Unless a site is directly linking to the illegal files, there's not violation. The comment about "links provided by users" refers to those kind of links: links to files. We're talking about sites that don't link to any file, don't carry a work in violation of the creator's copyright. This is the range our policy applies to, because this is the range stipulated by the law. If we go beyond that, the policy would lose its meaning, as it wouldn't be doing what it's supposed to do; apply the relevant law. I concede that sites like fall under the policy because they directly link to torrent files (which having been made by scanlators, constitute by themselves a work in violation of the creator's copyright). But sites such as animenfo don't do this, and therefore they're not doing any kind of copyvio. Kazu-kun (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Providing all the information necessary to google up the illegal files is every bit as bad as directly linking to them. I can't see your arguments as anything but trying to justify unethical behavior on a technicality. Doceirias (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see you know what assume good faith means. Anyway, the policy exists not only to tell us what to remove, but also what not to remove. Doing things your way while disregarding this... that's unethical. Kazu-kun (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if that came across as personal; I intended to point out the logical flaw in your argument. The behavior of the websites is unethical; you're using a strict interpretation of the guideline to insist on allowing links to those unethical websites based on a technicality. I think the spirit of the guideline clearly suggests we should not be linking to websites that encourage copyright violation, but since you're insisting that the current wording does not allow us to remove these links, then I am trying to find out if people without a vested interest in the anime and manga project actually think about the issue. If your interpretation of the guideline is correct (and it probably is) then I believe we should change the guideline. I brought it here so we could find out what the people who made the guideline in the first place actually think about it, not so that we could rehash the argument we already had on the talk page. Doceirias (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not so much the policy, but the actual law what I'm concerned about. My point is just that it's up to the law to define what is copybio, not to us wikipedia editors. After all the very reason we remove sites and keep such content from wikipedia, is because there's a law defining the concept of Copyrights, and defining what kind of content/links constitute an infringement to that concept. The policy exists to tell us the best way to apply that law. If people here think there's a better way to apply the law, I'm more than willing to listen. Still, I don't think the policy should be altered just because some people feel a few links are not suited for wikipedia; that's not the purpose of this policy. If it has to be altered, then the reason must be to better address our current Copyrights law, and only for that reason. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How close a paraphrase is too close a paraphrase?

I have recently encountered an articles whose content credits as a source something which it also seems to resemble very, very closely in terms of content. In fact, in a few instances, there are only differences of some punctuation and a few words between individual sentences of both articles. This leads to my asking the question which is the headline of this section. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If only minor changes are made, it isn't paraphrasing its plagiarism and a COPYVIO violation. Unfortunately, the main time I see that done is someone trying to avoid getting hit by the bot that usually catches pure copying from another site. I'd either clear the content or tag for the issue if that is the entire article and an earlier, pre-plagiarism version is unavailable.AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The article in question is Vijayanagara musicological nonet, and it seems that the plagarism was there from the very first edit. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
How much of the article is it? If its a section, clear the section...otherwise, I'd either stubbify, or have an admin delete and recreate with any non-copyvio info to get rid of all the plagiarized history. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote that article. The article is far from cpvio. Certainly nothing that is remotely so bad as a bot would pick or that would merit a precipitous deletion. Admittedly, some sentences got through the cracks under paraphrased. In few instances, purely technical vocabulary has been imported intact. However, an example of what is being claimed as cpvio by Carter and what concerns me is below --
The source reads -
I paraphrased it as -
Now, how is that a cpvio? Sarvagnya 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In response, the phrases "laid the foundations of modern Carnatic music from Tanjore about a century later" and "made foundational contributions from Tanjore about a century later" contain at least one identical clause, and both seem to contain exactly the same content after the initial verb. Plagarism also counts as a copyvio by wikipedia purposes, I believe, as per that page, and I think that can be fairly clearly, as per US law, which has to be considerd, plagarism. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict response) I am an admin, actually, but I haven't done this before. The creator of the page insists that it is just "underparaphrased", but I've so far found basically most of the rather large article, based on the work of an academic, is substantially lifted from the source. I've detailed the findings I've seen so far today on the articles talk page here. I've listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, though. John Carter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
But John, the problem is - you make this assertion about copyvios, but nothing you've come up with until now on that talk page that is consistent with your claim that most of the article is substantially lifted from the source. Gnanapiti (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. I am acting on the basis of the claims of plagarism which were made and substantiated against Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin which said that even the copying of a single sentence which wasn't, as it were, the only obvious phrasing would constitute plagarism. I think I've produced examples which indicate that several sentences were lifted almost completely, dropping a word or phrase. And, clearly, almost all the content came from a single source, so, in effect, all the content was "lifted" from that source, (the word wasn't meant perjoratively, at least as I remember), and there do seem to be, at least to date, clear evidence that in virtually each section (at least, every section I've reviewed), there were what I think would fairly clearly qualify as plagarism, and thus copyvio, as per the two above precedents, which was, as I remember it, that the content was clearly taken directly from the source, and perhaps modified slightly thereafter. As I remember from school, cases where only a word or two in a sentence were altered would count as plagarism as well, and there are several examples of that, although I admit I can't produce direct evidence to verify that at this moment, not being around a law school here. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Plagiarism, in the simple sense of the word refers to somebody flicking stuff from another source and passing it on (paraphrased or unparaphrased) without appropriate attribution. Not to mention, in cases like the ones you mention above, there is also a financial reward involved too. This article neither tries to appropriate credit for itself nor is it an attempt at any financial reward. What constitutes plagiarism in the legal sense, however is another matter and I do not have reason to believe that you for one, could be a good judge of that. Even in the cases you mention above, irrelevant as they are, I dont see where the said 'plagiarism' is held as being against the law (it may well be, but your examples provide us with no such evidence). Sarvagnya 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
However, the simple sense of the word is not the legal sense of the word, and copyright violation is a legal matter, so it should be viewed in that sense, not in one which you happen to find more amenable to your current position. I would have assumed you knew the difference. And it is a very open question whether you have properly attributed anything in that article, with only two footnotes for an article of that length. John Carter (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know how this has resolved yet and I have not compared the works, however, I agree with John generally regarding the principles involved. If you think it's a copyvio but you're not sure enough that it's a blatant violation to speedy delete it, you should blank the page and replace it with {{copyvio|url}}. The page will then get listed at WP:CV where it can be further investigated/discussed. The above is an example of the problems of using only one source (again, just based on what I've read in this thread).--Doug.(talk contribs) 06:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Proviso, however, you have a dialog with the editor who has posted it going, it should be taking place on the article's talk page but I would hold off on blanking as long as there is a dialog unless the violation is pretty clear. You could ask for a third opinion - but maybe that's what this is :-). I'll take a look shortly and see if this resolved.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying partial information for each item of a list presumably compiled employing creativity

I'd like your opinions on more or less complete listings in Democracy Index. My question concerns the inclusion of a list of all the countries from the original, in the ranking and with the total rating and classification given there, but copying neither layout nor the finer ratings given. So, I've two questions:

  1. Is it OK from copyright point of view to retain the list as it is?
  2. If not, what is the minimum we should remove?

Summary of facts:

  • Source: The Democracy Index was compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit on behalf of the journal The Economist, and is available on line in a pdf report. In it, 167 countries are evaluated with respect to their degree of democracy, and listed by decreasing overall value. In fact, each country was given five values in different categories, and the average of these was listed as the "overall score" or democracy index. Both the category and the overall scores are given on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher marks interpreted as "more democratic". E.g., the United States are given the scores 8.75, 7.86, 7.22, 8.75, and 8.53, in the categories "Electoral process and pluralism", "Functioning of government", "Political participation", "Political culture", and "Civil liberties", respectively; yielding the "overall score" 8.22, the ranking as number 17 from top, and placement in the category "Full democracies" - barely, since the criterion for this is to have an overall index of at least 8.0, when rounded to one digit. The five category scores for a country are based on the answers of in total 60 questions; these are summed up in the different categories, but also somewhat modified.
    A large part of the 11 page report is taken up with discussion of the methodology; why some kinds of questions were included, but not others; and why the questions had few alternatives, as contrasted with the methodology of the similar index of Freedom House. My impression is that this hardly could be considered as "just a compilation of facts".
  • Copyright: The pdf report seems not to have an explicit copyright notice. However, The Economist provides general copyright notes and terms of usage, which I suppose are applicable, and seem not to be GFDL-compatible. (Some free individual usage for non-profit purposes is granted.)
  • The wikipedia article: Only part of the information is copied. The order of countries is retained, and so are the order numbers, the overall scores (or "index"), and the "categories"; but the layout is rather different (e.g., including a flag, and with the items grouped differently). E.g., the "US" item of the report is represented thus:
17  United States 8.22 Functioning democracy

I don't know much about copyright laws. I guess that the report isn't free to reproduce as such; but even if this is the case, I have no real idea whether or not the indices and the actual order of countries in itself are copyright protected. However, the possibility worries me a bit.-JoergenB (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An image with an improper license given its source

Please see Image talk:Five-legged-horse.jpg. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with editors who copy from their own books?

Obviously, the writer posting alone would fail WP:OR, but assuming one could get the authors consent, would it all right for someone else to post chunks of the same material? How should one deal with Special:Contributions/Dilmener, who appears to be the actual writer? I know it might be an impostor, but assuming one could verify independently the identity… --Adoniscik (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He's citing a published work, which is apparently somewhat reliable, I'm guessing? By WP:COS, he's perfectly free to do that, as long as he limits himself to material from the published book. If he adds material not contained in the book, that's different, and WP:COI might still be a factor as well. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with John, you also have to consider citing the work is not a copyright issue to begin with but if he's posting whole chunks, it is important to verify whether the author retained sufficient rights to grant a GFDL compatible license. Often the book publisher retains the rights or so many of them that the author wouldn't have enough to grant a GFDL license. Periodicals on the other hand would normally only give first serial rights (often limited to a particular region - such as North America) so the author would normally retain plenty of rights. The best thing is to ask the editor, if he says he owns the rights, you should ensure he knows what rights he owns (very politely as asking this could be kind of insulting "of course I know $@$#!$@##!"). You don't normally need to check up on the editor, we can normally rely on the editor's assertions - short of contacting the publisher it would be very difficult to verify. If the editor turns out not to own sufficient (or any) rights, the rightful holder will eventually let us know and we'll delete the material.--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I took a look and posted a question about this on the article talk page and the editor's talk page.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

External Site Not Following GDFL?

This is a straight copy job from Saint Patrick's Day but I can't find a GDFL notice anywhere on the external page. Not sure what is the proper procedure (if there is one). --NeilN talkcontribs 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter, essentially the authors of the page have to enforce their copyrights if it comes down to it. Wikipedia doesn't own the copyrights, the authors do.--Doug.(talk contribs) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of transcribed public domain works

I came across an editor who has been removing text from a number of articles, claiming copyright violation. But this case is a little tangled and I'd like to get other opinions before I dive in too far. The text itself is taken from a book published in 1868, which is clearly in the public domain. The book is relatively rare. A person called Colin Hinson has transcribed the book and published it on his website. He is claiming copyright over the transcribed work, see [5]. Excerpts from the book have been added to a number of Wikipedia articles, and an IP editor (who is very likely Mr. Hinson, as he claims) has been removing them claiming copyright - for example [6]. My limited understanding of copyright law is that a transcribed copy of a public domain work does not create a new copyright, since it does not count as a derived work. Therefore editors should be able to copy the transcribed text of the original into Wikipedia articles.

Could anyone clarify this situation? I have invited Mr. Hinson to take part in this discussion. Thanks, Gwernol 14:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple issues here. Mr. Hinson, who apparently lives in the UK, appears to be relying on UK law. The UK is among the most liberal jurisdictions for creating copyright on the basis of effort rather than on the basis of creativity. Though I have not looked at his content in detail, the actions he describes to copy public domain text (even while making small changes in spelling and grammar), would not create a copyright in the US. (This strikes at the heart of Corel v. Bridgeman, even though that was about art and this is about text.) However, many observers believe Corel v. Bridgeman would have been decided differently in the UK, and that copyright there can be awarded on the basis of effort. This is a largely untested legal theory, but means his assertions may be plausible in the UK.
The other issue he raises is database rights. Europe (and the UK) have expansive database rights provisions that are distinct from copyright. The US has no explicit database right, and only recognizes a more narrowly drawn compilation copyright. However, even in the UK, violation of database rights requires "substantial" copying. "Substantial" is not explicitly defined, but almost certainly requires at least 10% be copied (and probably quite a bit more). In the US, because of the narrow way the right is constructed, one would be hard pressed to ever violate his compilation copyright, even if you copied nearly everything into Wikipedia.
In my opinion, the claims he makes are plainly invalid in the US. They may be valid in the UK (though even there several of the issues are largely untested in case law and not a sure thing). The WMF intentionally has no assets in the UK, and in my opinion the risk to the WMF, Wikipedia, etc. is zero and the continued use of this material would be entirely consistent with US law. However, Wikipedia does have a history of trying to respect claims in the originating jurisdiction. So I'm not going to express a firm position on what should be done.
One option would be to acquire independent access to the original public domain works and simply cut any claims by Mr. Hinson out of the loop. Dragons flight (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from Colin Hinson. To verify that I am who I say I am, you might like to check the domain allocated to my IP address and email that domain in the format xxxx999* where xxxx is anything you care to put. I have no objection whatsoever to anyone transcribing the works that I have already done. They will of course in general have to pay to obtain the relevant books and then spend the time transcribing them. It would be much easier to simply link to the original (as has been done on many Wikipedia pages) and thus avoid all the hassle (just search for my name on Wikipedia pages). There is no reason whatsoever that I can think of to have two copies of the same thing available on the web. Under UK law, my transcriptions are well protected. If you really want them on Wikipedia, then you are going to have to prevent them being visible in the UK and I don't really see how you are going to do this selectively. May I suggest that a summary of the information is presented on Wikipedia and then a link made to the information available on the Genuki site ( in the references for the relevant pages, but please do not copy. Your reference to 10% is 10% of any given extraction from my database. As the information copied to Wikipedia represent 100% of the extraction on any given page, this is well over the 10% which may be allowed under fair use, however fair use only applies to reviews and educational research, and Wikipedia is neither of these.

I get extremely annoyed by people copying information for which I have paid in both time and money: regardless of the laws in the US - the information is being copied from a UK site. You are very welcome to contact me direct - an email to xxxx999* will find me (where xxxx is anything you care to invent). Best regards, Colin Hinson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify one point: Database rights protect the integrity of a database as a whole, not individual entries. The 10% that I reference implies copying 10% of ALL entries not 10% of one entry. Entries themselves may be additionally protected by copyright, but that is distinct from database rights. The situation for copyright is discussed in my previous post above. Also, I didn't touch on fair use (which is a US concept that can be applied quite generally to non-commercial educational resources and would generally protect Wikipedia in the US except that the issue is moot since the entries in question are inelligble for copyright in the US). The analogous UK concept is fair dealing, which in most cases would not apply on Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No, actually we don't have to protect them from being viewed in the UK. Lawyers for Project Gutenberg have answered to the heirs of the likes of Hermann Hess, and despite all the furor, Siddhartha (novel) remains online accessible to Americans, British, and Germans alike.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So, as I understand it then, I can pay for the relevant books, do the transcription, hold the information in my databases, write the software to do the extraction and publish the result on the Genuki web-site, and you and others can just come along and steal this work without even bothering to ask permission? And then when I come along and remove the items I'm accused of vandalism. You have some very strange laws which you are operating under! Regardless of the laws, would it not be much more ethical simply to add a link to the original information thereby removing all the arguments? Regards, Colin Hinson.

Electro-magnetic therapeutic system

{{helpme}} I'm working on EMF producing device patent by Dr. Drolet. Which can be found in the present article Electro-magnetic therapeutic system. Anyways... I found the birthdate of Mr. Drolet on this Parish's website. here. However, they claim copyright of the text. Can we use even a part of it? --CyclePat (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% on this, but I'll try to answer. His birth date obviously isn't copyrighted, but that page as a source is, so you could use the birth date but not use the site as a source. However, if the date is ever contested, you will need to find a source for it other than that one. I'm not positive though so I'll leave the helpme tag here. Voyaging (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect; there is no problem with us using that page as a source. Copyright applies to the text itself, not the information contained in the text. Put simply, we are certainly allowed to use the page as a source. Pretty much every source we use on Wikipedia is copyrighted. What we are not allowed to do is copy large sections of the text word for word. Since all you are using is the birth date, there will be no problem. Raven4x4x (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Voyagin and Raven4x4x for your answers. You've both been quite helpfull in answer my question. --CyclePat (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of public-interest newspaper articles etc. hosted without license – to link or not to link?

Please see the discussion here and help establish consensus. Jayen466 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What distinguishes an internet archive?

Does anybody know the history behind the "internet archive" exception when linking to copyrighted works? As part of the question about, I'm trying to figure out if a topic-specific, manually curated archive would qualify just as well if they heed similar limitations, like the request of rightsholders, and have a similar non-profit purpose. In my view the answer's yes, but some people differ. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be best off asking a lawyer. --Carnildo (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to do that if necessary, but that will probably cost me $500-1000, and more if I'm not fully prepared. So I'd like to first find out why we put the exception in our rules. Note that I favor it, BTW, but other people have expressed the theory that we should not link to any republishing of copyrighted material, and I'd like to clear this up. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless I am misreading the history, the exception is there because Greenrd (talk · contribs) and Centrx (talk · contribs) thought it was a good idea in April 2007. There does not appear to have been any serious discussion at the time. Dragons flight (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Looking at the number of links to and, it looks like their view is widespread, and the lack of dispute seems to confirm that. I'm content with that state of affairs. If it turns out somebody gets upset about this in the future, people should feel free to pull me back in. If it gets to the stage of needing a legal opinion, I'm perfectly willing to go pay for one. William Pietri (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverse copyvio

In other words, when other websites copy Wikipedia content without the appropriate application of GFDL to the derivative work or acknowledgment of the source. I thought there was somewhere to report this kind of thing, but can't find it now. Anyone? 4u1e (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Garion96 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm thinking more of news sites that have lifted paragraphs and sentences, rather than reproducing the whole article. In any case, it looks like we have to chase things up individually. 4u1e (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


I've re-added full protection. This is one of the most important pages on the project. If changes are necessary, they can of course be addressed on talk. Since semi-protection in April 2007, there has been a few instances of vandalism, including [7], [8]. Superm401 - Talk 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This protection looks as though it is protecting spam as well. Re: Under UK Copyright the sentance which runs The legal basis is the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, and subsequent modifications and revisions, details at "Jenkins IP". --Aspro (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Query about Indonesian government publications

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems where I got no response.)

According to this Indonesian law (Article 14, (b)), any Indonesian government publication is not copyrighted unless otherwise specifically noted on the publication itself. My questions:

  • Is "no infringement of copyright" equivalent to "public domain" in this case?
  • Are Indonesian government publications allowed in WP, similar to other countries that release their government publications to the public domain (e.g. U.S.)?
  • Is this information about WP policy regarding Indonesian government publications posted somewhere?
  • Is there a better place to ask such questions?

Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Not imposible that there could be ussues with derivatives. Also the "except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation" because it is posible there is such a law but we've missed it.Geni 02:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we'd need to assume that unless we are aware of a published exception, it doesn't exist. Derivatives are not addressed, but I am not sure they are addressed in the U.S. government case, where we routinely use its material. And presumably the U.S. could also have some special copyright for some specific work (e.g. one that involves a sub-contractor) and we still accept them. So is there any visible difference between the Indonesian situation, as declared by the linked law, and U.S. government public domain material? Crum375 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I would tend towards there being no difference (although section C seems unusualy liberal). It would appear that such material may well be public domain. A complication is that the linked document is likely a translation with the original law in Indonesian. So while it would appear that Indonesian gov images are PD I would like to see if the Indonesian gov could be contacted on the issue.Geni 21:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to te.wikipedia

Please add the following link to the list of interwiki links in the page te:వికీపీడియా:కాపీహక్కులు. Thanks in advance. __Mpradeep (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Revolving Bugbear 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Copyright Violations

I'm trying to understand the intent behind these lines here :

However, if you know 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. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]).

What if a site contains relevant and unique information, but also contains suspected or known copyright violations. In the section of policy I just quoted, the only thing strictly prohibited is linking directly to the work, but the next sentence says that linking to the site would leave WP liable, which presumably means we shouldn't do that either. But it doesn't strictly say that, it leaves that ambiguous.

I'm asking in regards to this where someone has apparently refrained from even mentioning a relevant hardware product because the manufacturer also distributes pirated games.

Thanks. APL (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Images from a website uploaded by an user as GPL images

I want to bring something that pop-up on my watch list. User:Khmer M16 have been uploading pictures from a Chinese website. From the organization of the website, I suspect that the website is a personal/hobbyist website (therefore does not have relicensing rights). The images are all uploaded as GFDL. I have no knowledge on how to verify or disprove that. I was wondering if someone can tell me how to handle those images. Or redirect me to a place on Wikipedia that handles this kind of stuff. --Voidvector (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Super transformation

I'd like for someone to take a look at this edit. Are there not too many copyrighted images on the page? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Governments

Not sure if this is the correct place to ask. I have been writing articles on Mexican drug traffickers. I typically find that Mexican government websites have pictures for these people, however US government sites do not. What I want to know is if the same rules for the US Government apply to the Mexican government, or how I can find out. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. The US federal government is unique in placing all its works in the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fitness images with a specific attribution requirement

I have a question related to several images recently added to the Personal trainer article. These are pretty high quality images that from an Australian fitness company. An example is: Image:Personal trainer assisting and correcting a client during a fitball stretching exercise.jpg. Originally these were uploaded for any use, with the restriction that a link back to the copyright holder's website was added as attribution. However the restriction was that the link must not use the rel=nofollow tag. Of course this meant that we could not use the images on Wikipedia since all our links have re=nofollow on them. The uploader has since updated the restriction to say"(wikipedia excepted)", after I contacted him. Are these images now okay to use in articles? While the exception means that Wikipedia can use them, are we okay with putting this restriction on mirror sites and other downstream users of the image? Thanks, Gwernol 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. Since the image is on Commons, you might bring it up on commons:Commons:Village pump‎ --Carnildo (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't ordinarily permit users to add any extra restrictions to the free licenses (but we will let them say if they want to be attributed with a web link). It won't do for them to have one license for us and another for other people; if their license for everyone else isn't free we shouldn't use the images. But it's a matter for commons, like Carnildo says, if that's where the images are being hosted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I raised this at commons. [9] — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the input, both. Gwernol 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of US and UK needs standardising

In the article, there are instances of "U.S." and "UK". It should be "US" and "UK", to keep it standard. As the article is protected, I cannot change it - so can someone else please do so? Thanks! Avengah (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Google earth

What is the copyright status of images from Google Earth and Google Maps?Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, they are unfree. Google licenses much of their imagery from third party providers of aerial and satellite photography. Dragons flight (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well would you know any similar source from where I can get images of earth copyright free? I'd prefer a site where I can simply type in the latitude and longitude to get the image.Bless sins (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
NASA WorldWind Lqp (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't this mean that it is copyright free? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it means that they are licensed for limited non-commercial use. Which isn't good enough for us. Dragons flight (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


The template {{GFDL-1.2}} has been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 20#GFDL-1.2 nomination. As this is a controversial issue, I'm bring it to users attention here in order that a wider consensus can be reached. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:MATADOR cutaway diagram.JPG

As per the discussion on the page of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 19#Image:MATADOR_cutaway_diagram.JPG, this was a newspaper clipping scanned, cropped and translated by me for use on the page of MATADOR (weapon). As there are no equivalent sample that might illustrate the subject in question here on wikipedia as I understand it, what I have done is effectively created a derivative work, based on the original newspaper clippings, solely for use here and here only. My question now is, can any kind folks help advice me on the proper course to take in licensing or providing a sound workable fairuse rationale for using this image? Thank you all in advance. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is to find someone to draw up a replacement. That image doesn't meet our requirements for non-free images, and is possibly a copyright violation as well. You could try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures or commons:Commons:Picture requests. --Carnildo (talk)

Outdated reference

Please remove stupid reference to the "Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry" court case.This case was vacated eight years ago, besides the fact it is mostly irrelevant. Wikipedia is encyclopedia. Inserting a blatant lie in the policy document is not a good policy, IMHO.Lqp (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The case was settled prior to final disposition but following the court's preliminary injuction. The fact that the parties reached an agreement that removed the need for continued court action does not remove the potential precedential value in showing how courts are likely to rule on similar issues. Dragons flight (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the case was settled. And one of major "material element" of settlement was dissolution of prior wrongful decision. In the same words and manner as if it was overturned by higer court. This case is no-op since 2001. Lqp (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Proposed addition to "Linking to copyrighted works"

I would like to add the following language to the bottom of the section "Linking to copyrighted works":

In articles about a website, it is to include acceptable to link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.

This seems okay as long as it's not done to circumvent the rule about linking directly to copyrighted work. Lately I've seen people argue we can't link to a site if it contains any copyvios anywhere. But ultimately most user-driven sites, be it YouTube or MySpace, do contain what Wikipedia would call copyvios... excluding a link is just impractical and a disservice to readers. I don't believe the policy currently discourages such links, but some people think it does, so a clarification is in order. --Rividian (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}} It's been proposed for a week and no replies... the above comment should clearly explain the apparently uncontroversial change I'd like to be made to this full-protected page. --Rividian (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Medieval images

The copyright on medieval images is thought to no longer exist. By "medieval" I mean more than 300 years ago. Am I correct in assuming this?

However, most of us don't have access to these images. So if these images are scanned from a book, and the book is copyrighted, would the images be still copyrighted?Bless sins (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No response?Bless sins (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If the images were published in a US book, and are of paintings or drawing (i.e. 2D art) then {{PD-art}} most probably applies. Statues, tapestries, peoples secret diaries are more complicated. Specifics questions earn specific answers. Megapixie (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I would think {{PD-art}} is available to the 2D images whether the book was published in US or not. Photographs of statuettes a copyrighted to the photogropher, so unless the photographer died 70+ years ago it is not public domain. Tapestries are probably 2D art. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree -- the distinction is that if significant creative effort (i.e., photographs of sculptures) was involved in the reproduction contained in the book, then copyright may be claimed, otherwise the reproductions are considered public domain like the originals. Scans of PD photographs are the main source of PD reproductions, but I'm guessing you're not dealing with those since cameras were barely beginning to emerge ~300 years ago. I don't think it would matter where the work was published. — xDanielx T/C\R 11:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all for your responses.Bless sins (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} I'd like to propose a pretty simple change. Wikipedia:Civility should be mentioned in the first dablink template, which relates to the WP:C shortcut.


  • {{dablink|[[WP:C]] redirects here. You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] (shortcut: [[WP:CON]]) or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council]] (shortcut: [[WP:COUNCIL]]).}}

Should be changed to this:

  • {{dablink|[[WP:C]] redirects here. You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] (shortcut: [[WP:CON]]), [[Wikipedia:Civility]] (shortcut: [[WP:CIV]]) or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council]] (shortcut: [[WP:COUNCIL]]).}}

That's all. :) Thanks for responding to the request. --JamieS93 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :D JamieS93 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Translations

Critical philosophy. Whilst this is not a new page (it was created back in 2001 (!)), at some point a large amount of material has been inserted verbatim from the English translation of Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. A copyvio template was put up, but the admin who looked at it as a result removed the template on the grounds that, as the Encyclopedia was published in 1830, it is by now in the public domain. Whilst this is true, that publication would have been in German; and the English translation (done by "William Wallace") would have been published much more recently (a quick Google suggests 1970?). Could someone more knowledgeable than me about Copyright law clarify the copyright status of translations -- i.e. "Is a translation of a public domain work still public domain"? I've replaced the copyright tag in case the answer is yes. -- simxp (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an attributed citation is a fair use as defined by the copyright law of the USA. We have many attributed citations in Wikipedia articles, no problems with this. The text of a modern translation is copyrighted to the translator unless he dies 70+ years ago Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Alex, look at the page, it's not a little quote but rather a 200 kb dump. And yes this is a copyright problem since the copyright of the translation is still in force. Dragons flight (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this License still valid?

I thought copyrighted images could not be used, except under Fair Use. Is the license used on this image valid? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You're confusing copyright, public domain, free content, and non-free content. The only thing that requires meeting the fair use criteria is copyrighted non-free material. --Carnildo (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Right. If a copyright-protected image is released under a license that's considered free (i.e., one listed here), then we don't worry about fair use. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


What about permission to use Wikimedia's official logos? This page doesn't address that. They're not under any free license and the first sentence says, "The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations" but this isn't completely true as they do own some illustrations such as the ones used to illustrate Wikipedia. Of course, most people would understand that anyway (at least the trademark part which gives the same result), but it goes on to say "It is therefore useless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce content." What about content they do own? I'm sure they would want someone who's planing to use the Wikipedia or Wikimedia logo to ask for permission first, right?

This is mostly for reusers, but there should also be something about where on this Wikipedia they can be used (and about derivatives). Also, I know where to report GFDL violations (i.e. license violations), but what about copyright violations? For example, the use of the logo on No one does anything about GFDL vios, but maybe something should be done as far as the logo goes. (I thought I was at real en.wp) Rocket000 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it stated multiple times that the en-wp logo is GFDL-governed, but I'm fairly certain this isn't the case. It was based off of Paul Stansifer's design and created by David Friedland, who transfered copyright ownership to the WMF. (See m:Logo.) As far as I know the WMF has fully retained its copyright status besides granting a handful of usage permissions on a case-by-case basis. So presumably if you wanted to use the logo, wmf:Contact us would be the place to go. (wmf:Wikimedia visual identity guidelines is sometimes cited as some kind of usage policy, but in its current state it's essentially just a style guide.) Hence an exception to "don't come to the WMF about image permissions." — xDanielx T/C\R 07:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard that the wp logo was originally uploaded as GFDL and rights later transferred to WMF, which of course doesn't negate the original license, but I believe that history's lost anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Brazil official websites, copyright status?

I wanted to see if anybody knew the copyright status of documents produced by official departments in Brazil.

The article Porto Alegre was listed at WP:Copyright problems, and on investigation I discovered that it did draw extensively from this source. An explicit statement on re-use there left no question that the duplication was inappropriate. I removed the text, which had been tagged nearly a month without being addressed, left a note at the article's talk page and left a note at the Brazil project requesting assistance. Earlier today, an editor restored some of that (again removed, with a note to him), copied some from another Wikipedia article and incorporated a huge chunk of this. That last would be unproblematic by copyright in the US, but I don't know about Brazil. Given the precedent of the US, I thought to leave it alone while I asked further feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The US Federal government (note: that's federal only, not state or local governments) is the only government in the world to release all their works into the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
So, then, I'll remove that, too, pending some show of permission. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism guideline

I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to copyright works under DMCA?

The thing is, the wikipedia, being a user-contributed site, has broad exceptions to avoiding violation of copyright under the DMCA. It seems to me that the wikipedia would not be liable for linking, provided they removed the link if a DMCA takedown notice was followed promptly. Comments?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if we assume that's true, users who knowingly link to copyright violations are not immune. And regardless of that, violating copyright is still something we should want to discourage even if we can escape liability. Dragons flight (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In some cases copyright works are on reputable sites such the Internet Archive or google video (rather than youtube). Where material has been uploaded and not removed for a long period (years) it would seem to be clear that they are not being actively served with takedown notices, and it would be highly unlikely that there is any issue.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not linking to "copyrighted works" it is linking to "known copyright violations". If a site legitimately hosts the content then that is fine. Also, the current text specifically exempts the Internet Archive (even though its legal status is somewhat ambiguous). Beyond that I don't think we should ever say: "this is a copyright violation, but the owner doesn't appear to have done anything about it, so we will infringe it as well". In Basic Books v. Kinko's, the court noted that a copyright owner's decision to not enforce their copyright for 20 years in no way deprived them of the ability to subsequently do so. Dragons flight (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course there's still an issue. Copyrights do not have to be actively enforced for the rights to be protected. At any time the copyright owner can switch from not actively serving takedown notices to serving takedown notices, or even skip straight through to lawsuits. We don't violate copyrights here if we can avoid it, but for legal and moral reasons. To say "oh, we should be able to get away with this violation because the owners don't seem to be watching" would be to lose whatever defense we might have that infringement was accidental -- without good faith efforts to avoid copyright problems our potential legal liabilities become far more severe. DreamGuy (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A DMCA takedown notice isn't compulsory; it's just a means of effecting a takedown without having to resort to litigation. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
True. If I said something that suggested otherwise, I am sorry for the confusion. DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is PubMed copyrighted?

In working on WP:DEP, I came across Thyrotoxic crisis, which is a copypaste from this PubMed article. I know US Federal Government stuff isn't copyrighted. Are articles on PubMed considered a non-copyrighted government publication, or is it simply a reprint of a copyrighted (by the authors) work? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. They've taken care of it over at WP:MED.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


The article Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time has been listed at WP:CP (on June 19). I'm whittling down the backlog there, but I'm not sure about the rules governing that one. I know that lists from public documents or common sources are not copyrighted in the US. This is not a public document or common source, though, but a magazine article. Names are not copyrightable--are lists of names? We didn't cover this in grad school. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A list with no originality (alphabetical list of all members type of thing) is not copyrightable. A list which involves decision-making (opinions on ranking) is copyrightable. The above-mentioned list is of this second sort and is copyrightable. Rmhermen (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Website hosting free full text of APA DSM-IV

WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:EL say we shouldn't knowingly link to copyright violations. Over the years (in places I can no longer find), there have been many discussions throughout Wikipedia about how seriously the American Psychiatric Association (APA) guards copyright on its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and cautioning Wiki editors against using full-text from the DSM. I've seen many discussions about how seriously the APA enforces its copyright. The following post is copied from Talk:Schizophrenia:

Free full text DSM-IV on Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders

Discussion of copyright issues

The release of the full-text from the APA hasn't been clarified. Is it our responsibility to track this down? Can we link to this site, and to what extent can we quote and cite it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's an interesting question. They reproduce the APA disclaimers, here. They have an impressive looking staff bio page, here. Of course, anybody could mock that up on the internet. Why they'd want to I don't know. If there is serious concern, maybe an e-mail to permissions AT apa DOT org would be helpful? It's technically for clearing copyright, but it's the best contact I could find for this, here. Probably some variation of WP:Permissions would work. I've written a number of agencies recently to clear copyright questions, and I find for the most part that our reputation precedes us. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. Just to be sure I'm clear, you're suggesting that someone should call or write to the APA, and request that they email some sort of clearance to permissions AT apa DOT org? This is out of my territory; any chance you would be interested in doing that?  :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking we could drop an e-mail to the APA's permissions address just to let them know what we're up to. I'll be happy to write the note. :) The website looks legitimate. I think checking on it isn't a bad idea, but I would think it best to present it to APA as a courtesy notice, more along the lines of "FYI, we're linking to this, and if through some miscommunication they do *not* have permission to display this material, please let us know so that we can immediately remove these links." What do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01 :49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind doing that, it would be very kind. I'm not able to explain our GFDL issues very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got lots of practice there recently. I'll shoot off a letter today. :) I won't be surprised if we don't get a follow-up, but, if we do, I'll let you know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much; it's very kind of you to do this work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

←My pleasure to pitch in where I can. :) As I said, I've been writing a lot of letters lately. This one is only a tad bit different. (And as an update, it went out about six hours ago; so far, no response.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy and Moon - thank you for helping to get this cleared up. I'm going to proceed with putting up a proposal on our talk page for DSM-IV linking, identifying our materials and where most of the relevant Wiki articles are as a starting point, plus some other thoughts. Once we get this done, it will be great to get any feedback you may have. If you want a specific email address at the APA in licensing, let me know. Otherwise, I'll wait to hear from you. Mindsite (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) I appreciate your willingness to pitch in and also your understanding of some of the issues we face. I believe the address I mailed, permissions AT apa DOT org, should work. If they need me to direct it elsewhere, I hope they'll let me know. As I indicated above, I rather suspect we might not hear anything, as I have deliberately worded my letter so that the only response required would a "no." Presuming (and I do) that it isn't problematic, they don't need to respond at all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Great - I'll proceed with finishing up my proposal on my talk page. Once completed, I was going to notify some specific users that Sandy pointed me to, to solicit feedback or help. Any other recommendations for us? Mindsite (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, this is out of my department. Though I work with copyright issues, I haven't had much to do with articles on mental illness. :) I did send it to the wrong address. I've been given the correct one, though, and will send it out again immediately. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Mindsite, let's follow up on the other issues at your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This probably doesn't apply to DSM-IV alone. I've been working on sepsis today, basically the definition of sepsis and criteria could be seen as copyrighted by the American College of Chest Physicians. Many clinical guidelines are protected by copyright which in some cases hinders writing an article about them. Basically, all medical knowledge is in the copyright hands of medical journals. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Different question: clinical journals aren't the same question as the DSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Moon - could you direct your inquiry to Chad Thompson at CThompson AT psych DOT org? Some people - rightly so - want confirmation that Mindsite has a legitimate license to the DSM-IV before working with the material on our website. Chad will be able to give you a speedy and authoritative reply. Mindsite (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's where I directed the 2nd inquiry, Mindsite. I mailed cthompson AT psych DOT org (except, you know, @ and .) on Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM. He has not responded to me personally. I don't know if he has written the Communications Committee instead. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll follow up - thanks. Mindsite (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Moon - uhm, the contact I mentioned no longer works at the APA as of today. I'll keep you posted. Thanks. Mindsite (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay! I'm guessing he's been otherwise occupied lately, then, and may not have responded to my mail. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE from Mindsite and the APA

I just got off the phone with the APA this morning, discussing Wikipedia and copyright issues. There have been a number of issues raised to date by various Wikipedians, but these can be boiled down to two primary issues.

1. Does Mindsite have a legitimate license to reproduce portions of the DSM-IV online?

2. What is the status of Fair Use and Copyright as it relates to DSM-IV material, the APA and Wikipedia?

In reference to the first question, the APA has indicated that they will not be doing a press release with Mindsite after all. There are a number of reasons for this, but it is well known that they sell competing products, such as 24 hour access to the full text DSM-IV for $35. It is understandable that some Wikipedians question whether the APA would actually allow Mindsite to give this material away for free, but that is in fact the reality of our licensing agreement.

I do not believe that it is Wikipedia's job to police the Internet for copyright violators, but I do support voluntary excluding links from known copyright violators. Further, the APA has indicated to me that they do not want to have to address every inquiry from the Wikipedia community regarding links to other sections of the DSM-IV, if those are licensed in the future. The APA's position is that Mindsite does not have to receive a public indication from them that we are a legitimate licensee, to reproduce their content. Further, the politics associated with the Mindsite project preclude closer association between the APA and us - they are fine with us giving them money to reproduce the DSM-IV, but they don't want to associate with a small startup's strategy now or one that could change in the future.

Therefore, in reference to the first question, I argue that the status-quo for Mindsite and the rest of the Internet would be to assume that we are a legitimate site until we hear otherwise. Anything else is holding us to a higher standard than any other web based content publisher.

In reference to the second issue, this is far more complex, which is undoubtedly why SandyGeorgia flagged this after our first post to the schizophrenia talk page a few weeks ago. Digging around I've found a relevant thread on the subject which was summarized by the APA today on the phone, stating 'we don't think that reproducing the DSM-IV criteria is an example of fair use.'

I'm not aware of any legal precedent where something like diagnostic criteria has been legally prosecuted as a violation of Fair Use or Copyright law. However, this issue will undoubtedly continue to come up for Wikipedia, particularly now that Mindsite has freely licensed a good chunk of the DSM-IV onto the Internet. I'm not sure that the APA would win a lawsuit against Wikipedia if those criteria were included in Wikipedia, however clearly Wikipedia does not want to test that hypothesis. Regardless, we will not advocate for the inclusion of criteria while we are a licensee of the DSM-IV.

As a way to move forward, I have updated our proposal to indicate that we no longer support the inclusion of diagnostic criteria on the pages we flagged, although we do think those pages *may* benefit from updated references or links to DSM-IV sections. We are soliciting feedback on those targets. Please see our proposal here. Mindsite (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line for Wikipedia

OK, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but here's how I understand things:

  • It's OK if Wikipedia articles link into Mindsite when citing the DSM, like this:
American Psychiatric Association (2000). "Diagnostic criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder". Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision (DSM-IV-TR) ed.). ISBN 0890420254. Retrieved 2008-07-09. 
  • It's OK for Wikipedia to quote brief phrases from the DSM, e.g., "encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus" (a quote from DSM-IV-TR 299.00), so long as these quotations have quote marks and are appropriately cited.
  • It's OK for Wikipedia to paraphrase the ideas behind the DSM, without using quote marks, e.g., "persistent preoccupation with parts of objects" (a quote from Autism #Diagnosis) so long as the paraphrase is appropriately cited.
  • The APA's view is that quoting entire criteria sets, e.g., the entire subsection "Diagnostic criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder, would be a violation of copyright even if properly sourced and put into quote marks. This issue has not been resolved in court. For Autism at least, I don't think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to quote the entire criteria set for autistic disorder, as Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a diagnostic manual. I expect things are similar for other Wikipedia articles, so I don't expect this issue to arise in practice.

Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait to hear from more people before we do anything other than update the proposal. Mindsite (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy or Moon, does this seem ok? Mindsite (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The entire situation makes me uncomfortable, I don't understand the response from the APA, but I concur with Eubulides assessment. I've linked to MindSite in place of Behavenet in Tourette syndrome and tic disorder, as outlined above by Eubulides, but I'm unlikely to make any further changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I could email the contract to you or Eubulides and then you could report on your findings here? Mindsite (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
To clarify this, if there remains a question as to whether we are a legitimate licensee of the DSM-IV, I could email the contract for inspection. Wanting to get everyone comfortable. Mindsite (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading it right, the problem is not on your end; if the APA had a problem with you, they would have said so by now. I just don't understand their position and where that leaves us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Outdent - Sandy, let me try and clarify or at least provide some framework to move forward.

  • The first issue behind moving our Depression/Schizophrenia discussion to copyright was related to the legitimacy of Mindsite's license and current reproduction of the DSM-IV. In other words, do we have the legal right to reproduce this content on our domain or have we stolen the material, violating copyright on the book. Various Wikipedians have asked that Mindsite point to a publicly written statement from the APA or to have the APA confirm our license in response to an email inquiry - at this time, we cannot compel the APA to do either. For various reasons, the APA will not issue a press release with us and they feel that it may be an undue burden for them to have answer an unknown number of emails from Wikipedia about 'whether this site is legitimate or not' as it relates to Mindsite or any other potential licensee.
    • CONCLUSION (as I see it): You correctly note that 'if the APA had a problem with us, they would have said so by now.' If there is still doubt that we are a legitimate licensee, I would be more than happy to share our contract with someone, who could then post here to indicate that we are a legitimate licensee. I hope that step is not necessary, as it would hold Mindsite to a higher standard than other commercial website on the Internet, but I am perfectly happy to do so given the prior history of the APA.
  • The second issue is related to how mental health information on Wikipedia can be improved, given Mindsite's recent publication of the DSM-IV. The primary issue here is 'does fair use permit the reproduction of diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV in Wikipedia.' Previously, the APA responded to Wikipedia in 2005 about fair use of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria stating "We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online." The APA recently confirmed this position to me on the phone earlier this week, as I had noted earlier.
    • CONCLUSION (as I see it): Mindsite's license of the DSM-IV does not have any impact on either the APA's interpretation of fair use nor should it change Wiki policy, whatever that is. It may strain credulity for some of the copyright people here that the definition of a disease can be copyrighted - I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I tend to agree - however that is between the APA and the rest of the Internet. As such, Mindsite is not advocating for the inclusion of diagnostic criteria in any Wikipedia articles and we have updated our proposal to indicate as much.

In summary, I'm hoping that we can end this thread, at least as it relates to updating reference citations on relevant Wiki articles, since people are better off reading the DSM-IV material directly online as opposed to a book reference. Does this seem satisfactory? Mindsite (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"since people are better off reading the DSM-IV material directly online as opposed to a book reference" - this has not been established and sounds like aconflict of interest is developing here. A book reference is acceptable and probably would be considered a more reliable source. Rmhermen (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair comment Rmhermen Mindsite (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
any recommendations on how we can improve the proposal? Mindsite (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Rmhermen - I've updated our proposal to reflect that full book references may be superior, although it would likely depend on the context I suppose. Mindsite (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change {{copyviocore}} for GFDL reasons

A change to this template concerning the creation of a temporary reversion has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Another concern about copyviocore. It addresses specifically the concern that versions written from scratch may incorporate non-infringing text from the original in such a way as to violate GFDL. Please contribute there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of Indian Law

Is verbatim copying of an Indian Law or Act a copyright violation? I believe not, but I still need confirmation.

As per the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, this is what it has to say:

52.-(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:-
(q) the reproduction or publication of-

(i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;

(ii) any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter;

(iii) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government;

(iv) any judgement or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgement or order is prohibited by the court, the tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be;

So if I copy text of an Act, say the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, I think it should not be a copyright violation. Please could someone confirm? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Your example isn't a good choice for a sample case:
  1. It predates modern India, so I don't know if you should be applying Indian law or British law.
  2. An 1885 law is old enough that any copyright has expired.
For laws new enough to be affected by the Indian copyright act, I think simple copying is a copyright violation. --Carnildo (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Need another admin to resolve a WP:CP


Hi. I need an admin familiar with abridgments as derivative works (Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works) to process a ticket at WP:CP, listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 July 13/Articles. I tagged the article, Technics and Time, 1, though I did so in response to concerns raised at WT:CP. Conversation about the matter is at Wikipedia_talk:CP#Can_a_summary_constitute_copyright_violation.3F. Be advised: it's long. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeepday addressed the matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Sites with Copyright Abuse

The reference to Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry should be removed, because a permanent injunction reached in the case, which dissolved and vacated the linked decision, holds that the references in this section are mute and obsolete. Furthermore, the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry article on Wikipedia should be updated. —Slipgrid (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

subjunctive appropriate

The page currently contains this sentence: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." I would recommend to change "sheds" to [instead] "would shed". One hopes that the subjunctive will [usually] be appropriate there. (right?) Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove the whole thing. Removing "would" from the sentence doesn't help. It's subject policy, that is contradicted by the same policy. Deep linking is bad. We are not lawyers and only a judge can decide what is legal or not.
This is in relation to YouTube. YouTube's policy is that they own every video on the site. The copyright holder give up the copyright when a video is published. They are not illegally distributing anything. They are distributing material they own.
If someones copyrighted material is posted there, all they have to do is send a DMCA notice, and the video is gone in minutes. Some material appears to be copyrighted, but isn't, because the original copyright expired.
Perpetrating this myth, this urban legend, that linking to YouTube is somehow illegal, and suggesting that some hue of light will burn Wikipedia because of a link, is absurd. We are using a case that was dismissed and reverted eight years ago to hold this myth. Go read the US law on the subject. Wikipedia is in no way libel, unless they know for a fact that something is illegal, and Wikipedia does not know that, because Wikipedia is not a lawyer.
Please, edit this absurdity out of the policy. —Slipgrid (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe you may be misunderstanding YouTube's policies. YouTube does not own every video on the site. They explicitly own all content "except all User Submissions", which is defined to include video content uploaded by users. While uploaders license their videos by YouTube's policies, they retain copyright. As their terms set forth, "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions." (All this is set out here). So copyright holders do not give up the copyright when they publish a video on YouTube, and YouTube is not distributing material they own. They are distributing material they've been licensed to distribute by self-proclaimed copyright holders.
YouTube responds only to requests by copyright owners or legally designated agents of such in removing copyright violations. This is in accordance with the current language of the DMCA. Wikipedia has stricter standards than that and responds to copyright questions raised by any contributor, regardless of his or her relationship to the material. This is probably prudent of Wikipedia, as its right to claim protection under DMCA has already been challenged, though not yet successfully so in a court of law. In the event that a court of law determines that we are not protected by that act, we will be as responsible as any publisher for material we've included at our site, and our only defense against legal prosecution or lawsuit then will be proof that we are not guilty of nonfeasance or malfeasance. Personally, I'm not inclined to think that links to copyright infringing sites are likely to be a big legal risk, since I doubt that anyone would pursue the question of "contributory infringement" or could successfully prosecute if they did. The ethical question, on the other hand.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, YouTube does not own every video on the site, but they do claim copyright to every video on the site, even though the original copyright holder still holds copyright. They say the following in their terms:

by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service.

Slipgrid (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not claiming copyright, that's claiming a "sublicenseable and transferable license". There's a big (and legally significant :)) difference. Wikipedia doesn't own content submitted by contributors, either; our contributors continue to own the copyright to their words, but by GFDL they grant Wikipedia and the rest of the world the right to use, reproduce and modify their words so long as they get credit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you a lawyer? If so, please explain. It sounds like they are claiming a license, which they can transfer to others, to reproduce and distribute without paying royalties. Copyright is simply a right to copy, which YouTube is claiming.
Many people think that lawyers try to make things hard to understand. Besides the tax code, which is nothing more than a stream of words in a syntactical format, with no meaning, lawyers really try to make things clear. I don't think this terms of service could be clearer. They have a license to copy the work, and a license to give others the right to copy the work. There's no shades of gray. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Whether I'm a lawyer or not, I'm happy to explain. Copyright is at its linguistic base "the right to copy," but it has other dimensions in law. (I'm working off US law right now, both because that's what I'm familiar with and because it's what applies to Wikipedia.) Copyright holders have the sole right to determine who may receive credit for work, who may adapt it, who may perform it, who may receive compensation for it and more. YouTube does not have these rights. What Youtube has is a broad license which grants permission for itself to utilize material submitted to it. It also requires license for its users to have certain (but far more restricted) rights to the material "as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service." (Note that under the Terms of Service, the user license excludes download explicitly. Youtube users are not permitted to copy, store or redistribute Youtube content.) At the contributor's discretion, "within a commercially reasonable time" after the user removes the material, YouTube no longer has the right to display, distribute or perform the material. If YouTube were to continue after the nebulous "commercially reasonable time" to display, distribute or perform the material, it would be in violation of its license, and, hence, of copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Can someone add this interwiki? ro:Wikipedia:Drepturi de autor thanks Ark25 (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} - added this template for you. It's to be used when requesting a change to a protected page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done J.delanoygabsadds 14:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)