| Revision as of 15:27, 13 November 2013 editNightscream (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,174 edits Discussion.← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:56, 13 November 2013 edit undoJohn of Reading (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers765,630 edits →Is cutting and pasting press releases a copyright violation?: certainly in this caseNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ==Is cutting and pasting press releases a copyright violation?== | ==Is cutting and pasting press releases a copyright violation?== | ||
| I have a question. A number of editors often cut-and-paste, verbatim, the plot concept for upcoming episodes of '']'' into the newly-made stub articles for those episodes prior to their debut. Two different editors, for example, did so and with the episode that debuts tonight. Is this copyright infringement? Or are press released written with the expectation that they will be reproduced verbatim for promotional purposes? I tend to think that it's a copyvio, but wanted to be sure by soliciting other opinions. Granted, these additions would still violate ] for being unsourced and ] and ] for the way their written, but aside from those issues, I want to know if the community thinks they violate copyright if not paraphrased. ] (]) 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC) | I have a question. A number of editors often cut-and-paste, verbatim, the plot concept for upcoming episodes of '']'' into the newly-made stub articles for those episodes prior to their debut. Two different editors, for example, did so and with the episode that debuts tonight. Is this copyright infringement? Or are press released written with the expectation that they will be reproduced verbatim for promotional purposes? I tend to think that it's a copyvio, but wanted to be sure by soliciting other opinions. Granted, these additions would still violate ] for being unsourced and ] and ] for the way their written, but aside from those issues, I want to know if the community thinks they violate copyright if not paraphrased. ] (]) 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, as it stands I think this is a copyright violation. Every page at www.southparkstudios.co.uk has the footer text "©2013 South Park Digital Studios LLC. All Rights Reserved." (I assume the .com version has something similar, but it won't let me see it). Maybe the studio won't be surprised to find their text copied elsewhere, but article text at Misplaced Pages has to be available for re-use, even commercially, under a CC-BY-SA license. | |||
| :If the text had been formatted as a direct quote, with attribution, then it starts to be more acceptable, but even then "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted" (]) -- ] (]) 15:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:56, 13 November 2013
|
This is the talk page for discussing the Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations policy. | |
|---|---|
| If you wish to report an individual file or article as a copyright infringement, see Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files and Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems respectively. If you wish to report a contributor with a history of copyright infringement, see Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations. | |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Is cutting and pasting press releases a copyright violation?
I have a question. A number of editors often cut-and-paste, verbatim, the plot concept for upcoming episodes of South Park into the newly-made stub articles for those episodes prior to their debut. Two different editors, for example, did so here and here with the episode that debuts tonight. Is this copyright infringement? Or are press released written with the expectation that they will be reproduced verbatim for promotional purposes? I tend to think that it's a copyvio, but wanted to be sure by soliciting other opinions. Granted, these additions would still violate WP:V for being unsourced and WP:TONE and WP:NOTADVERT for the way their written, but aside from those issues, I want to know if the community thinks they violate copyright if not paraphrased. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, as it stands I think this is a copyright violation. Every page at www.southparkstudios.co.uk has the footer text "©2013 South Park Digital Studios LLC. All Rights Reserved." (I assume the .com version has something similar, but it won't let me see it). Maybe the studio won't be surprised to find their text copied elsewhere, but article text at Misplaced Pages has to be available for re-use, even commercially, under a CC-BY-SA license.
- If the text had been formatted as a direct quote, with attribution, then it starts to be more acceptable, but even then "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted" (Misplaced Pages:Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use) -- John of Reading (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)