Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:39, 22 February 2012

This is not the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. To do so, list the article on today's entry at the project page after following the appropriate instructions.

This is the talk page for discussing Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Ennui (sonnet)

The analysis section of the Ennui (sonnet) articthis pagele seem to be pulled from this review on the guardian .

"This is wonderfully taut and restless in a manner that recalls Robert Browning or William Empson. That first phrase is probably the best moment in the poem, relishing its own archness."

appears in both, for instance.

Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers

Extensive use has been made of direct copying of the 1896 edition of this work, which is PD in the US, but still probably in copyright in the EU. Is this a problem? Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

I'm guessing the we mostly use the even later 1903-1905 editions: see Michael Bryan (art historian). The only way it might still be in copyright is the "life of author + 70 years" clause, applied to the editor (Williamson) as author. But almost all of the actual text is from articles in the work written much earlier by earlier authors who died even longer ago. Since even Williamson died in 1942, the work as a whole will be PD within a year at most. I feel that it is not worthwhile to go back and scrub all of our articles looking for (mostly non-existent) changes made by the Williamson. Each such scrub would simply find an earlier edition of the work and verify that the specific wording we copied was in fact in the earlier edition. Arguably, even this is unnecessary since most of the articles in the dictionary are attributed to their original authors and not to Williamson. The work is therefore under copyright as a derivative work, and copyright applies to the creative elements added as part of creating the derivative work, while the original authors' rights apply to the included works (the articles,) and those rights have expired. But we are not copying the creative elements of the derivative work, which include such things as added commentary, composition, order of compilation, etc. Am I missing something? -Arch dude (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

One I happened across today was from the 1910 edition, and unattributed (although it was referenced in some way). I'll note the article here tomorrow. If we are using earlier editions there is less likely to be a copyright issue, although saying we are only breaking the law by a year seems weak. I noticed that one contributor to the 1896 edition lived to 1946. None of the articles I have seen cite the author, only the work as a whole. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

The article Friedrich Rehberg does, in fact, use text common to both 1903 and 1910, it references the 1903 edition but does not attribute. Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

If so this is a plagiarism issue, but (probably) not a copyright issue. Fix it by adding attribution, not by removal. -Arch dude (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it in the case of joint authors, which would include editors, and for unattributed parts of a work written by a group of people, all those who contributed to the work as a whole, copyright would subsist until 70 years from the death of the last author. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

I am not an expert on this. However, if it is unattributed in a collective work and we cannot determine the author after a good-faith search, I think the passage falls under the "anonymous" clause and is free of copyright 70 years after publication. However, the known editor may reasonably be assumed to also be one of the authors of an unattributed section, so we must also wait until 70 years after his death, i.e., we must wait until this year. In an excess of caution, we may also want to find an earlier edition, but frankly this is silly. -Arch dude (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I just did a little research. According to Misplaced Pages:Public domain, The English (at least) Misplaced Pages's copyright rules are based on U.S. copyright law. Use of material that is PD in the US but not elsewhere may be a problem for re-users, but it is (apparently) not a problem for Misplaced Pages. In U.S. copyright law, anything published anywhere in the world prior to 1923 is PD in the U.S. There is lot of strange stuff about material that was created earlier but not published until later. So, we are not breaking the law, nor are we violating the stated policy, when we use this material. Our contributors are violating WP:Plagiarism policy when they fail to attribute instead of merely citing the work. A larger issue is whether or not the "U. S. law" policy is the correct policy, but this is not the correct forum for that discussion. If we change this policy, Brian's is the least of our worries: we will need to attack EB1911 and DNB first, I fear. -Arch dude (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it (and that's why I was looking for clarity on this noticeboard) we attempt not to breach copyright in any country, but are of course only bound by Florida/US law in some senses. (Incidentally you should say we are not breaking US law, I, and other EU readers, are potentially breaking our laws.) Re: EB and DNB - yes that had crossed my mind - fortunately the DNB is relatively clear in internal attribution, so it is a much simpler task to resolve. This does look very hard to resolve (except for saying forget about it), especially since there are many editions, and the authors are noticed, if at all in the introduction. For myself I may look at DNB first. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Please read Misplaced Pages:Public domain carefully. As I read it, we explicitly adhere to U. S. copyright law as our policy. If I am incorrect about this, please cite your reference to WP policy. Again, I do not assert that I think that the policy is correct, but if it is not, I think you should take your case to the talk page of that policy or another policy page, and get the policy changed or clarified before you begin applying it. DNB will be easy to analyze since the Wikisource project has gone to extreme lengths to identify the 700 or so authors. EB1911 is more likely to be a problem. Note that there are differences between the copyright policies of Wikisource, English WP, and Commons. -Arch dude (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Archduke, you are indeed incorrect. Copyright is currently determined in the country of origin. This copyright acknowledgement is completely in disregard to the actual legal status in the US. As clearly annotated above, the US does not recognize copyrights prior to 1923. Some countries do. This provides one HELL of a conundrum as the images are PD in the US and not necessarily at home (this debate is currently raging at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations? and I invite ALL to participate).

IMNSHO, it is difficult to determine copyright status in the US with all the laws with which we have to contend and it will be impossible if we go to the lengths to determine copyright status in other countries irrespective of US law. I respect the laws of other countries, but people publish works in those countries full-well knowing (or out of ignorance) that their copyrights end at the borders. To extend those copyrights to US and WP conflicts with copyright law and reduces the availability of works which are PD in the US by prohibitting or limiting usage on WP servers.

Once again, a related policy discussion (linked above) is already discussing potential changes/clarifications. Your input is requested.

For the sake of clarity/transparency, I was asked by Rich Farmbrough for my opinion. Buffs (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You say I am incorrect. I only made two assertions:

• According to Misplaced Pages:Public domain, WP policy is that we follow U. S. copyright law.
• According to U. S. copyright law, anything that was published anywhere prior to 1923 is in the public domain in the U. S.

Which of these assertions is incorrect? -Arch dude (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are partially incorrect on the first assertion and incomplete on the second.

1. Misplaced Pages policy is currently muddled. WP:Copyrights currently states "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.". Unfortunately, this leaves us with some unclarified issues. What do we do about images that are PD elsewhere, but not in the US? What about images that are PD in the US, but not PD in the country of origin?
2. You are absolutely correct on that assertion, but that doesn't mean we can use them on WP. WP has decided (poorly in my opinion) that we shouldn't just take into account US law, but the law of every other country...but has conflicting guidance on the subject (reference the questions at the end of #1).

You aren't a bad person or anything. You certainly aren't disruptive. But figuring out the status of an image is becoming more and more complicated. Personally, I think we should just stick to what the US uses (I couldn't care less if we replaced "US" with "France" or "Switzerland" or "Japan" as long as we had a clear standard) and our servers are in the US. It simplifies things dramatically and doesn't delve into the depths of (for example) Iranian copyright law. Buffs (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case we are discussing here (the 1903 edition of Bryan's,) The US does in fact have official copyright relations with the relevant country (the UK,) so Jimbo's statement is not precisely on point. Further, the work in question was in fact published (in the US, in this case) prior to 1923 so my second point is valid for this case. I was not attempting to generalize to unpublished works or post-1922 works. Jimbo's statement needs to be modified to provide clear guidance, and the resulting clear policy needs to be propagated into Misplaced Pages:Public domain. Until all of this is clarified, I think we should spend our time more productively on clear copyright violations under US copyright law. -Arch dude (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just want to make sure people don't get the wrong idea. Bryan's appears to have first been published in the US with a registered copyright. I find it hard to believe that anyone could make a claim in the US regarding copyright infringement. However, they may have a claim in the EU. Quite honestly, I don't know but that question falls under "What do we do about images that are PD in the US, but not PD in the country of origin?" There's quite a lengthy discussion about it with a WMF ruling expected today. We'll see what happens. I really hope they don't kick this bucket back at us and say "You guys figure it out." That won't solve anything. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we are all in basic agreement here, both on the legal status in US/EU, that we (WP) are bound by US/Florida law, that individual editors may be bound by other laws, that there is a community desire to be compliant with other laws, and a desire to maximise content, which pull in opposite directions, that there is a need for clarity between the statement of policy and the "Jimbo statement".

The only other factor is that these are text submissions, therefore there is not the same imperative to use the original.Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

I'm glad we are in agreement. Is there a way to press for clarification? You probably have a lot more clout than I do. Yes we could paraphrase or otherwise avoid copyright infringement, but it is more fitting to use the original words where appropriate and when possible. For these very old reference works, the original authors and their estates are not benefiting from the copyright in any way, and I strongly suspect that contribution to Bryan's, EB1911, and especially to DNB, was treated then very much as contribution to WP is treated today. By using their words, we are honoring the original authors. -Arch dude (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll not comment on the later editions of this work (and I don't believe that there was a 1896 edition, as stated), but I am the editor who has made "extensive use" of the 1886 edition of this work. I have (of course) not been notified of this discussion by Rich Farmbrough, which is as could be expected... Anyway, 2012 - 70 years is 1942. 1942-1886 = 56 years, which makes it not impossible that some co-author still lived in or after 1942. Do we know who the authors are? No, we only know about Michael Bryan (art historian) (died 1821), Walter Armstrong (died 1914), Robert Edmund Graves (died 1922), William Bell Scott (died 1890), and Jean Paul Richter (died 1937). Are there others? Perhaps, but since we don't know, Misplaced Pages:Non-U.S. copyrights#UK Copyright applies, and this work falls into the PD following those rules in the UK, and obviously also in the US. Whether the same applies to other sources like newer versions of Bryan's, or the 1911 EB, or the 1900 Dictionary of National Biography (extensively used by, indeed, Rich Farmbrough), is less clear. DNB contributors like Charles Alexander Harris are not dead for 70 years yet, so it would appear as if the DNB is not in the PD yet, but perhaps some other rule applies here? Fram (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. They are great contributions to WP. Please take a look at WP:Plagiarism. When we use text from a PD source, we still need to attribute it, not just cite it ("Attribute" merely means that you add "some content copied from" in front of the citation.) Is the 1886 edition available online? If (as is likely) the editor died sooner than Williamson, then that removes one presumptive author for the unattributed articles in Bryan's. I think that is is legitimate to treat unattributed articles as "collaborations" between the editor and one or more anonymous authors. The rule for collaboration is that copyright is held by each collaborator. The UK rule for anonymous works is "publication+70 years." (I am not a Lawyer.) -Arch dude (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Found Volume 2. Editors were Armstrong (d. 1918) and Graves (d. 1922). Do you know where the other volumes are?-Arch dude (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles I created can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles incorporating text from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, and are properly attributed. At Template talk:Bryan, you can find links to PDF and text versions of the 1886 (part I) and 1889 (part II) editions of the book. Fram (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No this is exactly the same for DNB, I have raised it at the project page. The 1903 edition of Bryan is definitely a problem if we care about EU copyright. Fortunately the authors for DNb are clearly identified, and those for the 1903 Bryan are identified by and large. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC).

Typically, English Misplaced Pages would allow anything which is in the public domain in the United States, regardless of its status elsewhere. That's why we have {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (might sometimes be PD abroad), {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} (often the case with British logos) and {{FoP-USonly}} (for example French buildings). The legality of the last one is currently being discussed on the template's talk page. I'm not sure why this British dictionary would be any different from any other {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} works. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

See Buffs above,

Misplaced Pages policy is currently muddled. WP:Copyrights currently states "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.". Unfortunately, this leaves us with some unclarified issues.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

Rich, please visit Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights. The WMF has recently rules on this and Jimbo's statement has effectively been superseded. We are working on rephrasing it now and your input would be appreciated. FWIW, I don't find arguments backed up by "Jimbo said so!" to be that convincing...and neither does Jimbo. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Explicit symmetry breaking

As well as being incomprehensible as it stands, this article appears to have been copied verbatim from a paper Castellani, E. (2003) "On the meaning of Symmetry Breaking", available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/927/1/SymmBreaking.pdf --Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned by User:Dpmuk. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Potentially Unfree Files

I am attempting to work with my local Transit Agency to get a set of images for specific stations that are currently listed as needing a photo. I would like to get a consultation regarding the viability of this section in the context of uploading the photos. Is the Use Policy compatible with the "free" portion and therefore able to be uploaded to Commons, compatible with the Fair Use policy, or should not be uploaded with the current Use Policy? I have not yet uploaded these images as I want to ensure the copyright/licence is acceptable before uploading. If I have asked at the wrong place please let me know where I should take it. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You're probably best off asking at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions as you're likely to get a wider audience there. This venue is mainly concerned with text-based issues. Dpmuk (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

I am posting this because many un true facts I posted were deleted. I like many others wanted to use Misplaced Pages to have fun and lie to gullible people and after this post Runs With Eagle will never use wikipedia again. This statement is an apology. I have learned that I can not use Misplaced Pages for my own selfish needs of tricking people. This is fine because there are many people at my school whom I can trick. And so I conclude by saying that Misplaced Pages is ment to be a reliable site that should only be used for people to openly discuss topics of life. I hearby resign from wikipedia until I can learn to be responsible and use this noble site for it's proper design — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.178.37 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted images and copyright notice not allowed on the English Misplaced Pages?

Will somebody please have a look at this. I added a picture to an article, but it was removed by the user Binksternet with the reason, that "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice" Is this true? I think Binksternet has misunderstood something. Many images on Misplaced Pages are not in the public domain, but are copyrighted and can be used under a license. If one think that copyright means "do never use this image" then one have misunderstood the situation. Does the English Misplaced Pages have a policy saying something like "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"??? --JAL78 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:CREDITS says that no copyright notice should be placed in the article. The larger issue with the image in question is that it is part of a promotional campaign by JAL78 to replace Bösendorfer, Bechstein and other competitor piano images with an image of a Steinway & Sons piano. () I reverted all of the images thus placed because of conflict of interest issues. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

– Yes, the credit does not necessarily need to be on the article page itself – that cannot be required by the copyright holder; having it on the image page is enough by most Misplaced Pages projects' standards. Binksternet said that copyrighted images are not allowed on Misplaced Pages, which is false. Binksternet deleted the image – not only the optional byline – and he wrote that "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice".

– Binksternet's accuse of my edits being a "... part of a promotional campaign..." is just an attempt of removing the focus from the case about a misguided Binksternet deleting pictures, because he doesn't understand what "copyright" and "license" mean. And yes, I removed some bad pictures, including pictures of Steinway(!) pianos, and replaced them with this extremely good picture. There is nothing wrong or suspicious about that – it's actually pretty normal to replace pictures when better pictures become available; that is a part of making Misplaced Pages better, which is an ongoing process. And by the way, be aware that other editors revert Binksternet's edits. --JAL78 (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that we're all clear on the credit issue, I suspect that what we have here is a slight clarity issue and that what Binksternet meant was that we don't generally accept content that places more restrictions than our licenses allow or that require us to give credit on the image or article itself. I would imagine that the vast majority of photographs on Misplaced Pages are copyrighted. Most of them are compatibly licensed, although some of them are claimed as fair use under WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl 14:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

MRG, I think your comment "I would imagine that the vast majority of photographs on Misplaced Pages are copyrighted" is possibly accurate, but misleading. We are only hosting copyrighted images on en-wp because we can't host them elsewhere. Millions of images are available on Commons that started out on WP. Buffs (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually many, if not most, of the images on Commons are copyrighted as well. :) Content released under compatible license is still copyrighted. Use of the material in a way that violates the license is still copyright infringement. (I don't actually know the ratio of compatibly licensed to public domain content on Commons.) --Moonriddengirl 12:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Turning myself in

Hey copyright specialists,

I've just been accused of being a serial copyright violator over at DYK, and need some guidance. The argument, if I understand it correctly, is that I've written several biography articles recently organized by chronological order; compared to sources on the individuals which are also organized in chronological order, these are then too similar in structure, thereby making it a copyright violation. Unfortunately, the charge is coming from an editor I've had issues with in the past, but of course that doesn't mean it's not legit. Would it be possible to get a second opinion on the articles Aboubakr Jamai, Musa Muradov, and Nosa Igiebor? If I'm on the right side of this policy, I'd like to clear my good name; if I'm on the wrong side of this policy, I'd like guidance for how to improve. And, of course, if I'm somewhere in the squishy gray area on this policy (I suspect this is the most likely outcome), I'd still appreciate a bit of guidance on how to improve to help get myself wholly into the "white". Cheers, Khazar (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Khazar, I've been here at WP for some time. I too have been accused (and even hounded) over claims of copyright infringement/paraphrase issues (please keep in mind I've also contributed heavily to four FA articles. There is a case of severe paranoia here on WP. What people don't recognize is that this is indeed a gray area. It isn't cut & dry. So, what we need to do is stop biting the newbies, assume they meant well, and help them out. I recently contributed to an article only to have 2 entire paragraphs deleted and erased from the edit history because it was "too close" to the original. Now, I took quite a bit of care in crafting the sections and there was quite a bit of original work so I was quite taken aback. I asked for the previous versions to be temporarily accessible (not restored) so I could rephrase them and was told "no because that would open us up to potential lawsuits." I can't even fix the problems and that sort of attitude bites down on the noobs quite hard. In short, the plagiarism/copyright paranoia in WP is staggering. We can fix most of it without harsh deletions, removals, and hidden edit histories. We haven't had a lawsuit yet and I see no reason we're going to get one in the future. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand Moonriddengirl correctly, there won't be any lawsuits because the Wikimedia Foundation is shielded from them by complying with the DMCA. All it has to do to avoid lawsuits is remove the questionable content. I believe Buffs's statement is correct: we haven't had a lawsuit yet. (I couldn't find any using Google search). If the worst case for WMF is that it removes content challenged by the copyright holder, then there is no point in driving good editors like Khazar away with accusations of copyvio. Arguments claiming "too close paraphrasing" and copying "structure" were advanced against Khazar's edits. These are ill-defined, subjective concepts that often require a judge and jury to decide. Given that this is a gray area of copyright law, it frankly baffles me how any editor here can achieve such a level of certainty about a paragraph or two in one of our articles that he is ready to start making accusations of copyright violation against the editor who made the paraphrases and "copied" the structure. If Misplaced Pages is losing editors, we can ill afford to be driving good ones away by overzealous enforcement of our copyvio guidelines, especially when the "downside" is so negligible. --Kenatipo 00:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not to say we shouldn't TRY to be free of copyvios, but vilifying and overly criticizing simply isn't going to help; it's only going to drive people away. Explaining what needs to be done should be accomplished in favor of "NO! NOT THAT!!! SWEET MERCIFUL HEAVEN, THIS GUY HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S DOING!!! DELETE EVERYTHIGN HE DID!!!". Buffs (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that we should not vilify and overly criticize people, and we should never have to lose a contributor over copyright issues if that contributor is willing to work to adjust his or her practices. Quite a few people who have had copyright issues - some of them extensive enough to require a WP:CCI - have continued contributing and done well.

That said, "there won't be any lawsuits" is really only true of the Wikimedia Foundation and only so long as we maintain protection under the DMCA. The contributors who add content are not sheltered and are vulnerable to lawsuit themselves. Some of them have had legal problems. So have some of the content reusers who have taken our words that the content was freely licensed. It's a real problem and we need to make sure for the protection of contributors and reusers that we try to offer good guidance and properly monitor content.

I've worked copyright heavily on Misplaced Pages for, what, four years? Maybe longer? I'd be so happy if we could foster a serious, professional approach to copyright on Misplaced Pages that would eliminate the drama. Copy-pasting is one thing, but close paraphrasing issues are well described as a "squishy gray area", ranging from what probably almost anybody would agree is a copyright problem down to the point that almost anybody would agree is not a copyright problem. There is always going to be some conflict in determining where our line of acceptable is, and I imagine there are always going to be border cases. People who fall into the border may need to approach the matter differently, but they aren't bad people or even bad writers. They're just working on a particular skill. --Moonriddengirl 13:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, were the Misplaced Pages editors who had legal trouble guilty of copy-pasting copyvios or were they guilty of "close paraphrasing" and copying the "structure" copyvios? --Kenatipo 17:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't copyright infringement lawsuits usually arise because the copyright owner feels someone is making money from something he "stole" from the copyright owner? There's no monetary benefit to editing Misplaced Pages that I know of. --Kenatipo 17:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Musa Muradov, can't someone just ask CPJ.org to read our article and get their opinion on whether the phrasing is acceptable? --Kenatipo 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been issues of both copy-pasting and close paraphrasing. But copyright infringement lawsuits don't usually arise because somebody else is making money off of their content, but because of concerns that somebody is preventing them making money off of their content. :) That said, the non-commercial status of Misplaced Pages doesn't factor into our copyright policies because of the license we use to release our content; we could have used a "non commercial" license, but because we wanted as few restrictions as possible on material, we opened our material to commercial reusers as well. And non-profit organizations also have rights to their material, so even if we took from somebody whose right to profit isn't being affected, copyright issues can still lead to lawsuits.

I'm not sure how CPJ.org would feel about such a request. I would imagine they're likely to be busy. :/ --Moonriddengirl 13:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MRG said: "The contributors who add content are not sheltered and are vulnerable to lawsuit themselves. Some of them have had legal problems. ... There have been issues of both copy-pasting and close paraphrasing." I wonder how many of us editors are aware that we are personally liable if our paraphrasing is "too close". --Kenatipo 18:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has long been a concern of mine, that our editors may not realize this. A few years ago, for instance, a German contributor uploaded content on English Misplaced Pages that he believed consistent with US fair use and WP:NFC, but the content was German and he was German, and the publisher went after him because it wasn't legal in Germany. (They did this without going in any way through the WMF; WMF generally will not pass on personal information about contributors without a subpoena, but this fellow was editing under his real name and they were able to find him that way.) I don't know what ultimately happened with that case.

Even if you comply with Misplaced Pages policy, you may be liable for actions that violate laws in your jurisdiction, and people in other jurisdictions may at least attempt to reach you (see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute; fortunately, that one ended well).

In terms of close paraphrase, I would hope that it would have to be really close before issues would be raised - I mean, to the point that most of us would agree it was a problem. But you never know what people are going to raise issues with. And even if a court finds ultimately no infringement, it's no picnic going through the legal process. It's a good idea to be careful. Our policies on "fair use" are constructed to be deliberately conservative, and taking a similar approach pays for our contributors as well.

Copyright is not the extent of potential legal liability. We are all legally liable for any content we post. For instance, libel. Oh, and a specific case that comes to mind: it is evidently a crime punishable by imprisonment in India to publish a map that challenges the sovereignty of the Indian state - for instance, the big one at the bottom of this section. In November, a group protested a Wikimedia meeting in India attempting to get criminal charges lodged against Jimmy Wales and others attending (see ). Jimmy and the India office have some protection in that they have never edited the article, but there's a reason that on page two of that story Jimmy "stressed that Misplaced Pages editors and contributors should abide by the local laws." :/ --Moonriddengirl 12:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, again, Moonriddengirl. Your responses are always informative and thoughtful. You speak as one having authority and not like the scribes, (even when you're not speaking "as one having authority"). --Kenatipo 20:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing used to be discouraged, until SV changed the wording in some of the guidelines. I have recently raised in on Misplaced Pages Talk:Plagiarism#Clarification of what "with very few changes" means as an issue and I think it is time we revisited it. I think that the previous rules we had that you either summarise someone else's copyrighted text or quote it served us better than the wording we have now. While the old wording may may cramp the style of talented editors like SV, I think that for the thundering hurd old guidance served Misplaced Pages better. -- PBS (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubt regarding Copyrights of material on Misplaced Pages

Hi All,

I am a post-graduation student. I have open book end semester exams. Can I print the material posted on wikipedia for using it as a reference in my exams? Will it be considered as a copyright violation issue?

Thanks, Preet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.215.55 (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

While I can't speak to what is permitted by your university, most content on Misplaced Pages can be liberally reused. Please see Misplaced Pages:Reusing Misplaced Pages content. I can't give you legal advice, but I would myself be comfortable with printing out articles for my personal use. If you look in the "toolbox" on the side of every article, you'll even see there's a link you can click to print the page. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes you can, no it won't. But check the facts carefully, and I suspect that if you are required to cite your references WP will not impress the markers. On Moonridengirl's point, ask your faculty. Rich Farmbrough, 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

IPA chart

File:IPA_chart_2005_png.svg seems to be a copy of this copyright image. --Surturz (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Since they both cover the same material, there are bound to be similarities, but not a single section is identical. I don't see a copyvio here. Moreover, it's a commons image. They have their own boards. Buffs (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot

People may have noticed User:DpmukBOT editing this page. Despite it's name it's not currently a bot because I currently manually check all it's edits before they're committed. Before it truly becomes a bot it needs to go through WP:BRFA and before it does so I'd like to make sue I've got it doing as many small, easy to code, tasks as possible. As such I'd appreciate comments at User:DpmukBOT/tasks. Dpmuk (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

BRFA submitted. Feel free to comment there. The bot should essentially do most of the tasks User:VWBot was previously doing. Specifically it should:

• Create new daily pages and move pages to old.
• Add pages tagged for {{copyvio}} but that have not been added to the listing.
• Add pages tagged for {{close paraphrase}} and {{copypaste}} - see User:DpmukBOT/tasks for a specific case when it won't.
• Add/remove the adminbacklog template from WP:CP.
• Relist pages that are no longer at WP:CP but which are still tagged. It will just treat these as new listing which isn't ideal but is better than nothing. I hope to make this work better in the future.

Dpmuk (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speed internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.78.72.7 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

When can an external link be a copyright violation?

Hi, I have a general question regarding copyright. When and under what circumstances can an external link to the complete text of a book (in an article about the book) be a copyright violation? I have in mind the second of the two external links currently in the article on Louis Althusser's book Reading Capital, which leads to the complete text of Ben Brewster's translation. Are links like that OK in copyright terms or not? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External links to the complete text of a book in an article about the book are a copyright problem, forbidden by policy, when: (a) the book is under copyright, and (b) there is no reason to believe that the website has licensed the right to display the text. That one looks like a pretty clear WP:LINKVIO to me. Thanks for bringing it up; I've removed it pending some plausible reason to believe that the text is legally licensed. --Moonriddengirl 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I looked through the history of the article, and it turns out that link had been there since 2007. So you can understand my confusion about whether the link was legit or not; if something has been somewhere for a long time, it's easy to see it as proper even if it isn't. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How should this be handled?

Over on Occupy Wall Street I have been finding a good amount of text copyright problems. Entire chunks of text from the sources are copied and in many instances have not even bothered to alter but a single word in the entire sentence. Many are extremly close paraphrasing that use large chunks of text from the sources without attributing as a quote. The entire article appears to suffer greatly from this, should I place the tag on the main article that blanks the page until an investigation can occur? I already tried to start bringing this up but editors are reluctant to discuss and when they do they have placed "resolved" on the discussion when there are still copyright issues. I mentioned it when one stated it had been resolved, but when I brought up that the section still had issues they told me paraphrasing is acceptable, although this wasn't a paraphrase...it used exact wording from the source. Should I place the copyright tag on the page? Do I go to the notice board with EVERY Single issue? What is the best way to handle this?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the actual article, but was asked about one passage at my talk page. In my opinion, that passage at least was all right as the phrase is a common one in the subject and thus devoid of creativity (see User talk:Moonriddengirl#Occupy Wall Street).

Handling of close paraphrasing issues requires some serious, subjective analysis and also documentation. How much is there? Does the taking seem to you to be substantial? If so, then the copyright problems board is likely to be the way to go. If the taking does not seem substantial, then I'd use {{close paraphrasing}} on the article. In either case, you should document the problem you see at the talk page. If you are talking about a lot of piecemeal partial copying, I wouldn't hesitate to put five or six examples, even more if the case seems borderline. If there are more obvious, longer passages, fewer are sufficient. If you've got a whole paragraph, for instance, of clear close paraphrase, a single example may suffice.

I present examples and analysis myself this way:

With close paraphrasing there may not be as much bolding, but you can point out where language is precise and where structure is completely duplicated.

Again, these examples are valuable whether you are blanking the article or simply flagging it for close paraphrasing, as they will help other interested editors see and repair the issue and as they will help contributors who have created the issue learn not to. Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing can also help.

Copyright is a delicate and serious issue, and while there's a lot of work on the front end, it truly is a "stitch in time" situation. The better you can document your concerns, the more likely others are to see and understand them immediately. This reduces the inevitable drama of disagreement, and allows you to more quickly move forward to fixing the problem rather than arguing over whether and to what extent it exists. --Moonriddengirl 11:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The example you showed didn't go to the correct discussion, but I am almost certain I know which one it refers to and agree with your assessment. For now I feel better leaving the copyright issues I found and any further violations I may find intact. The civility of the talk page there has simply fallen to new lows and I am not willing to put myself in further position to be attacked over the issue. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction...it is WAY out of hand. Since the reception on the talk page has degenerated and aggressive and uncivil responses seem to be the norm I will simply remove the violations and make note on the talk page. Regardless of how neutral I word it...I'll probably be attacked, accused of a number of things, told I don't know what I am talking about and generaly dragged through the mud...but this is getting pretty bad. I would hope someone would simply look into who is doing this and just give them a polite warning unless this is an overall problem with the editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

With the removal of the last bit of copyright infringment I did find out who placed it and left a polite warning about close paraphrasing. I like the editor and don't wont a bad situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

copyvio template UI issue

There's an issue with Template:Copyvio that is leading to some confusion. When an article's text is replaced with this template, the template will display a link to a report from Duplication Detector, BUT the report will be a comparison of the website copied from and the output of the template, NOT the article text itself. The result is that Duplication Detector will say that at most, the article title has been copied and nothing else. A user just noted on my talk page that an article about his organization had been flagged as a copyvio and he didn't understand why because the duplication detector indicated no infringement for this reason. Is there a way to either not show the duplication detector link or to show a link comparing the edit before the tag was edited and the website? GabrielF (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at the article in question the reason for this is that you've also removed all the text from the page. The tag is intended to be used with leaving the text in place as the tag takes care of blanking the text. I expect this is a problem with the instructions as I've seen this happen a few time. I'll try to have a look at the template code at some point in the next few days and see if we can't come up with something more sensible.

Although it doesn't apply in this case the other reason this can happen is if the source page is in a format the duplication detector can't deal with. Google books in the most common one I've come across. It may be worth putting a note on the template to say the the detector won't always work and if it's not showing anything a manual inspection may be necessary. I'll wait and see what other copyright regulars reply before doing anything as others may have better ideas. Dpmuk (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I hadn't realized that when adding the template you weren't supposed to also remove the text. The instructions at WP:CP#Suspected or complicated infringement does say "Replace the text with one of the following:" (bold in original). GabrielF (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point - I suspect no one's got round to updating that. As it happens quite regularly, and I can see it happening no matter what directions are given, I think the answer here is to update the template. Having just refreshed my memory of a few template bits it should definitely be possible to get the duplication detector to automatically use the revision before the tag was placed so making it irrelevant whether the text was removed or not. I'm busy right now but I'll try to update the template in the next couple of days. As it will require changes to how the template is subst'd it won't affect tags already placed but should make it more usable for future taggings. Dpmuk (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Would it be a good idea for me to change the instructions at WP:CP? GabrielF (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just updated it as that's a much quicker and easier task than playing with the template. Feel free to change my updated wording - I'm not the best at writing bits like that. Dpmuk (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the template was forced to blank the text because people used it improperly and text would continue to be published. For a long time, we thought that this was sufficient, but it was pointed out to us (long ago and far away; diffs if I must, but I'm not searching for them at the moment due to lack of time :D) that some of the websites that mirror us would still be copying the copyrighted text if we allowed to the template to do the blanking even though it wasn't visible on our page. For that reason, we put back the request to replace the material. The duplication detector report is useless when the copyvio template is done correctly, though sometimes handy if it isn't. What would be ideal - and for all I know may be impossible - is to get it to link to the last version prior to the placement of the template. --Moonriddengirl 11:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that what might be useful is to simply list the duplication detector tool on the template and explain how to use it on the earlier text. That could be helpful anyway, as dup det is of limited usefulness when close paraphrasing is the issue. We could perhaps slip it into a collapse box to keep that monster of a template from getting any larger? What do you guys think? --Moonriddengirl 11:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the conversation as I was only somewhat aware of it (I think it happened just as I started out in copyright work). My point of view on it is if it's OK to keep copyright versions in the history (and I know there's a legal opinion on this somewhere) then it's OK to keep it 'under' the template. If other sites copy from us without checking that then that's there problem, not ours. Personally I think the extra convenience to us outweighs any possible problems for other sites - they're not our responsibility. After all as things stand we don't stop them copying past versions, possibly with copyvios (well we can now with RevDel but we didn't before). That said getting the template to link to the previous version should definitely be possible, I'll work on it later. Even once that's done I think we should update the text to make it clear duplication detector may not work. Dpmuk (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OK this isn't as easy as I thought. I'd assumed that substing the REVISIONID magic word would give you the revision ID of either the version you've just created or the previous version. Unfortunately it does neither and gives you an empty string. Bugzilla suggests that the id of the revision you've just made isn't possible due to how revisions are stored (the revision ID isn't known to after the revision is saved). There was some discussion of being able to provide the previous revision id but it would appear this functionality was never implemented. Off to think of other solutions! (I can think of one but that requires my toolserver account to have been reactivated). Dpmuk (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Right I think I have something that works. It uses the API and gets the wikitext and compares that rather than the raw HTML. As we are only interested in the actual text (not any formatting) I don't think this should be a problem but feel free to revert my changes to the template if it does much things up. Dpmuk (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The duplication detector change also works for current lisitings given how I've implemented it. I've also boldy changed the template so the links in the bottom right are always to the day the tag was added and to add a (listing) link in the top section that will jump straight to the listing at WP:CP. The latter will only work for new listing due to the fact that I've only just changed {{Article-cv}} (and it also works for Berkshire School which I was using as a test case and where I manually added the change to it's WP:CP listing). Dpmuk (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

On a related note do we want an editfilter that detects people adding the copyvio template without removing anything? I don't think it would be too expensive in edit filter terms although not having done anything with edit filters before I'd want to check first. On the positive side it would ensure the text is removed, on the negative side it might make people give up on tagging. Dpmuk (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also asked User:Dcoetzee whether he'd mind adding a message to the top of duplication detector reports to the effect that it shouldn't be relied upon and manual inspection may still be necessary. I've fixed the problem in this instance but I know there's other cases (e.g. when the source is google books) when something similar would happen and there's nothing we can do about that. Dpmuk (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And he's already made the change! Dpmuk (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking to subpages of DGM violates terms of service

The terms of service (tos) of Discipline Global Mobile (DGM, a record company) expressly prohibit links to any page except the DGM homepage. The tos warns that copyright violations will be pursued legally with tenacity. There is discussion at the talk page of WP's article on DGM's founder, Robert Fripp:

• Initial discussion of possible copyright infringement and certain violation of DGM terms of use.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how there could be copyright issues with linking to subpages of a web site. Fair use allows you to quote short sections of text from copyrighted works (and a URL is definitely short) and I suppose that they are below the threshold of originality anyway, making them not copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this is an area where were we can make statements like "I fail to see..." because it is a legal syn. I suggest we look around for reliable sources that can give us some guidance on this issue. Here is one:

• Stanford University Library: Copyright & Fair Use: Connecting to Other Websites:

Many copyright experts believe that deep linking (links that bypass a website’s home page) is not copyright infringement -- after all, the author of a novel can’t prevent readers from reading the end first if they so desire, so why should a website owner have the right to determine in what order a user can access a website? ... However, if a commercial website has no linking policy or says that deep links are not allowed, it’s wise to ask for permission before deep linking. Why? Because many websites -- even the listener-friendly National Public Radio -- have asserted rights against deep linkers under both copyright and trademark law principles.

International law is equally murky. For example, in 2002, a Danish court prevented a website from deep linking to a newspaper site. But in 2003, Germany weighed in on the issue when its federal court ruled that deep linking was not a violation of German copyright law. Subsequently, an Indian and a Danish court both separately ruled against the practice of deep linking in 2006.

-PBS (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

International law is nice, but in the US, the courts have explicitly sided with those who use links; even "deep" links: Washington Post v. Total News, Ticketmaster v. Microsoft, Kelly v. Arriba Soft, Perfect 10 v. Google. Since US law governs our usage and usage OUTSIDE the US is covered by our WP:General Disclaimer, I think it is pretty safe to say that a reference usage is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, just about EVERY reference guide states you should cite the FULL URL of the source of your information, not merely the main page of a website.

I fail to see how WP:SYN applies.

Given that this is the fourth or fifth discussion that Kiefer has started, I believe there may be some issue of canvassing. Let's consolidate this into one discussion instead of having it all over the place. Buffs (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The point being that now you are discussing it on case law which is much better than saying "I fail to see...". The problem with the paragraph "I fail to see... Fair use allows" is that it is advancing a position without using a legal expert to advance the position for you. -- PBS (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Buffs, Let us wish that your understanding of copyright is superior to your understanding of WP:Canvas, which explicitly labels the leaving of a handful of neutrally worded notices as appropriate. The link to the discussion page at Robert Fripp was provided, and experienced editors know that (at the time) it iswas best to continue the discussion at the original place (before discussion was closed there, to be continued here 12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Snide comments aren't needed. Starting the same discussion in 4 places is canvassing. You've now stopped discussions elsewhere and redirected them here, ergo, any canvassing problems have been thoroughly eliminated. Have a good day.

@PBS, "I fail to see..." indicates that the person doesn't understand your point of view. By definition, that's confusion, not synthesis. Buffs (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As I suggested, you don't understand WP:Canvass.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is probably the best place to discuss the concept in a general way and let the discussion here be used for the more specific one. Here is another paper.

• Web Site Linking: Right or Privilege Richard A. Spinello June 4-5, 1999

The Ticketmaster v. Microsoft Case ...

There was an out of court settlement to this lawsuit in February 1999. Although the terms of the settlement were not disclosed Microsoft did agree to link to Ticketmaster's home page instead of to its sub-pages. The settlement was actually a disappointment for those searching for a firm legal precedent about controversial linking activities. As a result, at least in the United States there are curently no unambiguous legal guidelines on the practice of deep linking. ...

This article (Web Site Linking: Right or Privilege)also includes a section titled "Ethical Dimensions of Linking" which is worth a read and perhaps should be discussed further

In our view, a compelling case can be put forward that a Web site should be considered as the proprietary and private property of its author and owner. ... In short, property rights are required as a return for the laborers' painful and strenuous work. ... Likewise, the utilitarian argument that ownership rights are justified ... Part of exercising that control is ensuring that visitors are exposed to the homepage so that advertising revenues will not be compromised.

--PBS (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Following Buff's and PBS's suggestions, I archived the discussion at the talk page of Robert Fripp.

I agree with your comments and recognize that the creation of those pages required extensive labour, which should be respected (and, as usual, this position is better articulated through virtue ethics than through utilitarian or Lockean British-schoolboy ethics).

I registered with DGM and asked for Misplaced Pages to have permission to link to its pages, only when illustrating or documenting an assertion in an article related to DGM or Fripp, etc.

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is from 1999, which means that 13 years of development are missing.

For the 1997 Ticketmaster case, it means it is simply irrelevant, as we actually do have precedents now. Ticketmaster tried it again later, this time against Tickets.com, and the court clearly said that URL is not subject to copyright (see deep linking). And then the same thing was said again in other cases. So this issue seems to be quite clear now: deep linking is considered fair use. See the Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing for more details. So, we don't need to ask DGM for permission. The fact that in 2012, we have multi-billion-dollar companies making products that build their success on deep-linking, proves that deep-linking is not illegal. Google offers deep links to billions of web pages (including the DGM subpages), and I am sure they don't read ToS for each one of them and ask them for permission. Because they don't have to. It's fair use. If it wasn't, they would have been sued already.

The ethical considerations are outdated, too. In the days of cloud computing, having ToS saying that deep linking will be prosecuted is absent-minded to put it very mildly, as you will violate the ToS automatically, in thousand ways, when you use modern Internet services and modern technology that are the norm in 2012. Furthermore, there was no Misplaced Pages in 1999, the concept of sharing common knowledge for the benefit of mankind was not known (and therefore fully considered) then. And so on. There is nothing ethical about this "no deep linking" requirement in 2012. It is deeply immoral and dangerously inhuman, if the punishments suggested in the ToS are really enforced. I find these highly unethical, confused and backward-looking ToS especially ironic with a company such as DGM that views itself as "the ethical company".

So I think we should really focus on a single thing: is deep-linking in the US legal or not regardless of what the website owner wants? If it is (and the court rulings from this millenium suggest that it indeed is), than there is no need to ask DGM or anyone else for permission, and then I would not ask them even as an act of courtesy, for the reasons explained above—as a matter of principle.—J. M. (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi J.M.

That seems a bit below your normally high standards. Would you please remove the abuse of DGM and soapboxing?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)