Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Credit repair

message: ===User:Kielsky===
User:Kielsky keeps inserting advertising into Credit repair. RickK 04:11, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are a bit off in listing them here for that! It seems to me that User:Kielsky was simply trying to comply with terms of copyleft.He copied the info from the commercial site and so provided a link back to that site. I don't see how that makes him a problem user! I've done a complete rewrite, so that we don't need to insert the link. Hopefully that problem solved. If there are no further problems on credit repair and if  nobody objects I will swipe  User:Kielsky from this page tomorrow. theresa knott 14:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: More attribution fuss

message: User:Kielsky keeps inserting advertising into Credit repair. RickK 04:11, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are a bit off in listing them here for that! It seems to me that User:Kielsky was simply trying to comply with terms of copyleft.He copied the info from the commercial site and so provided a link back to that site. I don't see how that makes him a problem user! I've done a complete rewrite, so that we don't need to insert the link. Hopefully that problem solved. If there are no further problems on credit repair and if  nobody objects I will swipe  User:Kielsky from this page tomorrow. theresa knott 14:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Kielsky]]

message: Here's what Kielsky's external website says:
:This Document, the Electronic Credit Repair Kit tm, may not be further copied, photographed, posted, reproduced, stored, translated, or transmitted, in whole or in part, without prior express written consent from the author and copyright owner. Permission is granted to view or print a single personal copy of this document, solely for educational purposes, in its entirety and without modification, as long as this copyright notice remains intact. This permission does not extend to making copies available to others without the author's express written consent. This document may not be sold, rented, or leased, nor may anyone but the author and copyright owner receive any compensation for this document, without the prior express written consent of the author and copyright owner.
:All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice.
This entire document is copyrighted. "Electronic Credit Repair Kit" is a trademark of [Michael Kielsky].
I'm not sure if this counteracts his "donation" of the "part" which found its way into credit repair. I'm not going to be anal about it -- since IANAL and proud of it! -- but it looks like either:
#He should take back his excerpt and go away, no hard feelings; or,
#Wikipedia is now a co-owner of the excerpt, and we have no more obligation to maintain a "donation notice" or "copyright notice" than we do for any of the other ten thousand articles. --Uncle Ed 19:31, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do we do, Martin? Ask on the legal mailing list? Is he giving us the excerpt fully, or with stings attached?  --Uncle Ed 19:33, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: I just went ahead and wrote a brand new article - carefully NOT glancing at the old one - a kind of clean room design technique applied to text. Now, if Kielsky wants to edit OUR version of the article, he's welcome to do so, and I hope he'll understand that any changes he makes are covered by GFDL. --Uncle Ed 20:11, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity about copyright

message: The following text (in blue) was moved from the village pump.
I am particularly interested in the controversy around Credit repair as outlined in the messages on User talk:RickK (which may soon move to Talk:Credit repair) Talk:Credit repair.  Particularly,
:Quoting from section 2 of the GFDL: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License."  This makes it very clear the copyright notice is an integral part of the copy.  The way I see it is that some people are insisting that my copyright somehow is not deserving the same courtesy.  I'm happy to share, freely, under the terms of the GFDL those portions of my copyrighted work I have posted, but I insist that my rights under that very same GFDL be respected. Kielsky
Can an author donate text to Wikipedia and insist that a copyright notice remain?  The page given to editing users does specify the license, but not who the license holder will be.  Should it be specified? silsor 01:41, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
:I don't understand the motivation for having a copyright notice of the text you added. What are copyrights good for? 1. Restricting the copying of a text so that you can make money off of it. 2. Making it clear who is the author of this text. 1 falls away if you license the text under the GFDL. 2 is satisfied by the "page history". Furthermore: what if I cange a sentence in your text: do you still keep that notice of yours? Do I now get to add my own? I just don't understand the motivation for having a copyright notice. As always, IANAL. --snoyes 02:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion: Wikipedia policy is that we don't include attribution for authors in the article text. So we have two options: we can either consider the "Document" to include the talk page (or even the whole site), in which case including the copyright notice on the talk page, alongside other copyright notices, would be sufficient under GFDL; or we can delete the offending text entirely. See my user page for an IANAL statement. -- Tim Starling 03:25, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
Making the "Document" include the Talk page would lead to the unfortunate result of requiring anyone who prints out and distributes the article under the rules for "verbatim copying" to also print out the full talk page (and any talk page archives) and distribute it alongside the article itself. This would be bad. Making the Document include all of Wikipedia would have even worse consequences.
We do include attribution text in the article itself for a number of articles, where required under the GFDL. See, for example, the Nupedia and Wikipedia list. The attribution statement requested by Kielsky is roughly equivalent to such notices, and is not unreasonable. Martin 19:19, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: I may be just reading it wrong, but doesn't the GFDL treat copyright notices and attributions of authorship differently? It only requires attribution for only 5 major authors, but as far as I can see, all copyright notices must be preserved. I guess it's contradictory -- 50 authors could guarantee that they are each attributed by adding copyright notices. But then they could do that with invariant sections too. Note that the reason this particular copyright notice is objectionable is the nature of the linked site. Theresa Knott rewrote the article to get rid of it, Kielsky responded by dumping more text from the site, which was subsequently removed. -- Tim Starling 08:23, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
As long as we are not required to maintain a link to Kielsky's website AND Kielsky agrees that every sentence he added to the article is now covered by the GFDL, I have no more objections.
By the way, sorry about my hasty and suspicious remarks last month. I probably should not have applied the word scam in connection with your website... --Uncle Ed 16:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Village pump discussion