Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 2

message: Archived April 15, 2005. sjorford →•← 12:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: I notice that the article refers to material in an article's page history infringing copyright.  I find it hard to believe this is really possible.  Surely we only have to worry about the article itself, not stuff that has been deleted from it?  GrahamN 17:09, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Angela
Thanks, Angela, but unfortunately that page doesn't seem to answer the question.  If somebody actually knows the answer (as opposed to having an opinion, or an interesting line of argument) could they please state it clearly there.  Thank you.  GrahamN 23:19, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: Everything in law is just an opinion till it's been litigated, but my opinion is that it's quite clear that: [1] when you make something available on the Internet you are publishing it, and that [2] we are publishing the history pages.  I can't see how we have any right to publish copyrighted material on history pages.  The fact that we call them history pages and don't consider them a part of Wikipedia or that it requires an extra click to get to them doesn't seem to alter that. -- Someone else 23:39, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: It's probably worth mentioning that although it seems clear we have no right to keep copyright materials in history, our liability for having done so would seem to be limited until the actual copyright owner notifies us of the offence... at which time we'd presumably "hand-remove" it to comply with the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. -- Someone else 23:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Could something be a copyright infringement even after it has been deleted?

message: I have an inquiry regarding French copyright law and it was suggested that I should post it here. I started an article on a French musician called Midoru and added a photo which came from the book listed in the bibliography. This was a limited numbered edition and not meant for wide distribution. I know of no way to find this person to obtain his permission, but felt my use of the photo matched all the requirements listed on this site for fair use. However, I was subsequently contacted by someone who suggested that I should research French copyright and privacy laws before publicly posting pictures of French citizens, so I removed it pending further investigation.
Upon looking in to the matter I found that France has some of the world's strictest privacy laws and the country's constitution clearly states that everyone has the right to a private life. The law protects personal information about an individual and their intimate personal life against intrusions. In France, for instance, the right to privacy embraces "all aspects of an individual's spiritual and physical being". People can decide for themselves how much of their private life they wish to reveal. It also gives them rights over their own personal appearance (for instance, in the way photographs are used) and their own name.
I found the following FAQ on French copyright law and have roughly translated with Babelfish, so you may want to consult the original :
Which is the contents of the moral right of the author? 
The moral right includes/understands: 
- right of disclosure, i.e. discretionary right to deliver its work to the public or to preserve it "secret", 
- right to the paternity, which is the right to be recognized author of work, in all circumstances, 
- right of withdrawal or repentance, therefore right to withdraw the work of the market, 
- the right to the respect of the work, which can be defined like the right authorizing the author to intervene when an attack, physics or morals, is carried to its work. 
The author cannot in no case to yield his moral right (it is said that it is "except trade" or even "inalienable"). 
The moral right is perpetual: the heirs to the author will recover his prerogatives of a moral nature to its death.
 
This may be significant, as it seems to apply to any French citizen, unknown or celebrity. Can someone who is knowledgeable in the subject offer an opinion, or would it just be better not to post any pictures of the French here? What needs to be done to insure that the laws of France are not violated? 
( I could just see going to Paris, getting arrested, and then hauled into court to answer questions about the picture I posted on Wikipedia before being sent to the Bastille.) Infortis 02:18, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If this book of which you speak was either sold or given to people not acquainted with its author (which is pretty much what "publish" means) then it's really hard to imagine anyone being able to seriously allege you've invaded anyone's privacy by republishing parts of it.  If that's the case, they've volunteered to lose their right of disclosure. Paternity you can solve by proper attribution.  And the other rights are checked by your right as an owner of a copy of the work to make fair use of it.  I'm not qualified to speak as to which side of that interminable argument this case falls. -- Finlay McWalter 02:34, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The mentioned rights that I would like to know more of:- right of disclosure, i.e. discretionary right to deliver its work to the public or to preserve it "secret". - right of withdrawal or repentance, therefore right to withdraw the work off the market. Infortis 02:56, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: It was at http://www.raajangahm.com/tmr.html as well, which does have a (c) notice, so I listed it. Angela 20:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Copyright and Privacy Law 

message: Views on Online service provider law are welcome over there - it's the area of law I track and the one applicable to many of the activities of the Wikipedia, including the image fair use decisions here. Jamesday 00:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Online service provider law

message: Iv'e added Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation to deal with cases where the actual copyright owner is the one making the complaint. --mav 08:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page: Request for immediate removal of copyright violation 

message: **I just added a Simon and Schuster logo to the article on them... based on somewhat inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Logos. Some seemed to feel that the use of a corporate logo on an article about the corporation was surely fair use. What do people think? Is this OK or not? Dpbsmith 02:55, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo issues

message: Is there any list of sites where the content is known to be public domain that could be listed on this page, so that people (might) look there before crying 'copyright violation'.  I suspect such a thing might already exist, so I'm asking before I create one. —Morven 22:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Public domain resources and  for generic uncopyrightable things. Perl 23:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But just because something can't be copyrighted doesn't mean it couldn't be protected in other ways, say as a trademark or under a patent. Presumably these don't cause as many problems for Wikipedia, but see for example MBTI. - dcljr 00:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: List of PD sources 

message: This page was moved in accordance with majority opinion on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. The main reasons for the move:
* Page titles should be short and succint
* "Infringements" is unnecessarily intimidating
* It addresses a larger range of copyright issues, including, for example, copyright notices; it could become a kind of village pump for copyright issues.
—Eloquence 20:11, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)~
:Well, I liked the old one "copyright infringements". It is more consice and focused. Copyright problems sound like it include more of problems due to copyright. Copyright sucks in my opinion and the length of the protection must be shortened. But it is a different story right? -- Taku 22:04, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
:I like the change.  "Infringements" carries a presupposition of guilt, and quite a few pages get listed here that are not, in fact, infringing. —Morven 07:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the change.  The old one had "possible" in it.  This one doesn't. anthony 07:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Possible" isn't necessary if we're calling them "problems", not "infringements". I think the move was reasonable. --Michael Snow 17:50, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Michael.  Some of these are actually GFDL issues (such as owner not agreeing to GFDL use) and not copyright infringement problems. - Texture 17:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move explained 

message: Given that Wikipedia provides a commentary about various subjects it seems to me that images like Corporate Logos, Product Pictures, screenshots of programs/games and the like would clearly fall under the fair use clause of copyright protection as long as the origin of the pictures is the same as that which is being written about.  Is there an existing location which provides guidelines of how to use copyrighted images on Wikipedia in a compatible manner to fair-use?
:See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. Angela. 15:55, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guide for fair use? 

message: Wikipedia:Fair use claims that this is the place for questions such as mine, so I'll take its word for it. There would appear to be, in my humble opinion, a copyright problem in :Image:Saccharomyces cerevisiae.jpg, which is currently deemed fit under fair use. I for one do not see how it would fall under that definition. (It is probably best that this discussion take place at .) -- Itai 11:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Saccharomyces cerevisiae.jpg 

message: I see a huge backlog going back three weeks by now instead of just seven days. Isn't anybody cleaning up here? Lupo 11:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The uncontested backlog goes back to June 29th. The earlier ones are not clear cut - the ones I commented on really need a second opinion. I will start to clear this up - although I've not tackled this page before. I guess the problem is that its the northern hemisphere holiday/vacation season so people are away. Secretlondon 21:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now dealt with almost everything up to July 6th. Most of the remaining are disputed. Secretlondon 03:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog

message: I was informed on the mailing list that this page is for more than just possible copyright infringements, so I have modified the page to reflect this. anthony (see warning) 00:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just copyright infringements?

message: This is probably not the right place to ask this, but I am hoping someone will point me to the right place.
We have a problem in Turkish Wikipedia. Last week, someone made a number of contributions in  a short timeframe. I suspected a copyvio and made a Google search on the content of these articles. The first three which looked professional gave hits. Two of them were from a Turkish government site w/o a copyright notice. This gives permission to use the material under Turkish law. One of them looked like came from a collection of essays offered by a site, though the site requires membership, but upon inquiry the contributor of that page did admit to getting the content from this site. I erased the contents of the page, he restored it claiming fair use, and I erased again, claiming fair use cannot be claimed since all the content came from a single source. I also stated that if he restores the page I will erase the content and procect it (I am a sysop there). Because of my position, I cannot do something and hope it will become policy in the long run. I do not want to be in a situation where I am the prosecutor, judge and the executor. I'd much rather find policy than make it. I think the precedents set in English Wikipedia will be acceptable to everyone involved. I have a few questions regarding the situation, and I would appreciate if someone can answer them and possibly point to a precedent in the English Wikipedia.
* Can copying content be claimed to be fair use even if there are no additions made to it? i.e., the sole content of an article is part of a copyrighted work. If so who should this be attributed, so if it is passed on other people can decide for themselves to claim fair use or not.
::It can be, but unless the article exists in a wider context it probably isn't.  If you determine that it can be used, attribution should be to the original author. Eclecticology 03:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more to accepting responsibility than a simple statement saying that he does.  Is he willing to give his real name and address so that when the usage is questioned you can send him all the legal papers?  I don't thank that his accepting responsibility would absolve all parties.  Keeping some infringing material needs to be a community decision that applies in circumstances that the community decides.  Personally, I believe that there is a tremendous amount of copyright material that could be used without any problem; the original authors don't know or don't care about copyright.  Still, that's not the kind of decision where I would act alone to impose it on the community.  The second part of your question is more an ethical one than a legal one.  The likelihood of consequences.  The spirit of the law is really to protect the writer before the publisher.  Often, after many years, there is no author, no heirs and no publisher left to protect.  I would support the principle that copyright does not exist unless there is someone to own it (whether or not we know who that person is).  Unless the contributor has enough sophistication in copyright matters to understand that I would act cautiously with any contributions that come within that umbrella. Eclecticology 03:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether something is copyright is determined by the law where the material was published or where the author resided.  The penalizing of an infringement depends on where the infringement was published; putting things on a server is a form of publishing, and since the servers are in the United States that's the law that applies.  Our contributo is also subject to the law where he was at the moment he infringed; in this case that would also make Turkish law apply. Eclecticology 03:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Blank it for as long as the discussion is ongoing, but delete as soon as the discussion appears to be going nowhere. Eclecticology 03:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Right now there is a discussion involving Jimbo and others on the english wikipedia mailing list.  It particularly concerns differing copyright laws in different countries, and which laws do and don't apply given wikipedia's worldwide nature.  It's discussing exactly the questions you've asked above, so I think you should mail it to the list. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questions from WP-tr

message: Is taking one image or one square from a comic strip considered fair use just as textual quotation? Examples: :Image:Asterix-Obelix.gif, :Image:Mafalda-Strip1822-Image4.gif --Valmi 04:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comics excerpt

message: I noticed that user:One Salient Oversight has been creating lots of articles that are just quotations from the Apologetics Index, prefaced with "The following is a quote from Apologetics Index". I think that this might be a breach of copyright - I know that using short quotations do not count as copyright violations, but that first sentence does not disguide the fact that he's are transferring their content over wholesale, and that their content comprises the entirety of the articles.
The articles are (I'm not sure whether this is comprehensive):
* Territorial Spirits
* Golden Sword
* Signs and Wonders
* Pensacola Outpouring
* HTR
* Charismatic Renewal
* World Prayer Center
* Third Wave
* C Peter Wagner
* Paul Cain
::I may have accidentally broken "fair use". I am contacting the Website author and will remove the quotes if he asks me to, or if he does not respond within a few days. One Salient Oversight 12:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL, IANAL, IANAL. Be aware that there is an issue with something called, I think, a "compilation copyright." That is, someone can compile an anthology of poems all of which are in the public domain, and copyright the anthology. In that case, it's OK to quote one poem, or two, or six, but not to copy the anthology, as a whole, because the act of compilation at some point creates intellectual property or something. What this means in practice is that a few short quotations from almost anything are OK under fair use, but at some point if you systematically copy lots of things from a single source you can get into trouble. Nothing about intellectual property is simple. IANAL, IANAL, IANAL. But, yes, to stay on the safe side it is wise to limit the number of quotations that are used from any single source. I have no idea how, exactly, this would apply to a website. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations from websites