Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/archive

• images talk to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright

In the second case, if you incorporate external GFDL materials, you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy. If the original copy required invariant sections, you have to incorporate those into the Wikipedia article.

I'm thinking we should maybe have Wikipedia: GFDL History as a place for people to acknowledge included GFDL contributions. Also, invariant sections are just a big pain, since they then become Wikipedia invariant sections. I'd recommend that we not include stuff from GFDL-ed documents with invariant sections unless we build software that allows them to be automatically handled correctly.

Do you then intend to have a link to Wikipedia:GFDL History in every article that uses external GFDL material? I think it would be easier to instead just attach the attribution notice directly to the article, similar to what we do right now with material from FOLDOC (because that's also what we want people to do who use our material). 63.224.6.62[?] 11:03 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)

We also need an actual copyright notice, namely something like © 2000-2002 Wikipedia contributors

This should be "© 2000–2002 The Wikipedia Foundation" — yet another reason to found such a foundation. — Toby 15:22 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)

--The Cunctator

---

I suggest changing the final bullet to:

• you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B), and you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material, and to previous versions of the document. (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is its wiki text.) To fulfil these two obligations you must provide a conspicuous link back to the home of the article here at wikipedia.org.

I suggest this change because under section 4J of the license, users of the material are required to "Preserve the network location ..... for previous versions it was based on". So linking back to Wikipedia isn't optional as a way for crediting history and giving a transparent copy, as the existing wording implies; it is demanded by the license.

Could someone with a good understanding of the license check I have understood this correctly? Enchanter 15:51 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

A link back to the article is just one way to fulfill their obligations. For instance, if they produce a printed version of Wikipedia, or a "book on tape" version, they cannot do that. AxelBoldt 16:58 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

---

I think it would be helpful in the apartheid article to include the full text of the definition of apartheid, from Article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. However, at the bottom of the text of the Convention (at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm ), it says © Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland. Does this mean it would be illegal to copy the definition into our article? Thanks GrahamN 16:42 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

It would certainly be within fair use guidelines to use an extract of the text to illustrate a point. If you want to copy large swaths of text, e-mail their office and ask. :) --Brion

There are 2261 words in the convention, and I'd like to quote 397 of them. This is about 18% of the text. Does this amount to a swath? GrahamN 16:53 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

I wouldn't worry about it. For especially small works like that, "fair use" is more lenient. For example, textbooks routinely quote whole poems to show style; they certainly couldn't quote a whole novel, though. Besides, it's also pretty easy to argue that a legal definition is of utterly no use unless it's quoted exactly and completely. --LDC

Doesn't the price of such textbooks include a royalty for licensing the copyrights on poems? --Damian Yerrick

Question - do quotations come under the guidelines on this page? I'm currently doing lots of stuff to the pages dealing with Neil Gaiman's Sandman stories, and sometimes use quotations from the original in the entries. Do I need to include a copyright notice for these? AW

Yes, I'd suggest preserving copyright notices, along with some kind of "Used pursuant to 17 USC §107" notice. Otherwise, it's borderline plagiarism. (Plagiarism != infringement. Not crediting is plagiarism; breaking the fair use guidelines is infringement.) --Damian Yerrick

---

Public domain Could someone clatify the status of public domain works? The whole of the article Victor Lustig was pasted from a web site marked "public domain". -- Tarquin

When something is in the public domain, that means that the author gives up the copyright. The work is then freely distributable in whatever way anyone sees fit. Copyright on works was originally set to expire after 14 years, but with the various copyright extensions, copyright can now easily last for 150 years. So most works no longer enter the public domain on their own; the author must explicitly disclaim copyright.

Under the U.S. Federal Copyright Act, material that is originated by the Federal government is not subject to copyright. In some cases, material may originate with a private contractor which assigns the copyright to the agency. However, material that is generated by the Federal government which doesn't have a notice can be copied. Note this only applies to the federal government. United States state governments can copyright materials.

A lot of the U.S. government's works (e.g. NASA photos and the CIA World Factbook info) are in the public domain. Take a look at Wikipedia:Public domain resources for more resources. :-) --KQ 15:26 Sep 15, 2002 (UTC)

---

How does translating text fit in here? Most of the time translation is paraphrasing since exact translation is not possible with most languages. --voidvector

A translated text is a derivative work, and as such subject to the original's copyright as well as the translator's. So, please include only translations of material that is itself public domain, GFDL or GFDL-compatible licensed, or explicitly approved by the copyright holder (which is to say, GFDL-licensed by request). (Disclaimer: IANAIPL.) --Brion

---

In a spanish web forum (http://barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=02/12/13/1359210) a user asked about the copyright situation of notes taken in a class. Any comments? --AN

Well, if the person doesn't feel qualified to organize the information herself and express it herself, maybe it isn't a good idea to do that particular article. The legalistic answer is that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. It would certainly be illegal to write down the professor's words verbatim and then put them on wikipedia. There's also the issue of plagiarism, which can be addressed by properly crediting the source, but again, it just raises the question of whether the idea was appropriate in the first place. --User:Bcrowell

---

I have a question ..... what is the meaning of copyright? Obviously very few of us actually "know" the person or object we are writing about. For example, when writing about Mary Queen of Scots I assume no one has actually met her to get a report on her life (!) so everything about her on this site must have been taken from an existing text.
So most of this encyclopaedia is copyright!!
My last statement is obviously nonsense so where does copyright end? Is it OK to rephrase an existing text in such a way that it cannot be recognised in the encyclopaedia? How different must it be?
I'm really puzzled. Help!!
Arpingstone 20:51 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

check out Wikipedia Copyright for some info. The links at the bottom of that page will take you to a bunch of other pages on copyright in the wiki, and some discussion. Dachshund

facts are not copyright, but the expression of them is. So rephrasing text, basically, is fine (it's got to be rephrased enough to be original -- same as essays at school) -- Tarquin 20:54 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin is right. I'd like to add that if you want to write really good Wikipedia articles, you scour multiple sources -- books, papers, websites, mailing lists, newspaper articles ... -- and try to develop a coherent picture from that. By doing so, you are creating a new work that presents all points of view. However, if someone has already done so, you should just summarize that source.

But copyright is an idiotic concept that should be abolished. One way to get there is to create lots of open content -- so go for it! --Eloquence 21:12 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

There are still some spelling errors. I would have fixed them, but apparently not everyone can edit this page.

--Dori Jan 20, 2003

Edit away. I've unprotected it so you can fix any spelling errors or grammar. Do try to keep the meaning - this is a policy page. :) --mav 06:20 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

---

User:Eivind Jan 29, 2003

It's cool that we're allowed to copy individual articles from Wikipedia. But how about copying the entire thing ? What do I do if I want to, say, create a CD-ROM containing all of Wikipedia ? Maybe this should be explained here ? Or a link should be provided to a page explaining it ?

You can do this already. See Wikipedia:Database download. However what you get by that is exactly what is displayed here and you have to install the Wikipedia:Software to use it (you'll have to generate the HTML yourself). There are plans for creating a pure HTML version of the database that can be placed on a CD ROM though. --mav

---

Does anyone have any thoughts about using patent drawings as illustrations? I assume they're in the public domain from the moment the patent is filed, or they pass into the public domain when the patent expires, but I just don't know for sure. --ridetheory 1 Feb 2003

---

Do you reckon using stills from a DVD counts as fair use? There's probably plenty of images that I could take from my DVDs that could be used for the relevant movie and even in other contexts. Mintguy

IANAL but I do know that stills from a movie are fair use when used to illustrate an article about the movie. --mav

There's been a small DVD capture on The Matrix article for some time now. I haven't seen any fuss over that one, so perhaps it's OK. Minesweeper 09:40 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

Are people allowed to quote from the Wikipedia? How long a quote can they take before it stops being fair use?

Seriously: I have no intention of contributing to an unquotable encyclopedia, any more than I would want to start a cancer plague. --Uncle Ed 23:18 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. "Fair use" is a broad brush, and we oursleves take full advantage of it. Tannin

IANAL but fair use would allow for quoting Wikipedia without violating the GNU FDL. --mav

---

So, after having adding Billboard chart rankings to bunches of albums cut-and-pasted from allmusic (http://www.allmusic.com), I discovered the fine print. It says that the info is tagged so they'll know that it came from them, and that unauthorized reproduction is not allowed. (to see it, just search for an album that you know charted in the US and click on the Billboard rankings and Grammy Awards link) My understanding is that information, such as the details of an album/singles chart ranking can not be copyrighted, and so their threat doesn't apply to Wikipedia. (if anyone could copyright it, I would expect Billboard, not allmusic) Am I correct? Tuf-Kat

IANAL but I do know that any claim to be able to copyright information is totally bunk. They can, however, claim copyright on their particular formatting so long as it is somehow unique and an artistic expression. But if, on the other hand, they try to intentionally introduce typos in order to catch copiers then that is plain evil and probably only something they could use to scare people into not copying the information they have collected. The legality of creating booby traps like that seems really thin to me (like misspelling, on average, every 100th person's name in a phone book in order to prevent a competing phone book provider from using the same information - I don't see how that can be considered to be a creative expression). Just my 2 cents. --mav 07:09 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Implications of International Law

A discussion regarding Wikipedia's image use policy has brought up a very interesting question: What about copyright law in foreign jurisdictions?

Copyright in a work can expire under U.S. law, but remain valid under the law of another country. Thus, if you make use of a work in another country or on the Internet you may be subject to liability under the laws of a foreign country, even the work has entered the public domain in the U.S.

(Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP - Copyright Durations - Foreign Rights and Works (http://www.bromsun.com/practice/copyrights/copyright_durations))

IMHO, this is a very serious concern for Wikipedia. -- NetEsq 02:28 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

From your reference:

Under current law, foreign authors from most countries are accorded the same exclusive rights under U.S. copyright law as they would have if they were U.S. citizens.

It was talk of "national treatment" similar to this statement that led me to write previously "Foreign copyright owners from such countries, whose rights are infringed by Wikipedia, would generally act against Wikipedia under US law". I was confused by the idea that the foreign copyright can be protected, but protected by the mechanism of national law. If copyright has expired in the US but not elsewhere, can a civil case be brought against Jimbo or Bomis in a US court? Are the protections for website owners, under DMCA, removed when it is a foreign copyright owner who is wronged? -- Tim Starling 02:46 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

My *GUESS* is that United States law would obtain if suit were brought in a United States court, but that is only a guess. Moroever, if someone in the United Kingdom were to bring suit against Wikipedia in the United Kingdom, my guess is that the United Kingdom would apply the law of the United Kingdom, but (once again) that is only a guess. The implications of such forum shopping are truly mind-boggling. I vaguely remember a legal dispute some twenty years ago (not involving copyright) where the courts in these two countries claimed jurisdiction and dismissed the jurisdictional claims of the other country, and the litigants passed away long before the dispute was resolved, assuming that it ever was resolved. -- NetEsq 03:09 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

It would seem pretty bizarre to me to expect a US judge to apply UK law, or attempt to create some mish-mash between the two. But then I'm told that's the primary failing of scientists like myself trying to understand law: assuming there's some kind of logic to it.

I had a brief look at jurisdiction shopping some time ago, when Kay Shearin (US) threatened to sue Tarquin (UK). I read up on extradition treaties: it seemed to me that even if the US case was successful, Shearin would have had buckleys chance of getting Tarquin arrested (unless he went for a visit to the US). -- Tim Starling 03:29 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

I found an article that is totally on point: Conflict of Laws Issues in International Copyright Cases (http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/yu-2001-04-all) By Peter K. Yu. Basically, there is no "right" answer when it comes to international conflicts of copyright law, and anyone relying upon Wikipedia's GFDL in a foreign jurisdiction does so at his or her own risk. [Please note that nothing that I have posted here should be construed as a legal opinion or as constituting legal advice.] -- NetEsq 04:05 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Very interesting, it seems the answer is exactly my "bizarre" mish-mash of US and UK laws applied by a US judge. I wonder how people would react if we wrote on Wikipedia:Copyrights "don't infringe copyright, because we don't know what will happen if you do." I think it would be appropriate to update Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image use policy to indicate that data submission should be legal under both US law and the law of the copyright-holder's country. Oh, and the law of the uploader's country, too. -- Tim Starling 04:53 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

This is my opinion (a non-lawyer's) based on the spirit of the GFDL, rather than the letter. When you licence a work under the GFDL, you licence it so that everyone can use it. You explicitly say "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium". If the work may not be copied and distributed outside the US, then you may not licence it under the GFDL. Note that the GFDL doesn't allow you to place geographical restrictions on who can copy it, so you can't say that "Wikipedia text is licensed under the GFDL for use in the US only". Hence, all data submitted has to be legal under all copyright law - essentially this means following the union of US law, EU law, and the Berne convention. Martin

You have a good point. I agree with everything you said there except one thing: "all" copyright law is not US+EU+Berne. I stumbled across this (http://www.caslon.com.au/durationprofile.htm) interesting article, which sorts countries around the world by level of protection. Apparently Mexico and Guatemala protect literary works for life+75 years, Colombia for life+80, and France for up to life+84 years (in a small set of cases). Oh, and the James Barrie play Peter Pan is protected forever, in the UK. People submitting work to Wikipedia are obliged to follow the strictest set of protections: in most cases, life+80 years. -- Tim Starling 12:05 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Colombian law (http://home3.americanexpress.com/smallbusiness/resources/expanding/global/reports/11112020.shtml)

---

<< If the work may not be copied and distributed outside the US, then you may not licence it under the GFDL. >>

In theory, that's all well and good, but there is no guarantee on how foreign jurisdictions will interpret the GFDL. They can do whatever they want. In fact, there is no guarantee as to how courts in the United States might interpret copyright claims (public domain or otherwise) based on foreign publication.

<< Note that the GFDL doesn't allow you to place geographical restrictions on who can copy it, so you can't say that "Wikipedia text is licensed under the GFDL for use in the US only". >>

Based upon my initial research, I am of the opinion that the GFDL *IS* in fact limited to publications within the context of United States copyright law. It does not -- and cannot -- take the copyright law of foreign jurisdictions into account. This is an unsettled area of the law, and those who contribute or publish content outside of the jurisdiction of the United States do so at their own risk.

In other words, as stated by Tim Starling above, those who upload or contribute content to Wikipedia are obliged to comply with the copyright law in the jursidiction where they upload or contribute content, whereas those who download and/or publish content from Wikipedia must comply with the copyright law in their jurisdiction. Contrary to assertions made above, the Berne convention does *NOT* provide appropriate "choice of law" provisions. -- NetEsq 17:31 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Why is the GFDL limited to "publications within the context of United States copyright law"? How is it incompatible with, say, EU copyright law? The GFDL doesn't explicitly reference any particular jurisdiction, so there's nothing obvious. What are the differences between EU and US law that make the license work for US publications and not work for EU publications? Martin

<< Why is the GFDL limited to "publications within the context of United States copyright law"? >>

Let me qualify that assertion: Since Wikipedia is under the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States, the licensing of Wikipedia content under the GFDL only applies to publications that are licensed within the context of United States copyright law. If someone were to publish a Wikipedia fork using the GFDL in a foreign jurisdiction, the copyright law of that foreign jurisdiction would obtain. As I am not even remotely familiar with "EU copyright law" (assuming, arguendo, that there actually is such an animal), I cannot even guess as to how the GFDL would be interpreted by an EU court.

What I can say for certain is that copyright claims to Bambi under German copyright law were upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1996, contrary to everyone's expectations. Twin Books v. Walt Disney (http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9515250), 83 F.3d 1162 (1996). As a result, certain foreign works published between July 1, 1909, and December 31, 1922, are still subject to copyright, but only if they were *NOT* published in the United States. This ruling is very narrowly tailored and only applies to the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.

Simply put, there is no international copyright law, so those who contribute to Wikipedia from foreign jurisdictions or publish Wikipedia content in foreign jurisdictions must comply with the copyright law of those foreign jurisdictions. Other things being equal, this isn't necessarily all that big of a deal, but an appropriate disclaimer/warning should be included on the Wikipedia:Copyrights page. -- NetEsq 21:02 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

My understanding is that there's a series of national laws set by Britain, France, Germany, ... that are all essentially identical, following an EU treaty where these countries agree to standardise their copyight terms to author's life + 70 years. Martin

After some cursory research, I found an article on the EU Copyright Directive. "The Directive" was first published in June 2001, and it is due to become law in the United Kingdom in late Spring of 2003. The problems with the Directive are that it *STILL* doesn't contain "choice of law" provisions and each EU nation has to approve the Directive before it becomes law in that particular nation. As such, each EU nation can and will implement the Directive as it sees fit. -- NetEsq 14:17 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

And French don't use Linux.... Ericd 21:16 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

Most open source licences were designed according to the United States law. . . . [P]reliminary results seem to conclude that GPL (and many similar licences) are enforceable in at least some European countries, and particularly in France. However, much more work is needed in this direction, to provide open source models with a strong legal basis, especially in countries other than the United States, where most open source licences have been written and studied.

(Open source and copyright law (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_copyright_law).)

You guys are going nuts over something that doesn't matter. If there is a copyright infringement, the offended party will notify you. At that time, remove the offending content. There is never going to be a lawsuit against wikipedia unless you guys delete everybody's contributions and start copying everything from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Instead you are wasting your time trying to protect wikipedia from a threat that does not exist and in the process you are turning wikipedia into a police state. Same with your decision to use the GFDL.

Don't get all bent out of shape because a few people question your articles. Definitely don't blank them until the issue has been discussed.-- goatasaur

The anonymous user above would be well advised not to rely on getting a cease-and-desist notice if s/he infringes the copyright law of another country, while uploading material to Wikipedia. Many countries do not take such a lenient view of copyright infringement, and prefer to seize evidence and bring charges immediately. -- Tim Starling 01:54 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Is there any remaining material that is questionable? If so, sing out and I'll help rephrase them. Tannin

---

<< You guys are going nuts over something that doesn't matter. >>

I, for one, am not "going nuts." In fact, I distinctly said that "this isn't necessarily all that big of a deal, but an appropriate disclaimer/warning should be included on the Wikipedia:Copyrights page [in re international copyright issues]."

<< If there is a copyright infringement, the offended party will notify you. At that time, remove the offending content. >>

Apples and oranges: The Wikipedia:Copyrights article needs to provide an appropriate disclaimer/warning in re international copyright issues. This has absolutely nothing to do with overzealous enforcement of potential copyright infringement by busybodies and control freaks, something which I have spoken out against repeatedly. To wit, beyond the issue of quality control, there is no need whatsoever for Wikipedians to assume the role of copyright police. -- NetEsq 02:48 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Nod - we should remove copyrighted images/text on quality control grounds, not legal grounds. On some occasions perhaps it's better to hold off on requesting that an image is deleted until one has found a GFDL replacement? Martin

I disagree. When we find copyright protected text that has clearly been copied from some web page, we routinely delete it. Why would we hold images to a lower standard? -º¡º

The quality control procedures for Wikipedia content should be more or less the same for text and images. To wit, if you have a reasonable suspicion that content infringes on copyright, you should remove the content from the article where it appears -- wholly on the grounds of quality control -- and give the contributor of that content a reasonable opportunity to respond. More importantly, if you are not reasonably familiar with the concepts of copyright, public domain, fair use, etc., don't take it upon yourself to police copyright infringement by other Wikipedians, as you will probably chase away valuable Wikipedia contributors. -- NetEsq 17:59 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't grasped that your definition of quality control included protecting wikipedia from containing copyright infringement. Thanks - º¡º

Encyclopedia Mythica hieroglyphs copyright

Copyright query: On Encyclopedia Mythica (http://www.pantheon.org), hieroglyphs for certain gods are given as image files. Are these okay to use? Obviously, they're not copyrighted by the people who etched them on the walls of the Pyramids or whatever, but the images appear to be computer-generated, not photos or anything. I know letters can't be copyrighted, and I'm assuming that, since they couldn't copyright Chinese characters for example, they can't do the same for hieroglyphics. Is that right?

For an example, go to http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/saa Tokerboy 22:09 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

You wrote "I know letters can't be copyrighted", and I wonder what exactly you meant by this. While the letter "A" cannot generically have a copyright filed, a font designer could argue that an individual artistic representation of the letter "A" could be. The exact copyright status of fonts is a hot legal topic, with (as usual) the law being different from country to country. -º¡º

Your question is essentially the same as mine. Where is the line between calligraphy and simple reproductions of uncopyrighted symbols? Most importantly, which side of the line do the hieroglyphs at encyclopedia mythica fall on? Tuf-Kat

Beats me. Wouldn't the *safest* thing to do be either to email them and ask for permission or just create our own? -º¡º

I e-mailed him about the time I left the above message on October 2, 2002 and never heard back. I suppose I'll have to ask around to see if someone can draw me a Egyptian-looking falcon (etc.). Tuf-Kat