| Revision as of 02:56, 28 September 2014 editCaroleHenson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers136,508 edits →Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion) - resolving Close paraphrasing concerns: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:23, 1 October 2014 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Is close paraphrasing acceptable?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| If someone could help out, it would be much appreciated!--] (]) 02:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC) | If someone could help out, it would be much appreciated!--] (]) 02:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Is close paraphrasing acceptable? == | |||
| Opinions are needed on the following matter: ]. A ] to that discussion is ] (]) 19:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:23, 1 October 2014
 | Misplaced Pages essays High‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Close paraphrasing page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Close paraphrasing page. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Copyright and "specific terms"
Regarding this text:
- ".....acceptable to use a technical term such as "The War of the Spanish Succession" or "Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)" when the term is almost always used by sources that discuss the subject, and when such sources rarely use any other term. In this case, the technical term is considered to be "merged" with the idea expressed. There is no reasonable alternative way of expressing the idea, and since ideas are not subject to copyright the term is also not protected.....
That's a correct statement of the law, but it seems a bit misleading. It seems to imply that the reason the term is not copyright protected is that "ideas are not subject to copyright", and that therefore a term that is not "merged" with the idea might somehow be protected by copyright.
It is certainly correct to say that "ideas are not subject to copyright."
However, I would think that a specific term -- such as "The War of the Spanish Succession" -- is generally not protected by copyright at all. A one-word term, or even a six-word term, is not generally considered enough of a creative work to be covered by copyright. (Similarly, the title of a work generally is not protected by copyright, which is why you see many songs with the same title.)
Thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Famspear. Terms commonly used, say in history books, are not covered by copyrighted. Names cannot be copyright either. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
German Translation
It would be fine to read this in German. Thanks, --Markus (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion) - resolving Close paraphrasing concerns
Hello,
I'm working on a Misplaced Pages:Good article review of Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion) and the only outstanding issue is GA page - close paraphrasing.
It would be great to have input to determine:
- If the verbiage solves the close paraphrasing concern for the content from the New York Times article from this version comparison.
- Your thoughts regarding next steps for reviewing the books sources.
If someone could help out, it would be much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Is close paraphrasing acceptable?
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Categories: