Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:06, 1 October 2014

• WT:CP

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

Public domain question

I have a general question regarding an image which has been uploaded to Misplaced Pages using {{PD-because}}. The reason given is "official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin". The uploaded image is a jpg file and there is no link to any website, etc. given to show from where the image originated. WP:PD#International aspects says "In other words: a work that is not copyrightable in one country (even if that country is its country of origin) can still be copyrighted in other countries, if the work is copyrightable there." So, my question is: Are things such as symbols of national institutions, etc. exempt from copyright in the country of origin considered to be public domain by other countries? WP:DCV says that a {{copypaste}} can be added to the article's talk page in there are questions regarding copyright, but not sure if that just applies to text. Please advise whether it's appropriate for me to post the specific file link here or whether I should discuss this on the article's talk page first. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Believe I found the answer I was looking for at WP:CP#Instructions for handling image copyright concerns. Didn't realize I was posting on the wrong board. Not sure if deleting my question is appropriate, but please do if it is. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence and attribution

Some months ago I copied an article from another Wiki under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence for an article called 1814 campaign in France, and gave it the appropriate attribution (see see edit February 2014‎ ).

On 27 August Nikkimaria zapped most of it intending to rewrite it. In doing this Nikkimaria removed the attribution. I have left a message on Nikkimaria's talk page raising a concern that I do not think that the attribution template can be removed unless the article history is zapped and a new article is written from scratch because the article remains a derived work under the terms CC-3.0. This of course is a copyleft licensing issue and is different from removing PD source and PD attribution when no text the original PD source exists in a Wikiepdia article. Nikkimaria reverted my re-attribution edit, so we need more input on whether the attribution template is needed so that a consensus can be reached.

I have suggested to Nikkimaria that if Nikkimaria rewrites the article in a sand box, then we can delete the history, but unless that is done I think that the attribution template should remain on the article because it remains a derived work. What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As I told PBS, he's free to delete the history if he feels it appropriate, but the version in question is not derived from the site being attributed and so the attribution template is not only unnecessary but misplaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm very keen that we comply with legal attribution etc., but... if there is actually no Wikia material in the "zapped" version of the article, I don't believe we need to add a label saying "This article incorporates material from the "1814 Campaign in France" article..." in the main article text. It isn't true and appears legally unnecessary. The attribution to the Wikia is present in both the older versions where was such material, and in the edit history, which seems sufficient.

(NB: For a comparative example, if I was writing an article on Napoleon on my home PC, and cut and pasted a paragraph from our own Misplaced Pages into my trusty Word document, I would have to credit it as coming from the Wiki. If I then changed my mind, deleted the paragraph, and resaved the Word document, I would not have to retain the attribution forever afterwards in my draft - the Misplaced Pages material would not be present, nor would the new Word document be a derivative work). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comparison is not quite the same thing if you were to publish your document (distribute it), and then someone else comes along and creates a derived work from that initial post assuming that you are using the CC licence, as a distribute derived work this issue is different from what you do in your parlour. In such a case see "Restrictions" section of the licence specifically 4.c. (so that it is clear Wikia is using the same licence see http://www.wikia.com/Licensing ) Their explanation of what is acceptable as attrition is not as clear as that in Wikiepdia, but Misplaced Pages places a similar minimum statement at the bottom of a page "agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution". -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone was to produce a derivative work from a licensed source, then yes they would need to give attribution; in the case in question, with the Wikia material entirely removed, I can't see that it is in fact derivative. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The version in question is not derived from the Wikia site, according to the terms used in the license. The only material remaining from the previous iteration of the article was added post-import, not taken from Wikia; the other content was correctly attributed to other Misplaced Pages articles or cited to external sources (though more citations are needed). Since no material from Wikia was retained, and since the structure is the standard chronology of historical text rather than anything unique to Wikia, attributing Wikia in this way is not appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that we need the input of more than three editors to decide it the attribution should be removed. In the meantime the page needs to be a either reverted to a version with the attribution or it needs to be set to a version before the addition of the attributed text (a redirect). -- PBS (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Noting permission for deleted text confirmed through OTRS

I've recently received permission from the copyright owner for text on an article that was speedily deleted. How should I note this? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 09:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• If an email has been sent to OTRS, then on the talk page of the article, place {{OTRS pending}}, and an OTRS agent will put the final tag on the page. Crow 19:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am an OTRS agent. I meant that I received permission through OTRS, and the article was already speedily deleted. I'm not an admin, so I can't restore the page myself. I think any note on the talk page would be G8'ed pretty quickly. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 10:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Anon126: I gotcha now. It looks like the interestingly-acronymed WP:REFUND is the place to go. Crow 18:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

To editor Crow:

Thank you. Ah, yes, why didn't I think of that? Request has been filed. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Old photographs

Can a photograph taken in the USA at some indefinite point between 1900 and 1911 still be within copyright. I'm keen to use this image (Cadet Corp in Woodburn Circle) which clearly shows a building completely lacking a wing which was completed in 1911 - Allowing for building and construction time, I put the photo at about 1905. However, the site owner claims this image is copyright. What's the ruling on this? Giano (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, all images published (not created) before 1 January 1923 are in the public domain in the United States; WP:PD has more information. I think this would be better for media copyright questions. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 10:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Linking songs to MetroLyrics website

There are currently more than 20,000 pages linked to the lyrics website MetroLyrics, which were added by User:LyricsBot. In researching some song articles for GANs, I noticed a number of problems, which were first brought to the attention of the bot operator, User:Dcoetzee in June 2014 (User talk:Dcoetzee#MetroLyrics concern). Despite additional comments in July and September, the problems have not been adequately addressed. On September 27, 2014, Dcoetzee announced his semi-retirement. The problems regard copyrighted song lyrics – specifically, a high percentage of the MetroLyrics links list the wrong songwriter (see above talk link for details). Since this is a potential WP:LINKVIO concern, please let me know where I should raise this if not here. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:53, 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. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)