Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Learn more about this page

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)

--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

The following conversation was moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

I still am not sure about the conventions about images and copyrights. I had an interchange with user:isis in Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and I'm still not sure that a note shouldn't be posted in the talk of the page that the image is used under fair use doctrine. Isis thinks that a better explanation should be given, for people not to be "afraid" of using images. So do I. If this was already discussed and decided, please point me to the proper place AstroNomer 22:38 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

I think the best place for such a notice is the image description page. Just something simple, like "Cover of videotape of XXX, used under fair use." or something along those lines. But it should definitely be attached to the image, not the article, so that people who might want to use the image in ways that wouldn't qualify for fair use can see that we specifically aren't claiming that it is GFDL'd.

There's not a specific policy to do this, but I think you're right that there should be. --LDC

The desire to disclose what is and is not public domain, GFDL, and/or copyrighted material used under fair use is laudable, but (IMHO) totally unnecessary and counterproductive. If someone wants to use Wikipedia content in some way that is not consistent with the terms of the GFDL, it should be left up to them to determine whether that other use is permissible. Our primary concern should be determining whether the items we use on Wikipdedia can be licensed under the GFDL: Nothing more; nothing less. And by limiting our disclosure as to what is not restricted by the terms of the GFDL, we can encourage compliance with the exact terms of the GFDL.--NetEsq

GFDL includes the right of charge money or even make a profit with the information, fair use, i think, not (correct me if I'm wrong) So we can use audio samples, images under fair use, but they will be NOT licensable by GFDL so people must know that.AstroNomer

This poses an interesting legal question, but I am not aware of any legal restriction on fair use which might kick in by virtue of charging for content distributed under the GFDL. To wit:

"[T]he more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 1171 (1994).

In other words, if Wikipedia's use of copyrighted content is fair use, it should remain fair use when it is distributed for profit under the GFDL. If not, we shouldn't be using that content in the first place.--NetEsq

That's right. Please say it again to make sure everybody heard you. -- isis 6 Sep 2002

Okay. Please see my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights.--NetEsq 2:58pm Sep 7, 2002 (PDT) [see below inserted material]

I'm going to make a few observations here, and then I have to concentrate on my paying work until 17 September, so I'm not going to be able to participate actively in any discussion in the meantime.
When you think about the issue of using pictures of created objects (including book and videotape covers) in the 'pedia, ask yourself why you think it's any different from making and using pictures of Campbell soup cans. Then ask yourself what the difference is between PathMark's using those pictures in its ads and Andy Warhol's using the cans in his paintings: Why can't Campbell's complain about either use? Why don't those users have to get Campbell's permission first? Are they making money out of their use of the pictures?
The reasons NetEsq is right that there's no reason to put a "fair use" disclaimer in the image descriptions (and my reasons for thinking it's inadvisable) are:
If it's fair use of the image, it's fair use whether we say so or not; if it were not fair use, saying it was wouldn't make it so. We can know only that it's fair use for us, not for anyone who takes it from us and uses it for something else down the line, and they may think our saying it's fair use makes it fair use for them, too, and they might be wrong.
Asking contributors to recite (in the image description) the legal opinion that it's fair use is like asking a kindergartner to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury -- he'll do it, but he won't understand what it means, and it might make him uncomfortable about the situation, so he won't want to do it ever again. -- isis 7 Sep 2002

End of material from Wikipedia:Village pump.

The Wikipedia: Copyrights article currently states:

If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder, you must note that fact (along with names and dates) on the description page of the image or in the talk page of the article. It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material is possible, so original material licensed under the GFDL is greatly preferred to copyrighted material (even used with permission) for our purposes.

[ . . . ]

If the Wikipedia article you wish to use contains text, images, sounds, or other material from external sources used with permission or under fair use, you must comply with the separate copyright terms for that material as well. For example, if we include an image under fair use, you must ensure that your use of the article also qualifies for fair use (this might not be the case, for example, if you were using a Wikipedia article for a commercial use that would otherwise be allowed by the GFDL.

A discussion about this is currently underway at the Village Pump. On this note, I'm all in favor of noting when copyrighted work is used with permission, but it makes no sense to declare the fair use of copyrighted work which is being used without permission. Rather, we should just cite the original source and be done with it.

My understanding of the GFDL is that an affirmative defense of fair use of copyrighted materials *IS* inherited by derivative works which comply with the terms of the GFDL. This is because fair use is *NOT* a license to use copyrighted materials. Rather, it is an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement which presumes that a plaintiff has already established his or her prima facie case in a court of law. Moreover, a determination of fair use is not defeated by virtue of the fact that a derivative work is commercial in nature.

"[T]he more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 1171 (1994).

In other words, if Wikipedia's use of copyrighted content is fair use, it should remain fair use when it is distributed for profit under the GFDL. If not, we shouldn't be using that content in the first place.

[Note: This is *NOT* a legal opinion.]--NetEsq

If Isis thinks that declaring on an image that it is being used under fair use might actually have some negative consequence, then I'm certainly open to changing that policy. As you say, such a statement has no legal effect, and simply mentioning the source should be enough. But I'm still concerned with the mechanics of maintaining the Wikipedia itself--specifically with the fact that we must remove images and text that clearly are copyright violations (we could not, for example, include drawings from a textbook, as much as we might like to). So because we must delete /some/ images, a simple note on an image that it is being used under fair use serves the other /sysops/ here to inform them that it isn't necessary to delete it. In other words, the note is for us, not for the readers/users. I also think the copyright/GFDL statement in general should continue to clarify that it applies only to the original contents of Wikipedia, and to the work as a whole. --LDC

We already have the check box on image-uploads where contributors say they're not violating any copyright, and no number of repetitions of that assertion is going to stop over-zealous sysops from removing images they decide may be infringing uses. My suggestion is to (1) make sure the Wikipedia copyright language makes clear that we are not purporting to affect the copyright status of any images incorporated into the work, and (2) educate all the contributors (including sysops) so they understand that appropriate use of relevant images does not infringe a copyright, so IF they are in doubt they should provide in the image description whatever they know about the image: That may be a copyright notice on the source they're using, or identifying info such as the title and publisher of a book or the Internet cite and properties of a digital image. In other words, don't ask contributors to opine on the legal effects of using the image, rather, if they are not sure it's okay, just have them tell us the facts about where they found it. -- isis 9 Sep 2002

Please note that I have made some comments which are relevant to this dicussion in the Meta Wikipedia discussion, Avoid Copyright Paranoia.--NetEsq 6:19pm Sep 9, 2002 (PDT)