Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spyware

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Spyware

I stumbled across this article recently, and found it to be one of the best written and most indepth articles we have on a computer subject here on Wikipedia. A true accomplishment! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Objection. Will support if more screenshots are added. Deryck C. 07:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't a "conditional objection" mean that you will object if he does fix your objection? :-D / Peter ^Isotalo 10:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png, Image:Benedelman-spyware-whenu-license-image011.png are claimed as {{GFDL}}. I don't think you can do that -- there's a whole lot of copyrighted non-GFDL material in those screenshots.
  2. The image Image:Ad-Aware Professional.png has no source or copyright information.
  3. The image Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG is claimed as "fair use", and I expect the other images will be as well. The images need to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. See the image description pages for the images on Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example of this.

  --Carnildo 07:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The license of the Ben Edelman screenshots is true as far as it goes: Edelman did indeed create these screenshots, and license them to us under the GFDL. He didn't upload them here; rather, I contacted him by email and asked his permission to reuse these images from his Web site, which he granted. It seems trivially true that they are derivative of the programs depicted; I would presume that Edelman believed their use both on his own Web site and on Wikipedia to be legal. Do we need to note this independently of simply referring to him as the image creator?

I've marked up the image Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG (which I produced) with a fair use rationale. --FOo 13:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I also updated some of the copyright information. Would you take another look, Carnildo? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ad-Aware Professional.png looks good, but I still don't think GFDL can be claimed for Image:Benedelman-spyware-whenu-license-image011.png, and Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG needs a fair use rationale. --Carnildo 18:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG already has one; thanks. The GFDL license on the Edelman images is simply correct; Edelman's work may itself use the programs' appearance in fair use, but we use Edelman's work under GFDL. --FOo 14:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't work that way. Edelman's GFDL license applies to his creative work, of which that screenshot is a part. It does not apply to that screenshot separate from the rest of the work. --Carnildo 18:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I halfway agree with you. The screenshot is a work created by Edelman. The software depicted is not. The screenshot makes fair use of the software's appearance. Wikipedia makes licensed use of the screenshot, since its creator (Edelman) has offered it to us under specific terms (GFDL).

In any event, I suspect we are both to a certain extent speculating on the nature of copyright in screenshots, since I doubt there's any legal precedent in the matter. Unless you can offer case law or other documentation in favor of your position, I would appreciate if you would withdraw your objection. --FOo 01:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Not much speculation on my part. It's concievable that there's some obscure part of copyright law that lets you change the terms on a work you don't own, but I doubt it. In any case, I've asked for a professional opinion on this. --Carnildo 04:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: As one of the folks who's worked a lot on this article, I'm gratified that someone considers it to be of featured quality. I think it still can use plenty of work, but that's true of many featured articles as well. In particular I'd really appreciate it if someone with particular knowledge of the subject could review the User consent and legality section, particularly with an eye to recent legal cases involving spyware distributors. --FOo 14:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Astoundingly comprehensive! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very nicely written. It would be a good article to feature with nowadays sudden raised awareness of the spyware epidemic. Great article and relevant to everyone who signs onto Wikipedia...can't say that about most things that are featured.--Elysianfields 06:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is a well written article, and it could help promote Spyware awareness in our users. About the only thing I don't like about the article are the moderately long image captions. It's not too bad, though, and I strongly suggest that we get this article featured. It could do with a bit of clean up, however. Syrae Faileas 20:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Sure, it's great; however, there is a definite contradiction with Elf Bowling. That article claims that the game was NOT spyware. The spyware article claims that it was. No FA should have that big of a contradiction (or, if it's right, please change the Elf Bowling article to reflect that). --Matt Yeager 08:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Its not a contradiction. The article for Elf Bowling says itself that it was originally not spyware, although some people added viruses to it later, making it spyware. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very good writen article, actual theme. --Mateusc 04:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)