Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "article" part of this extended discussion is wikipedia:page history, but that loses much of the discussion. See also Mediawiki:history copyright.

The below has been moved from Wikipedia:Copyright issues for further discussion:

Just a question I've been meaning to ask but never encountered anywhere: Is everything on Wikipedia (except explicitly stated exceptions) released under the GFDL? Does that include the page histories (some with deleted copyrighted material)? Because if the page histories are also under the GFDL, we'd be committing infringement if we let specific page versions live on in the page histories. I don't know of any way of totally erasing any trace of copyrighted material in the histories short of deleting the page itself. —seav 01:47 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wonder about this too. I was just editing I have a dream and discovered that the text of the speech can be found in the page histories because there was some uncertainty about the work being in the public domain. There is perhaps an argument that we could have a copy of part of the speech on Wikipedia under fair use and fair dealing provisions, but I think the issue is not "Is it released under the GFDL?" because it is being released on the site, i.e. it is being shown to the public and thus published by Wikipedia. There must be some way of blanking these histories as it is still copyright infringement IMHO. (again while I am a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion, just a suggestion). Alex756 15:45, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I originally thought that the point of listing copyvios on VfD was so that the page could be deleted and then restarted without any of the original material there, but now people seem to be rewriting the pages before the week is up so the original can not be deleted. Perhaps in these cases, they need to wait for the page to be deleted before they rewrite. Angela 22:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That would only work for pages whose first entry were already copyvios. What about existing pages where somebody added copyvio stuff? There must be a way to delete specific history items. --seav 22:40, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

True, but the majority of the time, the copyvios seem to occur on newly created pages. Or at least, that is where they get noticed most often. Angela

I think the page I had a problem with had the stuff added after the page was created, then it was removed (with the histories remaining intact). I guess there is an argument that these pages are NOT meant for general distribution and are thus only for research and private study, i.e. the stuff that fair use is made of, since we need to keep all the attribution information for the GFDL unless there is some software upgrade that can delete specific edits, perhaps it is best to keep the current system. Alex756 06:27, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maybe they're not meant for general distribution, but where does it say that? Wikipedia:Copyright should probably have a say about the histories. --seav 13:18, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

We do not have to have a policy on everything for it to amount to the same thing. Somewhere it does talk about moving copyvios to the talk page, I think anyone would argue that the talk space is for "study and research" it is where the editors discuss things, share information, etc., obviously the history pages are similar to the talk pages in that respect, but I agree it should say that the histories may have copyvios on them because technically once the page has been released anyone can use that version, link back to it and say it was distributed by Wikipedia, thus making it appear that Wikipedia is encouraging copyright violations. I still think the best solution would be to have some kind of selecting history page blanking function that sysops could only invoke if there is a copyvio on an existing page. Alex756 15:17, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just pointing out Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/copyvio#Notice_to_copyright_owners. Perhaps we should have something similar on wikipedia:copyrights? Martin

Yes, probably a good idea to put it at the end after the copyright vio section that is already there. I can't imagine that anyone will object; by stating it we are actually trying to help any copyright owner protect their rights; maybe as a result they will give us a license to use the material. — Alex756

Just letting you know, I posted almost the same question at Wikipedia-l in the past. [1]

See also Menchi's posting (the first on this topic) [2] and subsequent posts by others.

I'm not very confident about my understanding of how GFDL applies to Wikipedia, so this is by no means a firm opinion. But at least I share your questions.

Currently, in Japanese Wikipedia, when copyright violations are found or strongly suspected (same text as an external web page, no explanation or permission stated, & no responce after raising question, for example), the article is deleted. So far, no user have objected with this. I understand that in English wikipedia, infringing version could be kept if someone else rewrite the article. But in ja, many people think they should let the article deleted first and write a new one.

When a repeatedly edited good article contain some infringing material in a past version, we would face a tough choice. Perhaps it would be deleted. (There is no such case yet.) But I'm not sure. Some recognize this as a potential vulnerability of wikipedia. If a user comes and paste some infringing material to many good articles, Ja. wikipedia might decide to delete all those articles.

The function of eliminating specific version of an article would make things easier, at least that's what some admins. and non-admins at ja. think.

The custom of moving the suspected text to talk page does not exist in ja., either. That's partly because it may or may not going to fall into "fair use" to keep a verbatim copy of an external web page there. Tomos 22:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cross posted on the Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/copyvio

I just want to point out that Brian Vibber on the Wikitech-L list has pointed out that it is possible to remove page histories manually by a developer[3] though having it done by a developer is not really a good solution IMO. I have also reviewed much of the written discussion regarding copyright and fair use around here and on MetaWikipedia and I agree with former user:isis who thinks that edit histories serve an important function to allow us to show that if there was a copyright infringement at some point, Wikipedia editors have worked to get rid of it (this is in agreement regarding the disclaimer discussion above). If it is a new page, we should now have a chance to catch the copyright infringement in the bud and at least replace it with a link to the source "The original page here was copied from: http://... it has been deleted. Please replace this with a stub or obtain permission (place the information about permission on the talk page) and replace the page from this page/Temp." or something like that? Otherwise, let's not start mucking with page histories. Alex756 02:45, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not clear exactly what you're suggesting, and how this would be superior to what we have now, in terms of /temp suggesting. Martin 14:10, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

This article doesn't say clearly whether something can still infringe copyright even after it has been deleted from the current version of an article. Does anybody know for certain? GrahamN 18:53, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL & Deletion of Article History

In the past I've had a discussion with admin User:Angela about copyvios in article revision history and what to do about them. Talk:Multiple_chemical_sensitivity As I understand it now, we should not delete-n-revert articles unless there are no legitimate versions. If there are, then the article should not be touched unless a complaint is made about the past copyvio by the copyright holder in which case a developer could remove the specific version.

A page I am involved with has been suddenly deleted and replaced by the most recent revision on the basis of alleged copyvio in a previous version. The alleged copyvio was very many revisions back and the page has been rewritten multiple times since. From memory, the claim of copyvio was discussed, declared to be mistaken and never proven otherwise. (I wasn't involved).

Since the user who did this was an admin user (not Angela), I'm a little confused as to the current policy on this. Certainly I think that at least notification of the impending deletion should have been posted to the article or its talk page.

Zuytdorp Survivor 00:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Which page was it? Have you brought it up with the admin concerned? Angela. 18:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I posted comments on the Talk page of the concerned page but it doesnt look like the admin has looked there. I'll post the question on his talk page. Zuytdorp Survivor 06:48, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay admin user Jim Regan has decided that the above policy is the way to go and has decided to revert his deletions. See User Talk:Jimregan ("Melbourne International....") . Unfortunately he seems a bit stressed about it all. :-( Zuytdorp Survivor 23:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nah, see my reply. Take care. -- Jim Regan 23:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We should largely ignore possible copyright infringements in page histories, though noting them as examples with no intent to do anything about it may be helpful to researchers seeking to investigate the way we handle possible infringements, so it's a useful thing to do. It's useful for us to preserve the records of us removing them from articles to show that we're actively trying to do the right thing. In the unlikely event that a copyright holder complains about something we aren't significantly distributing, it's possible for me or any other developer to deal with it with as much finesse as necessary, including such things as removing only specific sections of text, placing them in HTML comments or whatever else seems to most minimally tamper with the historical record. Alternatively, and better, we could arrange things to flag them to be hidden for everyone who isn't logged in or even admins or only selected people. However... I've yet to see a complaint from a copyright holder about this, so it seems more on the paranoia side than something which is actually a problem for us.. Jamesday 12:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] titles of online publication for Wikipedia

does anyone know what the title of online publication and the date published? i'm doing a reasearch paper on Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill and need to know for my Works Cited page. any suggestions?