User:Twas Now/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are the arguments provided by third parties relating to problems with East of Eden. I think this covers all of the comments put forward.

1 From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
- 1.1 Inspiration is copyright infringement?
2 From the Mediation Cabal
3 Administrators' noticeboard
4 Catbird222

[edit] From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive#Inspiration is copyright infringement?

[1]

[edit] Inspiration is copyright infringement?

Hello, I was wondering if it is against any Wikipedia policy, or more importantly, if it is illegal to mention, in a References in popular culture section some artistic works inspired by another (copyrighted) artistic work. In particular, this Mediation Cabal case on East of Eden has been brewing for nearly a month with only sporadic discussion (and no closure) occurring. East of Eden has been assessed as "Top Importance" by WikiProject Novels, which means it is "a 'core' topic for literature, or is highly notable to people other than students of literature" (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment#Importance scale)

Even more specifically, there are certain songs, inspired by this book, that were included in the References in popular culture section that User:Catbird222 removes. Eventually someone else adds them back—I was the one to first do these reverts, providing references to back up that these songs were inspired by the book. However, Catbird222 believes these songs to be copyright infringements, and even further, he claims to actually own the copyrights (see User talk:Catbird222). Regardless, I believe mentioning these songs is acceptable under fair use (both the WP policy and the legal doctrine).

Catbird222 even uses the name of admin User:BradPatrick, though Brad claims in this (archived) Administrators' noticeboard discussion that the invocation of his name is unwarranted in this situation.

The three bold links above are areas where this has been discussed quite a bit. I am refraining from reverting Catbird222's edits until this matter is settled.

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not illegal to mention any item whatsoever, in fact it's imperative. I command you to mention them! No but seriously, mentioning items is not in any way, shape or form copyright infringement. You are not copying an item, just because you name it. A name is not copyrightable unless of cource the name is the entirety of the work *and* is so extraordinarly unique that it represents a work of art (highly unlikely by the way). In other words, you're right, he's wrong, nah na nah na. Mentioning a song is not the *song*, its the song that is copyright, not its mention. Wjhonson 08:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson has it almost exactly. Who on earth is this *** above, he clearly has no idea of copyright law or common practice. If what he implies "was" true, then the legal profession have been missing it for yearxs!. Just silly. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, if Catbird claims to own the rights to East of Eden, then by editing that article he is definitely in violation of WP:COI. If the mediation doesn't go anywhere, just move up the Dispute Resolution ladder. If he keeps up the way he's going, he's going to end up blocked by the ArbCom eventually.--Aervanath 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I own the rights to the word "the". I refuse to allow anyone to mention the word "the" ever again. Its' illegal! I mean it. *Puts on spider man pajamas* Wjhonson 09:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was invited to weigh in on this. First of all, I would really like to encourage people to steer the conversation away from sarcasm and unkindness. We don't need to mock anybody, even if we disagree strongly with them, and nastiness is just going to inflame, not resolve, any real basis for the dispute. That said, we are absolutely not in the business of determining whether or not a song based on a character in a novel infringes on the copyright of that novel. Further, even if we knew that it did, for instance after a widely-discussed successful suit, it would remain a matter of editorial judgement on our part whether or not to mention the song in the article about the novel. Don't get me wrong -- I think that these "In popular culture" sections are usually trivial, badly written and that we should be sort of vaguely embarassed by our tendency to turn our "what links here" function into bullet-formatted text in the actual article. But it's an editorial decision, not one based on copyright issues. Jkelly 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: this reminds me of a similar situation where an editor tried to get all references and links to websites offerin "old time radio" recordings removed from Wikipedia, and in the process started removing links and information that were being used for the specific purposes of fulfilling WP:V. As I understand it, just because something based upon another work is alleged to violate a copyright, that does not disqualify it from inclusion in Wikipedia. It can be mentioned, and if notable enough an article can be created about it, nd if it is the subject of a copyright suit, etc., then that can also be mentioned in the appropriate place -- with proper attribution. Someone coming along and making the claim that such-and-such is a copyvio and must be removed -- when that item is simply being mentioned as factual information, in this case to illustrate cultural references to East of Eden -- is IMO in violation of WP:NPOV and probably other Wikipedia rules and unless, of course, the information being added can be proven as being false, WP:SNOW is also a factor. 23skidoo 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)