Wikipedia talk:Possible copyright infringements/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It states that VfD for copyright violations are seven days. Is this in complete conformity with the DMCA? The section also known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which is made a part of the US Copyright law in sec. 512 of Title 17 United States Code, states if someone who is a copyright owner follows the rules of that section, the ISP should remove the material for which copyright is claimed "expediously" so as not to incur liability i.e. not wait seven or ten days, but take it off ASAP). Of course this requires notice to the Wikipedia:designated agent which is not what is happening in the VfD pages, but since we are trying to make sure there is no infringement shouldn't that be mentioned on the Vfd pages and in the VfD policy pages? If someone who claims copyright finds out that we are infringing shouldn't we make sure that Wikipedia is in compliance so we do not occur any legal liability to Bomis, or Wikimedia? Just a thought. Alex756 22:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We ask contributors to replace the potentially copyrighted text with the boilerplate notice - is this sufficient to count as "removing the material"? It's still in the page history, but I've seen arguments (eg on meta:Wikipedia_and_copyright_issues) that this is acceptable. What do you think? Martin 22:17, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure. There is a somewhat related discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. I think user:Angela is making a good point. A new page should be deleted right away, so that it does not end up in the histories. That would be the idea solution; it is more problematic with material that is added to existing pages. As most Wikipedia contributors probably have a fair use defense that might be a good response, but that requires a physical or electronic signature from the person (I guess a PGP sig would be o.k., but the concept of "electronic signature" is a loaded legal term) claiming the fair use defense (this should not be someone from Wikipedia but the person posting it and stating why an information use is allowable under copyright law and not infringement). Also my suggestion on that other page that Wikipedia can directly use a fair use defense (as the ISP is Bomis, not Wikipedia or Wikimedia) but then the advantage of being able to use the OCILLA is that it prevents litigation, fair use is only a defense that requires at least a summary judgment motion (i.e. lots of legal fees). Alex756 23:12, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Read - good link.

I'm going to add something to the page, I think. Let me know what you think. Martin 23:55, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, does that help? Martin 00:04, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I've added the suggestion that any comments about it should be added here. Let's see what others say. Alex756 00:16, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Should there also be a note about how fixing copyvio pages may create a page history that retains the copyright violations in the Wikipedia database, so editors don't convert a RfD/copyvio page to a stub with the infringement imbedded in the page history? Alex756 16:04, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd rather not encourage people to not work! Also, IIRC, our current boilerplate text encourages violators to replace the notice with their own work, so that'd need to be changed too. But maybe it's necessary, or Wikipedia might be seen to be encouraging people to create stubs with an infringing page history? Martin 16:23, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would say Martin that this is a good reason why the policy on copyright violations might be improved, A suggestion: delete the new page ASAP (rather than wait a week) and then remake it into a stub at the same time with a note on the talk page that it was previously blanked for a copyvio. Blanking the copyright violation ASAP is more in line with the OCILLA provisions; that makes us more copyright owner friendly. If they see that we are looking out for their copyright without going through the OCILLA procedure they might see us as friendly and give us a license to their work! That is, of course, if they find out that we removed their work, but then there are lots of people watching us (†). Alex756 17:02, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with deleting potential copyvios immediately. If it turns out to be non-copyvio, it's easy enough to undelete it. Perhaps the page could be deleted, then the page could be re-created and consist only of the boilerplate copyvio notice, which would also be deleted after a week if no-one chose to stub something in the meanwhile. Angela 18:06, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Note that images cannot currently be undeleted, so we could only follow such a policy for text. I think the copyvio notice is already rather unfriendly, but if there is a false accusation of copyvio, at least the victim can restate the content from the page history, leave a note on the Talk page, and all is well. To additionally require them to contact an administrator on this page is an extra burden to someone who has done nothing wrong.

Further, some possible copyvios have been partially rephrased, or may be partial, non-complete copies. I do not want the quasi-legal judgement over whether something is probably a copyvio to be restricted to sysops - it ought to be open to the whole community. However, I can see the advantages in your proposal. Martin 20:48, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that some partial copying and rephrasing can still lead to a finding of infringement. See: Macmillan Co. v. King. It can be a hard call even for a jury of one's peers. Alex756 18:52, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yep. That's precisely why the call shouldn't be restricted to sysops. Martin 21:34, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But it does make the problem of partial copying and paraphrasing that cannot be picked up through searching through the 'net for copied text particularly tricky, even a jury of peers will be wrong from time to time regarding such kinds of infringement. Alex756 01:39, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the policy should not encourage revisions during the seven day period except for those articles that are granted permission (and thus removed from the list). Then, at the end of the seven day period (unless the author makes a OCILLA sec. 512 demand) the article can be deleted; or deleted and replaced by a stub. However, any new deletion policy does not solve the problem of every infringement already archived on the history pages. Maybe a solution to this problem is to change the notice at the bottom each page (or add something to the Wikipedia:Copyrights page as you suggested here Martin), i.e. the history pages may include copyright infringements that have been removed from the current version of the corresponding entry. If there are infringements found in Wikipedia, no GFDL can be granted on any possible infringing sections. Any identified infringement are being saved only for archival, research, and study purposes. They are not to be copied. This could also be written to cover any infringements that have not been otherwise caught through online vigilance. Perhaps this is a good reason to create a general Wikipedia warranty disclaimer (WWD) that attaches to the GFDL via each page as stated in the last paragraph (&para 10) of section 1 of the license:

The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document.

An ideal WWD would specifically mention the paper trail on alleged copyright infringements to licensees as well as other kinds of WWDs , i.e. all information found here is "as is" and without warranty as to fitness as to any purpose, accuracy, attribution, Wikipedia is no replacement for professional advice, etc.,. Note the GFDL states that the WWDs must be placed next to the GFDL notice; a link should do. Currently all the disclaimers and proposed disclaimers available for use on Wikipedia do not meet this GFDL requirement. Perhaps another solution is that such disclaimers can be added by link to the Wikipedia:copyrights page and the head of that page should state: "This page includes specific warranty disclaimers regarding copyright and content as allowed under section one of the GFDL." Maybe the page name could also be moved to Wikipedia:Copyrights and Warranty Disclaimers. Alex756 18:30, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My concern would be that GFDL-based warranty disclaimers would be viral (of course) which might make us less compatible with other sources of GFDL'd information. Also, it would mean that sub-licensees have yet more text to include, and they lose some freedom to write their own warranty disclaimers, appropriate to local circumstances/their specific use.

I prefer the ability to blank specific versions in the history, myself. Martin 21:34, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

They are not warranties, but disclaimers. If someone downstream does not want the disclaimers, they do not have to use them. They can use their own disclaimers or they can even give an additional warranty that has nothing to do with copyright law, we call that freedom to contract. As well, disclaimers are under contract law; they are not extracontractual. If the downstream licencee wants to use a different disclaimer, or none at all, they are free to do so. There is nowhere stated in the license that the warranty disclaimers will apply to third persons. There is no privity with these third party users. What it states is:

These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License.

This keeps the warranty disclaimers to having no more third party effect, than the GFDL itself because they are just disclaimers, they prevent people from attacking the sources; basically this only means the end user always has the responsibility to check the information; if any local law is different, they just make their disclaimers broader than the disclaimers by reference; any additional added material is not covered by the disclaimer; Since it is included by reference in this License the sublicenses do not have to copy as anyone doing due dilligence will find it in the so called paper trail via the transparent and opaque copies; amyway it will not apply to them anyway. I don't see how any disclaimers are any more viral than the name Wikipedia. Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by viral.

Putting in a disclaimer is only to prevent people from saying, "hey, it's your fault you had this elaborate copyright policing system and I relied upon it, but it didn't work." The warranty disclaimer will mean that unless a downstream licencee includes the disclaimer that any third party will have to go after them for damages, not Wikipedia for copyright infringement (or any other inaccuracies in Wikipedia). I don't understand why there is so much resistance to warranty disclaimers at Wikipedia, most other open or free source people routinely include warranty disclaimers with their licenses; keeps errors and omissions insurance premiums down; after all as Wikimedia becomes more of an institution, we do not want anyone to sue it and take away our donations because there was no warranty disclaimers in the GFDL, do we? Alex756 01:39, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)~

I think your reply has adequately addressed my concern :) Martin 09:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me. Also, are there any objections to changing the boilerplate copyvio text to tell people not to edit the document during the seven days? Angela 17:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I still dislike this idea. Maybe if you added a /Temp link, with the understanding that the sysop who deleted the infringing article should move the article at /Temp to the deleted page? Martin 17:10, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That should work. It makes things a bit more difficult if the article turns out to be not copyright, but I don't think it's impossible to fix. Angela 17:55, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let me try to summarize; I think this is what Martin and I have collectively proposed and you agree with Angela (please correct me if I am wrong, please): (1) put notices around that no subsequent rewrites are to be done on copyright violation pages; (2) change name of Wikipedia:Copyrights to Wikipedia:Copyrights and Warranty Disclaimers and add disclaimer about possible imbedded infringing material there; (3) when infringing article is to be deleted a copy is made for seven days on a /Temp link; (4) If copyright issues is cleared up, move /temp page back, otherwise delete Temp page; any stub then created will have a clear page history. Alex756 23:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with those four points, as you've written them here. Martin 14:05, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC) (sorry for delay)

Cross posted on the Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages

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[1] 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 02:43, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

titles, splitting

This page needs some cleanup. I for one dont like scrolling through two pages of indicia on a regularly used list page. Also it doesnt need to be a subpage. Suggest move indicia text to Wikipedia:Copyright violation, and the list to Wikipedia:Copyvio. Also there are listed items on Wikipedia Cleanup that are marked as possible copyvios. Check regularly.-戴&#30505sv 04:30, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I like having the instructions on the same page as the list, as it increases the chance of them being read. Since we're well away from 32K badness, I think this is fine. There is a TOC, after all.

Regards changing the title, I think this might be a good idea. wikipedia:copyvio is fine by me, and is shorter and quicker to link to. Martin 14:07, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. It is useful to keep the info on this page for now. No real reason to move it. Ok with page move too. Angela 18:20, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

OK-Page moved. After some mishap repair. On the indicia-- maybe some of it can shortened. 戴&#30505sv

That's not a word! -- Tim Starling 06:57, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Ugh, HATE the new name. Neither a word NOR a commonly used abbreviation. Why is the not-used and not-real-word 'Copyviolation' better than the at least accepted Wikipedia slang 'Copyvio'? And if that one's not good, what's wrong with saying 'Copyright violations' in full?

Not going to have a major fit about this, but I don't like it. --Morven 07:13, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Two versus one. We win. -- Tim Starling 07:19, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Well have fun with the redirects. 戴&#30505sv ps-- vote!

Eh? What's going on? Hmm... I think we should use proper English for page names. All these silly slang terms are bearable in everyday conversations, but do we have to enshrine them in actual page titles? And I think that a fundamental point about what this page is has been missed. This page is for possible copyright infringements. You see, the pages in question might not be copyright infringements. They might have been put up by the original authors, or by someone else who had the relevant permissions. That's precisely why we need to list them here. If we knew that the pages in question were copyright infringements, we could just delete them straight away! So the title of the page should reflect that. I think it should be... Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. Logical, yes? :) -- Oliver P. 07:43, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

P.S. - You don't have to type it in full, because you can have the shorter title as a redirect... -- Oliver P. 07:45, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, there's no shortage of redirects, that's for sure. I suggested Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations back in May. Pretty much the same as your idea. -- Tim Starling 07:49, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

I see... Yes, that is much the same. But even then, the word "suspected" suggests that we already suspect that the contributor is guilty. "Possible" just admits the possibility that they are. It sounds more neutral to me, and therefore more in tune with WikiLove. Maybe. And anyway, I was just going by the wording on the boilerplate notices themselves: it says "Removed possible copyright infringement" rather than "Removed suspected copyright violation". But I suspect I'm taking this naming discussion far too seriously now... :) -- Oliver P. 08:12, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the current name is fine. It's not a real word. It's a slang term that we use in Wikipedia to mean potential copyright violation. Angela 22:00, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Eh? How can the fact that it's not a real word be an argument for using it? And no, it doesn't mean "potential copyright violation". It means "copyright violation". -- Oliver P. 22:04, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It does the way I use it. When I write in the edit summary field "copyvio", I mean "this page is potentially infringing copyright and is listed on Wikipedia:Copyvio. Angela 22:15, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should have just said that it means "copyright violation" to me, rather than implying that it meant that to everyone. However, I strongly suspect (although I haven't actually asked anyone) that it means the same thing to most people here. Even if I'm wrong about that, the term clearly means different things to different people, and that in itself is an excellent reason not to use it!

Furthermore, I'm certain that any new Wikipedian would understand "copyvio" to mean "copyright violation" - that is assuming that they understood it at all. And of course possible copyright infringements are almost invariably contributed by new Wikipedians, so they are precisely the people to whom we need to make clear what it is that we are talking about. Therefore, in the interests of being friendly to newcomers, and in the interests of eliminating ambiguity and promoting clarity, we should definitely have the page at Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements (or something that is clearly equivalent). QED. :) Hmm, I should start a campaign against all of our silly shorthand terms, really... -- Oliver P. 23:42, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not actually too bothered either way so if you feel strongly, you should probably change it, but please could you attempt to fix all the redirects, links and boilerplates texts if you do. :) Angela 23:49, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)~

I've moved it and changed everything that needs changing, I think (sorry to deprive you of that pleasure, Oliver). --Camembert 01:05, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Mr. Camembert! :) -- Oliver P. 22:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Out of curiosity, why is this called Wikipedia talk:Copyvio instead of Wikipedia talk:Copyviolation? Kingturtle 22:11, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Because copyviolation is not a real word and not a word we ever use here. Angela 22:15, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Page later moved to "Wikipedia talk:Possible copyright infringements". --Menchi 01:33, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)