Talk:Aboriginal land title in Canada

Response to copyright violation notice
Hi Diannaa, I would very much appreciate if you could review this wiki article and remove the "violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies". As I will show, this article does NOT violate the policy and contains NO copyright violation whatsoever.

First, the article DOES NOT contain work copied from https://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Arguments/2009/DOC_24040_12-21_TeckMetals_Brief-Authorities.pdf. This is completely inaccurate.

The wiki article contains QUOTES and CITATIONS from these Supreme Court of Canada CASE LAW:

"Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335". Supreme Court of Canada. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2495/index.do "Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010". Supreme Court of Canada. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1569/index.do "R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075". Supreme Court of Canada. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/609/index.do "R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507". Supreme Court of Canada. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1407/index.do "Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, [2014] 2 SCR 257". Supreme Court of Canada. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do "R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005] 2 SCR 220". Supreme Court of Canada. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2276/index.do

As clearly stated in the (Reproduction of Federal Law Order SI/97-5 - https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-97-5/FullText.html): "Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce enactments and consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada, and decisions and reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts and administrative tribunals, provided due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced and the reproduction is not represented as an official version."

All the cases mentioned above can be found on the Supreme Court of Canada s website (please see the References section of the wiki article). On the Supreme Courts website, if you read the Terms and Conditions of the website (https://scc-csc.ca/terms-avis/notice-enonce-eng.aspx), you will also see that "The decisions and reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Canada fall within the terms of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order, P.C. 1996-1995, December 19, 1996, SI/97-5, and may be reproduced, in whole or in part and by any means, without charge and without further permission from the Supreme Court of Canada, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the reproduced materials and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version."

I would very much appreciate if you could ask on of your college to review this before deleting the article. It is very important for me that you understand that the text quoted in this article ONLY comes from case law.

Now, lets talk about https://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Arguments/2009/DOC_24040_12-21_TeckMetals_Brief-Authorities.pdf. You believe that the wiki article contains work copied from the pdf and "therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies". I could not disagree more, the pdf mentioned is a COMPILATION of decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, it is not an original work. The pdf only reproduces decisions, that's it. And the reason why the author of the pdf can create a compilation of Supreme Court decision is because as mentioned above:

(Reproduction of Federal Law Order SI/97-5 - https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-97-5/FullText.html): "Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce enactments and consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada, and decisions and reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts and administrative tribunals"

The summarize: -this wiki article contains NO copyright violation whatsoever; -the text quoted (with all appropriate citation) comes exclusively from Supreme Court of Canada case law -the Canadian (Reproduction of Federal Law Order SI/97-5) clearly states that "Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce decisions and reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts" -the sources of the decisions were properly cited -these decisions can be found on the Supreme Court of Canada website -the terms and condition of the Supreme Court of Canada website clearly states that "The decisions and reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Canada fall within the terms of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order, P.C. 1996-1995, December 19, 1996, SI/97-5, and may be reproduced, in whole or in part and by any means, without charge and without further permission from the Supreme Court of Canada" -the fact that the PDF you found on google is reproducing Supreme Court decisions in a compilation is further evidence of this

Given the above, I would appreciate if you could: -review this wiki article -get one of your college involved if need be -and remove the "violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies".

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvThomson (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * According to their terms and conditions, reproduction is allowed for non-commercial use only. That's not a compatible license, because Wikipedia's license allows commerical use. Also, it's not clear whether or not derivative works are allowed by the Court - Wikipedia's license does allow derivative works. Their terms require the user to "exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the reproduced materials"; we can't do that on Wikipedia, either for our own website or for potential re-users of our licensed content.— Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, but let’s assume tjat your reading is correct, my understanding is that Wikipedia still allows the use of quotations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations I cant imagine that quoting decisions from the Supreme Court is something actually restricted by Wikipedia. Please reconsider one more time. If you come to the same conclusion, would you allow me to remove the quotes from the Supreme Court decisions that I added yesterday, rather than deleting this entire article? AvThomson (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay to use short quotations. However, quotations are not the problem; there's material copied and too-closely paraphrased throughout. Please view this report for a better understanding of the scope of the problem. Please follow the instructions on your talk page as to how to create a temporary page where you can work on amendments to the article to make it comply with our copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I will comply with your reading of the rules. But, this is really upsetting, instead of actually reading the article, you are just running a tool that’s giving you bad results. The so-called copied pdf is just a 500pages compilation of supreme court decisions. The pdf is not even from the supreme court. The tool is telling you there are lots of similarities throughout the pdf because again, it’s a compilation of decisions. In the wiki article, i wrote about many decisions, most of which just happen to be reproduced in the random pdf. Instead of looking at all these decisions as different works, your tool is just looking at the compilation as a whole. When describing a complex legal principal, it is expected to describe the interpretation of the Supreme court. That’s the entire point. AvThomson (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do realise that it is not a Supreme Court document. The point of comparing the article with the pdf is to show you at a glance the scope of the problem, and the amount of overlap with the copyright Supreme Court judgements and documents. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, I'm done working on a new version of the article, could you please review and move the new article into place if the issue is resolved, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvThomson (talk • contribs) 11:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's incomplete - You've only done six paragraphs, and what you've prepared still has a lot of overlap.— Diannaa (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One way for you to get the case reviewed is to have another copyright specialist have a look. Moneytrees indicates he has already done this and confirms my assessment. There's additional experienced admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters that perhaps could look at the case and give another opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, I dont see how I can describe the interpretation of the Supreme Court on a complex legal topic without discussion their interpretation... the concept of aboriginal title rights is something specifically defined and described by the courts. You literally can’t describe it without using most of the words used by the supreme court. We are talking about case law, not a novel. Also, Aboriginal title rights are an extremely sensitive subject, and I’m not willing to divert too much from the language used by the court, it would be wrong to do so. Before giving up on writing on Wikipedia, I’m hoping you could review this one final time (while keeping in mind the difficulty of describing the interpretation of the court without paraphrasing in any way) I believe the Wikipedia terms and conditions allow for paraphrasing in certain situations. I’m hoping Robert McClenon could share his/her thoughts on this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvThomson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You can write about Supreme Court decisions without copying text from them. Legal textbooks, academic legal articles etc do not consist of text copied from legal decisions. Instead they largely consist of the author writing about the law in their own words. You are allowed to use quotations to illustrate a point, but they have to be brief, they have to be marked as quotations and they have to be attributed to the source (see Non-free content or MOS:QUOTE). This is how most academic and scholarly writing is written. Paraphrasing is OK, but not close paraphrasing, and this looks like the latter.  Hut 8.5  14:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)