Talk:Copyfraud

Copyfraud case against Getty
Not sure it was covered by any secondary sources yet, but: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.270868/gov.uscourts.wawd.270868.1.0.pdf (via ). Nemo 19:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting. But when was this filed, since there's no date or case# shown? It will obviously be a major copyright news story once the press becomes aware of it. --Light show (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a very recent case, I think it was filed in the last week or two. Nemo 06:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's an article, but it requires a subscription. I agree that this story is likely to be picked up by the mainstream media, and we can wait for a major news outlet to report on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The case is CixxFive Concepts LLC v. Getty Images Inc., no. 19-386, (filed March 15, 2019, W.D. Wash). The only coverage I've seen so far, though, is the Law360 article pointed to by Ssilvers, and a bunch of tweets/retweets (e.g. this). TJRC (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Here we are: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190329/15352641901/getty-images-sued-yet-again-trying-to-license-public-domain-images.shtml Nemo 08:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources:


 * Hmmm. The article basically says that the case is no big deal.  Unless the plaintiff prevails, I'd say that it's not essential to list.  In fact, I think we should reduce the list of cases to just those that have successfully established their copyfraud claims or are likely to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We might reference the case for other aspects but that might be original research, so let's wait until the case proceeds and maybe some other publication (or at least law blog) writes about it. There's no hurry. Nemo 10:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Another cite: here. --Light show (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Including legal principles with examples
I restored various paragraphs which were removed by an editor who wrote: ''Removed repetition of legal principles discussed above. Also, discussion of the law does not belong in the Examples section.''

However, this is an article about legal principals which are based on laws. Therefore, when an example of a violation is given, and there is no previous and precise explanation of why it was a violation of law, including either a cite to the law itself, a quoted portion of the law, or a link, is justified and required. Also, since this article covers all copyrights over public domain works, and different countries go by their own laws, it's impossible to state general or precise rules for all countries. If a U.S. law is violated, which is relevant to an example, it is key to be precise and explain exactly why it is considered a violation, at least by that country. It may not be one in some other country, for example.

So I think we should avoid complex and major removal of disconnected paragraphs or subjects with a single edit. The law is a complex topic. It wouldn't hurt to discuss why something should be removed before removing it, since supporting legal issues with citations is time-consuming, yet important.--Light show (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Light show, whose understanding of copyright law and policy is so misguided that he or she has been banned from uploading images and contributing to various related topics, is the wrong person to be forcing decisions here. The image polices that LS had added to this article are often the wrong ones.  Plus, he or she has focused the article only on US copyright.  As I said in the comments, I don't mind the examples section, but I disagree with much of what Light show has done here.  Here are just a few relevant past discussions.  1, 2, 3, 4. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please try again after you've accepted WP Guidelines (ie.: Comment on content, not on the contributor,) about how to use a talk page and remain civil. You're again doing exactly what those other editors you noted did. And if you'd care to state what other user names you've gone by, also per Guidelines, that would help some know what I mean by "again," since socks are not a welcome aspect of WP. --Light show (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not go by any other usernames. The only thing here that is uncivil is your accusation of the same.  It is a fact that you have been repeatedly banned from copyright discussions, that your first action in this discussion was to WP:EDIT WAR, and that you do not understand copyright.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I only asked "what other user names you've gone by." In the past, not now. There are only a few other editors that keep a historical link library like yours for the sole purpose of PA-ing editors instead of being civil and improving an article. --Light show (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have never gone by any other user names, and I was not involved in any of the previous discussions that resulted in your bans. Given your history at WP, you should recuse yourself from this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The recent additions by Light Show – other than examples with reliable sources that state explicitly that such examples are public domain properties – do not seem to me to be helpful to the reader. These recent additions are not all that well written, and the short, stubby paragraphs and excessive use of quote boxes are not, in my view, an improvement.  Furthermore the assertions about copyright, citing primary sources are of questionably applicability to this article – secondary sources are needed that explicitly discuss applicable principles relating to copyfraud or improper claims of copyright. I find myself less than impressed by Light Show's attempts to smear someone expressing opposing views of being a sock puppet, on no evidence whatever. Rather distasteful conduct for a Wikipedia editor, in my view. –   Tim riley  talk   14:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed – specifically on the matter of the substantial list of "Examples" added by Light show, which strike me as WP:OR and WP:POV. To take the first as an example, an edition of Shakespeare's King John published by Oxford University Press in 1989: presumably what OUP is claiming copyright in is not the main text, but the introduction, annotation and other editorial input. One can criticise them for not making that clear, but just to label it as a case of "false copyright" is subjective and highly contentious. Even more so, a publication drawn from MS original sources, such as Deirdre Le Fay's edition of Jane Austen's letters, involves numerous complex editorial decisions on the detail of what to include or exclude, and how to present the material, sufficient to count as the creation of a new, copyrightable piece of intellectual property – certainly under UK law, and as far as I'm aware in other jurisdictions as well. In my opinion, this entire section should be cut, unless we have some reliable third-party source that criticises any of these editions for falsely claiming copyright. GrindtXX (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that the photos which were here previously without such ado, such as the bronze jug, Obama in the White House, and the Wealth of Nations, are OR and uncited by reliable third-party sources. However, the examples you and the others suddenly seem concerned about were sourced. But the influx of mostly uninvolved editors using specious reasoning to attack an editor, even so far as labeling such sourced links as "subjective and highly contentious," smacks of the same tag team issues that Ssilvers noted in his gratuitous link ( 1) above. --Light show (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not a member of any "tag team", and in fact, if you scroll up a bit you'll see that the last time I contributed to this talk page (in 2016) it was to support you against Ssilvers. Does that make me part of your tag team? On the point at issue, virtually all the references you have supplied for your examples (footnotes 15–17, 19–32) are to primary sources, which merely establish that a publisher has attached a copyright notice to a published edition. As all those editions incorporate a greater or lesser degree of new editorial content and judgement, the question of whether the notice is justified is debatable (and subjective and contentious). It is not for us to have that debate. If you can find reliable secondary sources that identify any of these copyright claims as false, they can remain; if not, they should be deleted. (The bronze jug photo, incidentally, is an entirely different issue, as there the Tullie House Museum appears to have been asserting "copyright" to forbid two-dimensional photography of a three-dimensional object: whatever the precise legal situation, copyright wouldn't enter into it, and the notice is plainly farcial.) GrindtXX (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that another of your examples, the Barnes & Noble edition of Poor Richard's Almanack (notes 28 and b), is even more dubious than I had appreciated. The copyright notice actually reads "Introduction and Suggested Reading Copyright © 2004 by Barnes & Noble Books", which is legally completely above board and unchallengeable: it is only the new editorial material for which copyright is claimed. It then goes on to use the other stock phrase (which you quote), "All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the Publisher", which is rather more questionable – but your selective quotation does your case no good at all. GrindtXX (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that these repeated ad hominem slurs by Light Show are a disgrace. Sh/e should be ashamed of her/himself.  Tim riley  talk   22:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the recent contributions made by Light Show and think they should be removed until there is a consensus to include them. Jack1956 (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User:GrindtXX, there is a clear consensus to remove such of Light show's recent contributions as are not fully and properly supported by the references given. Since you have been looking at them, would you kindly go ahead and remove them?  Then, if anyone has examples that they wish to add, I suggest that they post them on the Talk page first, one at a time, so that we can examine them before adding them to the article. Is that acceptable to you?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why this attention to Light show? The fact is that none of three images that were in the article last week, which are still there, have third-party reliable sources discussing those exact images as being copyfraud. The links and images I added are considered "questionable," are indirectly sourced for similar images, whereas the other three, included by the same editor(s) who want the questionable ones removed, are closer to being statements of fact and basically OR. In other words, you guys may have it backwards. --Light show (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * OK: I have now removed the list of examples, and I would again argue that examples should only be added when they have been explicitly mentioned as examples of copyright abuse in reliable secondary sources. With regard to the 3 images that Light show mentions, I would say in general that, in an article like this on an abstract legal principle, all images are to some extent "eye candy", and so the threshold for relevance and inclusion is slightly lower than it is for the textual content. Of the three specific cases, the bronze jug is a good lede image because the dubious "copyright" claim is actually in the photo; and Smith's Wealth of Nations seems justified because it is explicitly given as an example of copyfraud in a cited secondary source. The White House photo is a bit more borderline, but I see no harm in it.
 * The article does need more work. Apart from the lack of any real international perspective, one of the problems as I see it is that it remains somewhat POV, and all too ready to hurl criticism at "evil publishers". We could do with hearing some of the arguments from the other side, about the "sweat of the brow" involved in creating a faithful modern reproduction, editing a historic text or collection, or the costs of storing a historic artwork or artefact in suitably secure and environmentally controlled conditions. GrindtXX (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Quality issues?
I don't know, whether this should be said here, but the article seems very US-centric, enough so to make me wonder whether this is an US-exclusively used term, but unsure whether it is supposed to be that way, or is it due to other sources being yet to be found/written in. Also, the article feels very jumpy to read, as it seesaws between descriptions and "this person says this, that person says that" style of writing. Please feel free to delete this comment/section if it's agreed to be unfounded. 89.229.234.151 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The term was coined by an American professor, but the article is not just about the term, it is about the concept, which would apply to misuse of copyright everywhere. As for the style issue that you see, why don't you suggest some improvements? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not a competent (and practised) enough writer, to rewrite it while avoiding implying things by synthesis. Moreover because my English is a calque from European(mixed) English, and it includes several words and language concepts that are englishlike but aren't actually English. :| 89.229.234.151 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but if you point out particular sentences or paragraphs in the article that you think need improvement, I'll review them more carefully and see if I can smooth them out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Mistake" by museum?
No! Museum cannot just put copyright notices on things. They have to make sure that the thing is copyrighted. It is fraudulent to make such a "mistake". I have restored the image. It is a clear case of copyfraud if you actually read the definition. Museums and others should be required to verify statements that they make about copyright; otherwise, they are defrauding the public. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ssilvers. A museum has the right to restrict or forbid photography on its premises, but to forbid photography of an 1800-year-old three-dimensional object on the grounds that it is "protected by copyright" is nonsense. If someone had taken a photo (as User:Fæ apparently did), and the museum had tried to take legal redress, they would have been laughed out of court. The wording may well have been an honest mistake by staff, but it is still a false copyright claim, and illustrates the over-readiness of some individuals and institutions to make use of the word "copyright" without any real understanding of the legal position – precisely what this article is about. GrindtXX (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording may well have been an honest mistake by staff, but it is still a false copyright claim
 * Exactly -- it is a "false copyright claim". That does not make it a fraudulent claim. Fraud is a legal term that has a specific meaning. In this context, it is just plain wrong to call a false claim a fraudulent claim. So, while it is of course absurd trying to forbid photography of an 1800 year-old object, it is not fraud, and it is not correct to use the picture in this article. The article is about fraudulent claims. ʘχ (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article starts with "A copyfraud is a false copyright claim by an individual or institution with respect to content that is in the public domain" (underline added). IMO, the image is a good illustration, even if it's merely a false claim and not a fraudulent claim.  An image of a public-domain painting in a book with a copyright notice might be slightly more accurate (see the caption next to The Starry Night), though it'd be a bit less obvious at first glance.  --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the article. It's about false claims.  If you make a claim about copyright, you ought to check.  If you don't check, you are doing something wrong that has the effect of defrauding the public.  Clearly, publishers, exhibitors, performers, etc. should not say that copyright covers something that is does not, and there should be penalties or consequences for making such false claims.  That is what this article is about.  The Museum did not make an "honest mistake".  At best, it is a mistake caused by their wilful negligence in making the copyright claim without making an honest effort to determine the truth of the claim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)