Talk:Copyright Clearance Center

page history

 * This page was originally created in 2005 and then, apparently in a paroxysm of unchecked deletionism, was deleted on a speedy deletion. See page diff in Feb. 2010, following tag from User:Cybercobra (diff).  I have no idea how this was able to happen without someone catching it, because had it gone through AFD someone should have registered that this is a highly notable organization.  It was recreated in 2011 (see User:Pyegar's comment below on recreation) and, unbelievably, again tagged for speedy deletion.  User:DGG correctly removed the speedy tag.  I have restored the page history so we can now track the full page history.  This is important, because the page has also been edited by at least one employee of CCC (User:Csender aka User:Craigsender).  So we need to be able to carefully review the text for conflict of interest and verifiability.  For the love of all that's holy or otherwise, could aggressive deletionist editors please just ask someone knowledgeable about the field before they delete?  It is much easier to ask than to have to embroil multiple editors in rewriting, re-editing, re-creating, and re-storing old content.  Seriously.  --Lquilter (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(re)creation in 2011
Pyegar (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Added some links to improve context.

Marked as advertisement
Just marked this article as being written like an ad. The bulk of the article is from the company website's about pages here and here. The description of collective licensing is already covered in Collective Rights Management. This could be reduced to a stub if someone is going to expand it. I'm new to this so please forgive if I've got the process wrong. Dochin (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * did a little bit; needs more. --Lquilter (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cleaned it up the rest of the way and have removed the advertorial tags. Note that User:Csender who did a fair bit of editing on this page in the early days self-identified as "the senior manager, public relations, at Copyright Clearance Center."  (from userpage) --Lquilter (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How much
I've read the entry several times and it says that the CCC keeps 15% of the money it takes in, then keeps 30% of the money it pays out. That would be a 40% total commission

But I've gone to the CCC's site, and based on 2012's revenue, it looks like the actual commission is about 30%, ($76 million commission on $255 million revenue) so I believe the entry is incorrect and needs more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpetitpas (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
We've recently had a series of edits by CCC employee & Wikipedia editor User:Craigsender (Craig Sender, "CCC PR guy")). Among other things, they changed the substance within referenced sentences, without changing the references; the references did not support the new edits, but no other references were added (diff).  I reverted (diff), because the references were now inaccurate, and posted on the user's talk page (diff).

Now we have two new single-page editors (User:Charlotte dg) and User:Beantown55) who have made basically all or almost all of the same edits, word for word. See: diff of Charlotte_dg and Beantown55's 7 edits from today, compared with Craigsender's edits of 8/26.

In both sets of edits, certain comments (referenced) that are unflattering to CCC were removed and replaced by CCC boilerplate promotional language.

I think it's pretty clear we're dealing with sockpuppets or perhaps employees of CCC. I believe that they are in good faith attempting to correct what they see as factual errors on the page, but we've now got some pretty serious concerns with conflict of interest and sockpuppetry policies. And more importantly, the editors do not seem to understand the basic principle underlying referencing in general scholarship (as well as here at wikipedia): That a reference for a factual assertion actually needs to support that factual assertion. And that you don't change the facts, without changing the reference (adding new references to support new facts, if needed).

I'm going to post to the two new users' pages, and direct them here. I'm also going to post to User:DGG and other users who might be interested in/knowledgeable about CCC, to help monitor this page and try to educate the users about appropriate referencing. We welcome their referenced (third-party) corrections to facts. But Wikipedia is not a promotion website for CCC, and cannot be edited with that purpose in mind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, reflects third-party views of its subjects -- not subjects' views of themselves.

--Lquilter (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional links:
 * posting 8/30 on User talk:Beantown55
 * posting 8/30 on User talk:Charlottedg
 * requesting help 8/30 from User:DGG


 * I just requested a sock investigation here: WP: Sockpuppet investigations/Craigsender. Lquilter, I copied almost all of your comments here into the complaint, and have attributed these comments to you. I added some of my own words for syntax purposes. But I made it clear that I copied from this section almost verbatim. I hope you don't mind. Also, feel free to add to the complaint as you see fit. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S: However, just to be clear; I filed the complaint, I just used your comments, attributing them to you. I hope this makes sense. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Steve Quinn. I hadn't done that myself largely because I believe that CraigSender is likely working in good faith, and just in ignorance of Wikipedia protocol, and I was hoping to reach out to CraigSender and/or his employees.  I'm actually not sure what the sock puppet investigation does ...?  having never used or been involved in the process really.  I'm going to continue to try to work things out with the real people here on the page, and hopefully that won't get in the way. --Lquilter (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lquilter and DGG, at this time I can and will assume good faith in this matter. At the same time, based on the first section of this talk page, it seems to me that User:Craigsender (who was also User:Csender), would be aware of how things go by now. I just want to ensure that an editor who may be promotinally editing from four accounts can get some clarity before futher editing. I think a sock investigation will ensure this happens. At this moment, I doubt any admin action will be needed unless this user demonstrates an unwillingness to comply with guidelines, policies, and working with other editors. I'm not looking for anything to happen. I just want the matter looked into (ending with a preposition).


 * DGG, thanks for reviewing this article and your edits. I hope that you will continue to help with this article. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Then again, the investigation could be closed and the clerk's note could say, "These are very likely not sockpuppets," which is what happened :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I imagine the sockpuppet thing looks at IP addresses?  I think the other editors could likely have been other employees rather than literal sockpuppets.  Steve, I work with a lot of very very newbie WP editors, and it's quite possible for editors to still not understand Wikipedia's editorial rules, even if they edit over a long period of time, if the range of their edits are very small.  Here for instance it looks to me as if Craigsender really only ever edits this article.  So he may not even know to check his talk page, or this talk page ... So he may really not understand even the simplest COI policies, and just be frustrated that his changes are sometimes reverted, and sometimes not, and he just doesn't understand why.  I've seen that confusion from folks I've tried to teach and engage in Wikipedia, so I know it can happen.  There's no way of knowing what's going on with him from this end, of course.  Either way, I appreciate your assistance with this.  Thanks. Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

another opinion
I've been asked to look at this. The article in whichever version needs improvements.
 * 1) The lede misleadingly states that the CCC "provide services for corporate and academic users". As the rest of the articles states,  CCC is an agent for the rightsholders in collecting money from the users, not the other way round. It is not a users agency for dealing with vendors, nor is it an independent broker between the two parties. In one sense it does offer services to both, but using this as the lede sentence obscures it.
 * 2) Similarly, near the end, it is biased to say that "the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO), [work] to protect and enable easy access to copyright material." They work to facilitate  the collection of fees for the use of copyrighted material.  Copyright protects the author by placing restrictions on the user; its justification at least in the US is explicitly the social benefit of encouraging authors.
 * 3) We do not include detailed lists of executives other than the successive CEOs. There is a place for this information, and the organization's web site is the place. I'm removing it.
 * 4) The statement of fees in the current article is self-contradictory. The Charlottedg version was a little clearer, and I'm incorporating its essence, as well as other edits from that source that improve the article,
 * 5) The CCC has been involved in notable litigation other than Georgia State, The earlier material needs to be added also.
 * 6) BTW, the Georgia State article, Cambridge University Press v. Becker, needs major updating in view of the district court judgment in the case. Some of the material there is now outdated, and a fuller discussion of the final judgement and the appeal needs to be given.
 * 7) We need a definitive source for the profit/non-profit status.The current wording is unclear.

More generally, a Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release. It includes  material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients --that sort of content is considered promotional. The COI writer of promotional content is thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public; but an uninvolved person writing encyclopedic content thinks  in terms of what the public might wish to know. COI editing is not prohibited in WP, if it is done right. Often COI editors are in a position to provide important content, sometimes a uniquely favorable position. If they see their role rightly, it will be neutral and encyclopedic content, but they are not the best judges of that. The rules are specified in WP:COI, and the currently accepted interpretation of best practice is  our  WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Further editing by a company representative should be done only by suggesting edits on this talk page. I will treat the previous edits from the COI editor as if they were suggested in that way, under the assumption of good faith, that the editor intended to do it right.  DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DGG & Steve Quinn, for both your inputs, and your assumptions of good faith. I do imagine that the editor/CCC person wants to do a good job, and would not want to embarrass CCC by making it look like they are trying to spam/whitewash Wikipedia.  I think it's hard for PR folks sometimes to appreciate that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, in fact, does try to cover controversies and negative press.  I'm very hopeful that the editor(s) know enough about Wikipedia to see the talk page, and follow some of the links to understand the reasons these editorial controls exist.  Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick note
I was checking back on DGG's Talk page for something else and came across this. I did some cleanup of the most obvious Promo. The Lead being out-of-step with WP:LEAD is notable, especially because the Lead only includes their products and services and not controversies or history. I have to imagine the History could be expanded with their foundation date, etc. and not just controversies.

This sentence sort of raised an eye-brow for me: "The attorneys' fees were estimated by plaintiffs to be "substantial". Anything that is according to a plaintiff or defendant in a legal case, should probably include the other POV, but since it's just an "estimate" and not any more specific than "substantial" it sort of has the effect of not really saying anything at all. I also sort of lost track of what the case was about, because there was so much content about the legal fees. This could probably be trimmed.

Sorry for my quick drive-by notes/editing. CorporateM (Talk) 03:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Copyright Clearance Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150519102642/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/143110672/Publishers-brief-in-GSU-Appeal%C2%A0%E2%80%A6 to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/143110672/Publishers-brief-in-GSU-Appeal%C2%A0%E2%80%A6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)