Talk:Henry Barnett (banker)

Untitled
Data released to GFDL by copyright owner.

Speedy deletion
This article was nominated as a speedy deletion. Given that the author claims copyright permission, I have not deleted it. As a member of parliament, he meets the notability standards of WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 06:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well someone has deleted it. I often wonder whether these self-appointed policemen on Wikipedia are not a trifle power mad or have little else to do with their time. Copyright law in the UK permits you to copy up to 10% of the book or publication. I cannot speak about websites as I do not know how they are affected by copyright. David Lauder 09:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's ok. I often wonder why people feel compelled to copy material from other websites and post it at Wikipedia, as it is already available to everybody on the Internet.  Also, UK copyright law is not binding on Wikipedia.  But now that that issue has been broached, I would appreciate it if anybody could cite some authority that UK copyright law permits others to copy up to 10% of a copyrighted work, because I like to keep up with copyright law, but I have never heard that before.


 * As for the article in question, I have blanked the page pending compliance with the copyright permissions process specified here. The administrative tag should not be removed and the article should not be reposted until this is taken care of. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Two answers: because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a website as such; every UK library has a notice to that effect next to its photocopier. They cite the Act. David Lauder 18:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a little concerned to see Users running around Wikipedia deleting/blanking articles yet admitting at the same time they have no idea what the copyright laws are! There are too many self-appointed police on Wikipedia. Here is some information on UK copyright:

Acts that are allowed: Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from the Performing Rights Society.) You can find it here: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Regards, David Lauder 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you are not referring to me. If you will review my comments above, you will not find any admission that I have no idea what the copyright laws are.  I asked you for a citation to this 10% rule of yours, and I'm still waiting for it.  In the meantime, please note that 1) exceptions to UK copyright laws may or may not be relevant at Wikipedia; 2) even if 10% of an article may be copied for use elsewhere, that does not mean that an article that is 100% taken from another source is permitted under fair use or fair dealing; 3) none of the fair dealing rationales you cited above apply here.  Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  But it is not an indiscriminate collection of material, and it is not a place for wholesale importation of text from other websites.  That's what links are for. Take care, --Butseriouslyfolks 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In UK copyright law there is no stipulation of a precise amount that is allowable under any fair use dealing. It is a matter for the courts to decide. Organisations such as the Society of Authors have suggested guidelines for their members. Libraries have likewise defined their interpretation. Any editor pointing out copyvios on wikipedia is doing a good job. It is strictly forbidden to use copyright material. Tyrenius 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to laugh when I first read this: "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a website as such; every UK library has a notice to that effect next to its photocopier". Tyrenius 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow -- I didn't realize WP had that kind of promotional budget!! --Butseriouslyfolks 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio
Please do not delete this article for the time being. The author has indicated here that the proper copyright permission confirmation steps have been taken. Thank you. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite to avoid copyvio
A simple way to avoid copyvio is to rewrite the information in a different form. The content is not copyright, only the exact form in which it is conveyed. It needed rewriting anyway to meet wiki requirements. I have done this. It does not now infringe copyright. Tyrenius 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)