Talk:Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine

Untitled
I wonder how promotional information, that appears on a public website, which is clearly and properly referenced as the main source of the information in the article, can be considered copyrighted material and not appropriate for use in the article about the LCSB. This is before even considering the fact that the information was used with the explicit consent of the director of this research centre. I agree that the list of stuff was unnecessary, but I was using as a template other research centres' articles, which use a similar format. But the rest of the information was pertinent to what the LCSB is and does, and their removal has left the article without any substance. vangos (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you show where they have released all their text into either the public domain or a compatible free use license. Public website does not mean it is public domain. They have inherent copyright protections under law,unless they choose to give those up. please see wp:copyright Calmer   Waters  06:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus you can add information from those sites; however, you plagiarized, word for word (copy-paste), from those sites. That is what is not acceptable. Calmer   Waters  06:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So the explicit consent of the Centre itself and its director is not enough? There are in fact numerous press releases, University of Luxembourg promotional material, articles in the press, and other sources where they have released all this information and much more. This is not a company, it is an interdisciplinary research centre in an academic environment, their goals and resources are supposed to be shared and distributed. The information included here was only about what kind of research they perform and what goals they have set. (And it cannot be plagiarism when the source is clearly stated.) In any case, I accept the word-for-word criticism, and it was my intention anyway to improve this article. I considered what was here as the first iteration. vangos (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is this permission posted on these site? If he has given his approval to release information into the public domain, then you can provide proof through the OTRS which can document this. Again, please understand that public organization does not mean public domain. Public university's are public, paid in part by public funds; however, they are still granted copyright protection. These include public universities and their derivative works. Anything more than that is getting into legal speak, which I will avoid. Some but not all exceptions to copyright include most US government websites under certain conditions because they have choosing to release that copyright protection regarding domestic works (Title 17 of the United States Code) and sites that state their information is released under an appropriate license. Just understand that Wikipedia allows for fair use material of most copyrighted sources with attribution given to the copyright holder and written in you own words. That is the issue with what was removed. You can use the information, just write it is your own words and if you can cite where this came from. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to post a question at Copyright_questions. They may be able to assist further. Kindly Calmer   Waters  08:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus it states plainly here for example --> http://wwwen.uni.lu/lcsb at the bottom of the page it is copyrighted and all rights reserved at the bottom of the page Calmer   Waters  08:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)