Talk:Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing

Copyvio discussion
This was tagged as a copyvio but I reverted so we could discuss this at the talk page. These Pultizer pages have been around 3 years or longer, and I think some discussion is merited before we bring in a CSD patroller who might not determine correctly if this is an exceptional case or not. My initial thought is that lists of Nobel Prize winners or Pulitzer Prize winners were never copyrighted text in the first place, and that the Pulitzer Web site simply maintains a list of its winners along with their citation just as we do. These are historical compilations. This doesn't seem any different to me than maintaining a list of Olympic athletes. The Olympic Committee can't copyright the names of the winners or the events in which they won. --JayHenry (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
This is in response to User:JayHenry's comments posted in his rationale for reverting. He writes: "(this page has been here for 3 years, so can we discuss copyright concerns at talk before bringing in CSD? As an historical list this is something of an unusual case)" I beg to differ. It's not the fact that the historical list itself is a copyvio - obviously that's fine - but read the citations connected with each year. Those are word-for-word copies of Pulitzer Committee citations, right down to the adjectives used to describe each winner's contribution. So what if it's 3 years old? All the more embarrassing that no one caught it before. Bruxism (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've certainly been aware that this is the wording of the citations. I'm just not convinced that it's a copyright violation for us to maintain a historical record of these citations.  It's not as if these citations were all published last year.  Rather, each citation is issued individually in the year the award is given.  The Pulitzer Web site has compiled the citations and so have we.  I have a physical almanac which also includes Pulitzer winners and citations, and so I don't know why it would be a copyright vio for Wikipedia if it's not a copyright vio for the Time Magazine Almanac. --JayHenry (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I do agree that we should clearly label the accompanying text as the official wording of the citation. --JayHenry (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. The thing I'm worried about in that case is that since Wikipedia takes on a life of its own, and is public domain, then anyone can copy Wikipedia text without the label, and then that would be a copyright violation.  I'd rather err on the side of caution.  Bruxism (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly one option might be to put everything into a table, like they did at Nobel Prize in Physics? That way all the citations are clearly labeled as quotes, and it might be a nicer way of organizing everything?  Also, if we know of additional information about the stories, as we often do, we could add that to the table as well.  Then there'd be less overlap between our content and what they have on their Web site.   (Also, Wikipedia isn't technically public domain, but rather uses a "copyleft" license called GFDL, which does say that people are supposed to retain attribution.) --JayHenry (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These statements are not just random quotes copied from a website - they're the official citations as to why the person won the Prize from the Pulitzer committee. This should be basic (and quite essential) fair use of text, as long as it's cited clearly that it is indeed the official wording and not our annotations. The supposed redistribution issue is a red herring. Firstly, Wikipedia is not in the public domain - it is licensed under the terms of the GFDL. Secondly, it is in no way our problem if people down the line choose to make changes to the Wikipedia copy of material; the only thing that matters is the legality of the material that's actually being published here, whether on our side or by reusers. Honestly, you're just being overcautious here. Rebecca (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, when I saw the Wikipedia article the text hadn't been "cited clearly" nor were the words put in quotations. If my students turned a paper in with that use of text, I'd cite them for plagiarism.  Bruxism (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll start fixing these articles up to make it clear that they are quoting the official citations. --JayHenry (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)