User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2008/September

The copyright conversation, New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005
Hi. :) I see you tagged this article as a copyright problem. It's coming up in the queue tomorrow (I do a lot of the stuff on that board, and I sometimes peak ahead). I wanted to talk to you about it. Compilations are protected if, as Stanford puts it, "the selection, coordination and arrangement of the material is unique." Arrangements of a list of songs by sales does not seem unique, but rather quite common (cf. Category:Lists of number-one songs in the United States, for a few examples). Is there a factor here that you've noticed perhaps that I'm not picking up on? Or do you simply feel that there is more creative content at the source than I'm seeing? If there's not a factor I'm missing but you still think the article is a problem anyway, I'd be happy to bring it up at WT:C to get wider review. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I think the material is protected by copyright because the website at the source (cited at that page) asserts a copyright over it. It's not for me to justify why the material is protected by copyright; it's for the copyright owner. Since they assert a copyright over it, then I think it's not for Wikipedia to include without getting their permission or consent. Next, ordering by sales data requires knowledge of the sales data. I think it's conceivable that sales history data is hard to collect, and that it would be considered a trade secret. The unique feature of the list is being in the position to know the data that generates the list. Either way, though, the page in question is just copied and pasted from a website where the owner claims copyright over the material.
 * The Stanford site doesn't say anything about album chart lists specifically; I think calling this list a compilation might not match the definition of compilation in the text you've cited here.
 * Do you know if RIANZ counts sales only, airplay only, or other factors -- or counts several different factors in an amalgamation? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to their website, "The Top 40 Singles Chart is compiled based on a 75:25 split between physical / digital singles sales figures and radio play information gathered by radio data collection agency Radioscope." I don't know if that's any more or less complicated than the figures used by Billboard. The copyright notice is not necessarily the deciding factor here. If they don't have legal right to protect it, then their placing the "copyright" tag won't make the difference. But I'm more than happy to seek additional feedback at WT:C, as I'm not in the least bit fond of copyright infringement and don't want to be the one going, "Oh, this is fine!" if it's not. :D I'll pose the question there (and come back with a link when I've done so). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here it is. This is a good one to figure out definitively, since it seems that other articles may be affected as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think determining if someone has a legal right to do something is best left to a judge, particularly in a complicated field like intellectual property. I can't see a difference, in fact, between saying "Oh, this is fine!" and "you don't have the right to do that" if the person doing the talking is not a member of the bar, at the very least. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Wikipedia doesn't retain lawyers to settle copyright questions for us. In any event, we'll see what comes of it at WT:C. Generally, contributors there seem to be very on the ball, and maybe they'll be able to clearly point out why it does or doesn't work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, how do they have the wherewithal to act without council on the matters, particular when the ownership of IP is dispuated? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the copyright problems we have listed are, fortunately, very straightforward. It's easy to follow the policy at WP:C when somebody has copied the Official Nintendo site. Personally, when I run into complex ones where I'm not sure, I talk about them, as I am here and at WT:C. I have yet to encounter a situation that nobody was able to satisfactorily address. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kate (text editor)
R.E This article I noticed there's a slight template war going on? I may be mistaked but It appears you replaced a template after it was deleted when the template itself states that it shouldn't be restored? I would appreciate if you could clear up what exactly is going on with said article. Thanks. Alex J Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Feelings (1997 David Byrne album).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Feelings (1997 David Byrne album).jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)