Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 September 3/Others

Others


 * Category:RS 500 songs and Category:RS 500 albums from Rolling Stone Magazine. I apologise for listing categories here, but this is an unusual case and a CFD nomination was closed as no consensus by a new admin without regards to the copyright situation. Back in February it was decided that posting the Rolling Stone lists here was a copyright violation (see Copyright problems/2006 February 4) and those articles (The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time) have been rewritten as summary pieces. These categories are recreation of the same material by the back door. True, the categories don't number the entries, but since the clear intention is to eventually include all 1000 songs and albums I have little doubt that they are no less of a copyright violation. kingboyk 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that better listed on CFD? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, as I said above one of them was nominated there and despite 3 editors saying it was a copyvio, the creator and one other editor voicing keep decisions resulted in a closure as no consensus. There can't be a "no consensus" closure on this, it's either a copyvio or it isn't (and if it isn't, I don't propose any further action be taken as it's a moderately useful pair of categories). Hence the listing here where it can be considered by those who specialise in copyrights. Note to closing admin:  If this is closed as a delete, the categories can be added to the empty and delete section at Categories for discussion/Working so that a bot can process it. --kingboyk 06:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The albums category is not only an alleged copyvio but also a repost (Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_3). I'll add that to the CFD working listnow to expedite it. --kingboyk 08:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm the CFD closing admin. As I explained to Kingboyk on my talk page, just calling it a copyvio doesn't make it so.  There was sufficient reason to believe it is not so in this case.  However, I am not an expert on copyvios.  Could someone here verify if a category can violate a copyright?  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The addition to the working list which you reverted is a valid speedy deletion under G4. I have to list it on the working page for articles to be decategorised. What's your interest in this that you have to revert that addition? We have a duty to clear up copyvios and 3 editors have asserted that these are copyvios. --kingboyk 07:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2 editors, one of which has admitted here that he isn't even even sure if it's a copyvio. As for G4, the list was not recreated.  A category was created.  Not the same thing.  --Kbdank71 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As is detailed here, the Rolling Stones lists are copyrighted, and reproducing them in their entirety is certainly a copyright violation. This is why The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time was rewritten as a summary. However, adding the sentence "This album was listed by Rolling Stone Magazine as one of the 500 greatest of all time" in an album's article is fine. The category does both: it states it in an article, and it creates a "collection" page. The collection page, when complete, would be a copyvio. Therefore having the category is a copyvio. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This deletion is being fulfilled with the comments claiming that this was the result of a CFD, which is clearly incorrect. I disagree with the decision that an alphabetical category is the same infringemnet as a reprinting of the list.  It is of course still possible to peruse the collection, it just now takes more work! (see what links here) -MrFizyx 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, me thinks opening a discussion and then acting while deciding you're going to ignore the ongoing discussion shows bad taste! Maybe kingboyk should have let someone else close this out.  -MrFizyx 19:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)