Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 6

6 August 2011
SCV for 2011-08-06 [ Edit]

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

 * Talk:NPR. The section Talk:NPR. See the edit . Long direct copypaste from this copyrighted paper. This is not disputed. However, the editor claims that copyright does not apply to material added to the talk page so he refuses to remove it. Miradre (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, the user has now added the entire copyrighted paper to a server where anyone can download it. See . Miradre (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The material I added reproduces the conclusion of the article on the talk page for discussion. (The talk page has been templated with "noindex".) Miradre appears to have cited the paper without actually having had access to the full document, only the abstract. The file on my website is for the temporary convenience of editors like Miradre who have no access to the document. I have in addition contacted Moonriddengirl by email some hours ago to make her aware of Miradre's tendentious position. This frivolous report shows that Miradre does not understand wikipedia policies, something which also came up on WP:COIN where he was given a formal warning by that his unmerited claims of WP:COI verged on harrassment. His report here seems very little different. In this case, the copyvio policy applies to content inserted articles and not to extracts reproduced for discussion on article talk pages, a point which does not seem to have registered with Miradre so far. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Content disputes is not the issue here. Your description of me is incorrect. Regarding the copyright violation, tagging an article with "noindex" does not justify a copyright violation. Copyright also applies to the talk page content which is released to the public under various licenses. Every talk page has this text at the bottom "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". In addition, adding a direct link from which anyone can download the whole copyrighted and pay-to-view paper makes Wikipedia look like a piracy site.Miradre (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that your statements can be taken as a reliable interpretation of wikipedia editing policies. In copyright cases for example, where editors have copypasted text with minimal changes, that text is reproduced alongside the original material on wikipedia for comparison. I have requested Moonriddengirl to clarify matters here. At the moment this frivolous report looks like WP:HARASSMENT. Making wild accusations about me, as you appear to be doing now, is not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no exception in the policies for the talk pages. In your interpretation Wikipedia is piracy haven where anyone can add copyrighted material and links to pirated materials on the talk pages.Miradre (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to understand wikipedia editing policy. I've already given you one example, namely when accusations of copvyvio in articles arise, we post the text in the article alongside the original text for comparison. At this stage I do not wish to be drawn into a multi-hour circular "wall of text" discussion with you. Sorry about that. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have failed to give any link to a policy or a policy quotation stating that the talk pages are exempt from copyright for any reason. Which is of course an absurd position. Copyright applies to all of Wikipedia as it does to all other webpages. The talk pages are not a piracy haven where anyone can add copyrighted texts or links to piracy material.Miradre (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha, ha, ha. Piracy now. What next? Mathsci (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The invective here is really not necessary or appropriate. We can straighten these matters out without it. First, we do indeed frequently include copyrighted text in side-by-side comparison with copyright problems. It is also not uncommon to discuss source material with more lengthy quotations on talk pages than would be allowed in the article. It is certainly more easy to defend fair use of content that is demonstrably being used to engage in conversation than it is to reproduce lengthy source materials in an article, where we are merely superseding the original. (That said, when the source is extensively quoted, I advocate collapsing it and - after the conversation is done - redacting it. I also try to keep it to a minimum necessary to make my point. This is my own practice. I've collapsed this one, and if it can be abbreviated at all, Mathsci, that would be a good idea. Otherwise, please just cut the content when you are done with it.) In terms of the external document, Wikipedia does not police what contributors do on their own websites nor what information they exchange through private channels, such as e-mails--not our business. :) But we really can't link to copyvios per WP:LINKVIO on any space, even if with good reason. If this is common practice, it's a bit of a problem. :/ I've redacted the link. I can't recommend that you send the information to a neutral third party to review if mediation is necessary, Mathsci--but that, too, is not uncommon. And not our business. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * May I also point out the existence of WP:RX, which basically organises these "copyright violations" on a systematic basis, and has done so since 1066? Exchanging pieces of copyrighted sources for discussion is not a copyright violation, but a necessary activity for any collaborative knowledge project, and is covered by fair use. Also not that taking a content dispute here leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously Wikipedia cannot allow people to provide public links to copyrighted, pay-to-read articles or other material. That is what piracy sites do. Sending a paper per email is different or at least outside Wikipedia control. The content dispute is unrelated to and not affected by the copyright discussion.Miradre (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot use HTML, that's what pirate sites do. We cannot use TCP/IP, that's what pirate sites do. We cannot have palm trees in a hidden bay covered by two batteries, that's what pirate sites do...oh, wait ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Using html is not the same as providing a public link to copyrighted, pay-to-read material. Illegally circumventing the right of the copyright owner to be paid.Miradre (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about WP:RX, Stephan. I wasn't thinking about it, although I've used it myself. :) (Whether or not the exchange is fair use is going to depend on a lot of factors...so it's not a practice I can comfortably recommend even if I may occasionally risk it.) Regardless, though, it's not Wikipedia's business what people exchange through private channels. The link has been removed, Miradre, so there's nothing more to say about that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If reproducing a short excerpt of a much longer text is not well within the limits of ordinary fair use and the uses of scholarly debate then book me right away. I have supplied talkpages with hundreds of full paragraph quotes from book length sources, and I will continue to do so when it is in the interest of producing a good encyclopedia. PErhaps our policies on quotations in articles should be reviewed as well, sinc emany of our articles have rather lengthy quotations from copyrighted written materials. This complaint is frivolous harrassment by editor Miradre of the editor who has been most instrumental in ending his disruption spree on race and intelligence related articles. If Miradre's recent behavior patterns does not come underadministrative scrutiny then something is deeply wrong with this system. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, the pdf version of the paper mentioned above is freely available on the database of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where the second author Joel Waldfogel was employed until 2010. It is the entry public_radio.pdf in this directory and appears on google scholar as one of two freely available links to the pdf file on academic websites. This indicates that Miradre has been wasting the time of a lot of administrators, yet again. Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am of course not aware of if there somewhere may be a free version. The article is certainly not free in the peer-reviewed journal where it was published. Also, seems dubious that the obscure directory you link to is intended for the public.Miradre (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl has already replied on her talk page, so your input at this stage is no longer helpful. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * She does not really endorse you view. Whether the article is in that obscure directory is intended for the public is very unclear.Miradre (talk)
 * If the site is connected to the source, we do not "know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". In that case, we certainly have a much more defensible stance if brought up on contributory infringement charges. Linking to Wharton should not be an issue, as it is publicly displayed, and we really can't second-guess their intentions there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the clarification :) Mathsci (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Of course, I did not know the existence of that directory. Also, I think is may be important to clarify that it is not OK to upload a version of a copyrighted article to your own webpage and then provide a public link in Wikipedia, as Mathsci did? Miradre (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting here Miradre. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an important issue to clarify. Miradre (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything has been stated very clearly above. If you personally need further clarification of any of these issues, please ask any further questions on Moonriddengirl's talk page, but not here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a reference to WP:LINKVIO above which is the policy. So please avoid similar linking in the future.Miradre (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cobh Cathedral ([ history] · [ last edit]) from Presumptive blanking per WP:COPYVIO. CCI: MacLeinin. MER-C 11:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing found from numerous samples in Google and book searches. Only one of the sources listed by the author is viewable, but snippet. No citations or page numbers as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubbed due to proven issues with author and allegation at talk page as of February that the content was copied. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)