Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 June 24

24 June 2018

 * 1988 Summer Olympics ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a big mistake, and I thank Diannaa for catching it. In my summary, I included two sentences which were almost identical to the article: "Internal prosecution records also revealed several instances in which Kim noted intense pressure from President Chun Doo-hwan's office to curb his probe and push for lighter punishment. Kim had to reassure presidential officials directly and regularly that his investigation would not expand."  These were much too close to the original.  The rest of my 750-word summary of this long investigative article was actually kind of okay, but this was a glaring mistake.  I apologize for making it and taking the time of other persons.
 * I plan to re-write and re-summarize being much more careful.
 * AP: S. Korea covered up mass abuse, killings of ‘vagrants’, Associated Pres (AP), Kim Tong-Hyung, April 20, 2016.
 * Also, please see our Talk page:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1988_Summer_Olympics#Camps_for_“vagrants”_[homeless_persons],_including_children
 * This is an important topic. If it interests you and you have the time, please consider helping out.  Thanks.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others, and the talk-page too. No remaining infringement. Revdelete requests added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

FIFA conversation

 * 2018 FIFA World Cup ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from here. I noticed that the tiebreakers listed in the mentioned article's section appear to be copied and pasted with a few little tweaks from the present source. Running a copyvio tool results in the same section being detected as copyright violation.Tvx1 17:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting delete.svg Copyright concerns remain. Admin help needed, please. The content does indeed appear to be a copyvio; I've removed it twice and twice been reverted by . There's similar content in a handful of other articles, which should presumably also be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The tiebreakers are there for a reason, removing them leaves users trying to figure out how to interpret a tie. We could citate the source, however. –Piranha249 19:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree that there is a copyright issue here, as the text is copied under the terms of Fair Use compliance. – PeeJay 19:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which Wikipedia policy is that exactly, ? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I love how people barge in and engage in removal of content without bothering to read the god damn talkpage Talk:2018_FIFA_World_Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't quite know how you think you know who has read what. In any case, there's no valid policy-based argument for keeping this material on the talk-page, and there is a valid and well-presented policy-based argument for deleting it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Although this is almost certainly copyrighted material I think you can make a plausible argument for using it under fair use. It can't really be reworded without making the section inaccurate.  Hut 8.5  21:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , under what policy could we do that? I was under the impression that we have no fair-use provision for copyright text – either it's quoted or it isn't allowed. We certainly don't need to put extracts from the rule-book into Wikipedia - after all, they're published in innumerable places on the FIFA website. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly it is supposed to be a quotation and it should have quotation marks or a blockquote around it, but that isn't much of a reason for removing it. The tiebreakers are an important piece of information for understanding the topic (without them many of the results are unexplained) and I don't think it's possible to illustrate this without doing something that amounts to copying the relevant pieces of the rulebook.  Hut 8.5  18:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Because of some of the misunderstandings I'm seeing here and at Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup, I'd like to make a few notes about copyright law and Wikipedia's copyright policy. First, Wikipedia is governed by the laws of the United States, as the Wikimedia Foundation which hosts the content is located in the United States. Contributors to Wikipedia are bound by site policy (WP:C, in this case - see also FAQ/Copyright), the Terms of Use, and also (as we are all cautioned in the Terms of Use) our own local laws. (Even if it's permitted by community policies, contributing content that is violation of a law in our local area won't free us of liability. I have seen this particular issue rise to plague a European man who was uploading images under fair use).

It is true that, in US law, “edicts of government” both domestic and foreign are in the public domain. This governs all current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level, including other countries’ governments, and the court opinions of any court case. (See Public domain.) It does not govern rules of games, as these are not edicts of government. The intention of the law is to make sure that people have absolute clarity into the policies that govern their lives. Games being optional, they are not a protected class, and the expression of how a game is played may be copyrighted. (cf. Chapter 900 and ). It depends on the creativity of the content - whether it is the only way to accurately describe the process.

While US law does require creativity, it's important to recognize that creativity here does not mean brilliance. US law is clear that creativity is not a difficult threshold to reach. In Feist v. Rural, the Supreme Court noted that, "the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be." For one example of how low the threshold is, consider American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans (), where even taxonomic classifications are found to be copyrightable. In one specific example selected to demonstrate the creativity, the Court noted:
 * Number 04267 reads "guided tissue regeneration--nonresorbable barrier, per site, per tooth" but could have read "regeneration of tissue, guided by nonresorbable barrier, one site and tooth per entry". Or "use of barrier to guide regeneration of tissue, without regard to the number of sites per tooth and whether or not the barrier is resorbable". The first variation is linguistic, the second substantive; in each case the decision to use the actual description is original to the ADA, not knuckling under to an order imposed on language by some "fact" about dental procedures.

The issue at hand here is not whether this content is marked as copyrighted - US law does not require a statement to bestow copyright protection and has not for many years. Registration is available, but not required and, as indicated above, registration for text describing the rules of a game is permissible. Copyright is automatic for all creative content that does not meet an automatic exception, such as bestowed by edicts of law. It is our burden to demonstrate that content is not copyrighted for that reason, not that it is.

Since we know that rules can be copyright protected and since we know that the barrier for creativity is low, the issue is whether, under the presumption of copyright, use of the material meets our non-free content policy. This is because our copyright policy is clear that, when we are in doubt, we must err on the side of caution: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble."

It is true that the Wikimedia Foundation is non-profit. However, this does not have any bearing on our ability to import material. When the movement was deciding on a license, they could have chosen a free license that restricted "for profit" reuse. The decision was made to use as free a license as possible, even one which permits commercial reuse. Accordingly, as WP:NFC notes, "The licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation expects all content hosted on Wikimedia projects to be free content", but the licensing policy does permit each site to create its own exemption policy. This policy may be more restrictive than, but not less restrictive than, the fair use doctrine of the U.S. (See also specifically Non-free_content.)

I agree with User:Hut 8.5 as well as some of the others in the conversation that we have a fair use argument for retaining these rules, especially as paraphrased currently. The taking is not substantial, and while the language may be copyrightable, the way the game is played is not. I suspect the paraphrase could be even better. Where we do use precise text from the original, it should be marked as a quotation in accordance with the policy portion of WP:NFC.

I'm going to close out this listing, but would encourage people to continue ensuring that creative content is not duplicated where it does not need to be. If there's another way to accurately say it, as in American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans, we should. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)