Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 November 19

19 November 2020

 * Draft:Embassy of Israel in Brazil ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://web.archive.org/web/20150511052608/http://embassies.gov.il/brasilia/AboutTheEmbassy/Pages/About-the-embassy.aspx. Apparently translated from corresponding pt.wp article, which contains foundational copyvio from at least one source, all text here needs to be checked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to just send this to MFD, or let it be G13 deleted in six months without unhiding the text before then. It's not well sourced, and it's not clear that the embassy is notable. I don't think it's worth the effort to check. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 13:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Zocdoc and Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok: a long list of quotes was removed by me, but restored by User:Levivich who seems to believe that as long as you don't copy everything, fair use is respected. This was discussed at WP:AN (current latest reply by Levivich here). Our fair use policies indicate that (assuming that the other fair use criteria are fulfilled) brief quotes are allowed, but excessive quotes are not. I based the removal on the fact that at least one of the quotes in the first AfD copied more than 1/4th of the article it came from, which (when judging from what reliable sources give as a rule of thumb) is generally considered excessive; the copying of lengthy quotes from many sources makes it only worse. The second AfD had among the many quotes one I described as "The Brownlee quote was 249 words, from a 590 word article." or some 42% of the original article. We have no exact guidance on this, so the opinions of some other editors with copyright experience is welcome; is this excessive, or not; and if not, where would you draw the line (word count and / or percentage)? Fram (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't believe . I believe that those particular quotes were not "excessive" and nothing in our policies say otherwise. It doesn't matter where editors with copyright experience would draw the line. If we want to draw any line in terms of word count or %-of-source-copied, the place to do that would be in a widely-advertised RFC proposing a change to a PAG. (Not here.) Lev¡vich 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And how do you think fair use policy has been applied until now? Not at all? Or based on what most people would consider excessive (e.g. copying 42% of an article), without having hard-and-fast rules? Where would you, personally, draw the line? What portion of e.g. a 600-word article would be in general too much to copy? Fram (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the core of my argument: I would not draw a line anywhere. How do I think fair use policy has been applied on Wikipedia until now? By not drawing a line anywhere. How do I think fair use policy has been applied in the real world until now? By not drawing a line anywhere. What do I think we should do? Not draw a line anywhere!There's a reason why, under US law at least, there is no rule about what % or how many words is too much. Under US copyright law, those aren't even the relative metrics that are used. The relevant metrics for "how much is too much for fair use quotation" are, among other things, (1) how much is necessary to fulfill the fair use purpose, and (2) how much would harm the copyright holder. And for that reason, one cannot draw a line anywhere in terms of % or word count, and thus neither US law nor our policies have any numerical cut-offs. In some instances, copying 500 words may be fair use; in other instances, copying 5 words may not be fair use. In some instances, copying 100% of a work may be fair use; in other instances, copying 10% of a work may not be fair use. Then there's the issue of the difference between fair use quotation in mainspace, and fair use quotation in AFDs. The purpose of the use is entirely different, as is the harm to the copyright holder, depending on where and how the copied content is published, and thus any quantity analysis would be different depending on the publication forum.All that said, Wikipedia is not the first publisher to be faced with this question. Major publishers have guidelines about this sort of thing for their authors, although I am not aware of any publisher's guideline that would say 1/4 of a work or 249 words are impermissible. Maybe Wikipedia should have a guideline about this sort of thing as well. Maybe we should collect major publisher's guidelines and fashion a guideline that uses them as a model. That work needs to be done at a PAG, and most importantly, nobody should be enforcing any such guideline until after it is written and approved via consensus. Lev¡vich 17:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are effectively arguing that NFCCP is unenforceable because it doesn't give exact definitions for 'brief' and 'excessive'. For the second time, you indicate that the opinions of editors (with copyright experience, no less) don't matter and again(1) hypocritically imply your own opinion is valid. I'm tempted to revert both your disruptive edits on the grounds that an admin (Masem) has stated that the quote–blocks verge on violating NFCC. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that at all. Perhaps my explication above will help you understand my argument. Editors' opinions don't matter when it comes to drawing lines about what is excessive for fair use quotation. If the purpose of our fair use policy is to accord with fair use law, editors' opinions about fair use law mean nothing. That doesn't mean that editors' opinions don't matter about anything, just the law. Editors' opinions here or at ANI about how much is too much don't matter, among other reasons, because it's local consensus. What I'm arguing is that if anyone wants to enforce a rule that X words or X % is too much to quote in an AFD, they first need to gain global consensus for that rule, via a change to PAGs. I'm not wrong about this. Lev¡vich 17:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read your explication. In brief: there is no brightline, there should be no brightline, don't draw a brightline. Correct? Fram was not enforcing a brightline limit on the number of words or percent of text taken. That was a post-hoc explanation favouring the removals, which were done – I am near certain – using common sense. Nobody is giving their opinion on the law, but on Wikipedia policy. It is policy (NFCCP) that says use brief verbatim textual excerpts and guideline (NFCCEG) that says [e]xtensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Not the law. Good luck arguing that quoteblocks – dumped without context or comment at an AfD – meets those policy requirements. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course quoteblocks meet policy requirements. We use quoteblocks all the time and have been for 20 years, both in articles and in discussions. And there was context and comment; everything outside the quote boxes was comment. I think the longest quote was 273 words; that's minimal, and a long-ish quote is necessary when the purpose of the quote is to substantiate our requirement of "in depth". 25% is minimal. I'm not sure how much is too much in terms of rule-of-thumb but I'm sure if we're going to enforce a rule of thumb we should have consensus for said rule. And I'm not the only editor in the ANI discussion who said that these quotes comply with policy. Lev¡vich 18:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While the use of copyrighted text is not managed as rigorously as images and video (eg, we don't require rationales, etc.), it is still "content that is not free" that would strive to minimize and thus we generally should try to consider how it is used as if it were non-free content rather than under the more lax fair use laws. This is iterated by MOS:QUOTE. On mainspace, quotes to support article text can be easily justified, but when we get off mainspace and into discussion space, that's a little different and quotes should be only selectively used if trying to directly support article improvement. The problem with the quotes at this AFD is that they are just dropped there with no other context beyond "here are sources I believe support notability, and here are some quotes from that". That doesn't help - to judge notability, we have to see the full extent of the outside article to judge if that's significant context or just a namedrop, for example. If it were the case that the sources were just dropped, and a debate came up on one source, then maybe dropping a quote for that one source may be appropriate to emphasize a point. But here, this is basically a data dump. It is the equivalent, from the non-free standpoint, of an image gallery. The removal was wholly appropriate per NFC and copyright. --M asem (t) 17:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except you have nothing that says 1/4 or 249 words is not "minimal". There is no basis for putting a number to it: not in policy, and not in the law. Also, I disagree with your analysis that we should quote less in project space than in mainspace: I believe the exact opposite is true, that we should quote less in mainspace and more in project space, in part because quotations are more necessary in discussions than in articles, and in part because quotations are less harmful to copyright holders in discussions than in articles. But in my opinion, neither your nor my opinion on that legal question count. Until someone puts forward an actual source that says 1/4 or 249 is not minimal or is excessive, we have no basis for claiming it. Until there is global consensus that 1/4 or 249 words is not minimal or is excessive, we have no basis for removing such quotes from other editors' comments at AFDs. Lev¡vich 17:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Minimal use is only but one of four factors of fair use, and there is no exact number proven out in case law because the other three factors all have to be considered. Yes, our "purpose" is more educational through the encyclopedia (mainspace and talk space) so it is very unlikely that we would actually get sued, but there's still the matter that we're to be a free-as-in-speech work and need to minimize non-free content which includes quotes. And to that end, we should be applying the principles of non-free content for that reduction, which is purposely more restrictive than fair use. --M asem (t) 17:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making my point. There is no basis for saying 1/4 or 249 words or any number is not minimal. Word count and %-of-work-taken aren't even factors in the analysis. Look here for an example of what the factors and the analysis looks like, at least under US law. That guidance gives no numbers at all. And there's a reason why not: because, as the guidance explains, it's not really about how much you're taking in terms of words or % (other than the general rule that, obviously, less is better than more). It's much more about what you're copying (the "heart", etc.), why you're copying it, where you're publishing it, and what harm is caused by the copying, than how much you're copying. Bottom line: no basis in policy or law for removing a quotation from a user's comments because it is 249 words or because it's 1/4 of the work quoted. Do me the courtesy of publicly conceding I'm right about that. Lev¡vich 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I've pointed out that we on WP purposely work more restrictively than US Fair Use would normally allow because we want to encourage only the use of free content, recognizing that non-free content is sometimes necessary to help the work. Text is not the same issue as files, but random lengthy quotes on an AFD without any other explanation may pass a fair use muster test, but is problematic to our free content goal and thus borders on copyright problems. Their removal via reversion but not history removal is perfectly fine under how we handle non-free material. --M asem (t) 18:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do me the courtesy of conceding my point that there is no number or percentage in our policies, and thus no basis for removing a quote from an AFD because it is 249 words or 1/4 of the quoted source. You're arguing around me but neither disputing nor conceding my argument. Lev¡vich 18:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your "and thus" doesn't follow logically from you premisse. The policy uses "brief" and "excessive": there is no reason why you would consider 1/4th (or in the other case 42%) of a source not "excessive", there is no number below which you are allowed to use fair use texts, no definition of "brief", so deciding what is or isn't brief or excessive is up to us (just like many, many other decisions; there is no bright line between mistakes and vandalism, between POV and NPOV, between A7 or not A7, and so on); it's up to our own judgment, and when challenged up to consensus. There is much more reason to believe that 42% of a text is "excessive" than that it is "brief", certainly when coupled with a total lack of discussion of the quoted text, and when coupled with the tentative guidance one can find elsewhere of using 20% as a benchmark cutoff point. The only thing you have provided so far is "but numbers", and despite your claim that you don't consider every use "fair use", you at the same time indicate that nothing is acceptable to be removed until we have had an RfC to define some numbers, even though such removals have been done for 20 years. That's wikilawyering at its finest. Let's put it differently: I have removed these quotes because I think they were excessive (both in individual cases, and taken as a whole). When challenged, I have backed this up with some numbers, to indicate what I consider excessive, and what is often considered excessive in the non-enwiki world. You have reinserted these quotes, thereby indicating that you consider them brief, not excessive; please do us the courtesy of indicating at what point you would consider copying parts of these articles "excessive"? What percentage would convince you that it could no longer be called a brief excerpt but should be considered excessive? If you don't even have such a ballpark for yourself, then what do you use as basis to decide that these were "brief" and thus policy-acceptable? Fram (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I had no basis in policy to decide whether the quotes were brief or extensive, I did not remove them from another user's comment. Or to put it another way, because I had no basis in policy for claiming those quotes were extensive and not brief, I let the user making the post decide for themself whether or not their own comment was policy-compliant. I felt comfortable deferring to a user in good standing with . I think you should do the same. Lev¡vich 18:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That again doesn't make sense. Yes, Cunard is an editor in good standing. So am I, so is e.g. Masem as well. If you had no reason to reinstate the quotes besides this, then you should simply have stayed out of the discussion. Now you are favouring the position of one editor in good standing over the position of another editor in good standing, because the first editor is in good standing... When you have no idea at all which side in a dispute is correct, you should just stay out of it, instead of this waste of time and goodwill. Fram (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know which side is correct. WP:TPO is the side that is correct. Your removal violated TPO; that's why I reinstated it. Lev¡vich 18:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So this is now your third different reason, and the third wrong reason? WP:TPO clearly says "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are: [...] Removing prohibited material such as [...] violations of copyright". My action is explicitly allowed in TPO. Fram (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fram it's time to give it a rest. You understand my point. Lev¡vich 15:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I don't. Each time you present an argument, it turns out to be wrong (either because the same argument could be made with as much strength for the oppositeaction, or because like your latest one it is simply wrong). You are free to stop responding at any time of course, but it is a bit strange, when your argument has been shown to be false, to call upon the other side to "give it a rest" and so on. Fram (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Has been shown to be false?" Lulz ok Fram. Nice talking with you. Lev¡vich 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't be rude. Fram (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The advice of the US goverment is "Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances." So, there is clearly no hard limit here. As the usage here is as internal evidence rather than appearing in a reader-facing work such as an article, my view is that this is likely to be considered fair use. For example, see this which established that 'the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work was the “single most important element of fair use"'. There doesn't seem to be any significant commercial impact here and so we're good. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am 100% with Levivich who expressed it better than I could. I do have a horse in this race (I think the user in question does this a lot and it's really helpful). But I seriously think Fram was wrong to delete the quotes.  One doesn't edit someone else's comments in a discussion.  Copyright violations could be such a reason, but I don't think a reasonable person would think the problem so dire that they needed to be deleted without discussion. I get that he may have felt it needed out of an abundance of caution, but I still think a discussion was a better way forward. I mean the quotes are *still* in the history, I don't think removing them from a non-indexed page is doing anything to improve the situation even if there was a copyright problem here. In any case, this instance, IMO, falls easily inside of fair use.   Hobit (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)