Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2010/Editorials

I am not a member of the Military History WikiProject, though I've written a few articles that fall under your umbrella, but I am an admirer. I don't remember precisely when I first encountered your group, but I know the general context: it was a copyright problem. That's the general context in which I encounter many Wikipedians. For several years now, I've devoted most of my administerial time to addressing text-based copyright concerns on Wikipedia. Needless to say, I am often the harbinger of doom for an article, and I am not always warmly welcomed. My first experience with your group impressed me deeply: I found you collegial, focused, organized and ready to help.

The way we handle copyright problems has changed since then. That was before the Copyright Cleanup WikiProject, before the "contributor copyright investigation" noticeboard, before I personally had any idea how widespread a problem copyright might be. But my experience of your group has not altered. When I was asked if I might write something for your newsletter about copyright work on Wikipedia, I was more than happy to comply.

I've focused on text rather than images, because text is what I know. Because it's a complex subject, it's been divided into two parts. From the very basic (a definition of copyright violation for Wikipedia's purposes) to the more complex (instructions how to help with a CCI), I've tried to give an overview of copyright cleanup on Wikipedia. But there is far more to be said on the subject than I have said here or will say in the next instalment (Scout's Honor); if I have not covered something you'd like to discuss, I am always open to questions and conversation. Come by my talk page, any time.

What "copyright violation" is...and isn't
"The copyright laws described here are those of the United States, as these laws govern the U.S. based Wikipedia. Copyright laws do vary internationally. This is a brief overview of a complicated situation, and it is by no means legal advice."

Our article on copyright infringement says, "Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works." Legally speaking, a copyright violation exists when a court of law confirms that it exists. They're the ones who determine if the use violates exclusive rights.

"Copyright violation" is not the same thing as "plagiarism"
What we're talking about here is not plagiarism, although plagiarism may be involved. Plagiarism is the unattributed or inadequately attributed use of the work (including uncommon information or ideas) of others. Wikipedia has a guideline on it, and it's generally easily repaired with credit. Copyright infringement, by contrast, can occur even with full attribution. Copyright law does not protect information or ideas (not even if compiling them represents significant labor), but rather all elements of creative expression, which may include language, structure, and organization.

"Copyright violation" on Wikipedia is not the same thing as "copyright violation" in U.S. law
Copyright infringement can occur whether content is taken verbatim or simply follows too closely on an unfree source. There is no such thing as a safe word count; there is no such thing as a safe percentage to change or retain. Simply stated, copyright infringement occurs when a work makes substantial unauthorized use of copyrighted content that exceeds "fair use".

Wikipedia has its own definition. On Wikipedia, "copyright violations" are, literally, violations of Copyrights. This policy, which incorporates by reference our non-free content policy, has been conservatively devised to remain well within U.S. copyright law.

Why conservatively? Our content is reused in some nations that have stricter laws about fair use than the U.S. does; setting them up to violate copyright does them no favors. Too, although the courts have made efforts to come up with fair and reasonable tests for determining when use is substantial and exceeds "fair use", generally the question of infringement comes down to "I know it when I see it". The courts may appoint either experts or lay persons to evaluate the level of taking. Since legal copyright infringement is based on the perception of whatever court-appointed viewer evaluates the material, we don't want to push our boundaries, because it would be bad news for us or our reusers to reach that point and be judged wrong.

Copyright laws are complex, but we've done our best to make our copyright policy as simple as possible. When it comes to text, we need to remember the following:
 * 1) If it's obviously free (for instance if it is obviously public domain by age or origin), we can copy it if we attribute it (per Plagiarism). A word of caution: a lack of copyright notice does not make it obviously free.
 * 2) If it's free, but not obviously, we have to prove it, by linking to a disclaimer or otherwise verifying permission. (And, yes, we have to attribute it. More than citing it, that means we have to acknowledge that it is copied. See Category:Attribution templates.)
 * 3) If we can't prove that it's free, even if we think it might be, we can only copy a little bit of it, clearly marked as a quotation and attributed, and only for good reasons such as those set out at NFC. Aside from brief quotations, all other information we take from sources we can't prove to be free needs to be completely rewritten in our own words, which includes altering language, structure and organization as much as necessary to create a new work. (Tips on doing that can be found in this essay and in this signpost dispatch, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".)

Any text imported to Wikipedia that does not accord with these three points is a copyright violation (even if not a copyright violation) and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Why we should care
Opinions vary widely on copyright. Some people see the misuse of copyrighted content as akin to theft, and to them there's a moral dimension to stopping it. Others see copyright laws (at least as currently written) as draconian attempts to control what should be free information, and to some of these there's a Robin Hood dimension to liberating material. A lot of people just don't see it as that big a deal. Working copyright on Wikipedia over the last couple of years, I've more than once been told that the educational nature of our website and its non-profit status should make any use we make of copyrighted material "fair use", or, at least, a small matter, easier to apologize for than to ask permission.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter whether we support or don't support the concept of copyright; we all (presumably) support Wikipedia, and copyright issues can seriously impact our project and its goals. Focusing only on that impact, misused copyrighted content can lead to (a) legal complications for the project, its contributors and its re-users, (b) developmental set-backs to articles when the removal of older copyright problems disrupts later edits, and (c) reluctance on the part of others (even other Wikimedia projects) to reuse our content.

In the next installment of this editorial, I'll talk about how we should handle it.