Wikipedia talk:Annotated edit page announcement (proposal)

Hi Alex! Here are my comments on your proposed new notice: I hope these comments are helpful - let me know what you think. Enchanter 10:43, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * The new wording on copyright (11-15) is good and badly needed;
 * (14) where material is used with permission, it should say "with explicit permission listed in the comment field" rather than "with explicit permission listed in the talk page". This is because:
 * The page history listed on the "older versions" gives the list of authors as required under the GNU FDL, so this is the place to give credits of authorship;
 * Comments in the comment field will be preserved forever, and will always remain associated with the edit where the copyrighted material was added; comments in talk pages may be edited, archived, moved around, and generally difficult to find in future when trying to trace where part of an article came from.
 * Overall, it's a little bit long; if it could be made shorter, it would have more impact as people would be more likely to read it.
 * I'm not sure that (4)/(5) "... the copyright owners agree to these terms" is correct. Suppose I write an article, release it under the GNU FDL, and place it on my website.  I retain copyright to the work.  Someone else then copies my article into Wikipedia, and gives me credit.  They can't assert that the copyright owner (me) agrees that the text is not defamatory, etc.
 * The affirmation that text is not in violation of any law (7) begs a few questions. For example, whose laws?  For example, I might write an article about the prison system in China, which might violate all kinds of laws in China.  Wikipedia can't realistically obey all laws in all places.

Thoughtful comments, thanks, Enchanter.


 * 1) Agree with the summary as being the place for permission (at least a note about it, there should be a policy about providing an email to any permission or a link on the talk page to the source (I would suggest putting any additional information about copyright in as hidden text in the page  i.e.  or something like that). Putting it in the summary field makes it transparent and permanent.
 * 2) Agree that it could be shorter; I'd like to move the indemnification text back to the terms and conditions, but mention at least the word indemnification, maybe something like this: You also agree to indemnification as set forth in the {project name}:Terms and conditions . That cuts out a few words.
 * 3) Regarding the bit about the assertion, I thought about putting in to the best of your knowledge, but that is generally read into an assertion as implicit; you can't affirm anything that you don't have personal knowledge about (it also made it even longer), but maybe it is confusing without that; also that is why I put the copyright license thing first, they are affirming that they either are, or are an agent (implied with a previous GFDL licensor, or explicit if they get permission) of the copyright holder; use of the word term in R(5) is inaccurate, I meant to only be talking about the license there.
 * 4) Regarding it not being in violation of any law; well if it is in violation of any law then it will be removed. It is that simple. If someone does not know they are in violation (again to the best of that person's knowledge) then they can make the affirmation in good faith, but if it later turns out that they were wrong, well, good reason to remove it. I doubt that the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Belarus will try to close down Wikipedia for violating the law on using the word "President" to refer to anyone else than Alexandre Lukashenko (there is actually a law like that and they do close down publications for such things) but if a Wikipedia server finds itself in Belarus and the administrators have a problem, they can always say, "See these people lied to us, they violated the law, not Wikipedia!". You might want to see a recent US case that has some bearing on the information content provider v. information service provider dichotomy, that is sort of what I am trying to get at there; the so called "Star Trek Actress" case.


 * Here is a version that I have tried to add your suggestions (and my above comments) to:


 * All contributions submitted here are released under the GFU Free Documentation License, see {Project name}:Copyrights and Warranty Disclaimers for details. By clicking save you affirm the copyright owner(s) of all submitted material agree(s) to the GFDL license; you further affirm that such text is not defamatory or in violation of any law to the best of your knowledge; you also agree to indemnification as found in the {project name): terms and conditions and have read and agree to them. Your submission here must be written by you, in the public domain or from a similar copyright free source, or used with explicit permission listed in the summary box; otherwise any material you submit shall be removed. 


 * Unofortunately it is longer than the previous version. It certainly is not easy to write a succinct text that covers all the bases! &#8212; Alex756 11:58, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The version you wrote looks too much like legalese (and it is), and I think that the old one is much more clear and consice. I really don't think someone's contributions will be taken to court, given the dynamic nature of Wikipedia. This new version doesn't add any more information, it is only more formal. LDan 19:24, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to make it more formal, but I think the issues brought up are important to mention. Regarding legality (defamation or violation of other laws) It clearly shifts the burden to the editor and gives us some time to get the stuff off Wikipedia based on a reasonable person standard (i.e. if we find out it is a violation of privacy rights or defamatory then someone can take it off). I think the suggestion about putting permission in the Summary box is also good and linking to a Submission Standards (or some similar terms and conditions text) is necessary as there are a lot of things that are not clear about submissions, i.e. are edit pages also released under the GFDL? Should we encourage people to use older versions of articles outside Wikipedia? Alex756 22:27, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Alex. I agree, it's not easy to draft something that covers everything! I've had a go at drafting a version:


 * All material you submit to Wikipedia must be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (see {Project name}:Copyrights for details). If you have not written the material yourself, or obtained it from a public domain resource, you must obtain permission from the copyright holder and record who gave the permission in the summary box.  By clicking save you affirm that the material is released under the GFDL, and you have read the {project name): terms and conditions and agree to them.  DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

It's a little bit shorter, admittedly because I cheated and shifted the stuff about defamation and indemnification into the terms and conditions article. My reason for that is that it's difficult to explain what the indemnifications are all about without going to several sentences (or paragraphs), so we would have to refer users to a "terms and conditions" page anyway to properly explain things. Once we have a "terms and conditions" page, it would make sense to move all but the most important things there.

Let me know what you think. Enchanter 20:09, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's getting there. I think that we have to mention the Warranty Disclaimers (that is in the GFDL Section 0, if there is no mention of them near the license notice, then they are not binding under GFDL. Also putting the defamatory part in puts people on notice and I have added the to your knowledge section regarding defamation or against any laws.'


 * Upon saving you agree that all submissions are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (see {Project name}:Copyrights and Warranty Disclaimers for details). If you have not written the material yourself, or obtained it from the public domain or GFDL source, you must obtain permission from the copyright holder and record who gave permission in the summary text box above the Save page button.  By clicking save you also affirm that it is not, to your knowledge, defamatory or violates any laws, and you have read the {project name): Submission Standards and agree to those terms.  DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

Putting the defamation and violation of any laws on the Submission Standards (or terms and conditions) page may defeat its purpose as someone can still say, "I didn't read it." They can't affirm something they are not aware of, though they may be reasonably held to it (known as the objective contract standard) if it is a contract term in common law countries (civil law countries have an subjective contract standard that requires proof of actual knowledge). The defamation thing is important as it ties in with privacy rights in civil law countries (something most common law countries do not have strong protection for). I think we are getting somewhere and getting a little less formal as LittleDan suggests above. Alex756 22:27, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for your note on this. I had a brief skim of the proposed new disclaimer and indemnity. I quite like it, because it makes it very clear that infringement of copyright and defamation cannot be tolerated, but I'm minded to add that the poster should have an out - that no copyright is violated or infringed to the best of his or her information, knowledge or belief. After all, I wouldn't know if in making a submission on soomething I am in breach of a law of a certain country, and many countries have different standards on copyright and particularly defamation. I also note your comment above.... maybe the disclaimer and indemnity should go at the top of the page? David Stewart 06:06, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * David thanks for your comment regarding the disclaimer. Do you really think it is necesary to put to your knowledge, information and belief that is standard boilerplate language here in the States, but I know keeping the text short and to the point is wanted, I've already gotten several complaints about legalese, formal language, etc. I put in to your knowledge on my modified version (1.1). I don't know if they can put anything above the edit box. At this point it is just pasting a text into the php script, it won't need any format codes. Actually I was thinking of a new checkbox for the affirmation to let it stand out, like on the image upload page (I think one of our predecessors got them to do that probably user:isis who has vapourized! Any more input you can give will be greatly appreciated. Alex756 08:53, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * (moved from User Talk:Alex756):


 * Alex - I saw you added "my knowledge", and got your message. I think that is fine, and goes someway towards avoiding allegations of legal-ese. By checkbox, do you mean emphasised or do you mean a box where the poster will actually have to check to affirm they haven't infringed copyright? - David Stewart 09:09, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * David, the upload file page has a checkbox. I think getting someone to do that extra step shows that they acknowledge it, makes it more like a click through license (which would be the best, but that is definitely too legalistic for Wikipedia). Maybe the problem with that will be the buffering, because if you don't check it then you get a warning (you can't actually upload without checking that box). It makes it a little less automatic. Alex756 09:21, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The click arrangement should be a good deterrent against blatant copyright infringement. Its a good idea and a sensible precaution. Kudos to you for your work on this. - David Stewart 09:36, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Alex756

On my talk page you posted a request for more information on my preliminary assertion that the Wikipedia does not currently comply with the requirements for the DMCA safe harbor. Please see Conditions for Eligibility (i)(1)(A) for an explicit statement that the items I mentioned are required for protection under that section (and I interpret section to mean section 512).

I'm satisfied that Wikipedia is an online service provider (OSP) within the meaning of the DMCA and not vulnerable to the finding of ineligibility which affected Napster but prudent extra steps you mentioned seem warranted, given the costs of being wrong and the modest cost of obtaining protection.

I agree with your statements about fair use and will look at the documents you've referenced and comment further as seems necessary. There's approximately nothing about fair use itself or derivative works based on works employing fair use which is simple.:) There seem to be a couple of issues for the Wikipedia. It is weakened significantly, too much, IMO, if it can't make fair use of works in the online version but it is also critical that it also makes it easy to exclude items which are not absolutely certain to be covered by the GFDL. The only way I see to effectively address this is at the time the information is entered, by asking people to indicate a confidence level and allowing that level to be adjusted. A confidence level may be something like a choice of checkboxes: Word those in sufficiently innocent ways and it should be fairly easy to quickly review new work and extract a "safe" subset for any desired edition. Hopefully most people wil be somewhat honest in their initial choice. Complete safety is unachievable for any work based on the Wikipedia, IMO. It's just not possible with so many contributors. It's inevitable that some will not understand the importance of accurately indicating the status for commercial derivative works which will lose one key component of the fair use tests. And quite likely that some will deliberately attempt to poison commercial use. Providing a way to flag content and making it possible for sysops to set a confidence level appears to be the best which can be done to reduce that risk. Saying "don't do it" will not work, so it has to be addressed in some way other than that. JamesDay 22:03, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I produced this and it is exclusively my original work
 * This is GFDL for other reasons
 * I strongly believe this is fair use
 * I believe this is fair use
 * This is possibly not fair use
 * I am uncertain of the status
 * It may be infringing
 * This shouldn't be here
 * We have received a valid takedown notice and counter-notifcation and the work is restored
 * We have received a valid takedown notice and counter-notifcation and have chosen not to restore the work
 * we have received a valid takedown notice