Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/draft

I could really use help here, so speak up if have ideas. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Focus
First, I really appreciate you taking the effort to get this moving. I've been suggesting things for a while on the talk page, but it's been dead in the water. Hopefully, this will attract attention (I've placed notices at Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks and Village pump (policy)). I feel we need to focus on reusers rights and obligations. At the bottom of every page people are referred to Copyrights for details about how the text "is available." I know from direct experience that (some) mirrors rely on the page. There are already a variety of places for copyright information designed for Wikipedia editors, as your template reminds (I think the name of Reusers should be changed as it is too similar to Mirrors and forks; perhaps, How to copy Wikipedia?). In my view, Copyrights should provide clear instructions for Verbatim Copying and creation of Modified Versions. For more details, we can use a separate page. However, information about reusing should take up most of the page. Then, there can be short snippets about the other topics with links to the larger pages. I'll start trying to trim it. Superm401 - Talk 00:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that Reusers is designed to fully explain how to reuse Wikipedia material. Shouldn't Wikipedia:Copyrights be a fuller discussion of all copyrights on Wikipedia, instead of focusing on this one aspect? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but then the link at the bottom of the page ("see Copyrights for details") should probably go there. (the link on the edit page would continue to go to Copyrights). Superm401 - Talk 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, this is a complex issue. First off, should the reusers page be renamed Reusing Wikipedia content? That seems the best to me. Or maybe Reusing our content. Second, I feel that the copyright page should focus more on the various copyrights, and include a summary of reuse policies along with a prominant link. Note that each edit page says "Contents must not violate any copyright", with the word "copyright" being a link to Copyrights as well. Then I guess it would be a separate discussion as to whether the link at the bottom of each page should go to Copyrights or Reusing Wikipedia content. Sound right? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Reusing our content" sounds fine. I think you're right; the links should be different.  The text at the bottom of all pages (MediaWiki:Copyright) should be changed to "see Reusing our content for details and the edit page text (MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning) can remain as is.  That should be able to help solve the focus problem nicely. Superm401 - Talk 15:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment
I haven't really read the page yet (sorry, I will, I promise!), but I have just written Public domain. However, it just occurred to me that WP:PD isn't really the right place for this. Where to put it? Some kind of guideline page for photographers who want to upload images, I guess. Which should mention not only buildings, but also other aspects: photos of 3D visual art works, photos of persons (think personal rights), etc. Lupo 09:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems to me that there should be a separate Copyrights on images page that is summarized on Copyrights (and maybe other pages too), and linked from the template box. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe at Image_use_policy? Lupo 13:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use
"If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)."

Really? Every time you quote a copyrighted work, you're supposed to note that you're using it under Fair Use, and give the copyright information? That seems extraordinarily cumbersome, not to mention completely unnecessary from a legal standpoint.

Not to get all patriotic or anything, but people have an inherent right to a free press that's recognized by the U.S. Constitution. Copyright is allowed as an exception to that freedom, but it should be remembered that copyright is the exception and freedom of the press is the norm, rather than the other way around. Nareek 03:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that the law needs to know; it's that we do. For most authors, it's obvious what parts of their work are fair use, because they wrote the other parts. However we don't know what was written by other contributors and what is included under fair use, unless that is noted. Superm401 - Talk 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Reusing...
I think we should give a brief summary of the "verbatim copying" case. Note that in all cases (copying a single article, bulk copying, or distributing derivatives) a local copy of the full text of the GFDL must be distributed with the copy. That should be speeled out clearly. Incidentally, the example at Reusing Wikipedia material is wrong and should be corrected: it uses a link to some external copy of the GFDL. That is not good enough. I have also amended Reusing Wikipedia material to make more explicit that "fair use" is basically a U.S.-only thing. Lupo 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nice work. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to this section to better take into account what the GFDL actually says. First, it says nowhere that online distributors need provide a Transparent copy of their version; even if it did, the HTML web pages suffice (the GFDL specifically mentions "simple HTML" as Transparent).  However, section J says they need to "Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document."  This is an important provision for Wikipedia and it should be specifically noted.  It means redistributors have to link directly to our original article (HTML is transparent) or the edit page (so is wikitext).  The section goes on to say that "likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on."; enforced literally that would mean they have to link to every oldid version.  However, I think both provisions (and the general history and authorship requirements) can reasonably be satisfied with a link to the original article. I also mentioned that the history section needs to be included and changes should be noted there. Superm401 - Talk 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)