Wikipedia talk:Video linking

This is an attempt to develop a clear policy regarding the placement of external links to videos from YouTube and other similar sites of television shows, music, and movies. While I have been involved in discussions on the topic previously, the guidelines provided are pretty much in the gray, and allow the policy to be interpreted either way.Sebwite (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights
...says: "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". I'm guessing the problem lies in knowing if the video is under copyright or not. I don't know enough about US copyright laws to say if the criteria you listed would change the copyright status of the work (thus making it allowed to link to). Also, on which articles have this issue been brought up? I only know about the links on List of Rescue 911 episodes. I'm sure there have been other cases where someone added links to Youtube etc., but isn't the above mentioned policy pretty clear on what is/isn't allowed to link to? If the work is currently under copyright, you can't link, if it isn't - you can. Still, I think we need someone with a better understanding of US laws to chime in on this :) -- aktsu (t / c) 18:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These are not situations on which the copyright status in known to be a violation, but on which it is unknown. These are not blatant copyright violations, but videos on long past TV shows in which the copyright status is unclear. It is very likely these videos are authorized, but the authorization is not printed on the site. YouTube is full of videos of TV shows, music, and movies. Some of them get removed promptly, as YouTube considers them a copyright violation. Others remain, and have been there for over two years by now.


 * I have seen links to these in many articles for informational purposes. As for List of Rescue 911 episodes, an article I did the bulk of the work on, I had read an article in the Washington Post, mentioning that YouTube had videos of Rescue 911. The article did not indicate this was a copyright violation. Sebwite (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (I was about to post this, but going by your reply I guess it's not really an issue) Also, what is the current consensus on linking to music on YouTube that is uploaded by the record label? Going by the WP:COPYRIGHTS, shouldn't it be OK as YouTube is not "carrying [the] work in violation of the creator's copyright".
 * Actual reply: In such cases I would think you should assume the work is being carried in violation of the copyright and not link to it, but I see your point in that it is a grey area should be clarified. You could interpret WP:C as "if you know that [...], do not link", you don't know that it is being carried in violation of the copyright = you can link :) -- aktsu (t / c) 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In removing links, I tend to take the FSF type line, No licence exists until you are given one,

No proof it's NOT a violation - No link is acceptable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A question that should be brought up here is, How good a job does YouTube do at removing copyright violations? Can Wikipedia rely on YouTube?  From my personal experience, I have found that some videos I have tried to access (mostly music) have been removed, though their links remain. If you make this attempt to access, you will receive a statement from YouTube that it was removed for this reason. As for the Rescue 911 videos, some have remained for over two years. Sebwite (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous... The Youtube link, even if the material is in violation, is simply a tool to satisfy our rules on WP:V and for complacent users who do not like to take the time to properly format a WP:CITE. Nevertheless, on occasion you may come upon a video which is actually a video not related... not from a reputable source... etc... etc.. the thing is, everyone one case is different. One should always look at the document and what it is intended to do or be. Recently I watch a really interesting documentary on TV. I made this reference. Would I add the Youtube link if I found the video? Dam right I would, because surelly someone else would like to see the video. If I watch a video made by National Geographic which says "all fish have purple blood", b.t.w. National Geographic has it's own Youtube chanel at http://www.youtube.com/user/nationalgeographic?ob=4, I'll argue you up to arbcom if you try playing a silly card that "It's a YouTube video". Despite some bad precedents, you must be careful and avoid a systematic bias of YouTube being an unlawfull publisher. --CyclePat (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I do not support a ban on copyrighted material being externally linked. When a video is placed on YouTube in violation of the owner's copyright, it is the person who placed it there who is in violation, not Wikipedia. It is up to YouTube to remove the video, in which case, the link would become dead, or there would be a note that the video was removed. This will only happen if requested by the copyright holder. If the copyright holder has not challenged the video being on YouTube, it should be considered acceptable. Sebwite (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The song was released and charted more than 5 years previously...
Why are we holding stuff back like this? I do not understand why we have to put such idiotic restrictions in this policy, only condition should be that as long as there is permission and it is an official posting or is not a copyvio. ViperSnake151 15:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Make this page into an counterpart to Images
I would like to suggest that we make this page into a general counterpart to Images, and move the existing content to Video linking.--Pharos (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)