Talk:Ivan Kotliarevsky

Copyright problem

Andrew, if you hold the copyright to this material, or if you have permission to use this material under the terms of our license, please indicate so on this page's talk page and under the article's listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Please indicate exactly, who from wumag.kiev.ua have you contacted with and what type of permission they have given you.

Contacted: author, type of permission granted: publish free with the reference to the author --Andrew Alexander 17:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please indicate it on the article's talk page and on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you do not do it today, I will have to blank the article again.

Sorry, but in the event of a lawsuit from wumag.kiev.ua, it would not be you but the Wikipedia who will pay the damage abakharev 04:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

copyright issue

Permission to publish with reference to the author is not enough. You need the release under GFDL from the copyright holder to publish it here. I replaced the article that consisted of copied and pasted Britannica and WUmag text for the stub version, I wrote, that will be hopefully expanded.

The articles you used to plagiarize the text are now listed in references and everyone get still read them in original form, not the pieces you selcted. It is against the wikipolicy to insert copyrighted text, even with permission. BTW, the author doesn't own the copyright of this. The magazine WUmag is the owner. --Irpen 00:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you misunderstand or intentionally misinterpret the wikipolicy. Read it again, carefully. The text is copied from a free web site, with the permission of the author. The web site does not claim the copyright of the article. The only reasonable holder of the copyright is the author herself. Further deletions without a proper reason will be considered a vandalism. --Andrew Alexander 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Read copyright yourslef. The site doesn't have to claim copyright. Anything written is considered copyrighted by default. Unless wel have a GFDL release, we can't have it. --Irpen 04:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat: "Note that speedy deletion applies only to articles, that is text; and only when the source is a commercial content provider, that is someone engaged in directly making money off the content." Stop playing a copyright specialist you are not.

P.S. OK, this above you might not have known but how could you possibly plagiarize Britannica and say that it's OK too? Write something yourself. Your English seems better than mine. --Irpen 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

P.P.S I did not speady-deleted your article. I just replaced it by something I wrote myself. You are free to replace it with something you write but not with something plagiarized from other web-site, commercial or not. I don't remember how commercial WUmag is and its web-site is down right now. As for Britannica, you copied, you can't say you did that in good faith either. --Irpen 04:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with most of your additions, however, you've also removed the whole text written by Vira Sulyma without a good reason. I have also agreed with the removal of the sentence taken from Britannica. As you see, unlike you I edit in good faith.--Andrew Alexander 04:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You should assume good faith. It's considered rude to make such an accusation, and won't advance your position. —Michael Z. 2005-10-23 05:44 Z

I apologize to Irpen for this remark. Thanks--Andrew Alexander 07:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

Wumag does appear to have some banner ads, so it seems to be a money-making site. Since there's no copyright notice, it's not clear from looking at the site whether the text is owned by the site or the author.

However, I don't know if Wikipedia has any kind of verification requirements for copyright (anyone know?), or if submitting material copyrighted by someone else is allowed. If Andrew attests that the author owns copyright and has given permission to publish the text under GFDL or some other free licence, I see no reason to automatically assume it's untrue.

Andrew, it's unusual to submit other people's writing to Wikipedia, when it also appears on what seems to be a commercial site. Please be patient with the folks who are resisting your submission, and be sure that everyone understands the conditions. Before submitting material that is owned by someone else, it's probably a good idea to read and understand Wikipedia:Copyrights. And please assure us that Vira Sulyma understands the terms of the GFDL or other applicable licence, and specifically agreed to them; it's not a simple matter of republishing the material, but of allowing it to be re-used elsewhere, edited, and republished.

Will try to get the verification of author's understanding of GFDL.--Andrew Alexander 07:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Have the image of the Eneïda or Buslenko's photos been released under an acceptable licence? If not, then they should probably be deleted. —Michael Z. 2005-10-23 02:04 Z

• Image:First Eneyida.jpg
• Image:Eneyida Franko National Drama1.jpg
• Image:Eneyida Franko National Drama2.jpg

I believe that the method we use is launch an email to the owner of the website and see what he or she says. BTW, I am having problems getting to the website myself, so I am not able to launch the email. Zach (Sound Off) 02:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I also found Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, but I haven't read any guidelines on how it is to be used. —Michael Z. 2005-10-23 05:45 Z

I have just removed the listing at WP:CP since this appears to have been dealt with. I could delete the history since it is just copyvio/revert/copyvio and the current article is not derivative of the edits up to and including the unprotection edit, apart from the initial introduction of the stub my Irpen on 21st Oct. But since there is a possibility that permission is being obtained, I will leave it for the time being. If the copyvio problem returns unresolved, or permission is not offered soon, please let me know and I'll removing the infringing revisions. -Splash^talk 00:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think removal of history is warranted, since the copyviolating editors just made honest good-faith mistakes, already corrected by the community. As such, the copyvio version in history doesn't endanger Wikipedia to any legal claim. But that's just my opinion, of course. --Irpen 00:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)