Talk:Copyright

Untitled

This page is for discussion of the particular contents of the Copyright article, or for straightforward questions about copyright. This article is not the place for:

1. debates about the merits of copyright. See Talk:Copyright/is copyright worthwhile?.
2. discussion of Wikipedia's copyright policies. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, or, for more informal discussion, see Wikipedia:Copyright issues.
3. Legal advice about copyright. Please see an attorney authorized to practice law in your jurisdiction.

---

Verification1

This is a very important topic.

Under the section 'Obtaining copyright', a reference is given directing browsers to a medical terminolgy book (available on Google Books). vbt: Copyright law is different from country to country, and a copyright notice is required in about 20 countries for a work to be protected under copyright.[32] Before 1989, all published works in the US had to contain a copyright notice, the © symbol followed by the publication date and copyright owner's name, to be protected by copyright. This is no longer the case and use of a copyright notice is now optional in the US, though they are still used.

ref:Fries, Richard C. (2006). Reliable design of medical devices. CRC Press. p. 196. ISBN 0824723759, 9780824723750.

I feel that this is too important of a claim to let slip into some page in some book about where one could possibly verfiy this.Rajpaj (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what your actual problem with this section is? Does the medical book not seem reliable enough for you? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the book itself, but where in the book does it state this? Rajpaj (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the citation, page 196. You can check it for yourself via Google Books. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Although the book does state that, its topic is not copyright but medical devices, so it cannot be considered authoritative on the subject of copyright. Authoritative reference material, preferably scientific work on copyright, needs to be found and the three(!) references to that book should be removed ASAP. --PointedEars (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that not a question of whether the source is reliable as per wiki policy - Reliable sources? PointedEars,I dont agree that the source is unreliable. Also, you are free to find alternative sources.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." A book on medical devices is a reliable source for a statement on medical devices. It is not a reliable source for a statement on copyright law. Especially in this case, where it is wrong; the source has apparently misunderstood the portion of the UCC that specifies an acceptable form of copyright notice if such notice is required, and interpreted it as a statement that copyright notice is required. TJRC (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Non of what you say is supported by the reliable source policy. You can provide another source. I think the original concern was over the 20 countries require copyright notice claim. It would be good to find other sources for this, for example listing the countries, and it would also be good to find how many countries still require registration. The WIPO website may have info on that, as it is meant to provide detailed info on copyright law in countries around the world (dunno if only for WIPO members).--SasiSasi (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, what I said was supported by the part of the reliable source policy I quoted. I don't know what you mean by "you can provide another source." It's a pretty unlikely claim, so it will be unsurprising that there is not a reliable source to support it. TJRC (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

This article constitutes a copyright concern on Wikipedia as it incorporates text taken verbatim or with minimal change from its sources, including print sources.

For example, in this edit in February 2010, content was copied into this article from Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy by MacQueen, Waelde and Laurie. While only snippets of this book are available, I can see the following text:

In most European countries, the origins of copyright law lie in the efforts of governments to regulate and control the output of printers once the technology of printing had been invented and become established in the 15th and 16th centuries. Whereas before printing a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying out....

The content placed in the article reads:

The origins of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by governments to regulate and control the output of printers. The technology of printing was invented and widely established in the 15th and 16th centuries. Before the printing press a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying out.

I know the copying continues, because the text I was searching for in the book that landed me at this snippet was "In England the printers, known as stationers, formed a collective organisation." In Google book search, I can see that the following appears in that book: "In England, the printers (then termed 'stationers') formed a collective organisation, known as the Stationers' Company, which in the 1 6th century was given the power to require the entry in its register of all lawfully printed books."

As placed in our article, it says, "In England the printers, known as stationers formed a collective organisation, known as the Stationers’' Company. In the 16th century the Stationers' Company was given the power to require all lawfully printed books to be entered into its register."

The contributor is currently blocked by another administrator for copying content into Statute of Annefrom another book, which I cannot see.

All content added by this contributor to this article may need to be removed, unless we are able to determine that the material is public domain, in which case it must be handled in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I'm sure that there is quite a bit of content in here that is not suspect, but it will take some time to work out what content is safe, as the contributor in question has edited this article 225 times. If anybody wishes to help with this, the temporary space now linked to the article's front would be an ideal point. It seems that this version could be used as base for forward movement. Alternatively, we could simply look at each of his edits and remove content he added unless we have good reason to believe it is free of copyright concerns.

Sorry for the mess. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is plagiarism (as are many articles on wikipedia), but is it a copyright problem? In any real legal sense? I doubt it. A few phrases are De minimis. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a copyright problem in a real Wikipedia policy sense, which is what matters. Content on Wikipedia based on non-free sources must be written from scratch except in the case of brief, explicitly marked quotations. And we have no idea how many phrases there are, unless we have access to all of his sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The greatest problem is when wikipedia entries are sourced from other encyclopedias; that practice is damaging their business. Wikipedia should not allow it, even if the content is rephrased. In comparison to that, copy-pasting phrases from scholarly books is much less of a problem. Except of course that style and content are less likely to be optimal for an encyclopedia. Few wikipedia editors have a command of the subject matter that allows them to write an article without looking at other texts. And when they do, the expert's contribution gets marred by all these {{citation needed}} templates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest a relaxing of standards in copy-pasting phrases from scholarly books, please take it up at WT:C and/or WP:VPP. Currently, however, policy does not permit copy-pasting from any non-free source except in accordance with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

On enwp there is a reasonably relaxed attitude towards fair use of copyrighted images. I see no reason for a different standard with respect to text fragments. But no thanks, I won't attempt to change policy pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we're not quite as laid back as all that. :) There's a reason that there's 53 pages in archive [WT:NFC]. Not to mention all the ink spilled at the administrators noticeboards.

But there are important similarities in the approach towards non-free images and non-free text: they must be clearly marked as non-free, and there must be some indication that their use is justifiable. If anything, we're a bit more relaxed about non-free text when it is marked as a quotation, although even then policy forbids using them extensively and requires that they be used transformatively. We don't expect anybody to explain how their use is transformative, and as long as too much isn't taken from one source people don't seem to run around challenging that like they do with non-free images. But the general feeling about unmarked fragmented duplication of text (I say, based on a lot of observation over the last four years) is that it runs into problems under policy nutshell point 2: "It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)". It is hard to argue that we cannot fulfill the purpose here with free text that could be created given that most of us have the ability to create free text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a University of Toronto Master of Information student. I am supposed to be editing a Wikipedia article for school and I was hoping to work on copyright. I am new to Wikipedia and I am not sure how best to proceed in light of the investigation into copyright issues that is taking place. I am therefore wondering if anyone is interested in working on an alternative version of the "Copyright" article while waiting to find out what is going to happen to the original? I have posted to the new "temporary" talk page which can be found via the link on the "article" part of the copyright page (in the section about writing a new article without copyright-infringing material) if any fellow students or Wikipedians are interested.Marshallc8 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Copyright/Temp is the place to work on that alternative article to replace the tainted one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that this is the last untainted revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Copyright&direction=prev&oldid=221049083 SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that link. May I ask how you can be sure that the version you linked to is not tainted? Would it be appropriate to begin working on that version of the article? Or is it best to wait and see what is decided about the latest version?Marshallc8 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we revert this article to a known good version while the full investigation goes on? Is there a known good version? Protonk (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I generally don't do that without talk page agreement when it sets the article back so much. But I've reverted to [1], which is the last version prior to editing by User:SasiSasi. Of course, there may be a lot of good content added by others subsequent to that date. But if it's helpful to have a launching point, this one seems to be it. (Thanks, SchuminWeb! The link I had provided earlier actually missed some substantial contributions by SasiSasi earlier in his career.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't work much in copyright problems (actually came here because of this thread) so I didn't want to dive in and mess something up. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential additional section

Hi. I am considering beginning a section about the "Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization" Act (TEACH) within this article. This act, in effect in the United States, provides educators with the right to use other's works within classroom and education settings. I am wondering if others agree that this information should be included. Also, if it is to be included, should I create a new section for it--perhaps beneath the "Fair use and fair dealing" section?

I also believe that it might be appropriate to briefly include information about how the creative commons helps individuals--free of charge--define and make public the terms of use of material to which they hold the copyright. Do others feel that this should be included? If so, would it be appropriate to place this information under the general section "Obtaining and enforcing copyright"? Or should I create a new sub-section within this section? Or would it be more appropriate somewhere else?

I am new to Wikipedia and I would appreciate any feedback that anyone can provide before I make any changes. Thank you!:)Marshallc8 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I, a fellow University of Toronto student here! I think your suggestions would be a good addition, especially about TEACH. For the latter, a new section makes sense to me, perhaps one titled `Limitations on Copyright` right under the `Fair use and fair dealing section. Jamila iSchool (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jamila. Thanks for the suggestion! I have already added a section about the Creative Commons. Perhaps I will begin to work on the TEACH section soon...in the mean time, if you would like to work on it as well I would be happy to collaborate. There is no pressure if you aren't inclined to do so, but just in case you are interested I wanted to make it clear that I would be happy to have help.Marshallc8 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I would love to collaborate, if you do not feel it is too late? I will look into writing a brief paragraph on the history of TEACH and post it tomorrow morning, if perhaps you want do one about the content/implications of it? Or vice versa? I will be online around 9am tomorrow. Thanks for the proposal. Jamila iSchool (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Piracy

Hello fellow editors! I am new to the editing process and would appreciate any feedback that you could offer about my proposed changes/additions. I noted at the top of the talk page that a list of priorities have been established for added content to this article. I would like to attempt a new section on the issue of 'piracy.' The article Copyright infringement offers a brief overview, but I agree with the proposed additions to related piracy information in the central copyright article. I have researched information that outlines some of the debate surrounding the concept of piracy as well as its effects financially for companies holding large copyrights (US focus). I have uncovered basic information discussing copyright legislation in China and other parts of the world as well, as per the suggestions on this page. I plan to proceed with my additions very shortly so any suggestions for related content in this section would be valuable as I begin. CJMinf1001 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added the section noted above with some basic information regarding what constitutes 'piracy' and some statistics on how these activities have influenced key industries. There is more relevant content that can be added here (specific stats on China and other areas of the world) but I feel this is a good starting point.

My one concern is that even though I have qualified the statistics by pointing out the inherent difficulties of calculating money that is 'lost' before it is gained, I can still see how the numbers may be misleading/bias based on the companies that have compiled the data. These are the only concrete stats that I could locate in relation to the actual effect that piracy has, however, so I feel they are worth adding. I would welcome feedback and suggestions. CJMinf1001 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and traditional knowledge

Hi there,

I am proposing a couple of edits to this section. As I am new to Wikipedia I’m unsure of the reference at the top of this section to Main article. Does this mean that this edit should apply to the main article as well? Should I be also posting edits on the other page?

In terms of my edits, I'm adding additional terms that are often used interchangeably with traditional knowledge such as indigenous knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), people’s science or rural people’s knowledge.

More importantly, I see that there is a need to provide some insights into the reasons why there are different approaches to protecting traditional knowledge. I will be doing these edits in the next couple of hours. I would appreciate another eye on these edits and any feedback. Thanks.Nas Khan (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC

Hi Nas! I jusr wanted to leave a quick note about your addition to the article. I think it is a good addition, and adds a lot to the article. In the main, it points to some of the complexity involved in copyright law, which may lead readers to explore or at least be aware of the issues at stake in the use of copyright and intellectual property laws in protecting indigenious/traditional knowledge. Jamila iSchool (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to History section of article

Hello everyone,

I am proposing a change to the History section of the article. Under 2.1 Early European printers' monopoly, after the first paragraph, I would like to add a couple of paragraphs that elaborate on the early factors which led to the emergence of copyright law by including the rise of capitalism and the subsequent commodification as factors. I think this is important because the replacement of feudalism with capitalism has been pointed out as an important prerequisite for the development of the very conception of intellectual and artistic work as property. Indeed, without the capitalist property paradigm, the conversation is moot. Alternatively, perhaps this can be put under section 18 Copyright as property right. Specifically, I am thinking of adding the following content, or something very similar, after the first paragraph of section 2.1 unless, as mentioned above, it ends up seeming best in section 18 - I have various sources to verify the below which I will add as footnotes when I make tha actual changes to the page:

Aside from the role of governments and the church, the history of copyright law is in essential ways also connected to the rise of capitalism and the attendant extension of commodity relations to the realm of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production. Similarly, different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not in for example in Asia, where capitalism did not emerge until later.

In the Middle Ages in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product, expression and property of the collective. There could be no copyright law in this period in Europe just as the conditions for copyright law in other parts of the world did not develop until later, or until Euro-American countries introduced such laws and conceptions through by dint of their colonial powers. Not until capitalism emerges in Europe with its focus on the individual, does the conception of intellectual property and by extension copyright law emerge. The most significant point is that under the capitalist mode of production, patent and copyright laws support in fundamental and thoroughgoing ways the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified.

... I would appreciate any and or all feedback! Jamila iSchool (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons section

Hi. I have added a sub-section called "Creative Commons" to the article, as I suggested in another section of this talk page (see "Potential Additional Section").

I decided that it made sense to position it as a sub-section within the "Exclusive Rights Granted by Copyright" section. Since Creative Commons aims to help copyright holders define which of these exclusive rights they wish to retain while allowing them to waive others, I felt this was an appropriate place for it. However, I can see that there are other sections within which Creative Commons information might fit equally well. For instance, perhaps it would work better as a sub-section of "Licensing, Transfer, and assignment"?

If anyone else would like to weigh in on this issue, please do so. Also, since this is my first time editing a Wikipedia article, I would welcome feedback and/or suggestions related to any and all aspects of this edit. Thank you!Marshallc8 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)