Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 May 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 2008-05-22

edit

Articles

  • San Jacinto College (history · last edit) from [1]. Useight (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My Girl (Philippine TV series) (history · last edit) from [2]. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • [3] personal email posted on WP:ANI against the express wishes of its author. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The e-mail's purpose was to canvas, which is against wikipedia rules. Ordinary e-mails are not privileged communications and have no commercial value, and the author's real name was protected, so his privacy was preserved. The IP address' claims are an attempt to hide the facts of the rule violation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Even beyond all that, there is no indication in the cited e-mail [4] that the originator of it wanted it kept secret. He made a false assumption that its recipients would keep it secret. They didn't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • "Ordinary" emails are indeed protected by copyright. They may be summarized and even quoted from, but not reproduced in full without permission. 10 Big Myths about copyright explained, point 10. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
          • That was my source also. Item 10 makes it clear that there is no legal protection for the author of this e-mail. It has no commercial value, nor did the recipients and the author enter into an agreement that its contents were to be kept secret. It's fair game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You are misinterpreting it. There is legal protection and if it went to court there would be an order to cease and desist. There would simply be no monetary damages awarded. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You would be laughed out of court. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Well, I'm glad to know that Wikipedia policy has changed from "is it copyrighted?" to "what's the likelihood of having to pay damages?" There's some much good non-commercial stuff out on geocities and tripod and clearly the owners don't have the wherewithal to be a threat. Now according to you we are free to cut and paste it because it too would be laughed out of court. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hiding behind alleged copyright violations in order to hide the breaking of wikipedia rules undermines the IP address' argument. Also, the IP address' contempt for wikipedia process [5] mirrors that of the author of the e-mail in question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not my email. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I didn't say it was. I just said the contempt shown for wikipedia process is similar, and thus it deserves similar consideration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The anon IP is probably technically correct that the e-mail could be considered a copyright violation. But ask yourself -- is this really a fight you want to pick?! I mean, really, this is insanity. The Church of Scientology, with their high-priced lawyers and intimidation tactics, has tried the same ploy to squelch leaked information the didn't like, and even with all their resources they've only gotten mixed results. This is just not an argument worth having. (And in any case, it's reported in the wrong place -- WP:ANI is not an article). --Jaysweet (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
              • The only other choice was images. The heading is in error, should be "text" as a copyvio can easily occur on a talk page, user page, or any other page. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Canvassing is against wikipedia rules, and that inclues canvassing going on via private e-mails. Hence, private e-mails can be used as evidence in wikipedia. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • But Wikipedia doesn't have the right to violate copyright in the process. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • (undent)As a point of information, please note that Checkuser has determined that 70.243.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and has been blocked accordingly. This in no way invalidates the IP's arguments re: copyright issues as being considered here. Although I have to say, wanting to disallow evidence of violation of Wikipedia policies on this basis seems weak to me. Apparently originally sent to several people, I don't think it can unquestioningly qualify as a "private" email. One option might have been to show it only to a few impartial admins to summarize the contents with small quotes as illustration on the ANI case but this would probably be an inadequate and poorly representative solution. Pigman☿ 18:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images