- Sarrukh ( history · last edit · rewrite) from Serpent Kingdoms ( ISBN 0-7869-3277-5), pp. 54-57. 46.208.17.223 ( talk) 19:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk)
21:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to tick this one off (thanks, Moonriddengirl!). There was a reason, though: I wondered if anyone had ever looked carefully at the contribs of the LTA editor responsible. I'd got as far as comparing this drivel with this drivel; it looked to me more like close following than outright copyvio. But I did notice that the LTA page mentions "wanton copyright infringement", so I wondered if this needed to be looked at more closely. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly, Justlettersandnumbers? And ugh. :/ This is the first time I ever remember seeing a copyvio of his come through, though. So either they're not being found or they were found already. Or, to be honest, I've forgotten. Which can happen. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Capitol Lake ( history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.des.wa.gov/about/pi/CapitolLake/Pages/CapitolLakeFAQ.aspx. Brianhe ( talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --
S Philbrick
(Talk)
14:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
Fundamental justice (
history ·
last edit ·
rewrite) from
http://basmanroselaw.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/more-primer-substantive-due-process-in.html?m=1.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Entire text of the blog post was introduced in two separate edits, by different editors: 2005, 2008. Hairy Dude ( talk) 22:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. Fortunately, the copying in this case works the other way around. :) The blog was published in September 2010 and used the content from our article. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk)
22:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I found too. But ... the content was copied from somewhere. The phrase "scepticism was that the guarantees of the Charter would be illusory if they could be ignored" appears to be taken from the report of Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985]. It appears here and here; the first seems to say that court reports are PD (so attribution would be needed?), but the second seems to say that commercial re-use is not permitted. I wish I had a bigger brain! Can someone tell me if this is OK or not? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Justlettersandnumbers. :) Good find! The question is probably not so much what Canada thinks as what the U.S. does - and, honestly, what the document is that's being quoted. It looks to me like a legal judgment - the decision of disposition of a case by the justices involved - in which case it would be PD use as a binding court decision (regardless of jurisdiction of issue). Is that what it looks like to you? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Moonriddengirl, I'm out of my depth here. I don't know what I'm seeing. What bothers me about this edit is that it appears to introduce PD (I assume) content from at least three court cases without adequate attribution (the phrase "principles of fundamental justice of which s. 7 speaks", without the interpolated "[of the Charter]", is from Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Immigration), 2002, but is not clearly attributed as such). Without that attribution it's pretty hard to see what if anything does not come from a court report. Perhaps I'm just tilting at windmills? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Sarrukh ( history · last edit · rewrite) from Serpent Kingdoms ( ISBN 0-7869-3277-5), pp. 54-57. 46.208.17.223 ( talk) 19:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk)
21:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to tick this one off (thanks, Moonriddengirl!). There was a reason, though: I wondered if anyone had ever looked carefully at the contribs of the LTA editor responsible. I'd got as far as comparing this drivel with this drivel; it looked to me more like close following than outright copyvio. But I did notice that the LTA page mentions "wanton copyright infringement", so I wondered if this needed to be looked at more closely. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly, Justlettersandnumbers? And ugh. :/ This is the first time I ever remember seeing a copyvio of his come through, though. So either they're not being found or they were found already. Or, to be honest, I've forgotten. Which can happen. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Capitol Lake ( history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.des.wa.gov/about/pi/CapitolLake/Pages/CapitolLakeFAQ.aspx. Brianhe ( talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --
S Philbrick
(Talk)
14:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
Fundamental justice (
history ·
last edit ·
rewrite) from
http://basmanroselaw.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/more-primer-substantive-due-process-in.html?m=1.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Entire text of the blog post was introduced in two separate edits, by different editors: 2005, 2008. Hairy Dude ( talk) 22:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. Fortunately, the copying in this case works the other way around. :) The blog was published in September 2010 and used the content from our article. --
Moonriddengirl
(talk)
22:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I found too. But ... the content was copied from somewhere. The phrase "scepticism was that the guarantees of the Charter would be illusory if they could be ignored" appears to be taken from the report of Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985]. It appears here and here; the first seems to say that court reports are PD (so attribution would be needed?), but the second seems to say that commercial re-use is not permitted. I wish I had a bigger brain! Can someone tell me if this is OK or not? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Justlettersandnumbers. :) Good find! The question is probably not so much what Canada thinks as what the U.S. does - and, honestly, what the document is that's being quoted. It looks to me like a legal judgment - the decision of disposition of a case by the justices involved - in which case it would be PD use as a binding court decision (regardless of jurisdiction of issue). Is that what it looks like to you? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Moonriddengirl, I'm out of my depth here. I don't know what I'm seeing. What bothers me about this edit is that it appears to introduce PD (I assume) content from at least three court cases without adequate attribution (the phrase "principles of fundamental justice of which s. 7 speaks", without the interpolated "[of the Charter]", is from Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Immigration), 2002, but is not clearly attributed as such). Without that attribution it's pretty hard to see what if anything does not come from a court report. Perhaps I'm just tilting at windmills? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-