This is the
talk page for discussing
Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This is not the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. To do so, list the article on today's entry at the project page after following the appropriate instructions. |
“ New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports.”
Come on. Please fix this. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template {{ Freedom of panorama (US only)}}, under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which images of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, are clearly under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. It has no obvious exception for "if that same image were hypothetically taken of a different building in a different country that had FOP it would not be encumbered by copyright". To me this seems as specious as "if this artwork were painted by a different person in a different country it would not be copyrighted" or "because this foreign work was not registered for copyright in the US it does not count as copyrighted" or "because we want to have images of these buildings we should be allowed to violate copyright". But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about copyright templates which could use some additional input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac ( talk) 07:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
What the title says. The page is clunky, and the actual "problems" require a decent amount of scrolling to get to. The instructions are long, not friendly to new people to begin with, and is either duplicated or contradicted in other areas. The non-listings part of this entire page is treated as basically SOP policy/guideline/guide by the community, and hosting it on what's essentially a daily "to do" list is probably not the best. So. Here's a few solutions that I thought of, others probably have better ones. These can be considered independently.
TLDR; page long, guidance should be put elsewhere. Thanks, Sennecaster ( Chat) 01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't work out the right way to report this, but someone has pasted full copyrighted lyrics at Talk:Simple Twist of Fate, in the section "third person". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the {{ copyvio}} template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".
Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days. – Isochrone ( talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This is not the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. To do so, list the article on today's entry at the project page after following the appropriate instructions. |
“ New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports.”
Come on. Please fix this. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template {{ Freedom of panorama (US only)}}, under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which images of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, are clearly under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. It has no obvious exception for "if that same image were hypothetically taken of a different building in a different country that had FOP it would not be encumbered by copyright". To me this seems as specious as "if this artwork were painted by a different person in a different country it would not be copyrighted" or "because this foreign work was not registered for copyright in the US it does not count as copyrighted" or "because we want to have images of these buildings we should be allowed to violate copyright". But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about copyright templates which could use some additional input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac ( talk) 07:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
What the title says. The page is clunky, and the actual "problems" require a decent amount of scrolling to get to. The instructions are long, not friendly to new people to begin with, and is either duplicated or contradicted in other areas. The non-listings part of this entire page is treated as basically SOP policy/guideline/guide by the community, and hosting it on what's essentially a daily "to do" list is probably not the best. So. Here's a few solutions that I thought of, others probably have better ones. These can be considered independently.
TLDR; page long, guidance should be put elsewhere. Thanks, Sennecaster ( Chat) 01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't work out the right way to report this, but someone has pasted full copyrighted lyrics at Talk:Simple Twist of Fate, in the section "third person". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the {{ copyvio}} template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".
Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days. – Isochrone ( talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)