Wikipedia talk:Sites that use Wikipedia as a source

Please see Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks for current discussion

I think this represents a radical reading of the GFDL. If a work uses Wikipedia source text, then that work must be released under GFDL. But if a website hosts a work that uses Wikipedia source text, it doesn't licence the whole website under GFDL! - Someone else 00:33 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that is what this text means. This is certainly not what I meant when I made it. I meant the pages that were derived form wikipedia. MB 01:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I misread it then, I think I can clarify by changing a few words... -- Someone else 01:31 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I think it's important to distinguish those pages that use Wikipedia text from those which cite Wikipedia as a reference. Citing Wikipedia as a reference should have no effect: we should want to be cited as a reference, and shouldn't suggest that a citation opens a work up to the provisions of the GFDL, because that will certainly stop people from citing us. -- Someone else 01:40 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Although there is a boilerplate text in Wikipedia:Copyrights for copyright violations in Wikipedia articles, I don't see any such boilerplate for notifying external sites of violations of the GFDL. Here is my proposed wording, which needs to be reviewed by someone who knows something about copyright law:

"Dear [insert addressee]:

I have noticed that your website uses text obtained from www.wikipedia.org and that the content of your webpage is not released under the terms of the GNU Free Document License (GFDL). Please understand that by not doing so, you are violating the terms of the GFDL and thereby also violating the copyright of Wikipedia. When content from Wikipedia is used in another work, that work becomes a Modified Version (as defined in the GFDL) of the content and must in turn be released under terms of the GNU Free Document License.

The particular text that prompts this notice is found at [insert URL of violating content], and contains a copy of information found at [insert URL(s) of copied Wikipedia content]. Please either remove the copied information from your website, or release the content of your webpage under the terms of the GFDL.

Thank you.

Sincerely, [insert your name]"

There are some letters at Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. MB 06:50 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia doesn't have any copyrights. The various contributors to Wikipedia do. (For example, I own the copyright to the current version of this talk page, which is a derived work from the previous version. Because that previous version was also under copyright, I obtain this copyright for the derived version only because its licence (the GFDL) explictly allows this. Yet that licence also requires me to release my own derived work under the GFDL, so I do. Now you may form your own derived work by replying, and get a copyright to own yourself!) -- Toby Bartels 21:46 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ahem. You only own the copyright to what you yourself wrote. And the Wikimedia Foundation does own the collective copyright along with everything Jimbo has written or has paid for (all the stuff Larry wrote while on the Bomis payroll, for example). --mav

Hang on, what's the "collective copyright"? I thought we each owned the copyright to our own bits (as you say in your first sentence), and that nobody else did. -- Oliver P. 22:24 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. We all own the bits but the collection of those bits in the order we have them here in Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (not the bits themselves but the way in which the whole thing is put together). This is also the only copyright a distributor of Linux has over their work; their unique choice of which programs to have in their distribution is protected by copyright law. All this is rather academic though since "collective copyright" is extremely hard to enforce. Or so I gather since IANAL. --mav

Oh! That does make sense. Thanks for explaining that, mav. -- Oliver P. 23:07 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, no one owns any copyright to anything here. This is because (as far a I know) no one has applied for a copyright. Now, Jimbo could apply for a copyright, but this would directly violate the GFDL. We have what the FSF likes to call a "copyleft" system. Now, I would have to do some research, but you may (or may not) be able to claim intellectual property (IP), but I honestly don't know the legal definition of IP, it may require a copyright. Wikimedia owns this site, but no one owns the actual content. There are creators, contributors, etc, but no owners. MB 22:36 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Incorrect. That's registration, which is required to take action to defend your copyright, but copyright itself is assigned under the Berne Convention once a work is in a "fixed medium"--which brings up an entirely different problem: work here is, by our own admission, never finished, so have we reached a fixed medium on anything? Will we at any time before releasing the site on DVD or CD-ROM? Do tarballs count? Koyaanis Qatsi 22:40 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Our additions reside in fixed form in the "Page history", don't they? And surely you're wrong about registration being required to defend copyright? My knowledge of copyright law isn't very extensive, but I have heard from someone knowledgeable in these matters that although registration helps in proving your case, it is not required. -- Oliver P. 23:07 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See [1]. Note: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin." --mav

Oh dear. Now comes the inevitable question... I'm doing all this from the UK. Is my work of U.S. origin? If my work is stored in a fixed medium before I submit it to the Wikipedia, then it clearly isn't. But if (as I usually do) I just type away at the keyboard and then click on "Save page", it doesn't exist in any fixed form outside the U.S.. Does that make it "of U. S. origin"? -- Oliver P. 23:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Um, wow. At this point sane people run screaming. Eek! Eek! someone get a lawyer. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry but you could not be more wrong MB. See [2] Note: "Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time." --mav

Thanks for that link Mav, b/c I found this text there:

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?

"Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)"

Since Wikipedia is "common property", it can't be copyrighted by anyone. :) MB 22:57 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

MB - Wikipedia is not "common property" per the above def. To say so is also a bit insulting (implying that Wikipedia articles have no copyrightable creative merit - like a list or a phone book). --mav

Yup. As mav says, that's a very specific definition of "common property", it means property equally owned by all members of, at least, a state. this doesn't apply to Wikipedia at all. --AW

That's talking about mere collections of information with no creative input behind them: e.g. a chronological list of every winner of the Academy Award for Cinematography. Speaking only for myself, I try to make sure my articles go beyond basic uncopyrightable information, and include original authorship: explanation of historical context, relevance of the subject to various groups, comparisons to similar subjects etc. Not that I'm interested in copyrighting my work, but it is certainly eligible for copyright. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:05 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has "no original authorship"? A funny idea. :) -- Oliver P. 23:07 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just a further note on this - intellectual property isn't a concrete legal concept in itself, it's just a convenient catch-all term when referring to the type of things protected by copyrights, patents on knowledge and so on. It's the copyrights and the patents that are the actual legal devices doing the work. --AW

Well then, base on the above information, it is still unclear to me who owns the copyright to the wikipedia articles. IF someone owns the copyright, then they can keep the copyrighted article from being published without thier consent (I assume). Which in turn means that people who contributed to that work, but don't hold the copyright, can not reproduce that work. In addition, all the sites listed on this meta page cannot reproduce the copyrighted article, b/c that would be copyright infringement. However, these copyright issues violate the GFDL. I am so confused! MB 23:11 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Again. All Wikipedia contributors own the unique, creative work they submit to Wikipedia. But by agreeing to submit their work to Wikipedia they are publishing it under terms of the GNU FDL. Wikipedia can therefore use that text under terms of the GNU FDL (as far as I know this license cannot be revoked even by the copyright owner - so long as they were or should have been aware of the consequences of submitting under this license). In short; the original author still owns the copyright but has agreed to copyleft their text (thus freeing it in the sense of freedom). The only real enforceable rights still retained by the owner is to make additional copies of their work under any other license (or even to place it into the public domain) and to sue anybody who violates the terms of the copyright they placed on their work (aside: theoretically they could even create a proprietary fork of their work but Wikipedia itself could never have a proprietary fork since all editors would have to agree to publishing a copy of all their work under the proprietary license). All that is important to us, however, is that at least one version is licensed under the GNU FDL so those are the only copyright terms we need concern ourselves with. --mav

No-one outright owns the copyright on any article unless no-one else has contributed to it. Imagine a new article occurs. The author owns the copyright and releases the article under the GFDL, which allows others to modify it and own the copyright on the derivation of the original article, which remains under the original author's copyright. On top of all this, as has been mentioned, the collective copyright - essentially the copyright on the overall form of the work - is owned by the foundation. There is no conflict between copyright and the GFDL. The GFDL is a license which essentially involves voluntarily relinquishing the right you originally have to enforce certain copyright provisions. Limiting the exercise of a legal right you own in this way is a perfectly legal thing to do. This character of the GFDL also explains why you can release things under dual licenses, as you can with software. --AW

Alright, I clearly have to nit-pick the GFDL, but just a quick question. If the "copyright on the overall form of the work - is owned by the foundation", does that mean that only the foundation can distribute it in any form? Or is a copy of it considered a derivative work? You say that the GFDL relinquishes the owners right to enforce some provisions, so what is enforcable by the copyright holder? MB 23:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the first of these questions is basically, "Has the overall form of the work been released under the GFDL, as well as the individual bits?" Now that I come to think of it, I don't know if anyone has actually answered this question. Wikipedia:Copyrights speaks of "Wikipedia content" and "Wikipedia articles", but I can't find a mention of the overall form... -- Oliver P. 23:55 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But using information obtained from www.wikipedia.org means nothing in terms of the GFDL. It's using text obtained from www.wikipedia.org that would cause an issue. You can't copyright information: you can copyright text. -- Someone else 02:41 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree and have fixed the boilerplate. --mav

Oh, was that your IP address? <G> In that case I'll amend a couple spellings and change a word or two for your approval! == Someone else 04:05 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nope - that wasn't me. I never edit via IP anymore (too paranoid in my old age). Do to the text what you think is best. :) --mav

I did, it's just more fun when it's you, if only because I know you won't be offended <G> -- Someone else 05:17 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think there is an error of logic in this page. The word "must" is ambiguous, isn't it? The page says, "any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under the GFDL". This is true, if taken to mean that the creator of the derived work has a legal obligation to release the work. But I don't think it is true if it is taken to mean that it must be the case that the work has been thus released. It is only in the latter case that we are free to harvest those derivative works for content. (The page still says "information" rather than "content", but as Someone else pointed out above, this is certainly an error...) Hang on, I'll reword the page... -- Oliver P. 22:24 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good catch. It implies obligation, not action --e.g. there are copyrighted photos people have uploaded, under claim of "fair use," but that has nothing to do with the original copyright. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. But I wasn't referring to the use of non-GFDLed Wikipedia content, if that's what you thought I meant. I meant that even if the content someone else takes from us is GFDLed, we can't treat their derived work as being GFDLed unless they explicitly release it under the terms of the GFDL - even if they have a legal obligation to do so! I may be wrong here, though. I am not a lawyer... -- Oliver P. 23:07 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Have there ever been any legal cases where the GFDL has been held up in court? Or is it just an idealology, and not supportable by law? MB 23:14 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No legal cases yet. But none of the terms of the GNU FDL break any fair use or other copyright law and there is a long tradition of court cases backing-up specific copyright terms (we simply have all agreed to submit under one such specific set of copyright terms). --mav

Yup. False opposition. It's arguable that a sign of a *good* license is that it hasn't NEEDED to stand up in court. The GPL has never been tested in a court case, but it doesn't follow that either the GFDL or the GPL are "just ideologies". --AW

I could use some help in deciding what to do about the pages listed on Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia as a source/temp. I will be adding pages to it, and I would appriciate it if other people could move them to the main article (adding any appropriate GFDL & link information), and remove them from /temp. Thanks. MB 14:10 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I see. So the /temp are for ones that haven't been thoroghly (sp?) looked at yet, and then we move them to the main page when they've been "reviewed" for breaches, etc.. How you add a sentence or two on the main page at the top, which says something like: "Sites which haven't been reviewed yet at at /Temp, please review and place on this page, blah, blah, blah..." dave

MB: about the arabic thing, maybe we ca ask the people at ar.wikipedia.org to create an arabic translation of the standard letter. Or you can search google for arabic-english translator's and then provide ar.wikipedia.org with something to start with, or just send the translation directly. Here's one: http://curtains.parikolijeni.info/ dave

OneLook.com[edit]

move to Wikipedia talk:Sites that use Wikipedia as a source

I came across http://pillows.parikolijeni.info/ and http://quinces.parikolijeni.info/ when checking an article Denial that looked like it was copied from that page (see VfD under July 17). Taking another look or two, I found that they link to many Wikipedia articles from their results pages (search for "Earth" for an example). That looks like a good thing. However, there does not seem to be any further explanation about Wikipedia, they just give you a box "Encyclopedia article" with the article's opening sentences and the link. I've got no clue whether this has any GFDL implications. Has anybody been in contact with OneLook? Kosebamse 10:51 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

IANAL, but it looks to me like a case of fair use. I think that anything which brings extra traffic to Wikipedia is a good thing! It would be nice if they at least said "Article from Wikipedia" instead of "Encyclopedia article", though. They give a source for all the other hits; they should give one for Wiki as well. -- Wapcaplet 11:30 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Already answered at Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia as a source.

Thanks Martin, I didn't know that page. Kosebamse 11:42 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This talk page is largely of historical interest. Please use pages such as Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks for new comments.