 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Copyright Violation
editI asked about this copyright violation at the helpdesk here: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_15#Copyright_Violation
However, no one responded to my question so I've followed the instructions at WP:CV and opened an investigation. For reference, I've copied my question from the help desk to this talk page:
"A couple days ago I WP:SPLIT content for Hardcore History out of Dan Carlin. Afterward I randomly decided to run a quick copyvio detector and found that there is a 74% match with Dan Carlin's website, a 66% match with Apple Podcasts, and a 47% match with Google Podcasts. It appears that editors have been copying and pasting episode descriptions directly from the website or the syndicating platforms that host the podcast. Descriptions have been copied and pasted into the episode table as far back as November 2008 (The same editor added the first 24 episodes by November 21, 2008). Another editor added more episodes and their descriptions in 2010, in 2011, and again in 2013. Episodes and their copy-pasted descriptions have also been added by various IP editors over the years.
I know that generally when content is copied and pasted it's considered a copyright violation and the edit history ends up being redacted. However, I've never come across a copyright violation that goes back 15 years and now exists across multiple articles because I split it into another article. Should 15 years of edit history be redacted across both articles? Is there a better way to handle this? Is it not a big deal because it's just the episode descriptions? Any assistance would be appreciated. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)"
TipsyElephant (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- From the copyright violation page, "copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain". And so, public domain is "creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws." Episode descriptions do not qualify as copyrightable material. An example of this is that nearly every tv show article on wikipedia, where episode descriptions are straight copy pastes from the producers episode descriptions, are not flagged. They are not products or works of people that generate revenue. On the other hand, if you linked the episode directly then that would constitute copyright violation. In my opinion, please restore the page. 94.129.157.176 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen other editors disagree with that opinion. See Talk:The Alien Adventures of Finn Caspian. I'm going to let the investigation play out and see what happens. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Episode summaries do count as original texts, even if they are based on a (copyrightable) creative work. Similarities between descriptions on Wikipedia and outer webpages might be an indiciator of a Wikipedia fork (WP:FORK). A09 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Removed and revision deleted. MER-C 17:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)