Talk:St. John's Court House
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Proposed Merger
editThis page should probably be merged with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Alleged Copyright Problem
editThis article has been alleged to contain work copied from https://court.nl.ca/supreme/general/locations/stjohns.html, and to be in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The content in question however was not explicitly copied from the identified webpage, though the webpage did serve as a basis for research, and as one of multiple sources of the information. Aside from this, the content in question has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, Courts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Please see the Copyright section of the following web address for evidence of this: https://court.nl.ca/supreme/disclaimer.html. A link to the copyright holder's Disclaimer/Copyright/Privacy Statement can also be found at the bottom of the webpage in which the content has been alleged to be copied from. For such reason, I would ask that an administrator close the investigation into potential copyright. Thanks CanadianWikiUser (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry but the source webpage is not released under a liberal enough license since it states that users are required to "agree to indemnify and save harmless the Courts of Newfoundland and Labrador against any claims or actions of any kind or manner resulting from its use" and we can't guarantee that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- A number of points to consider here. Again, the content in question was not explicitly copied from the identified webpage, though the webpage did serve as a basis for research, and as one of multiple sources of the information. The content you believe to have been copied is a transcribed version of a speech given by Thomas Alexander Hickman, the former Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Chief Justice, to the Newfoundland Historic Society on February 26, 1998. This note can be found at the bottom of the webpage in which the content has been alleged to be copied from. The speech is free use, and a separate legal entity cannot arbitrarily claim copyright of such. Regarding your claim that we can't guarantee the copyright holder's limitation, could you list one example in which a claim could be brought against the Courts of Newfoundland and Labrador based on Wikipedia's use of this particular content? In all occasions in which a copyright holder releases their copyrighted material into the public domain, the person or organization using the copyrighted material is ultimately responsible for presentation of the content; within the common law there will always be civil obligations attached to the use copyrighted material, even when the owner of the copyrighted material explicitly releases it into the public domain. I think you're adopting an approach that is far too conservative: Wikipedia could not ever guarantee material of such nature to be in accordance with law. - CanadianWikiUser (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's true that Wikipedia's copyright policy is very conservative. In some ways it's stricter than copyright law itself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- A number of points to consider here. Again, the content in question was not explicitly copied from the identified webpage, though the webpage did serve as a basis for research, and as one of multiple sources of the information. The content you believe to have been copied is a transcribed version of a speech given by Thomas Alexander Hickman, the former Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Chief Justice, to the Newfoundland Historic Society on February 26, 1998. This note can be found at the bottom of the webpage in which the content has been alleged to be copied from. The speech is free use, and a separate legal entity cannot arbitrarily claim copyright of such. Regarding your claim that we can't guarantee the copyright holder's limitation, could you list one example in which a claim could be brought against the Courts of Newfoundland and Labrador based on Wikipedia's use of this particular content? In all occasions in which a copyright holder releases their copyrighted material into the public domain, the person or organization using the copyrighted material is ultimately responsible for presentation of the content; within the common law there will always be civil obligations attached to the use copyrighted material, even when the owner of the copyrighted material explicitly releases it into the public domain. I think you're adopting an approach that is far too conservative: Wikipedia could not ever guarantee material of such nature to be in accordance with law. - CanadianWikiUser (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry but the source webpage is not released under a liberal enough license since it states that users are required to "agree to indemnify and save harmless the Courts of Newfoundland and Labrador against any claims or actions of any kind or manner resulting from its use" and we can't guarantee that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
edit
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)