User:Jondel/Village pump copyrights

Protection for wikipedia's articles. Original articles get copyright violations!

Hi! Wikipedia 's original articles are doomed to die through the process of protecting other people's copyright protection, and thgough its power of being a a good reference. Wikipedia's own articles need protection . (Maybe there is , I need to read more )Please do something. The articles are copied onto other websites. These are seen and then the original wikipedia articles get the copyright violations.

I wrote this original Edgar Cayce on Karma but this was copied onto another website and now the original wikipedia article has a copyright violation! I swear I am the author. It is them who copied this wikipedia article.

I will be writing to the website that copied the article after this to try to clarify ownership. --Jondel 05:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to the article's history log, Jondel posted it at "08:38, 2004 Aug 4". Google's cache of that page says "Aug 3, 2004 06:32:18 GMT". -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

I've posted info on Talk:Edgar Cayce on Karma that tilts this back into Jondel's favor. --Golbez 06:27, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

It certainly is a frequent problem that Wikipedia articles get incorrectly flagged as a copyright violation because someone else copied our content (whether within our license or not). —Morven 06:59, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Same phenomena is now going again with Langauges of the Philippines. I wrote the same thing about Tagolog (when it was Tagalog and not Taglaog Language) and placed it in Languages of the Philippines. Do I have to copyright what I wrote in Wikipedia?? I am seeing my own articles on other webpages thanks to Wikipedia copyright protectors.--Jondel 07:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can't prevent that; everything written on Wikipedia is subject to the GFDL, which allows anyone to take any article and put it up anywhere they want, as long as attribution is made. You don't own copyright to your article. Sorry. --Golbez 07:19, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't want to own or copyright what I contribute but I don't want to be labelled as copyright violator nor do I want my articles ripped off as being only copies. It's like there's a penalty for an honest contribution.--Jondel 07:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um... Jondel most certainly does own the copyright to his own work. People are allowed to copy Wikipedia articles, that's why it's a free encyclopedia. As noted below every edit box, "all contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License". You own the copyright to your contributions, but the license you have granted is non-revocable. Anyone who copies your work is required to credit you. If they don't do so, you can threaten legal action against them. Wikimedia cannot take legal action against license violators since it does not own the copyright. -- Tim Starling 07:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for my error; I was unclear on the nature of the copyright and the GFDL. I'm just amazed that after 2500 edits, I haven't encountered a single problem on this front. :) --Golbez 16:50, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and he's making a valid point IMO. We have up until now accepted the citing of a site that is not a Wikipedia mirror and that has identical text as prima facie evidence of a copyvio. With the increasing web prominence of Wikipedia, this policy is probably unsustainable, because it's equally possible that the guilty party is the other site, as appears to be the case here. Food for thought? Andrewa 09:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is a problem, but most copyvios are reported pretty soon after article creation. In such cases, it is highly unlikely that the external site copied from us. When large unwikified chunks of text are copied to Wikipedia, it is also likely that the text comes from elsewhere. If, however, a copyvio is reported for an article with a long history, I get wary and start to investigate in depth, trying to find out through www.archive.org what the external site looked like at earlier times, and going through the page history looking for clues to figure out who copied from whom.

Still, cleaning up WP:CP takes time, precisely because one has to verify each suspected copyvio. It might be good if more people participated in this task... Lupo 09:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One problem is that while this is happening, the article is blanked under our current procedures, and replaced by a notice that at least one contributor has found offensive. I think they have a valid point. Andrewa 17:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS as I write this, the article in question is still replaced by the copyvio notice, and the link to the supposed rewrite is to a non-existent page, not surprisingly. Andrewa 17:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now fixed I see, with a note to that effect at Talk:Edgar Cayce on Karma. So the process does work. The question of inclusion is still open. Andrewa 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We have up until now accepted the citing of a site that is not a Wikipedia mirror and that has identical text as prima facie evidence of a copyvio. As long as the submitter (if a logged in user) is informed of this on her talk page (in a non-confrontational manner which assumes good faith), I don't see a problem. Citing a non-Wikipedia mirror with identical text is prima facie evidence of a copyvio. If the submitter claims to have created the content herself, then further evidence would be necessary if you still believe there is a copyvio. But if the submitter fails to respond to a request for more information, then the suspicious content can be removed. anthony (see warning) 16:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anthony said But if the submitter fails to respond to a request for more information, then the suspicious content can be removed. Hmmm, do you mean this is what should happen? Currently the content is removed before they have a chance to reply, and replaced by the copyvio warning. Agree this is one possible solution to one of the issues raised, but it's a major change. Andrewa 17:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A thought. Is it entirely OK for one to publish ones own work on ones own website prior to using it in Wikipedia? Now, I do mean licensing it for use under the GFDL on ones own website, but with of course, a "© 2004 Some Wikipedian" before the "licensed under GFDL" notice and link. I presume there is no legal/technical reason for Wikipedians not to be able to do this? zoney ♣ talk 17:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's quite OK. For work you yourself own the rights to, you are free to republish it anywhere you please under any license you please. I've put a number of articles from other places onto here. However, such articles generally need substantial rework to fit the Wikipedia house style ... —Morven 18:12, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's maybe helpful to think of Wikipedia as a collection of bits of GFDL text and images that thousands of different people own the copyright to. Anyone in the world can do anything they want to with any piece of it, as long as they comply with the license. Wikipedia chooses to compile an encyclopedia. Intrigue 18:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Internet Archive can often be a useful way to see whether a page is of recent vintage (although they do not generally post pages until 6 months after the fact, and they can get rather confused by frames). -- Jmabel 21:07, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you all for your participation. I have the e-mails from the three copyright violating websites' webmaster. All do not claim copyrights or original authorship. 2 have placed the proper acknowledgements to wikipedia. I will be posting the email responses on the appropriate wikipages. (This is ridiculuous, being accused of copying what you contributed.)--Jondel 05:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)