On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Scott MacDonald <[email protected]> wrote:
> The joke is now on me as people actually want to pull the TFA because of a > perception that I violated the NPG's copyright. To say I'm pissed off it to > put it mildly. Did your username change confuse matters? From what I can see, it did. I'm glad Woody tracked down the edit where most of the text was written. The ironic thing is, that if subsequent edits change the current wording of the lead, the only places the full form of the disputed text may exist will be in the old page versions and on the NPG website. I'm sure the following cycle has taken place many times: 1) Wikipedia editor C writes text XYZ in Wikipedia article F 2) Other website (E) copies text XYZ without attribution 3) Wikipedia editor D rewrites the Wikipedia text in the form ABC [This can happen either due to a desire to rewrite the text in a better form, or due to a desire to avoid what they wrongly think is a copyvio, either way, the result can be utter confusion] 4) No-one realises that the XYZ text on Website E is now a copy of something in the page history of article F. What should happen here and what implications does it have for copyright situations? Can you claim copyright on a piece of text buried deep in page history, many months or years ago, that has since been extensively rewritten? Does the amount of time it was visible and published in the Wikipedia article matter (this can range from seconds to years)? Can website E legitimately claim copyright on the text if they are the only ones publishing it and the Wikipedia article currently says something different? I think I know the answers to these questions, but am not sure, so want to see what others think. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
