Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 February 2017[edit]

  • Draft talk:Oleg Atbashian (history · last edit · rewrite) from various sources given in the article, particularly in the good WP:SOURCES section. Multiple quotes with attribution, amounting to tens of KB in total. I spoke with 47.222.203.135 on IRC and they said the quotes were covered by fair use. However, I don't see how such numerous, long quotes meet NFCC 3 and arguably also 7. The talk page is huge and studded with quotes throughout. Huon (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Huon: quotes (text) are specifically exempt from the NFCC.

      "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media [need to comply with Wikipedia:Citing sources]. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met."

      (WP:NFCCP emphasis added). That being said, many of the concerns around quoted text (defined in NFC and WP:CITE) are similar to NFCC. They, too, need to be employed minimally. Crucially, though, there are no namespace limitations and no "one article minimum". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting me regarding the NFCC. I'm not sure I would call tens of KB "brief". We have articles shorter than that, and I'm pretty sure amalgamating an article by copy-pasting various copyrighted sources is not OK. Doing the same on a talk page is no better. The namespace is not my main concern, "lots of copy-pasted content" is the issue. Huon (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not brief in aggregate, no, but each portion *is* text-based fair use ("tens of kilobytes" only in total... a few percentages-of-the-sentences from EACH of the dozens of sources... not tens of kilobytes from ONE source). All excerpts are attributed properly, with URL except in one case where the source is offline-only. And each excerpted-fair-use-snippet is trimmed to the 'minimum needed' for writing the neutral prose, aka for WP:V-verifying the controversial factoid(s) that specific WP:SOURCE is backing up, and facilitating draft-talk discussions with (and wiki-training of) the COI-encumbered. This is a borderline-WP:N topic-matter, with a handful of in-depth sources plus a few dozen additional factoids spread out across almost that many sources, where some aspect gets WP:NOTEWORTHY mention. The regular consistent fair use utilization of |quote= is what is keeping me from needing to have dozens of tabs open in my browser (plus I don't speak Russian which is a hindrance for this particular article). This is not copy-n-paste; I'm carefully culling just the essentials needed into |quote= to facilitate crafting the article's body-prose, and also, to train the beginning-wikipedians on draft-talk.
So for instance, my |quote= excerpt of 111 words from the East Hampton Star original, which my browser tells me has 1327 body-prose words total,[1] is roughly 9% of the source in wordcount. This specific |quote= excerpt will be used (eventually -- I just added it for consideration on draft_talk earlier today) to back a mainspace sentence like this:

"Counter-protesting members of CFK wearing Castro and Che costumes (pro-Bush), marched alongside the formally-attired Billionaires for Bush (pro-Kerry), juxtaposed with symbolic coffins carried to protest the Iraq war; the overall result was a protest which invoked satire, irony, and humour, intermixed with the serious and even the solemn."

But this is just my off-the-cuff effort, there are four other sources about the same symbolic-coffins-topic which need integrating, and some of the factoids (e.g. the Che costumes) were already mentioned by other WP:SOURCES and thus might be pulled out of this draft-sentence, and placed into a different draft-sentence for better readability. Having the key 111-word-snippet, means I can discuss how best to write the article with the other participants on draft-talk, plus makes it easier for everybody to WP:V that no source is being misrepresented. That's not WP:COPYVIO, that is legit fair use on drafttalk, which will lead to legit fair use in the eventual Oleg Atbashian#References material, when all is said and done. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Huon, I think our policy is perfectly clear on this: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts …". Our guideline says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. […] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". Based on that, I removed a mass of quoted material from the references in the draft. Do you think any further action is needed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers, thanks, but I think the draft's talk page needs the same treatment. Would you deal with that, too? Huon (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, I'm sorry, but now that I've declined the draft, received criticism on the talk-page for my decision, and responded briefly to it, I think it would be preferable if someone else did that. I know that Diannaa has more than enough to do, but she might perhaps have a moment to comment here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of removing the quotations from the draft talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)  Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you handling that ticket, Josve05a? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2017_February_5&oldid=777138067"