Trump–Russia dossier(history · last edit · rewrite) possibly contains excessive quotes from the original Steele dossier, which had been deemed a clear copyvio when it was uploaded as a complete file a year ago. In the meantime, large parts of the dossier's contents have been documented in the article, including many verbatim quotes. Editors are seeking guidance on the amount of quotes from the original dossier that can still be considered fair use. For context, see ongoing discussion at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#Copyright problems. — JFGtalk 09:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, JFG. Sorry you have not gotten a response sooner. This is not the usual request for this noticeboard and with the backlog it's had people (like me) have probably been drawn to easier entries to knock the list down. :) I see that this has dropped off the talk page. I admit I'd rather not touch this topic, but will help if I can if it's still an issue. Can you tell me if this is resolved? (I hope. :D) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, JFG. I wish there were something definitive I could say. :/ The law is stubbornly but appropriately quiet about such things, since whether or not content is a copyright violation is so context-specific. There's a common myth that there is a word limit that is safe to use, or the maximum that can be used, but this just isn't so. It depends on why it's being used, how it's being used, how important the material is that's being used (to either the original or the new usage), the publication history of the original, the impact on commercial opportunities...so many factors. :) I'll read the discussion, though, and if I see anything I believe to be a major misunderstanding will follow-up either with the individuals or on the page. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed, and I think y'all made the right call. I didn't see anything that I believed to be mistaken. Not a ton of nuance around the amount (quite true, and I mentioned above myself, that amount as relates proportionately to the original and the reuse is a factor, but also a keen question around whether the content is the "heart" of the material. This is why we were legally advised not to use "top five" out of "top 100" of copyrighted lists - small proportion, but the material of most interest to readers.) But reducing our taking to what we believe to be the minimum was the right call in compliance with WP:NFC. Thanks for leading in that effort. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you for your time. Pinging other contributors BullRangifer and MelanieN for info. — JFGtalk 09:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mu'allaqat(history · last edit · rewrite) in the "see also" section there is a link. I am wondering if it is a WP:LINKVIO or not and have come here for advice. The data on the page says the work was published in "1973]" but the actual book says 1893. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Hut 8.5 15:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply] The book says it was published in Bombay in 1893, that makes it public domain. Many other sources report the 1893 date (e.g. [1], [2]). The book seems to have been republished in 1973 [3][4] but that doesn't affect the copyright status. Hut 8.5 15:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Hut 8.5 15:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)