This page is designed to test your understanding of copyright on Wikipedia. Please answer the questions below as best you can - write as much as you like!.
1. You find a book on Amazon that appears to be reusing the text of Wikipedia articles - in fact, they proudly announce it on the cover! The book costs £20.00. Are they allowed to use other writers' work to make money in this way? If so, why? If not, why not?
A. Absolutely! Anybody, Wikipedian or not, is free to use, copy or distribute any work found on Wikipedia. When an editor submits his work into Wikipedia, he is releasing it to the general public. The editor must note that because of this policy, copyvios do exist.
Yes - although a more complete answer would have mentioned that the free reuse of Wikipedia's content comes with the proviso that it be attributed back to Wikipedia - people often forget that bit. I'm not sure what you mean by "because of this policy, copyvios do exist"; care to elaborate?
2. Is it ever permissible to copy and paste text from another website to Wikipedia? If so, under what circumstances would this be allowed?
A. It is never permissible to copy and paste text from another website, however if the editor does something like this;
Amazon.com states that "...users are pouring in by the ten thousands each month. We are unsure whether our servers can contain this."
then an exception could be made.
There are certain situations where this is perfectly acceptable; have another read of the policy.
3. A new user uploads a picture of Tony Blair from a newspaper article in the free newspaper The Metro. The newspaper has national circulation, and is read by millions of people daily, so the image is already readily available; it's also easy to find on Google Images. Is this picture:
- a) Acceptable under "fair use"?
- b) Acceptable because it's in the public domain?
- c) Acceptable because it doesn't cost anything - the newspaper is given away for free?
- d) Acceptable for some other reason?
- e) Unacceptable because it's under copyright?
- f) Unacceptable for another reason?
Please give a brief reason for your answer.
A.
- Acceptable under "fair use'?: No
- Acceptable because it's in the public domain?: No
- Acceptable because it doesn't cost anything?: No
- Acceptable for some other reason?: No
- Unacceptable because it's under copyright?: Yes
- Unacceptable for some other reason?: No
I've switched out the ticks and crosses for yes and no, makes it easier to read this page. Yunshui 雲水 10:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Reasons:
1. In order to fall under the policy of Fair Use, the user must receive permission from the original author.
- No, that's not what Fair Use means at all.
2. That doesn't make a difference, unless the author states that anyone is free to use the image.
- I'm not sure from this answer that you fully understand what "public domain" means.
3. That doesn't make a difference.
- You're right, it doesn't. Free material can still be copyrighted.
4. That image would not be considered acceptable on Wikipedia.
- True, it wouldn't.
5. Yup. The Metro owns the image.
Not necessarily. It may be a stock photo (in which case the copyright may lie with a photo agency or photographer), or it may be being used under licence from the photographer, who might still own the copyright. It is, however, still under copyright, so this is the corect answer.
6. The only real issue is that it does not fall under the policy of fair use.
- I'm going to give that a cross - I really think you've misunderstood what Fair Use is.
By the way, how do you know I live in one of the regions where The Metro is published?
4. You find a new article that appears to contain a block of text (about half the article's content) which has been copied directly from a non-free source. The rest of the article seems to be original material. What do you do?
A. Remove the offending text, and post a copyvio warning for the user (the lightest possible one).
- Yes, spot on.
5. An editor adds some text from a website that he owns the copyright to. He has issued a statement on the original website saying that, "the content of this site can be freely used on the English version of Wikipedia". Is the text acceptable? If not, why not?
A. The text would be fine, as it falls under the policy of Fair Use.
- No - it's not Fair Use, and we can't use it if that's the text of the release statement.
6. A user uploads an image that he has created, a Microsoft Paint version of a diagram from a copyrighted work. His version is all but identical to the original, but is definitely his own work. Can this image be used on Wikipedia?
A.
7. Some images may be better off being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. To which project would you upload the following:
- a) A screenshot from Doom 3'.
- b) An image from Flickr that had been released under a CC-BY-SA licence.
- c) A scan of a medieval painting, dating to 1223.
- d) A photograph of Ian Botham that you took yourself at a cricket match.
- e) A picture of your hand, taken by your cousin (he says he's happy for you however you see fit).
- f) A low-resolution copy of a company logo.
A.
8. The subject of an article, a minor local celebrity, has uploaded a promotional photo of himself, taken at a book signing, to use on his Wikipedia page. Does he own the copyright to it? Can it be used on Wikipedia?
A.
9. A new editor wants to use text from her website on Wikipedia. Assuming that the text is suitably impartial and that she isn't affiliated with the subject, what would you advise her to do in order to allow Wikipedia to use her work?
A.
10. An editor adds the text, "Carter's discovery of the tomb created a sensation in London, where he was widely celebrated. Banners were hung in his honour, and a national holiday was declared," to the article Howard Carter. The source provided for this text (a recently published book on Carter's life) contains the wording, "His discovery of Tutankhamun's grave created a sensation back in London, where he was heavily feted. People hung banners from their windows in his honour, and the Queen declared a national holiday." Has the editor committed a copyright violation?
A.