User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2017/February

This really takes the biscuit

I've seen books of collected wikipedia articles before but this one takes the biscuit. I was looking for a citation for some text in an article, searched for it in google and came across The Esoteric Codex: Shapeshifters in google books with the exact string of text I'd entered. It soon became clear that was because I was reading the same article I'd taken the text from. Looking through the book it then became apparent it was just a collection of wikipedia articles, complete with the hatnotes, See alsos and External links. There are some articles in there that I know you and Sagaciousphil have put a lot of work into, such as Kelpie. Now, I'm not bothered about someone using our work elsewhere - that's the deal after all - but I would like them to at least clean them up a bit and take out the innapropriate parts, and using the images is a whole different ball game. The cheeky sod has it up for sale for £21.15 at lulu.com (the link is blacklisted but you can follow it from google books) where it says "copyright public domain" - which it isn't, it should be under a commons license. As it is, there is a button there for "report this content to lulu" so I've done that and told them that it's ok to use the text with appropriate attribution - which to be fair, they seem to have done - but if they are using images they need to check every one for its licensing and copyright status. It will be interesting to see how they respond. Richerman (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This image appears on page 2 and is non free use; I wonder how many more there are? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Lots, I should think, when you look at the copyright rules in different jurisdictions. For instance, photos of out of copyright artwork are not covered by copyright in the US, but in the UK the photographer holds the copyright. Richerman (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I got an email from lulu.com saying "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are removing the Content in question from availability and are reviewing the matter further." Maybe they don't fancy being sued for copyright violation. Richerman (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)