User talk:Moonriddengirl/sandbox

Wikipedia includes a number of articles that reproduce lists previously published elsewhere. If the content is creative (in composition, selection, arrangement), there can be copyright concerns. The purpose of this RfC is to determine how we can fairly cover creative lists in accordance with WP:NFC. (Note: this does not apply to uncreative factual compilations, although sometimes what appears to be a factual compilation is actually creative; see below.)

Background

Extended content

For expanded background on copyright in lists, please see User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. In January and February, after copyright concerns were raised about several unconnected list articles, I exchanged a number of e-mails with our interim attorney in the hopes of clarifying what position we should take with these. (User:Philippe, who is the Wikimedia Foundation's Head of User Relations, has seen the e-mails. They can't be reproduced here in their entirety, but I'm sure he'd be happy to verify my correspondence.) Based on her letters, these are factors we should consider here: With respect to copyright, she indicates that in addition to lists of obvious creative nature ("most important X"), lists of uncertain creation criteria and surveys constitute a copyright concern. She says, "Unless you know the criteria involved in creating the list, it is impossible to even gauge the potential of a court finding that it warrants copyright protection. And unfortunately, even if you do know the criteria, it is very hard to predict what a court will say (especially because the courts vary in their opinions in different circuits on this matter) when there is a degree of creativity involved. You are really only safe if the list is purely formulaic." It is her opinion that polls, also, are likely to be protectable because the parameters of the survey are chosen by those who conduct the polls and the selection of respondents indicates "at least some creativity." She says, "Because I believe survey results can be protected under copyright law, any use of them should be guided by fair use principles" and reminds that "Merely republishing them without any commentary or transformation is not fair use." The need for certainty in creation criteria protects us from inadvertently misusing those lists that may look like fact but that may instead be based on expert opinion, which is creative. With respect to the fair use of creative lists, she says: The more we use, the greater the risk; the more important the material we use; the greater the risk. "if you list the top 5 out of a top 20 or even top 100 list, it's less likely to be fair use because the top 5 is usually what the public is the most interested in. Whereas if you give #2, #6, and #18-20, even though you are giving up the same percentage, it is more likely to be considered fair use." No "safe" percentages can be assumed because of the variety of factors involved. Our republishing such lists "appeals to the same audience as the original" and is not likely to be seen as transformative. using older lists that are out of publication may help a finding of fair use. Guidelines What the NFC guideline says now, based on our interim attorney's feedback, is that "unusable text" includes "A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner, such as AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies. Articles on individual elements from such lists can discuss their inclusion in these lists. Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include." This is a good distillation of her advice, but a strict application of this would make even The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, which I have always used as a good example, a problem. Based on her advice above, is this the necessary approach? Or is there a way to stay comfortably within NFC that does not require us to remove all such partial recreations (or limit them to the bottom 5)? This is not an intellectual exercise, but will impact a number of existing lists, both those that include material in their entirety and those that include samplings of various sizes. They are many.

How should we treat creative lists compiled by third parties on Wikipedia? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)