Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False copyright violation claim[change source]

The lyrics copyright is not claimed by anyone. The original text and its translation are dutifully referenced. Citing here a portion of the text from other articles is in full accordance to the US Copyright Code, Article 107. Wikipedia is a subject of the US Law.--138.88.251.112 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use - as per US Code - TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

You tried this crap on en:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara too. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ the creator of this article: An encyclopedia entry on a website is none of those exemptions. Lyrics are copyrighted and are thus incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Please stop re-adding them. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tradionaly the lyric free use stance that Wikimedia has used has been similar to books/poems etc. Quotations are fine, and fall well within fair use when used correctly, however whole songs are not. Wikipedia policies, even if you believe they are to strict, do in fact "over ride" the US law in this respect given that this is a private server and those policies (meant to protect the foundation and the projects as a whole from legal issues) determine what can and can not be hosted ON those servers. Obviously if US law was stricter then WMF or WP policy then US law would win, but on these servers if the policy is stricter then the law, the policy wins. If you would like I would be happy to ask other users to look at this but for now I'm going to agree with Kat. James (T|C) 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strict interpretation of the Law is not matter of agreement of two or more people. As I said, what's your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules, is your personal matter and, by no means, overrules the US Law.--198.24.31.122 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
198, As I said this is not a discussion about the law this is a discussion of WP policy. Just because the law says you can post something here does not mean you have a legal right to post something here if Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation say otherwise. These servers are not owned or operated by the US government. James (T|C) 23:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll tell you what. You even have no basic knowledge what is the government and what is the law. The very next thing is the public declaration that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Therefore, it must adhere to the law unconditionally, or delete this public proclamation.--198.24.31.122 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off no, it is a free encyclopedia meaning anyone (who follows the policies) can edit and that no one has to pay to access the information. That is all it means, it does not mean it can not create policy and has to blindly follow whatever you believe the law to be. Also to answer the question you asked of Kat, the song appears to have been written after 1964 which means that even if it wasn't renewed it is guaranteed to still be protected under US copyright law. James (T|C) 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for 198.24.31.122: Is the song copyrighted where it was made? --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sadly because the US does not have a lesser term clause (and I believe as I said above it was made after 1964) it doesn't really matter what the law is where it was made :( US law would trump there. James (T|C) 00:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I'm going to be honest here, while I personally hate the lyrics and think they are offensive to many people I also would like to have as much as possible on the wiki; even when I don't like it. However I do not believe having the lyrics there is allowed under our legal and policy obligations and therefore will not allow it to be done. If you would like to dispute this I welcome you to ask for a review on the Administrators Noticeboard and see if others agree. However, for now I'm going to declare the discussion here over, and if you continue to try to argue it here I will block you for disruption, which I honestly don't want to do. James (T|C) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the versions as it is a copy vio. We don't allow fair use on simple. --Barras talk 11:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara&oldid=8874158"