i have restored the original edits to this article, as i've found they were not a copyright violation. a list is not copyrightable, and a wikipedia article may be resubmitted if it is by the same author. the reason the temp version had to be implemented was because the original article was off-topic (listing non-Star Trek information), not because of copyrights. -- `Captain M.K.B.
Copyright confusion Edit
- All of the following was posted either to Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements#Daniel Keys Moran or User talk:Jaz/Archive#Daniel Keys Moran
- The material I posted was a list of stories. Lists of factual information can't be copyrighted. (look up copyright case law on phone books, and Scrabble™ word list books)
- I wrote the longer bibliography that is currently on Wikipedia, why can't I post a shorter version here?
- Follow up question... The Wikipedia license allows free or commercial reuse by others. As I understand it, the Memory Alpha license is more restrictive. So—even in other cases—couldn't someone post material from Wikipedia here, but not the other way around?
- —MJBurrage 04:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The liscenses are incompatable. One reason why is, to copy from wikipedia, we would need to post the GFDL on MA. This liscense doesn't work with our existing articles, especially when it comes to screencaps. Also, we strive not to be a copy of wikipedia. If you want to re-work the information that is fine, but the way is was presented, it appeared most of the article was simply copied and pasted from wikipedia. Jaz talk 04:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- The version I posted here (and reverted to) is, as mentioned above, my work. Compared to my entry on Wikipedia, I shortened it to a simple list of first printings, and reorganized it for the target audience (Trek fans). The intro sentence is also mine, originally written for a Wookieepedia entry. —MJBurrage 04:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Needs to be limited to Trek-specific info and details on only his most popular works. --From Andoria with Love 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- A list of books cannot be copyrighted. So this information cannot violate copyright.
- Even if it could be copyrighted, I wrote the longer version at Wikipedia. Why can't I write a shorter (and reorganized version) here? (which is what I did)
- I only put it back so quickly, because I thought you had agreed with me. —MJBurrage 05:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- You can certainly use information you fin on wikipedia, but what you had was copied and pasted from wikipedia. This is a copyvio because the lisenses are incompatable. In order to copy from wikipedia, MA would have to post the GFDL, which conflicts with much of our content, as it has no mention of fair use. Jaz talk 05:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did not FIND this on wikipedia. I WROTE it. Also a list of books is automatically public domain, because it CANNOT be copyrighted. —MJBurrage 05:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that you are not the sole editor of the wikipedia article - a wiki by definition is a collection of many archivists' writings (which I can see in the history of that wikipedia article). If you want to reuse the information that is okay but you cannot copy and paste which I can see you did, as the format and explanatory text is nearly identicle. As I have explained to you on three different pages now, the liscenses are incompatible. This is regerdless of who wrote it, who released it, anything like that. If we use Wikipedia stuff, we need to post the GFDL, which we cannot do. Jaz talk 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to try to re-organize the info in a way that isnt a copy you can do se here. When it is different enough from wikipedia, you can move it to the main site. Jaz talk 06:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- If public domain information is on Wikipedia, it does not become Wikipedia's, it is still public domain. It is established copyright case law that, facts, lists of facts, etc. cannot be copyrighted. (The cases were based on lawsuits over Scrabble™ dictionaries, phone books, etc.) Since the information is public domain, and the organization of each line is basic standard bibliography format (Title, Publication, Date, ISBN), there is no license issue. —MJBurrage 06:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am sick of repeating myself over and over again. Please read Memory Alpha:Why Memory Alpha doesn't use the GFDL. This is the way things work here. I am sorry if you cannot accept that. Jaz talk 06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Jaz, he's right about lists not being protected. I've not looked into the specific area in question, but it's just like the way people get filmographies off IMDb, specifications off Amazon, etc - copyrights are for the expression of the information, not the information itself. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but what he has been posting is copied and pasted from wikipedia. He needs to re-organize because the same organization & layout combined with the same facts is a copyvio. Jaz talk 06:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well as he claims to have wrote the information, it could still br fair game if he can provide a link to the "diff" page where he himself added the info. This is why some Wikipedians have a message about "multi-licensing" their edits; they want to ensure that their work can be used in a variety of contexts. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do you really want us to become a dumping ground for recycled Wikipedia articles. Aside from the copyvio issues, which I still think I am correct about, this is a matter of principle. Memory Alpha has become and increasingly credible and well known source -- look at the credit we've been given in the past few days from G4 and the new ENT novel which thanks us. To maintain our credibility we need to remain a unique source -- and a source about star trek. And priniple aside, it is still a copyvio because it is came from wikipedia first, and therefor to reuse it we need to post a copy of the GFDL, which we can't do. Jaz talk 06:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that issue, and it would cover any article with editorial content. My issue here is that a list of factual information this basic (list of books in standard bibliography format) is not owned (or licensed) by anyone, it is completely free public domain information, and so there is no license issue in this case.
- If someone wrote a list of Star Trek episodes, with director names, and airdates, in order of production number, they could put that up anywhere, including Wikipedia and here, and they would not need to cite any license, since it is just a list of facts. You cannot copyright such a list, and you cannot control it with a license. My post falls under this area, and so even though the exact same facts were posted by me on Wikipedia in the past, that does not give Wikipedia any ownership OR CONTROL of those fact because you cannot own facts.
- And I do understand that a series of episode reviews is different, and would cause license issues.
- As for whether there can be a copyright on the sentences (there are only three)... Even if there could, I WROTE them and so the copyright would be mine and if I can release them to Wikipedia under GFDL, then I can also release them here under Creative Commons, and neither wiki needs to cite the other.
- —MJBurrage 06:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As I've been saying you can use the information but you need to re-write it so it isn't the same format as wikipedia. The identicle format combined with identical info is a copyvio. If you want to re-write it, do so at Daniel Keys Moran/temp. When it is no longer the same, move it to the main article. Jaz talk 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Jaz, if Project A is GFDL and Project B is CC, Person C can contribute to both if their "license" is something in between (e.g. public domain). And if we were talking about plagiarism, simply reordering the info would still be plagiarizing. :P --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- The format is not Wikipedia's format it is bibliography format, how else should I format a bibliography —MJBurrage 06:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- See our manual of style. Also, you will have to continue this discussion with the Vedek, as I am going to bed. Jaz talk 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- This argument should end now; that list is waaaaay to long, and should be chopped down to just his Star Trek works, and maybe his two other most popular stories, which would change the format you'd have to use anyway. Memory Alpha isn't Wikipedia, have a link at the bottom to Wiki. Just like for Actor articles, MA isn't imdb, we don't list every appearance on every series ever, just trek related, and maybe a tidbit more. - AJ Halliwell 07:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Admin, please move Edit
The article in Daniel Keys Moran/temp looks good now, so could an admin please delete the old article at Daniel Keys Moran and move the one from the /temp directory to the live one? Thanks! -- Renegade54 00:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)