Shetlopedia

[Gary]

Thanks Islandhopper. Sadly that's how it is.

 

A number of articles from Shetlopedia have been copied on to Wikipedia with a comment on the bottom along the lines of

 

"This article incorporates text from the article on Shetlopedia"

 

In most cases 100% of the article is copied and pasted from Shetlopedia, with no changes made by the Wikipedia 'author'; not even internal page-link corrections in some cases. No mention of the Shetlopedia author or authors names are provided. As Wikipedia seemed to be copying new articles every few days, eventually there would be nothing left on Shetlopedia that you couldn't find on Wikipedia or one of its many mirror websites. We didn't want Shetlopedia to be lost amongst all of this, so we stopped them from copying.

 

Fjool,

 

thanks for your comments. The change to the copyright was made on Friday to prevent a weekend of Wikipedia copying. We're now looking at suitable licenses for Shetlopedia, and talking to some people who know a little more about copyright law.

 

Regards

Gary

[peeriebryan]

I understand the reasons behind the desire to change the Shetlopedia position on intellectual property, but I think it would be very difficult to come up with a more robust and workable licensing agreement than the tried and tested GNU (as ulilised by Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights ). The GNU and similar licenses does not mean an absence of copyright; rather a copyright which is free to use, with certain restrictions as defined by the license documentation, which usually specifies a right to accreditation. It might be better to make alterations to the GNU to suit your needs.

 

The GNU, and the 'Copyleft' movement in general (including Creative Commons licensing, Open Source software and Wikis) was established as a means to remove many of the limitations imposed by inflexible and outdated copyright legislation that required the express permission from copyright holders to use copyright material (including text, music, images etc). This was a way to 'free' the information published on the Internet (subject to certain T&Cs), rather than have copyright holders control the information and its use, especially in terms of non profit collaborative intellectual property enterprise (again, such as open source software development and the building of knowledge databases such as Wikis).

 

On a practical level with regards to preventing republishing of copyright material, as Fjool has mentioned, it is very difficult to attribute copyright to the individual authors of collaborative articles. The point of the GNU and its derivatives is that such copyright is generally waived by contributors. For Shetlopedia to prevent other websites from republishing content it would need to own or otherwise license the copyright (which the current "This website and its content is copyright of “Shetlopedia.com" states). Otherwise it is up to the individual authors to take action.

 

Additionally, it is not possible to claim copyright over much of the fact based content published on Wikis (unless considerable 'artistic' presentation can be proven). Even if an 'all rights reserved' style license is employed, large parts of copyright material can still be republished under the 'fair use' clauses of existing copyright legislation. In the above respects, a blanket ban on republishing content is very difficult to enforce.

 

It may be more effective to ask websites which have used content originally published on Shetlopedia to properly reference the source material, rather than attempt to make it more difficult to use the material in the first place. The GNU license does make clear that proper accreditation to the source must be attributed (although Wikipedia has never taken action against anyone using content in breach of their GNU license). I'd say that it's virtually impossible to stop other websites republishing substantial parts of a Wiki, regardless of the licensing structure, but most websites would be willing to provide a reference link back to the original source (thereby boosting the old Google rank ), especially if a friendly yet suitably strongly worded email is sent! In the case of Wikipedia, more info on copyright infringement can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems

 

If Shetlopedia does decide to change from the GNU, there are several revisions to the Creative Commons license which may be suitable - have a look at www.creativecommons.org and www.copyleftmedia.org.uk (but it may open a can of copyright worms regarding Shetlopedia's use of material already submitted under a previous license.)

 

Good luck. It's a very tricky subject!

 

On a side note, the commonly used term 'all rights reserved' was a legal declaration used in textual copyright licencing by a small number of North and South American countries who were party to the 1910 Buenos Aires copyright convention. In modern global copyright conventions the term has been depreciated and now doesn't have any legal status. Shetlink still uses it though (Here at Shetlink there is a non-exclusive republishing agreement, which essentially means that contributors own their copyright, and are free to publish elsewhere, whilst Shetlink admin retains an implied publishers right, meaning we can take action against what we deem to be inappropriate use of content originally published on Shetlink under existing publishing legislation on behalf of the copyright owners. Have a look at the T&Cs for more)

[islandhopper]

On a practical level with regards to preventing republishing of copyright material, as Fjool has mentioned, it is very difficult to attribute copyright to the individual authors of collaborative articles. The point of the GNU and its derivatives is that such copyright is generally waived by contributors. ... see below ...

 

Additionally, it is not possible to claim copyright over much of the fact based content published on Wikis (unless considerable 'artistic' presentation can be proven). Even if an 'all rights reserved' style license is employed, large parts of copyright material can still be republished under the 'fair use' clauses of existing copyright legislation. In the above respects, a blanket ban on republishing content is very difficult to enforce.

Folks, can we agree on one thing, please. Talking here about copyright means talking about UK copyright - otherwise the chaos would be perfect.

 

Eg 'fair use' isn't a term used within the UK legislation. The UK 'partly-equivalent' is 'fair dealing' which is far more restrictive and in favour of the originator than the US 'fair use'. The same is with the German 'moral implications' which covers nearly the same than the UK 'fair dealing' - no miracle at all because both the legislations are based in the same EU legislation. The problem is that all these European clauses are rejected under GNU which is entirely based in US law.

 

Also, it is not neccessary to attribute copyright to the individual authors of collaborative articles. In this point UK and German copyright legislation take the same position.

If more than one person qualifies as an author then a work is one of joint authorship. In that case the permission of all copyright holders is required for acts that would otherwise be an infringement of copyright.

The problem here is: The first sentence is right. The second sentence is only right with regard to all actions other than quotations. For quotations: Both UK and German copyright legislation incorporate the EU legislation that's mostly based on WIPO standards which refer amongst others to the Bern Convention or more correct the Revised Bern Convention and from that the mode how to qoute properly is clear: Where there are more than 3 authors it is A + B + C et. alt.: Title of the article, published in (name of linked website), date. Of course it would imply that you have to click on the history of the page but you are free to choose the first 3 contributers or the last 3 contributers or those who have contributed the biggest part or any other thre. You are only bound to make it clear in a way similar to the above that you are quoting from a collaborative work with more genuine copyrightholders involved than shown - end of the story

 

For Shetlopedia to prevent other websites from republishing content it would need to own or otherwise license the copyright (which the current "This website and its content is copyright of “Shetlopedia.com" states). Otherwise it is up to the individual authors to take action.

No! ... oooooppps ... That's the American point of view which is underlying the whole US legislation including GNU and wikipedia. Both the British and German copyright legislation - like the legislation in most of the western European states - do have the copyright as a genuine right of the author, that's to say right in the moment when the idea leaves my (only one working) braincell and becomes materialized in writing or any other form of materialization the copyright in that work is automatically vested in (simplified: owned by) the person who put the concept into material form ... where under the 1988 Act as amended, databases are considered to be literary works. Nevertheless the formulation 'This website and its content is copyright of Shetlopedia' is absolutely correct because website and content are more than the sum of the contributions by individual authors, but again, it does not imply the need for any licencing or claiming individual copyrights or showing individual copyright tags like the ©. The material copyright is vested in the auther as is the crown copyright vested in the crown.

 

[edit]Taking action: Fighting back copyright violations is first of all a job of the individual copyright holder. Despite that: The holder of the website copyright is free to act in all those cases which are not bound to individual copyrights. He is also free to act like an editor and / or the publisher wherever he sees the rights of the website being affected by violating individual copyrights of the authors. [end of edit]

 

Peeriebryan is right where he says the formula "all rights reserved" is a bit outfashioned and even more: Within the European world its abolutely unneccessary. On the other hand if you don't want to see your site being exploited commercially it is neccessary for example if you do intend to avoid republishing under the lashy rules of US 'fair use'.

 

As I see it it, it was at no time intended to keep the whole internet away from Shetlopedia (bdw my only working braincell says that would be an absolute idiotic attempt). What was intended is the same as Peeriebryan has it in the last sentence

... that contributors own their copyright, and are free to publish elsewhere, whilst Shetlink admin retains an implied publishers right, meaning we can take action against what we deem to be inappropriate use of content originally published on Shetlink under existing publishing legislation on behalf of the copyright owners ...

plus the expressed wishes to see Shetlopedia not being exploited for any commercial purposes and the thereof remaining problem that neither GNU-GFDL nor the CC licences which are the only ones accepted by wikipedia don't allow that ... or would you like to see Shetlink mirrored on the website of your local 'blue pill dealer' thus helping him to increase his profits ??? ...

[Freyr]

... If someone is to own this information and be able to charge for it I wouldn't contribute without pay...

 

 

@Freya, if that's a problem for you then be assured, it is entirely yours, not mine ... I don't need to get paid when working just for fun and together with (newly found) friends ...

 

For the rest of the matter two quotes from wikipedia (to give a few examples):

This is a Shetland wiki, and therefore copyright free, so I am going to try and pinch tonnes of material from there!!!

this article has some lovely pictures, which we could do with!!!

 

....

 

Sorry folks, but that's what I use to call "unfriendly overtaking" or "exessive exploitation" of local knowledge ...

 

First: Thank you Gary for an informative answer.

 

Second: I see I should have taken the time to elaborate my question as it seems to have struck a negative cord with Islandhopper (am I right?). I was not making an attack at Shetlopedia or volunteer work. I just see that a lot of good work has been done there and it could be valuable to people "in it for the money". When someone suddenly claims all rights to a work that has been done under the lincence of free for all to use, I hear a bell ringing. If it is stated to be crated by all, then all should be able to use it. If it is created for buisness purposes I won't give away my labour for free. So I am glad that there are no alteriar motives among the people behind Shetlopedia.

 

Third: I am still wrapping my head around the descition to claim all rights. I thought the aim was to collect and publish as much information as possible about Shetland. And that none of the contributors were in it for the money or the glory, just for the sake of promoting Shetland. Then why is it a problem when the information you (or we, as I have contributed as well) have contributed is being spread to more people. When wikipedia quotes or references shetlopedia it gets more known and good information about Shetland gets spread. If the people behind Shetlopedia are able to keep up the commitment and quality Shetlopedia will remain or become the definitive source to Shetland. I don't think a restriction is the way to go.

 

Fourth: "Freyr (sometimes anglicized Frey) is one of the most important deities in Norse paganism and Norse mythology. Worshipped as a phallic fertility god, Freyr "bestows peace and pleasure on mortals". He rules over the rain, the shining of the sun and the produce of the fields."

 

"In Norse Mythology and Germanic Mythology, Freyja (sometimes anglicized as Freya) is sister of Freyr and daughter of Njord. She is usually seen as a Norse fertility goddess." No hard feelings hehe.

[islandhopper]

... as it seems to have struck a negative cord with Islandhopper (am I right?).

You are wrong!

No prob at all, you are welcome.

Simply the prob of somehow communicating none-native speakers ...

 

That "all rights reserved" thingy was already discussed above; its not neccessary under EU/Brit/Scot copyright but for parts of the remaining world. It's actually the reason where all that US licensing is based on incl. Creative Commons for example. Not specified (US) copyright being equal with all rights reserved. To avoid that US right allows licencing ... but now it becomes curios with regard to none-US copyrights. All "work" to which any CC-license refers is:

"Work" means the work protected by copyright which is offered under the terms of this Licence ...

 

So what copyright at all ... ??? For a site under EU/Brit/Scot copyright it isn't neccessary. All what's on the Setlopedia copyright page is more than enough to express the will ... Shetlopedia to be registered under US copyright just to show a CC-license??? ... with the only two CC licences which would have absolutely been fitting for Shetlopedia (former CC-Sampling in combination with CC-NonCommercial) been ritiered in July 2007 (under hard presure of FSF (wikipedia) and DFSG (Linux)) ... :-D

[peeriebryan]

A good old copyright debate! Such fun!

 

Folks, can we agree on one thing, please. Talking here about copyright means talking about UK copyright - otherwise the chaos would be perfect.

I thought that since I am a UK citizen using a UK registered website to discuss another UK registered website it would be safe to assume I was talking about UK copyright (not meant as a slight to your valued input from overseas islandhopper ). My references to the GNU (which is based on US legislation) was in terms of using it as a basis, and "make alterations to... suit needs."

 

fair use' isn't a term used within the UK legislation.

However, "fair use" is a term commonly used interchangably with 'fair dealing' in issues relating to UK intellectual property, rightly or wrongly. The concepts are the same, and the minutiae are dependent on which territories are relevant (in this case, the UK)

 

For Shetlopedia to prevent other websites from republishing content it would need to own or otherwise license the copyright (which the current "This website and its content is copyright of “Shetlopedia.com" states). Otherwise it is up to the individual authors to take action.

No! ... oooooppps ... That's the American point of view which is underlying the whole US legislation including GNU and wikipedia. Both the British and German copyright legislation - like the legislation in most of the western European states - do have the copyright as a genuine right of the author, that's to say right in the moment when the idea leaves my (only one working) braincell and becomes materialized in writing or any other form of materialization the copyright in that work is automatically vested in (simplified: owned by) the person who put the concept into material form

Please read my posts thoroughly before No! ... oooooppps-ing them I made no mention of US legislation and I didn't state that the original contributor/author does not hold copyright in the first instance. The copyright of an original work does indeed come into existence as soon as it is physically manifested (under the legislation of most european countries) with no need for registration. I stated that in order for Shetlopedia to prevent republishing of submitted content then Shetlopedia must hold certain rights to said content.

 

In the absence of Shetlopedia (or any other body) holding rights to the content (depending on the license terms Shelopedia settles on), all rights remain the property of the original author.

 

where under the 1988 Act as amended, databases are considered to be literary works. Nevertheless the formulation 'This website and its content is copyright of Shetlopedia' is absolutely correct because website and content are more than the sum of the contributions by individual authors, but again, it does not imply the need for any licencing or claiming individual copyrights or showing individual copyright tags like the ©. The material copyright is vested in the auther as is the crown copyright vested in the crown.

Not all databases are considered to be literary works (telephone directories for example), but in the case of Shetlopedia, I agree that it would be considered a literary work as it shows 'sufficient originality' in the selection and organisation of data. It can be asserted, as you state, that Shetlopedia and its contributors hold the database copyright. Again, I didn't state that database copyright must be registered for it to exist.

 

However, for a copyright infringement to take place it must be shown that a "substantial part" (a subjective term indeed) has been copied without authorisation. Copying relatively small amounts of text from a database GUI (in this case a website) doesn't count as a "substantial part" of the database in most cases (of either database content or structure).

 

In summary, in the absence of any transfer of rights, the original content producers hold all rights to the content, but Shetlopedia and the content producers together hold copyright to the database and organisation of the data. However, if a 3rd party used small portions of textual content it would be difficult to prove infringement of either the content producer's or Shetlopedia's copyright. In that respect I believe a proactive attempt to make sure copyright holders and/or Shetlopedia are properly attributed and referenced would be an effective use of resources, rather than try to stop content being republished on other non profit websites.

 

or would you like to see Shetlink mirrored on the website of your local 'blue pill dealer' thus helping him to increase his profits ??? ...

If you're going to ask the site mirrors to stop screen scraping content, could you tell the spammers I'd rather not receive their emails and ask the virus programmers to think again while you're there

[islandhopper]

In summary, in the absence of any transfer of rights, the original content producers hold all rights to the content, ...

agreed, is other "transfer" than "assignment" part of Brit/Scot legislation? As far as I know: No.

but Shetlopedia and the content producers together hold copyright to the database and organisation of the data.

agreed

However, if a 3rd party used small portions of textual content ...

absolutely no prob as far as I see to it, proper quotes and references provided

it would be difficult to prove infringement of either the content producer's or Shetlopedia's copyright.

Well, you are right, that might be difficult and depending on the country under which jurisdiction you are. I don't know the UK/Scot jurisdiction in such cases but compared with what had happened actually with Shetlopedia content (copying complete pages/topics and republishing them without proper or no reference at all by wikipedia) lead to different reactions over here. No need to go into details but since then the foundation invested into its German based servers only as much as was absolutely neccessary to keep them running. The case isn't finally judged as far as I know.

In that respect I believe a proactive attempt to make sure copyright holders and/or Shetlopedia are properly attributed and referenced would be an effective use of resources, rather than try to stop content being republished on other non profit websites.

Might be, but tell me how, please.

 

Since the old CC-licences have been retired in July 2007 we do have the following situation:

a) wikipedia (and others, to be fair) are still accepting 4, 6, or 8 CC licenses depending on your country

although the CreativeCommons Organization has published in June 2007 that FSF (wikipedia) does accept only 2 licences, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA-2.0 both defining work as work under a copyright, that would be UK/Scot copyright

c) ... and that is the 'crucial' point which you might easily check following up various forums where well known wikipedian admins do recommend that CC licences not refering to puter proggis should be dealt like GNU licences. And that's exactly how the en:WP acted on the 10th September and later with regard to Shetlopedia stuff.

 

Noo then and far beyond Shetlopedia an example that happened "to me" ... well, it hit my publisher, to whom I has assigned some of my copyrights, not me ...

 

My publisher (DuMont, Cologne)

- posted to the web a .pdf-file under copyright showing some original pages of my last guide to Orkney & Shetland

- that .pdf-file was illegaly copied and republished on a US website under under copyright cc-by licenced

- three days later 2 pics which I had uoloaded before under my copyright to wikimedia were requested for immediate deletion because I was "violating" licencing regulations

- by a poor cap of a Swedish wikipedia-admin who later acknoledged that his English language capacity was to small to follow up either the original wikipedia help advices or and my comments on that. In the end the pics were deleted and I gave up to contribute to wikicommons ...

 

Sorry Peeriebryan (it isn't ment in that harsh way I do type it on the keyboard as a none-native speaker ), but where in hell are we to give up our genuine rights which we do offer to the best affordable to this entirely US based philosophy and hords of innocent debils who deal with it ... ???

 

We might add the one or other thingy to the copyright page on Shetlopedia, something in my personal interest like "free for educational use and research" ... but I do see the well accepted reasons not to be exploited suitable to anyone around the globe.

 

*ironic switch on*

We are talking about Shetland ... unfortunately not known to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe which only mentions "Planet Earth" as "mostly harmless".

So, in accordance to the standards of what was regarded as the most powerfull nation on that planet you are legally entitled to exploit the local heritage and knowledge of that place ...

*ironic switch off*

[islandhopper]

@ Peeriebryan:

That ... "oooops thingy" was added in the process of typing and just to indicate that I didn't want to be read and understood wrong for the rest - for which I agree with your say. Ooops - it's to late again but I guess what you understood ...

[Malachy]

Is anyone else having a problem with Shetlopedia today? My computer won't load it on Firefox - Spyware Doctor is saying there is a threat on the site.

 

[*** Mod edit - merged threads ***]

[2lb_saucermeat]

Working fine here

[Oddrun]

Have worked fine for me all day, and I've been editing too....

[Malachy]

I can access particular pages via google, but if I try loading www.shetlopedia.com it won't work, and I get a spyware warning.

[JAStewart]

Working perfectly for me!

[Trow87]

workin fine here an aa!

[Claudias]

Working fine in Unst. Firefox on a Mac.