RationalWiki talk:Copyrights
Just to pick a nit here, but shouldn't the title be singular? 24.128.205.73 18:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT) Wow, that was weird. Let's see if my sig works this time. humanbe in 18:26, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
Depends on how many you are referring to...XD prettydilettantelies 18:27, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
I don't believe so… I followed the link in the edit page (Project:Copyrights). --Linus(plot evil tech) 18:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
Protection[edit]
Should we protect this page? It might be a good idea. The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Has it ever been wandalized? ħuman
20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Shitloads- just look at the history. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Protected for general legal reasons, if someone were to changge these terms someone could be misled into usig the site content wrongly.--Ipatrol 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I kind of agree. While the odds of this happening are minuscule, the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the law is such that we might be in trouble for those few short minutes where our copyright notice suddenly gets changed.
postate 21:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also agree. Most policies with a legal implication should be protected. But IANAL. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 22:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- You would disagree anywhere else but here, the reasoning is correct. Someone could lift some stuff wholesale and link to a permadiff of this that they or someone else changed (say, to "public domain, no citation required"). And now that we've told them not to stick beans up their nose, we're stuck with having to employ counter-leguminous tactics. ħuman 22:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why are we letting Ipatrol make up his own rules again? There is no need to protect this. I doubt the vandal edited it and so it now true would even be laughed at, they probably stare at you in disbelief. It has not been vandalised in over 8 months. Can someone unprotect this? - π 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I did it. I'll orders from you over someone who hasn't edited in 6 months... ħuman 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. It does seem odd that we have an open editing policy, yet we try to protect things. We must go through the protected pages list one day and determine what, if anything, is actually necessary. - π 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- We may have an open editing policy but that doesn't mean somethings should not be protected. You may lease a house longterm and be free to decorate it any way you please but you don't get the right to demolish it or abrogate the rental agreement. This page is a legal statement and has no need to be edited. In no way does protecting it go against the principles of free speech.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- The main page doesn't need to be edited as all the text is presented in embedded templates, but we still leave it unlocked. Also, it is not a legal statement, it is a disclaimer. I suspect that there is an actual legal statement for licensing Trent had to fill in, sign and fill somewhere. - π 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, there's no such thing. What we say on the site is what it is. If we keep putting this talk page on RC, of course, some wandal is bound to pick up on it, but for now, no one ever bothers with it anyway. ħuman 01:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's an ethical thing. We accept the posting of stuff published under a specific license and it is encumbent upon us to keep to the terms of that license. And as for the main page then I have no problem with that being locked as all content is in freely edited templates, but I know that a lot of people don't agree with that. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's an ethical thing. We accept the posting of stuff published under a specific license and it is encumbent upon us to keep to the terms of that license. And as for the main page then I have no problem with that being locked as all content is in freely edited templates, but I know that a lot of people don't agree with that.
- No, there's no such thing. What we say on the site is what it is. If we keep putting this talk page on RC, of course, some wandal is bound to pick up on it, but for now, no one ever bothers with it anyway. ħuman
- The main page doesn't need to be edited as all the text is presented in embedded templates, but we still leave it unlocked. Also, it is not a legal statement, it is a disclaimer. I suspect that there is an actual legal statement for licensing Trent had to fill in, sign and fill somewhere. - π 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- We may have an open editing policy but that doesn't mean somethings should not be protected. You may lease a house longterm and be free to decorate it any way you please but you don't get the right to demolish it or abrogate the rental agreement. This page is a legal statement and has no need to be edited. In no way does protecting it go against the principles of free speech.
- Okay, thanks. It does seem odd that we have an open editing policy, yet we try to protect things. We must go through the protected pages list one day and determine what, if anything, is actually necessary. - π 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I did it. I'll orders from you over someone who hasn't edited in 6 months... ħuman
- Why are we letting Ipatrol make up his own rules again? There is no need to protect this. I doubt the vandal edited it and so it now true would even be laughed at, they probably stare at you in disbelief. It has not been vandalised in over 8 months. Can someone unprotect this? - π 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- You would disagree anywhere else but here, the reasoning is correct. Someone could lift some stuff wholesale and link to a permadiff of this that they or someone else changed (say, to "public domain, no citation required"). And now that we've told them not to stick beans up their nose, we're stuck with having to employ counter-leguminous tactics. ħuman
- Also agree. Most policies with a legal implication should be protected. But IANAL. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 22:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Editors can make individual copyright license/contract for themselves?[edit]
My mentor (and your ambassador to Lumeniki), teach we can make special copyright for ourselves and put a copyright symbol in each post to alert everyone. Wow genius, eah!? I have my own special copyright contract/license I call "copysate". If I put copysate symbol in each post and say loudly "This post is copysate Lumenati News and Information Service", this will mean (for example) that if any profit is made from RationalWiki, Lumenati News and Information Service will be owed our fair share of this profit. If I must make lolsuit lawsuit, will courts uphold my contract/license? If not, will you explain me why? Thank you for read and extrawiki collaborations. ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 22:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- You may not specify your own license here. By contributing you release your materials under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. If you don't wish to contribute under that license regime, you're invited to stop contributing here immediately. ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 22:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unlikely. If RW started spinning a profit (the CC license isn't non-commercial but I imagine a lot of our CC media is) we'd just delete anything someone didn't specifically release under CC. Not that RW could feasibly spin a profit anyway, it just about scrapes together enough goodwill and donations to keep Trent in beer. postate 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ignore the copysate thing for the moment. Question is simply whether editing a wiki means that you legally agree to the license or not. Pi claims a special copyright restriction, that his edits cannot be copied. This is expressly contradicted by the Lumeniki copyright. Do I need to delete his work in order to legally copy a page he edits? Lumenos (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unlikely. If RW started spinning a profit (the CC license isn't non-commercial but I imagine a lot of our CC media is) we'd just delete anything someone didn't specifically release under CC. Not that RW could feasibly spin a profit anyway, it just about scrapes together enough goodwill and donations to keep Trent in beer.
Every editor maintains a copyright on their contributions. However, by editing you agree to license your edits under CC-BY-SA. You can release your edits under additional licenses, or under a more open license but not a more restrictive one. For example, you can dual license your contributions under GNU FDL and CC-BY-SA, or you can release all your contributions as public domain. You can not however apply a more restrictive license. tmtoulouse 20:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- But what happens if Pi put a more restrictive license notice in each post on talk pages? Does it mean that other RationalWikian's are required to delete any of Pi's restrictively licensed posts, or are Pi's special licensing notices voided and overridden by the RationalWiki Copyright? Is there any actual legal precedence in this area? Lumenos (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lumenous, see above. Pi is just messing with you. Oh, and where did he do this? ħuman 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- People can say whatever they want, I explained the only conditions under which an individual can alter the license for edits submitted to the site. tmtoulouse 23:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a minor point, it's possible to release under a more restrictive license as well, the issue being that we get to choose which one we follow. So if it's CC-BY-SA and GNU FDL, and lets say, for the sake of argument, that FDL has a part that specifies it can never be in print. We just use your edit under the CC-BY-SA, and put it in print anyway. So yeah. It's kinda' pointless. Quaru (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The least restrictive license tends to win out. Which is why I find it hilarious when people stick a Creative Commons license on their DeviantART work and then stick in the description that people aren't allowed to use it. postate 00:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The least restrictive license tends to win out. Which is why I find it hilarious when people stick a Creative Commons license on their DeviantART work and then stick in the description that people aren't allowed to use it.
- Just as a minor point, it's possible to release under a more restrictive license as well, the issue being that we get to choose which one we follow. So if it's CC-BY-SA and GNU FDL, and lets say, for the sake of argument, that FDL has a part that specifies it can never be in print. We just use your edit under the CC-BY-SA, and put it in print anyway. So yeah. It's kinda' pointless. Quaru (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- People can say whatever they want, I explained the only conditions under which an individual can alter the license for edits submitted to the site. tmtoulouse 23:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lumenous, see above. Pi is just messing with you. Oh, and where did he do this? ħuman
I think that any restrictive licences should only apply to Essay space or user sub-pages and never to talk pages or where more than one editor might contribute. 
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. I think the copyright page should be changed to say this. ~ Lumenos 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except what about stuff that has been licensed for the site only? Namely, the WIGO and portal icons as well as the site logo itself which have specifically licensed out to RW only as part of a branding scheme. Also, there are some pieces of work that we have been given permission to use by the author. This is why things are "unless otherwise noted" CC-BY-SA. postate 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your first two sentences, we neglected to mention an exception for those.
- It seems that you are saying that there are mainspace articles that use work for which "RW" is given permission to use, by the author, and that these use a more restrictive license, which may forbid copying or moving to a new domain name. This might contradict what Trent said above at 20:27, 12 July, "You can release your edits under additional licenses, or under a more open license but not a more restrictive one." Perhaps Trent's statement only applies to talkpages and not mainspace. Whatever the case may be, I think the RW copyright page should make this clear and any pages using more restrictive licenses should be in special categories to make them easy to remove in the event of moving/copying to a new domain. ~ Lumenos 01:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except what about stuff that has been licensed for the site only? Namely, the WIGO and portal icons as well as the site logo itself which have specifically licensed out to RW only as part of a branding scheme. Also, there are some pieces of work that we have been given permission to use by the author. This is why things are "unless otherwise noted" CC-BY-SA.
ru[edit]
I don't think this: ru:РациоВики:Авторское право works yet? Or maybe it does sometimes? ħuman 09:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why, but interwikies are temporary unavailable now. Maybe they return to work soon.--Bertran (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- rurw:РациоВики:Авторское право. Nx had to change the interwikies. ТyTalk. 12:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Attribution[edit]
We do not make sufficiently clear who or what is to be attributed per the CC-BY-SA. Should 3rd parties attribute to RationalWiki? To the specific users who are listed on the Fossil Record? Wikiepdia's copyright page makes it explicit that that can be done by linking to the wikipedia page, or copying the list of users on the page History, but we leave it kind of up in the air?
Not that I ever imagine a lawsuit happening because someone rehosted our content, but being excessively vague seems bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)