§ 401 – Copyright Notice: Visually Perceptible Copies I don`t think it will be a problem if you can put Wikipedia content in your own words. The simple copy and paste method is duplication. So make your own words. Under U.S. copyright law, (legally valid) copyright infringement is copyright infringement wherever it was granted, and under the usual principles of “conflict of laws rules,” whether infringement has occurred would likely be determined by the law of the country where the infringement occurred (which is sometimes difficult to determine with computerized information). So, the bottom line is that contributors from outside the U.S. must comply with their own country`s copyright laws (which, in many cases, are essentially the same as those of the U.S. because of treaties), and whether the license or fair use of the copyrighted material is legal under the laws of the country that granted the copyright, then it will be legal. under US copyright so that Wikipedia contains this material. Media file information pages sometimes contain contact information for copyright owners. If the license terms of a media file are inappropriate for the intended reuse, it may be possible to contact the copyright holder of the media file for alternative terms. This must be negotiated directly with the copyright holder. To give an example, if a work was originally published in China in 1930 by a Chinese author who died in 1946, then based on the life of Chinese copyright + 50 years, it would enter the public domain in China in 1997, but since Chinese works are under restoration of US copyright on January 1, 1996, such a Chinese work would be protected by copyright in the United States until 2025.
Since Wikisource hardly claims fair dealing with articles, U.S. copyright law, which does not respect the shorter time rule, hinders the development of wiki pages. For this reason, as an administrator of the Chinese Wikisource, I had to delete some Chinese public domain works, even though they are protected by copyright in the United States. I am glad to see that this is a hot topic. I need someone who has a gun bigger than me when it comes to copyright to look at the “Hitler_has_only_got_one_ball” entry on Wikipedia and its talk page. I`ve tried to explain how this site violates Wikipedia`s guidelines on lyrics, copyrighted works, original material, source material, etc., but I don`t take the risk of using copyrighted works. The notice must appear on the surface of the phonogram or on the label or container of the phonogram in such a manner and place that the claim of copyright is adequately communicated. You`re better off filling your website with original content that directly targets your target market. Wikipedia content is licensed under Creative Commons, which allows commercial use. Open the main page and scroll to the bottom. Note that although the U.S. government does not claim copyright protection for its own works, governments outside the U.S.
often claim copyright in works created by their employees. (For example, several Commonwealth realms use Crown copyright.) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, licensed and credits authors in a manner equivalent to that provided on this website, or If you merge or split an article or otherwise move text from one page to another in Wikipedia, The page history feature alone cannot determine where the original content came from. This may violate the project licensing clause. If you copy text into Wikipedia, you must at least include a link to the source page in an edit summary on the target page. It is recommended to do the same on the source page and add opinions on the talk pages of both. Unlike the federal government, most state and local governments in the United States retain copyright to their employees` work. These works are not in the public domain, so please check the copyright information before using them. I am saying that if the author says that he is protected by copyright in this or that condition, we treat him as such. Even if the author is legally wrong, it`s best to avoid the hassle of potential legal problems and write the case yourself – SJK The “fourmilab” link you cite contains copies of the original copyright holders (with their permission) and is indicated on this site. The copy placed on the “Wikipedia” list has been edited and rewritten specifically for this article with written permission from copyright holders Paul Guercio and Dr. George Hart.
The only problem I see is that too much irrelevant information is posted from a copy and paste. The entire Wikipedia article should not be included; The most important facts should be briefly summarized. And places like answer.com and search.com have legal departments that make sure they operate in legitimate areas. Don`t you assume they have permission to use the sources they cite? This is probably the best idea, and I agree that Feist v. Rural allows us to at least copy the naked facts, so we should do that too – although we even have to be careful: if the facts are specifically selected (i.e. they have selected a certain subset of facts for explanatory purposes) or if they are presented in a certain order, they might be entitled to these editorial decisions as “creative” and therefore eligible for protection. The case of the phone book did not have this problem, as it was a simple alphabetical list that should include everyone in a specific area, so no editorial decision was made in the presentation. –LDC If you do it well, yes. Wikipedia is licensed under the same license as Stack Exchange content: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. If you are the owner of content used on Wikipedia without your permission, you can request that the page be removed from Wikipedia immediately; see Request for immediate removal of copyright infringement. You can also contact our designated representative to have them permanently deleted (however, it can take up to a week for the page to be removed in this way). You can also empty the page and add the words {{copyvio| URL or location where you published the text}}, but the text still appears in the page history.
In any case, of course, we need evidence to support your claim of ownership. Something to consider in this case. If what is copied is physical data, the material is not subject to copyright. The LLL text on the element would be protected by copyright, but information about the physical properties of the elements is not protected by copyright because the facts are not protected by copyright. The key decision here is the U.S. Supreme Court`s Feist decision, which involved phone books. Creating such tag wikis not only helps the site, but it is also harder to see tags that don`t have a proper wiki.
Recent Comments