Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,796
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,849:
Line 1,849: − − ==Copyright== − Many of us have been spending most of the past month trying to clean up after TAR. The fact that so many copyright problems have been left behind indicates that Conservapedia editors may not appreciate the importance of copyright law. The edit box always displays the statement "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Conservapedia:Copyrights for details). '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!'''" Permission means an agreement not only to place the text on Conservapedia, but also to license it to others on the same basis that all other Conservapedia content is licensed. In some cases, TAR just copied and pasted from other websites without attributing the content to them. In other cases, TAR copied large portions of text that a blog had quoted from another source. I would suggest that everyone take the time to read [[Conservapedia:Copyrights]] again. I also believe that we need more talk page templates to document when people have received permission to copy material. I assume that getting written permissions would be best, and that they should be stored in some central place, just in case misunderstanding occur in the future. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:46, 24 April 2016 (EDT) − − :The greatest problem for me is that I don't know if they have the right to copy on not, so I agree--it really would help to have a single place where permission proof is stored. I don't know how that would work, though. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 08:39, 25 April 2016 (EDT) − ::We could have a template on the talk page which references the letter sent to Aschlafly. Perhaps the letters in the file could be numbered, and the number inserted in the template parameter. The problem is that TAR copied verbatim from a particular blog that welcomed guest editors or copied from them. Under US copyright law, the copyright belongs to the author. We don't know if the author gave the copyright to the blog owner or licensed it with restrictions. The email from the blog owner to TAR was not clear about what licensing rights he conveyed further. He just said, "You can quote my blog up to 800 words at a time." That does not give Conservapedia the right to further license the reuse of the quote (which we generally do.) There is no need to quote that blog verbatim, and TAR should have written his own definitions when he posted them are separate articles. It is almost as if he was trying to generate 100 one-sentence articles each with a footnote to a particular author (perhaps for the search engines). But we now have 100 copyright headaches. − ::If Aschlafly had a scanner, we could post scanned copies of each permission letter somewhere on the internet and put a link in the talk page template. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 02:09, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
→Copyright
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-14-9.jpg April 14th, 2016 at about 9am]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-14-9.jpg April 14th, 2016 at about 9am]<br />
Need I go on? Just to be clear, I am not posting this just to complain, but to try to be helpful. Have a great day! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:40, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
Need I go on? Just to be clear, I am not posting this just to complain, but to try to be helpful. Have a great day! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:40, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
== Please unlock ==
== Please unlock ==