1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Copyright (view source)
Revision as of 18:17, April 6, 2007
, 18:17, April 6, 2007my understanding
: That's '''not''' correct to the extent your work has been edited on other Wikis. I don't know if you are right about your unedited original work and what Wikipedia or other Wikis may require as a condition of submission there. The provisions governing submission on those websites would need to be checked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: That's '''not''' correct to the extent your work has been edited on other Wikis. I don't know if you are right about your unedited original work and what Wikipedia or other Wikis may require as a condition of submission there. The provisions governing submission on those websites would need to be checked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::I should think that any contributor who built his contribution on his own machine, or otherwise re-created his original submission ''prior to any edits'', would satisfy the original-submission requirement. Happily, any Wiki has a history section that preserves the source code of every version of every article since its creation, or perhaps fifty edits back. All that a user has to do is look back to how his article looked ''before anyone else edited it'' (not counting immediate reverts) and then view and copy the source. I maintain that a contributor who does that, should be able to dual-submit. But I agree--once the article has been edited by another person, it's not that submitter's original work product anymore.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::I should think that any contributor who built his contribution on his own machine, or otherwise re-created his original submission ''prior to any edits'', would satisfy the original-submission requirement. Happily, any Wiki has a history section that preserves the source code of every version of every article since its creation, or perhaps fifty edits back. All that a user has to do is look back to how his article looked ''before anyone else edited it'' (not counting immediate reverts) and then view and copy the source. I maintain that a contributor who does that, should be able to dual-submit. But I agree--once the article has been edited by another person, it's not that submitter's original work product anymore.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: As I (not a legal type - this comes from my experience as an artist and a writer in dealing with copyrights) understand it there are two issues here - original work and deritive work. In the case of original work, unless you assign the copyright or "irrevocably waive and relinquish all copyrights"[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Copyright&oldid=89370#II] you own the copyright. You are free to license it however you want. You can put it on a gdfl wiki and you can publish it in a book, and that is not an issue (some publishers may want exclusive publishing rights in which case having published the material at a wiki means they won't be interested in it). The only thing you have to be aware of is that someone else can come along and use the material in a way granted by the gdfl and they are not violating your copyright. If the material is a deritive work - it is edits based on other edits of someone else's work, while you own the copyright to the ''edit'', you have to abide by the licensing of the parent work - if it is gdfl, then that means if you want to publish the material you have edited, then it is also under the gdfl. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)