Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia copyright"
(clarify that CP's copyright policy is subject to change) |
(Conservapedia's more open copyright policy has not substantively changed since at least July 2007. Conservapedia's copyright conditions are far less restrictive and easier-to-use than Wikipedia's) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Wikipedia uses a burdensome and complex system of copyrights, including statements like "any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under the CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike) license or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL).<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content</ref> Wikipedia uses a byzantine system of rules -- as one might expect from its predominantly liberal editors. Authors always remain free to copy their own work, but cannot copy the contributions of others unless they comply fully with the requirements of CC-BY-SA.<ref>For articles with no edits after 2009, anyone who wishes to reuse Wikipedia content ''may'' instead follow the terms of the GFDL.</ref> | + | Wikipedia uses a burdensome and complex system of copyrights, including statements like "any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under the [[CC-BY-SA]] (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike) license or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL).<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content</ref> Wikipedia uses a byzantine system of rules -- as one might expect from its predominantly liberal editors. Authors always remain free to copy their own work, but cannot copy the contributions of others unless they comply fully with the requirements of CC-BY-SA.<ref>For articles with no edits after 2009, anyone who wishes to reuse Wikipedia content ''may'' instead follow the terms of the GFDL.</ref> |
The basic requirements of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license are the following: | The basic requirements of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license are the following: | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*If the work is "alter[ed], transform[ed], or [built] upon," it must be distributed under "the same or similar license"<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Creative Commons ShareAlike License Deed]</ref> | *If the work is "alter[ed], transform[ed], or [built] upon," it must be distributed under "the same or similar license"<ref>[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Creative Commons ShareAlike License Deed]</ref> | ||
| − | + | But the actual license is more than 3,000 words in length. | |
| − | + | Despite Wikipedia's claim to be source of learning, no special exceptions are made for teaching or other non-profit uses, but in both cases the [[fair use]] provisions of [[copyright law]] may apply by law. | |
| − | [[Conservapedia]]'s copyright conditions are | + | [[Conservapedia]]'s copyright conditions are far less restrictive and easier-to-use than Wikipedia's. For details, see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]]. |
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 19:12, April 21, 2012
Wikipedia uses a burdensome and complex system of copyrights, including statements like "any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under the CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike) license or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL).[1] Wikipedia uses a byzantine system of rules -- as one might expect from its predominantly liberal editors. Authors always remain free to copy their own work, but cannot copy the contributions of others unless they comply fully with the requirements of CC-BY-SA.[2]
The basic requirements of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license are the following:
- The work must attribute the authors in a specified manner (but not in a way that suggests endorsement)
- If the work is "alter[ed], transform[ed], or [built] upon," it must be distributed under "the same or similar license"[3]
But the actual license is more than 3,000 words in length.
Despite Wikipedia's claim to be source of learning, no special exceptions are made for teaching or other non-profit uses, but in both cases the fair use provisions of copyright law may apply by law.
Conservapedia's copyright conditions are far less restrictive and easier-to-use than Wikipedia's. For details, see Conservapedia:Copyright.
References
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content
- ↑ For articles with no edits after 2009, anyone who wishes to reuse Wikipedia content may instead follow the terms of the GFDL.
- ↑ Creative Commons ShareAlike License Deed
