Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia copyright"
(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) |
(synthesize edits by User:Aschlafly with previous version of the article, other misc. fixes) |
||
| 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 | + | 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> | ||
| − | + | A lengthier, 3000-word legal document describes the terms of the license in more detail. | |
| − | + | As with [[Conservapedia]]'s terms, no special exceptions are made for teaching or other non-profit uses, but in both cases the [[fair use]] provisions of [[copyright law]] apply. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | [[Conservapedia]]'s copyright conditions are generally less restrictive and easier-to-use than Wikipedia's. However, Conservapedia's license to reuse content may be revoked "in very rare instances of self-defense" or changed.<ref>The Conservapedia copyright policy has not changed since July 2007, but the terms still expressly provide that the license is subject to change.</ref> Conservapedia's copyright conditions also currently do not allow for entire sections of the site to be copied or mirrored, unlike CC-BY-SA 3.0. For details, see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]]. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 23:45, 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]
A lengthier, 3000-word legal document describes the terms of the license in more detail.
As with Conservapedia's terms, no special exceptions are made for teaching or other non-profit uses, but in both cases the fair use provisions of copyright law apply.
Conservapedia's copyright conditions are generally less restrictive and easier-to-use than Wikipedia's. However, Conservapedia's license to reuse content may be revoked "in very rare instances of self-defense" or changed.[4] Conservapedia's copyright conditions also currently do not allow for entire sections of the site to be copied or mirrored, unlike CC-BY-SA 3.0. 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
- ↑ The Conservapedia copyright policy has not changed since July 2007, but the terms still expressly provide that the license is subject to change.
