MeritBadgeDotOrg talk:Copyright policy

From MeritBadgeDotOrg

Revision as of 18:00, March 4, 2012 by RWSmith (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Copyright?

"Materials found at the MeritBadge.com, MeritBadge.net, and MeritBadge.org web sites are copyright ©1995-2007 by the owner and other copyright holders." What about if someone posts some text that was taken from Wikipedia? Is that info then not under the GFDL? Scouterdennis 07:45, February 28, 2008 (EST)

"As of Version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License, GFDL works hosted on 'Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Sites' (MMCS) [like Wikipedia and meritbadge.org] can be legally transitioned to the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license [CC-BY-SA]..." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transition_to_CC-BY-SA for more info. Scouterdennis 19:19, December 3, 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia Content?

Copied from MeritBadgeDotOrg talk:Community Portal#Wikipedia Content? for continuation here...

If someone was to copy content from Wikipedia to the meritbadge.org wiki, how would that work, legally? Wikipedia content is automatically under the GFDL, which means that to copy it to this wiki, it would need to remain GFDL. I remember seeing a copyright on the Policy page here that was not in line with the GFDL. Under what license are we allowed to use the so-called "copyrighted information" on this site? The Goodwill of the BSA? Wikipedia has a blanket exemption from the BSA to use their copyrighted imagery in educational articles; do we have/need the same here? The solution might be messy. The wording on the Policy page could be changed, and a footer template used for those articles that contain Wikipedia content. This might cause a problem for articles that have mixed content. My personal opinion would be to do what is necessary to allow both types (GFDL and non-GFDL) on meritbadge.org, because that would give us access to a large amount of already written content, which we could then tweak to *our* needs. Wikipedia editors love to remove stuff that they consider "non-significant". How does the meritbadge.org community feel about that? How would the "owners" of meritbadge.org feel? There is already some content on this wiki that was copied from wikipedia (admittedly I did some of it), so I believe that this needs to be addressed sooner rather that later (too late). Scouterdennis 17:57, March 7, 2008 (EST)
Wikipedia has a blanket exemption from the BSA to use their copyrighted imagery in educational articles; do we have/need the same here? Yes.
Regarding, GFDL and non-GFDL... The more we have had the need to pull information from wikipedia.org sites, e.g. images, tempplates, etc., the more of a concern this issue has come to my mind? If anyone has any "successful wording" we could change it to, please post your ideas at MeritBadgeDotOrg talk:Copyright policy. Thanks, —RWSmith (Bureaucrat), 00:11, March 22, 2008 (EDT)

I have created a {{Copypaste}} template that can be used to tag suspicious articles. They will be automatically added to a category that can be perused by those interested in identifying and correcting possible copyright conflicts. Scouterdennis 09:53, March 23, 2008 (EDT)

meritbadge.org content is under what copyright license?

The sole mention of copyright is on the MeritBadgeDotOrg:Copyright policy page: "Materials found at the MeritBadge.com, MeritBadge.net, and MeritBadge.org web sites are copyright ©1995-2007 by the owner and other copyright holders", and it seems a bit vague (is that deliberate?). I can understand the former MeritBadge.com content, but what about the wiki? To date, we have not specifically required contributors to forfeit their rights to any content they add. Our current statement (above, if it is even applicable since it is on a different page and not specifically referred to) seems to imply that individual contributors may retain the copyright on text that they submit. Note that at the bottom of the edit box on Wikipedia, they specify that "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL." Perhaps we need a statement expressing our particular situation.

For the sake of this discussion, let's ignore the content blatantly plagiarized from the BSA.

  1. I assume that we allow users to print out and distribute meritbadge.org content for use in program planning and execution. That's what we are here for anyway, right?
  2. We do not require them to make an attribution to meritbadge.org. Should we? If not, why not?
  3. I assume that they cannot sell it.
  4. I also assume that we allow them to alter the information before using and/or distributing it.

There is a very real need for us to address these issues and to do so in a timely manner. Specifically, I would like to see a discussion and consensus on the following points (text taken from the Wikipedia article on Creative Commons licenses):

  • Attribution: Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.
  • Noncommercial: Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
  • No Derivative Works: Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
  • Share-alike: Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work.

Also see: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing

I believe that we need to come up with answers to these questions in order to protect and preserve the meritbadge.org content for use by Scouters now and in the future. For example, what if something happens to Mike? Would we then be legally allowed to pull the content and resurrect mborg on another server? Scouterdennis 19:14, December 3, 2008 (EST)

Blanket Copyright exemption from the BSA

Wikipedia has a blanket exemption from the BSA to use their copyrighted imagery in educational articles; do we have/need the same here?
Yes we have and exemption or yes we need to get one? Scouterdennis 21:10, March 22, 2008 (EDT)
Yes; we have it. I think there's something somewhere here on the wiki that explains it... but, if I can't find it, I'll make a page with the specifics. —RWSmith (Bureaucrat), 23:46, March 23, 2008 (EDT)
We should incorporate that information into our soon-to-be-updated MeritBadgeDotOrg:Copyright policy page. Scouterdennis 19:24, December 3, 2008 (EST)

Major clean-up to Copyright policy

In order to address most, if not all, of the above concerns, I have revamped the website's Copyright policy page. —RWSmith (Bureaucrat), 16:00, March 4, 2012 (EST)

Personal tools
language