803:", that is wrong. This is definitely about non-free content. If we could prove that it was free, there would be no problem with the link (or at least the discussion would shift away from copyright issues.) Assuming that it's not free, the question before us is whether this reproduction is legitimate. There are three distinct ways in which it could be even assuming it isn't free. If Meir Schneider actually owns the copyright (unlikely), if he got explicit permission to reproduce it (seems very likely, but I can't prove it), or if it falls under Fair use (which I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it does.)
31:
911:'s part, that somehow he made sure this use was permissible. I would suggest the latter, and I hesitated to point this out for fear that it would be de-linked from the references as a result. But now perhaps it is more clear what I mean when I suggest assuming good faith on the part of Meir Schneider regarding the video.
869:
i would have to agree with you as i came to the same conclusion prior to reading this section. additionally, youtube channels, myspace pages, and other types of services are increasingly being used as a sort of new-tech autobiography. Whereas in a book
Shneider might merely mention this broadcast,
898:
is reproduced on
Quackwatch. Because that is currently the only online resource which contains the complete text of that chapter, it is currently linked to in the chapter's citation in this article. I personally think that's a good thing, since it enables readers to easily check the references. But
508:
Since the other five videos are the original work of the owners of the account, if they don't give copyright info then there presumably is no copyright. And regarding the video in question, the reason it contains no copyright information is probably because it is only a segment of the news program.
310:
publish links where others have infringed copyright. It does not suggest that there is a burden of proof on us that copyright has been respected, and such a burden would make thousands of external links unusable. In this case there is nothing to suggest that copyright has been infringed, and we can
254:
doesn't say where the burden is in the event of uncertainty about an external link. I would further point out that #1, the video has been up since
December 2007 without a copyright claim, otherwise it would have been taken down by Youtube, and #2, rather than being posted by some random person, the
736:
If you want to discuss basic copyright laws in order to make exceptions for WP:ELNEVER, then continue the discussions there. If you want to understand basic copyright laws and their application to more general situations, do so on the appropriate policy talk page. If you just want to learn about
344:
On the contrary: it's pretty obviously a commercially-prepared and -broadcast video. It would be the height of disingenuousness to pretend that we don't suspect it is copyrighted material. YouTube is notoriously indifferent to copyright violation until the copyright holder complains; that doesn't
555:
Re: "I take this to be a sign that they're unfamiliar with basic copyright law." While a copyright is automatic, it should still be asserted. That's the problem here. Either the copyright holder hasn't identified themselves, or the copyright information has been edited out.
751:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "copyright information". At first I thought you meant a "used with permission" note. However, from what you've said since, that does not appear to be what you meant. As far as where it originated, the beginning of the video
903:, published in 1956 by the Chilton Co of Philadelphia." So there's the copyright information. But there is no explanation offered as to why it is OK to be reproducing the chapter. So perhaps it should be de-linked from here as a possible copyright violation.
479:
The other five videos all appear to be the original work of the owners of the
Youtube Channel (i.e. Meir Schneider and his School of Self-Healing.) So this is apples to oranges as far as assessing their tendency in presenting copyright information.
433:
Looking at the video once more, I don't think the
English translation is from the news station. Whoever added it probably removed any copyright information, if it existed at all. None of their other YouTube videos have any copyright information.
111:
be used as a source? We have discussed the general lack of secondary sources regarding modern Bates method proponents, but Meir
Schneider is one who does have a media presence. He was named one of Israel's ten most inspiring people.
732:
The issue is not about non-free content, but on external links where the link in question is a YouTube link with no copyright information where the copyright holder is in question. That question has been answered, at great
540:, copyright is automatic, and does not need to be explicitly asserted. Therefore "I take this to be a sign that they're unfamiliar with basic copyright law" and "there presumably is no copyright" are both incorrect.
389:
I've removed it again. There's very strong consensus now that YouTube links should not be included unless the copyright info is provided, or there is no doubt that the video is not violating any copyrights.
678:
Come to think of it, the aforementioned restrictions might not apply to self-healing.org due to it being an official site of a practitioner of the article's subject, per the lead sentence of
155:
There could be one problem with this. When I looked it over, I couldn't find the copyright information. If the copyright information is not present, then it should be removed. --
782:. If one provided every detail of a copyright, that still wouldn't make infringement any less so. This is where I am getting confused by your focusing on "copyright information".
236:
It's quite easy to make enquiries and find out if it can be used with permission. I don't see that the owners would have any objection to it being used, but no harm in asking.--
222:
I've removed it per WP:ELNEVER. The copyright would usually be held by the TV station. Since no one can find the copyright information, it should not be included. --
661:
Dreamguy was responding to the specific issue of the YouTube video and the uncertain copyright. The YouTube link does not belong. We're all clear on that now?
899:
is the site complying with copyright laws? At the bottom of the page, it is stated "This article was originally published as
Chapter 3 in Dr. Pollack's book
255:
video is hosted on an account connected to the individual featured in the news broadcast, so there is a very good chance he got permission to use it.
494:
They didn't give any copyright info in any of the videos. I take this to be a sign that they're unfamiliar with basic copyright law. --
879:
706:
127:
I guess the best way to use it is as an
External Link. That way readers can watch it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
712:
612:
327:
737:
basic copyright laws, read the appropriate policy and article pages, then ask questions on the appropriate policy talk page. --
419:
No. My guess is that they just didn't think about it. A number of items from their site don't have copyright notices. --
94:
89:
84:
72:
67:
823:
593:
405:
So we assume bad faith on the part of Meir
Schneider? Assume that he is pirating the news broadcast featuring himself?
59:
448:
Their other five videos appear to be original. So a lack of copyright information for them doesn't tell us anything.
38:
205:
It would appear that the
Youtube channel hosting this video belongs to Meir Schneider's "School of Self-Healing"
826:
even if explicit permission was not granted (and I would guess that it was, for reasons explained previously.)
652:
545:
316:
178:
146:
462:
They are all examples of what I noted earlier, items from them where they failed to add copyright notices. --
269:
I disagree and would like some clarity on this given all the recent discussions about such Youtube links. --
370:
so, that permission was granted than it would be if the video had been posted by some random person.
352:
871:
303:
251:
188:
648:
541:
312:
237:
174:
142:
664:
The link to self-healing.org doesn't belong per ELNO #13. #2, #4, #14 appear to apply as well. --
916:
859:
848:
808:
787:
765:
757:
722:
687:
638:
601:
575:
514:
485:
453:
410:
375:
367:
260:
241:
213:
132:
117:
875:
47:
17:
679:
537:
908:
346:
742:
669:
620:
561:
499:
467:
439:
424:
395:
335:
274:
227:
196:
160:
912:
855:
804:
783:
761:
718:
683:
634:
597:
571:
510:
481:
449:
406:
371:
256:
209:
141:
Agreed. I recently read Schneider's book, which it might also be legitimate to cite.
128:
113:
920:
883:
863:
812:
791:
769:
746:
726:
691:
673:
656:
642:
624:
605:
579:
565:
549:
518:
503:
489:
471:
457:
443:
428:
414:
399:
379:
363:
357:
339:
320:
278:
264:
245:
231:
217:
206:
200:
182:
164:
150:
136:
121:
713:
Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Youtube_link_where_we_cannot_find_any_copyright_info
613:
Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Youtube_link_where_we_cannot_find_any_copyright_info
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
108:
895:
592:
Regardless of what is discussed above, it seems likely that this falls under
570:
This is still apples to oranges since five are original and the other isn't.
738:
665:
616:
557:
495:
463:
435:
420:
391:
331:
270:
223:
192:
156:
830:
It's only a five minute segment of a news broadcast, not an entire edition.
326:
So we don't care if there is no copyright information? I'll follow up at
476:
894:
Here's an example to illuminate the points I have been trying to make.
870:
he now has the ability to directly show it. We are not violating
302:
There is already complete clarity. We do not infringe copyright.
630:
169:
My understanding of copyright is that it concerns itself with
25:
874:
by linking to a site which is using content under fair-use. -
596:, especially in that the video is preserving the news story.
629:
If we follow the feedback from there, does that mean we add
611:
Not at all. Let's just follow ELNEVER and the feedback from
345:
give us a license to pirate. When in doubt, leave it out. --
173:. Providing a link is not copying, and cannot be a breach.
208:, so I seriously doubt that it is a copyright violation.
647:
I was just about to suggest that, but you got in first.
774:
The underlying issue here doesn't seem to be copyright
760:, which had been noted next to the External link here.
717:" Basic copyright laws are at the heart of the issue.
633:
to the External links, per Dreamguy's recommendation?
822:
I'm becoming convinced that this is indeed a case of
615:, rather than discussing basic copyright laws. --
711:Let's just follow ELNEVER and the feedback from
362:Again, the Youtube account hosting the video is
715:, rather than discussing basic copyright laws.
366:. That makes it much more likely, I would say
844:in that English translation is provided here.
8:
778:. The question is whether it is a copyright
709:. Ronz, I don't understand your comment "
801:The issue is not about non-free content
799:Ronz, in regards to your comment that "
364:verifiably connected to Meir Schneider
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
907:maybe we should assume good faith on
851:is losing profit as a result of this.
707:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Non-free content
477:http://www.youtube.com/user/SFSHMedia
7:
705:Perhaps we should ask about this at
328:Knowledge (XXG) talk:External links
896:Chapter 3 of Philip Pollack's book
24:
311:proceed with clear consciences.
29:
306:rightly insists that we do not
833:The reproduction is in effect
1:
921:04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
901:The Truth about Eye Exercises
792:22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
770:20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
747:19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
727:19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
674:18:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
657:18:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
643:18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
625:17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
606:17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
580:18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
566:17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
550:17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
519:16:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
504:02:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
490:01:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
472:01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
458:01:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
444:01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
429:01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
415:00:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
400:00:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
380:18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
358:17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
340:17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
321:09:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
279:03:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
265:02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
246:09:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
232:18:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
218:02:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
201:01:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
183:23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
165:18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
151:22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
137:20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
122:02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
631:http://www.self-healing.org
109:this Israeli news broadcast
936:
692:02:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
884:04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
864:21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
813:19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
847:It's very unlikely that
756:say that it comes from
890:AGF or remove? Example
818:The case for fair use
42:of past discussions.
849:Channel 2 in Israel
758:Channel 2 in Israel
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:Talk:Bates method
927:
538:Berne convention
355:
349:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
935:
934:
930:
929:
928:
926:
925:
924:
909:Stephen Barrett
892:
882:
820:
590:
353:
347:
105:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
933:
931:
891:
888:
887:
886:
878:
853:
852:
845:
838:
831:
819:
816:
797:
796:
795:
794:
772:
734:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
662:
649:SamuelTheGhost
589:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
542:SamuelTheGhost
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
431:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
313:SamuelTheGhost
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
175:SamuelTheGhost
143:SamuelTheGhost
104:
103:Meir Schneider
101:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
932:
923:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
897:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
868:
867:
866:
865:
861:
857:
850:
846:
843:
839:
836:
832:
829:
828:
827:
825:
817:
815:
814:
810:
806:
802:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
744:
740:
735:
731:
730:
729:
728:
724:
720:
716:
714:
708:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
675:
671:
667:
663:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
595:
587:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
554:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
520:
516:
512:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
478:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
432:
430:
426:
422:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:exponentially
365:
361:
360:
359:
356:
350:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
309:
305:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
253:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
148:
144:
140:
139:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
124:
123:
119:
115:
110:
102:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
904:
900:
893:
876:ĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻ
854:
841:
840:It is being
834:
821:
800:
798:
779:
775:
753:
710:
704:
591:
535:
388:
307:
301:
170:
106:
78:
43:
37:
842:transformed
776:information
348:Orange Mike
36:This is an
880:Alexandria
872:WP:ELNEVER
837:the story.
835:preserving
536:Under the
304:WP:ELNEVER
252:WP:ELNEVER
189:WP:ELNEVER
95:ArchiveĀ 15
90:ArchiveĀ 14
85:ArchiveĀ 13
79:ArchiveĀ 12
73:ArchiveĀ 11
68:ArchiveĀ 10
780:violation
588:Fair use?
308:knowingly
60:ArchiveĀ 5
913:PSWG1920
856:PSWG1920
824:fair use
805:PSWG1920
784:PSWG1920
762:PSWG1920
719:PSWG1920
684:PSWG1920
635:PSWG1920
598:PSWG1920
594:fair use
572:PSWG1920
511:PSWG1920
482:PSWG1920
450:PSWG1920
407:PSWG1920
372:PSWG1920
257:PSWG1920
238:ReTracer
210:PSWG1920
129:PSWG1920
114:PSWG1920
733:length.
680:WP:ELNO
171:copying
39:archive
250:Also,
107:Could
16:<
917:talk
860:talk
809:talk
788:talk
766:talk
754:does
743:talk
739:Ronz
723:talk
688:talk
670:talk
666:Ronz
653:talk
639:talk
621:talk
617:Ronz
602:talk
576:talk
562:talk
558:Ronz
546:talk
515:talk
500:talk
496:Ronz
486:talk
468:talk
464:Ronz
454:talk
440:talk
436:Ronz
425:talk
421:Ronz
411:talk
396:talk
392:Ronz
376:talk
354:Talk
336:talk
332:Ronz
330:. --
317:talk
275:talk
271:Ronz
261:talk
242:talk
228:talk
224:Ronz
214:talk
197:talk
193:Ronz
187:See
179:talk
161:talk
157:Ronz
147:talk
133:talk
118:talk
351:|
919:)
905:Or
862:)
811:)
790:)
768:)
745:)
725:)
690:)
682:.
672:)
655:)
641:)
623:)
604:)
578:)
564:)
556:--
548:)
517:)
502:)
488:)
470:)
456:)
442:)
434:--
427:)
413:)
398:)
390:--
378:)
338:)
319:)
277:)
263:)
244:)
230:)
216:)
199:)
191:--
181:)
163:)
149:)
135:)
120:)
64:ā
915:(
858:(
807:(
786:(
764:(
741:(
721:(
686:(
668:(
651:(
637:(
619:(
600:(
574:(
560:(
544:(
513:(
498:(
484:(
466:(
452:(
438:(
423:(
409:(
394:(
374:(
334:(
315:(
273:(
259:(
240:(
226:(
212:(
195:(
177:(
159:(
145:(
131:(
116:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.