206:
Stone is copyrightable, and there's a big difference. I think it's worth having a number of "best" lists when they come from some authority on the subject. It helps people decide what they might want to listen to, buy, pay attention to or read about. The more the better, and that should include this one.
205:
violation whatever, in any way shape or form of any copyright law at all in this list. You cannot copyright information, and that's all that this list is: information about what
Rolling Stone said the greatest albums of the 80s are. Anyone can report what the list is. Only original writing in Rolling
437:
not be protected, a list of "My
Favorite Kings of England" or "The 100 Greatest Albums of the 80's " is certainly protected. Also, if it's a close call whether an article is a copyvio, I think we need to err on the side of deleting it. (Not that I think it's close here at all.) Besides all of
432:
as a copyvio. It is my understanding that lists (like anything else) have copyright protection as long as there is any creativity involved in compiling or arranging them. So while a simple, chronological list of the Kings of
England or "The Top Selling Records of All Time"
249:
I find that amazing, but I'm unfamiliar with UK law. At least the main servers and HQ for
Knowledge (XXG) are in Florida, so I assume US law applies. I think this is a good description of the difference in copyrighting expressions and ideas, at least in US law, taken from
533:
Per US law, the "expertise" which is used to compile the list constitutes creative input. That is what makes a list copyrightable. If it were a list of top SELLING albums, that is just data. When they are putting together judgements, that makes it creative content.
373:
Knowledge (XXG) NPOV policy states that we can report on the opinions of others, which is what this article does. No list of awards would be objective either, by definition, on the part of the source, but perfectly objective from our perspective of reporting on it.
546:
I'm not so sure this is a copyvio (although I have thought so in the past), but I see no reason that this list has any particular importance. There's an unending number of lists like this, and we clearly shouldn't be reprinting them all (even just the list).
347:
Take another look at the third paragraph from the bottom on the page you link to: "A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the 'author's original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed.'"
275:
it are so intricately tied that the ways of expression have little possible variation, there will not be copyright infringement, lest the copyright prevent others from expressing the same idea. The overall principle is that of the
187:- The other difference between the two is that a list of TIME Men of the Year is essentially a list of people articles were written about. This list is a direct copy of the content of a single article.--
90:
85:
94:
321:
Pet Shop Boys dont even get a mention in the top 100 - therefore in my opinion its not a notworthly article! Seriously though, this is not encyclopedia stuff its fansite material. --
77:
117:
145:. It is probably a violation of copyright, but to clarify, the author did not request a delete, he stated that he would not object to a deletion - there is a difference! --
401:
468:
222:
Certainly in the UK, information can be copyrightable - for instance unofficial football websites are not allowed to show lists of forthcoming fixtures
450:
as copyvio. Presumably both the selection of which albums to include and the ordering of albums on the list represent the opinions of the editors of
136:
558:
538:
521:
505:
493:
478:
458:
442:
422:
408:
392:
378:
366:
352:
340:
325:
313:
292:
239:
210:
191:
179:
163:
149:
404:
article. Commentary about a list is acceptable, however, listing the entire list is a violation of copyright without prior permission. --
487:
since this list appears to be a direct copy of a part of the
Rolling Stones article, I believe it indeed falls under copyright law. --
175:'s Man of the Year or Nobel Prize winners (and hence, fair game for an Encyclopedia), but I can't really see this as encyclopedic. --
17:
551:
129:
81:
73:
65:
573:
416:
415:
Yeah, and I think that was wrong too, but rather than try to be a lawyer, I've asked a question about this issue here:
36:
501:
Since this discussion seems to be headed for a consensus of deletion as a copyvio, perhaps it should be speedied? --
438:
that, London
Calling came out in 1979 (even though it hit the US in 1980), so the whole list is suspect IMHO. --
572:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
307:
176:
518:
502:
475:
439:
277:
236:
491:
389:
363:
310:
322:
228:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
171:- if the Rolling Stone's opinion was worth shit, this might be considered along the lines of
188:
548:
337:
251:
223:
405:
133:
333:
Clear copyright vio. Compilations of information are copyright under US law. See here.
488:
455:
258:
517:
Hearing no objection, I just tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio. --
535:
419:
375:
349:
289:
207:
146:
111:
334:
158:
54:
261:
566:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
172:
417:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Copyrights#Is a list really copyrightable?
264:
107:
103:
99:
226:. I have no idea what the situation in the US is.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
576:). No further edits should be made to this page.
402:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
400:: The precedent for a list like this is in the
280:, which is that one can hold a copyright in an
128:copyright and the author requested it on the
8:
454:, so this list is fully copyrightable. --
467:: This debate has been included in the
267:, the merger doctrine holds that if an
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
74:The 100 Greatest Albums of the 80's
66:The 100 Greatest Albums of the 80's
24:
362:- non-notable and not objective.
469:list of Music-related deletions
1:
593:
559:16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
539:05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
522:01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
506:01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
494:13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
479:03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
459:02:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
443:01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
423:01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
409:23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
393:18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
379:18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
367:17:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
353:18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
341:16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
326:15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
314:13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
293:18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
252:Merger doctrine#Copyright
240:13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
211:08:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
192:04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
180:03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
164:03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
150:03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
137:03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
569:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
388:Copyright violation. -
278:idea-expression divide
201:There is absolutely
124:It's a violation of
130:article's talk page
519:Butseriouslyfolks
503:Butseriouslyfolks
481:
476:Butseriouslyfolks
472:
440:Butseriouslyfolks
336:This is illegal.
308:Action Jackson IV
177:Action Jackson IV
59:
58:2007-03-09 10:28Z
584:
571:
556:
473:
463:
234:
231:
161:
115:
97:
61:
57:
50:
34:
592:
591:
587:
586:
585:
583:
582:
581:
580:
574:deletion review
567:
552:
271:and the way to
232:
229:
159:
126:Rolling Stones'
88:
72:
69:
64:
51:
45:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
590:
588:
579:
578:
562:
561:
541:
527:
526:
525:
524:
509:
508:
496:
482:
461:
445:
426:
425:
412:
411:
395:
382:
381:
370:
369:
356:
355:
344:
343:
328:
316:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
286:not in an idea
243:
242:
214:
213:
196:
195:
194:
166:
152:
122:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
589:
577:
575:
570:
564:
563:
560:
557:
555:
550:
545:
542:
540:
537:
532:
529:
528:
523:
520:
516:
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
504:
500:
497:
495:
492:
490:
486:
483:
480:
477:
470:
466:
462:
460:
457:
453:
452:Rolling Stone
449:
446:
444:
441:
436:
431:
428:
427:
424:
421:
418:
414:
413:
410:
407:
403:
399:
396:
394:
391:
387:
384:
383:
380:
377:
372:
371:
368:
365:
361:
358:
357:
354:
351:
346:
345:
342:
339:
335:
332:
329:
327:
324:
320:
317:
315:
312:
311:StuartDouglas
309:
305:
302:
301:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
270:
266:
263:
260:
259:United States
256:
255:
253:
248:
245:
244:
241:
238:
237:
235:
225:
221:
218:
217:
216:
215:
212:
209:
204:
200:
197:
193:
190:
186:
183:
182:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
165:
162:
156:
153:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:
139:
138:
135:
131:
127:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
62:
60:
56:
48:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
568:
565:
553:
543:
530:
514:
498:
484:
464:
451:
447:
434:
429:
397:
385:
359:
330:
323:PrincessBrat
318:
303:
285:
281:
272:
268:
246:
227:
219:
202:
198:
184:
168:
160:Nomen Nescio
154:
142:
125:
123:
52:
46:
43:
31:
28:
199:Strong Keep
189:Djrobgordon
338:Nssdfdsfds
282:expression
230:Eliminator
157:per above.
544:"Delete.'
406:MZMcBride
262:copyright
247:Response:
134:MZMcBride
489:lucasbfr
456:Carnildo
118:View log
536:Slavlin
515:Comment
499:Comment
420:Noroton
398:Comment
386:Delete.
376:Noroton
364:HagenUK
350:Noroton
290:Noroton
273:express
220:Comment
208:Noroton
185:Comment
147:Nevhood
91:protect
86:history
531:Delete
485:Delete
448:Delete
430:Delete
360:Delete
331:Delete
319:Delete
304:Delete
284:, but
224:(Link)
169:Delete
155:Delete
143:Delete
95:delete
47:Delete
554:juice
549:Mango
390:Denny
112:views
104:watch
100:links
55:Quarl
16:<
465:Note
306:per
269:idea
173:TIME
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
474:--
471:.
435:may
265:law
257:In
116:– (
288:.
254::
233:JR
203:no
132:.
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
120:)
114:)
76:(
53:—
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.