Knowledge (XXG) talk:Copyrights/Archive 7

356:

introduced. New versions may e.g. dispense with Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts altogether, as they have been criticized by Debian as being non-free. The license might also be made compatible with some Creative Commons licenses and the GPL, something that just can't be done otherwise. It'd be sad if at that time some disgruntled ex-Wikipedians of the competing future project Trollopedia claimed that "oh, we were only licensing this stuff under the GFDL 1.2, not any future version!" just to cause trouble. As the condition of allowing FSF to change the license you're licensing your work under is rather unconventional and yet is not prominently stated, who knows, they might even have a case. Don't they have all those patently silly warnings in products in the U.S. precisely because some people did patently stupid things with the products and then won lawsuits because the danger wasn't made "clear enough" (common sense be damned)? --

1739:

information to followup. Husnock refused to provide this information...not even the name and position as you suggest he should give. Result; I've sent an e-mail to a potentially unrelated office requesting clarification; in effect I'm on a wild goose chase trying to clarify permissions he requested. There is no grudge here; I'm a strong advocate for adherence to copyright, and my track record shows this. Husnock is simply one of literally hundreds of users (possibly more than a thousand now) that I've come in contact with on copyright issues. Two days ago, I asked Husnock to clarify what exactly he asked for of these various agencies that hold copyrights to the 50+ images he has modified as a result of contact with these agencies. He has edited substantially since then, including creating and extensively editing a new article. My question remains unanswered. I've requested again that he answer the question. --

455:

and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this: with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST...

2400:. All this images are protected by following copyright notice: "The content and design of the Web site is subject to copyright. Pages and contents may only be duplicated with the prior agreement of Nord Stream AG, unless the duplication is of a nature which does not need consent, in accordance with legal stipulations." How to understand this part of "unless the duplication is of a nature which does not need consent, in accordance with legal stipulations"? Does that mean that for using in Knowledge (XXG) the prior agreement is needed or not? Thank you in advance. 1749:

account address, and her real full name. This is why I would not post such things. Also, this section was meant to get the opinions of other editors, not for Durin, or I to further debate this. I suggest Durin and I cease edits here and let other editors take a look at the situation as a whole. A good solution would be apolicy page on displaying flags on a user page, since I started this contacting of the cities so I could totally free images of thier flags to display on my page without violating copyright or fair use laws. -

1909:". What are "rank-and-file Wikipedians", what is their "job", and why isn't it to be vigilant for copyright infringements? Who are the "others" that will examine the situation and take action if needed? Shouldn't we be encouraging all Wikipedians to, if they choose, be involved in the process? This language seems to discourage Wikipedians from contributing to a part of the project, and implies that only elites of some mysterious sort can substantively contribute in the copyright field. 1615:), "With regards to using our city flag, our city does not place any restrictions on recreating our flag or hanging our flag in public places. There are also no royalty fees that you mentioned. Based on what you told me about the website you work for, there should be no problem with using the city flag in the way you described." This strikes me as a permission for use on Knowledge (XXG) type release. I believe this person needs to be contacted using the e-mail template located at 1082:: A website that is linked to will likely have rules different than Knowledge (XXG) regarding the site and may contain copyright infringing material under one or another law of a country. Because of the potential contributory copyright infringement problems, you may want to take the precaution both to warn those who may click on your link and disclaim any liability. When disclaiming liability for hypertext links, you may use a simple and direct message such as: 1547:

enough, but the project he has about policing fair use images has, in my personal opinion, gotten way out of control to the point that he appears to be stalking the every edit of certian editors, policing user pages for the slightest bit of copyright violation indications, and mass removing images from user pages and other locations. His justification is to enforce the policy and prevent lawsuits to Knowledge (XXG)- however some of the image sources (

1084:"This article provides hypertext links to other websites only as a convenience. These links are not under the control of any of the editors of this article. The editors of this article are not responsible for any third-party materials accessed through any website linked in this article. The editors of this article expressly disclaim all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of any third-party sites." 31: 1759:

understand; if it's not free license, then it's under fair use...no exceptions (except in very rare cases...which to date have only been for the main page). City flags in the U.S. do not fall under any law that automatically places them under a free license. Contrast with state flags that do. So, if we create a special exception for city flags where there is no supporting law (which would violate law to begin with), where do we draw the line?

1964:. All we know about the photo is that it was taken in occupied Poland 'secretly'. Author is unknown. It is logical to assume that the author was a member of Polish resistance, and wanted to disseminate the photo (for taking of which he risked his life) without any thoughts for the copyright; he might have died during the war and and in the 50 or so years afterwards. Can we assume public domain or do we have to stick with fair use?-- 1822:

3,000 professional camera. Yes we could create one, if I user wanted to take apart his expensive camera, but it's just not practical. Another would be a cut away image of the Lamborghini V-10 engine, yes it is possible to take a picture of a V-10 engine in the car, but the promotional image is much more encyclopedic because it shows the internals, something that is not practical for a Wikipedian to reproduce.

1492:, you might have trouble to demonstrate that you have the "right" to release that material with a different license. Conversely, when the material you contributed to Knowledge (XXG) is found outside Knowledge (XXG) without a free license that is compatible with GFDL, Knowledge (XXG) might have trouble establishing that there is no copyvio involved, and for that reason delete the material from Knowledge (XXG). 698:

accompanied by information on the authors, but the form of that notice and how the authors are presented are not exactly spelled out. Knowledge (XXG) acts on the assumption that the declarion at the bottom of the page combined with the History page on each article is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the GFDL, though whether or not this is so is a point that could be argued in court.

1429:

code in them and, in one instance, the source of one article says "translated from the English language Knowledge (XXG) article ... dated July 2, 2006", while their date is February 22, 2005. The sites legal page states that all rights to the content of the site are reserved and may be used only for personal use. There is no mention of GFDL. What is the proper course of action? --

2297:. That was most certainly NOT intended to provoke a unilateral change in one of the most important policy pages on the encyclopedia. The meaning of my question is plain...you have pre-empted discussions elsewhere also. This is surely not right. I hope to be able to raise this elsewhere, but in the meantime this was an unfortunate edit. Please reflect on your actions. ... 2064:. However, the cut-off text in the lower left corner makes me think that it is actually a scan from some book, and unless Gustason were the author of that book and indeed drew the sketch himself, he isn't the copyright holder and thus his permission would be useless. Also, Tubezone should understand that also non-admins are entitled to care about image copyrights. 2114:. 3. Looking at your contributions for today, my images.. (some of which have nothing to do with roads or railroads at all, and you had no reason to presume to have copyright problems) are the only images you bothered with at all. Any reason for that? 4. You are not an admin, and do not have user authority to rule on copyright issues. So I am going to restore the 2134:. As it is, NE2 had no reason to even bother them. I do not question that he has a right to bring up copyright issues, my point is that he's targeting my contributions without a good reason to do so. NE2 did not post a warning tag on my talk page, nor point out to me that he's not an admin, rather, he tagged these images without any comment to me and, it seems, 2843: 2657:. If you copy it from the book, follow the copyright conditions of the book (typically something like "permissions need to be obtained from publisher..."). If you copy it from a web resource without apparent copyright indication, write/mail the site owner about it, etc. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't "intervene" how you obtain such permissions 2036:--- I want to make an article about TD (Tails Doll). My favorite SOnic the Hedgehog character. Someone made an n article, but it only gave the out-side gaming info, it was like two centimters long! I was woundering if it wouls still be okay to write and article, as long as it gave true info and was longer than that one? (Of corse.) 402:. I have also checked this page, and its links. I still have not understood the absolute basics. Here is my first question; it is absolutely serious, although I do think that there should be an easy answer to it that I miss (since I suppose that the legally trained WP people have considered these questions with some care): 739:-- As long as none of the identities of any of the authors of a anonymous or pseudonymous work are revealed "for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first", then the copyright expires at the end of that term (in the U.S.). See 743:. It seems to me that no "author determination" is necessary. In the absense of any evidence that some Knowledge (XXG) contributor copied from a pre-existing copyrighted work, we assume that contribution is the original work, and the contributor licenses it under the GFDL. Why would anyone want a "author determination"? 2548:

Knowledge (XXG), and performs more-or-less a copy&paste of it. I can verify his identity (and I know him more-or-less personally). Is the situation considered a copyvio? If yes, whose rights are violated? If not, does it imply that the wikipedia's copy is free to reuse, while the other one is not?

2675:

Note that copying some external text into Knowledge (XXG), with the copyrights cleared, does not result in "rights" over Knowledge (XXG)'s content. The text may subsequently be "edited mercilessly", or even rejected and removed from the page where it was posted. After modification in Knowledge (XXG),

1748:

To clarify, I gave Durin the web address where he could contact the city. The reason I did not give the name and contact number of the employee was it was a friend of my late grandfather who had done me a favor. The only contact I had was a direct private office line number, her personal yahoo e-mail

1428:

I noticed that a commercial site in Turkey is harvesting articles from the Turkish language Knowledge (XXG) without attribution and backdating their pages to make it look like their version was written first. However their 'bot is incompetently written so some articles still have some Knowledge (XXG)

1364:

online photography expositions "are free for any use, provided that they are tagged with the following sentence: "Ministère des Affaires étrangères - Service photographique."( Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Photographic Service)]". What is the appropriate copyright tag to put on these photos when they

882:

The example given (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry) is somewhat disingenious considering that in the USA, contributory infringement is almost never actionable with internet links. Otherwise the internet as we know it would cease to exist. I suggest you remove the Intellectual Reserve

585:

Copyright to the articles is held by the individual contributors. This copyright does not need to be stated explicitly; under United States law the simple act of fixing a work of creative effort into a tangible form (in this case, typing it into the edit box) establishes a copyright. The exact nature

1984:

Weirdly, it's not public domain. Clearly, it is an abandoned copyright. There are many proposals for laws that would put such an image in the public domain, but as far as I'm aware, they all remain merely proposals. It is clearly fair use in the legal sense. I would hope that Knowledge (XXG) has the

1178:

that didn't get answered because it turned out to be moot. I had a look through the archives to see if this has come up before -- I'm sure it must have. At any rate, I couldn't find an on-point discussion, so pardon me if this is an oft-answered question: are links to copyright-violating material --

697:

By default, all rights are reserved. The copyright held by an anonymous individual is the same as one held by a known person except that the term of coverage is based of the date of publication rather than the date of death of the author. GFDL documents must have a notice declaring that fact, and be

589:

By clicking the "save page" button, a contributor agrees to license their contributions under the Gnu Free Documentation License. The details of this license are quite complicated, but for the purposes of using Knowledge (XXG) content on Knowledge (XXG), the important part is to maintain the list of

2442:

which contains no pop-ups or subscription fees. It plays automatically and it streamed via Flash, not downloaded to one's hardrive. I have used the site before for other projects and it is a good site. The ONLY reason that Dionyseus doesn't like it is because it disputes some of the propaganda that

2434:

It is no different that linking to any other website that hosts an interview or podcast or movie info such as IMDB. Since the editors arguing the reference do not like that it was originally hosted at a website that the editors did not like due to it's other content, I requested permission from the

2311:

is unlikely to be overturned any time soon, both Jimbo and Danny seem to favour the current version and the foundation do tend to take a more active part in the forging of copyright related policies than most of the other (for obvious reasons). I'm not trying to kill furter debate on the issue, but

1821:

Yes they aren't compatible. In particular there are those that take could be created a bit too far. There are cases where fair us promotional images are deleted because they "could" be created by a free user. But the could would be very very rare, such as the case of a picture of a CMOS chip in a $

1758:

I don't think it unreasonable for us to state and clarify our positions. As to a policy page on the display of flags; this would create a special exception to our fair use policies and would potentially open the door to all sorts of exceptions. The fair use policy is written to be easy and clear to

1070:: By receiving prior approval from the linked site owner, editors may avoid a lot of potential contributory copyright infringement problems. Maintain a record of the permission--even if it is only a communication from you to the other website confirming that permission has been granted for the link. 838:

The article in the English Knowledge (XXG) was under the GNU FDL, not in the Public Domain. The translation was a derivative work of a GFDL text and would have to be licensed under the GFDL, too. Reintroducing the text into another Knowledge (XXG) should be okay then. – Things would be different if

370:

Funny coincidence, almost immediately after I wrote this, the FSF released a new draft of GFDL :-) Looking at things a bit more closely, at least some of my concerns appear unwarranted. The GFDL says "If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever

1573:

specifically states "Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Knowledge (XXG) with the selected image copyright tag". Husnock has generically indicated the City of Corpus Christi. I believe this to be insufficient, as it requires a person who wishes to verify the status to

559:

Notice that there also is right to anonymous contributions; and that contributions that are not anonymous in wiki sense, may be so in the legal sense, since you don't have to disclose your name on your user page. In other words, without some hard detective work you cannot deduce the name of from a

2118:

tag on the images Bill Gustason gave permission to upload. If you do not agree you can take it to IfD and we'll let the admins decide. 5. The other images are from Mexican tourism authorities. I don't think I'll have a problem either getting permission or a legal ruling that as Mexican government

1546:

who, I believe, is carrying copyright status verification to an extreme, wanting personal contact information and private phone numbers for city employees who have verified the copyright status of these flags. That, I believe, is taking things waaaay too far. For that matter, this user seems nice

1326:

I don't get where the issue of blame came into this. We aren't planning to sue youtube or blame them for anything. We're simply saying that we should not link to copyrighted works used illegally and that YouTube has a lot of this material ergo, YouTube links should be done with care. The issue of

454:

How to use this License for your documents To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page: Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME. Permission is granted to copy, distribute

2382:

The phrase is right if understood in the correct context. It was meant as a friendly introduction, and rarely are friendly introductions wanted in policy that is left to be interpreted, as seen here. Obviously it wasn't ever intended to forbid someone from performing cleanup operations. (Note: I

1727:

In the past e-mails with personal details removed (or changed) is allowed as copyright verfication. Durin you are taking this too far it almost seems like you have a grude against the user. Date of contact, name and position should be all that is required, you should be able to remove everything

433:

Now, of course I know that there is a note on edit pages, stating that authors agree to license their contribute under GDFL. However, I do not understand how such an agreement could be construed as replacing an actual copyright note, if there is no copyright owner and time mentioned anywhere. In

140:

Again, linking to a torrent tracker/search engine only points out a place where one can search for files, the same way google searches for webpages. Linking to such a site does not say that we encourage illegal activity, merely that we would rather they look somewhere other than Knowledge (XXG).

1636:

Simple; any problem is a problem regardless of source. This is, from my view, a problem. I don't hold you in any higher regard than myself, and I don't hold myself in any higher regard than a first time user. Arguments that this isn't a problem because there are worse problems elsewhere are not

1622:

This gets back to my original point that there is a point where this can be taken to far. Any source or image can be beaten to death on this site to the point that someone will always think its not verifiable. I also have to wonder why I draw so much attention for posting simple flag images, an

2511:

Some articles are so hotly disputed that no addition will be provided unless long excerpts are posted on the talk page to ensure that nothing is misparaphrased or misquoted. When this involves excerpts from another encyclopedia then I think this is a copyright infringement. But I think this is

1738:

Not at all. I believe Husnock asked for permission to use on Knowledge (XXG), which is improper. I believe he did this in a number of cases, and I am using the flag of the City of Corpus Christi for a test case. I wanted to clarify the permissions that the city gave, and requested the contact

896:

As it says, knowingly and intentionally helping others violate copyright is illegal. The fact that it occurs through a hyperlink is irrelevant. Most links aren't actionable only because most links aren't intended to serve as willful infringment, but some are and we have to be mindful of that.

2563:

The copyright on his texts originally was his. If he didn't grant the publisher an exclusive license to publish his texts, and if he didn't transfer (parts of) his copyrights to the publisher, he is still free to re-publish his texts here or elsewhere under whatever license he chooses. If he

2547:

Here's the situation: an expert in a certain field has written and published a text elsewhere (on the web and in a book); (the copyright license is not explicated elsewhere, but it isn't explicated as GFDL(-compatible) either) Few years later, he decided to contribute the text in question to

2306:

As I was trying to point out there have been pleny of disucssion. Not spesificaly here, true, but only because it obviously makes more sense to debate fair use related policy changes on the talk page of the fair use policy. Do you rely think we need to repeat the whole debate just to fix the

355:

The notice that's shown on all pages and when editing does not mention the versions of GFDL that apply, but it should. It should say "Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation" to avoid any potential problems in the future when new versions of the license are

1076:: Even if a linked site presently contains no copyright infringing material, it is possible that such information may be added in the future. By visiting the sites you link periodically, editors may ensure that the linked site owners have not changed content in a way that might be a problem. 2101:

When I uploaded the image, the CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions tag was not offered on the upload page as an option. GFDL seemed to be the proper category. There are a few other points and questions I want to bring up here.1. Except in cases of obvious vandalism, it's at least

526:

So if neither the authors, nor e.g. the Knowledge (XXG) foundation, are mentioned explicitly as copyright owners, could there be considered as implicitly given, i.e., possible to determin from the context in some legally valid manner? First of all, I do not know if the law recognises

1581:) and is not a "private" number. In fact, quite a large set of numbers of multiple offices within the City of Corpus Christi are posted on their website. Thus, I find Husnock's claims that posting this information would expose them to harassment, stalking, etc. to be without basis. 628:

Thanks for the answers - and I'm sorry if my question is hard to read. I have one remaining unanswered question, and a couple of follow-up questions. The unanswered one is: Is an anonymous IP address or an alias user name in the history list legally valid author determinations? My

2443:

he and Skinny McGee are trying to get away with adding to the article in question. There are no copyright issues involved. The radio interview was broadcast live and the subject of that interview has made the recording of that broadcast including station ID publically available.

332:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover

1588:. My only option to confirm this image was to provide the e-mail I recieved which contained a full name, personal e-mail, and private office line of someone who researched this for me as a favor. I am sure they would not appreciate me posting thier name and number on the web. - 343:

It is not, however, explicitly said that this applies to the whole of Knowledge (XXG) unless otherwise stated (fair use images etc). I think it should be made clear that it does, because otherwise someone who wants to be a jerk could argue that it applies only to the

416:

As far as I know, a legally valid copyright note must contain explicit information on who (i.e., the name(s) of the physical and or juridical person(s)) claims the copyright, and the year of taking it. I do not know if there is any exemption from this in the form of

780:. This sounds like attribution is non-mandatory, unlike CC-by-sa which is explicit about attribution. I'm also not clear on how GFDL deals with attribution. With these licenses, should I / am I allowed to put in a note saying "you must attribute so-and-so"? Thanks. 1574:

contact a number of people before contacting the right person who can handle this request at the City of Corpus Christi. In this particular case, I am contacting the City Secretary of Corpus Christi to verify the copyright status of this image. That information is

107:

Hi, someone recently objected to my removal of links, saying that torrent sites and search engines do not distribute illegal links themselves. Would you say this is a valid line of logic? I'd say it makes Knowledge (XXG) look bad, and should be discouraged anyway.

2480:, a site that allows anyone to upload audio recordings. While the site does display the message "Please do not upload copyrighed files", I suspect that not everybody pays attention to it. We need to watch this site to see if it will cause any copyvio problems. -- 1026:

to the infringment of the people who followed those links and loaded the material they would not have had permission to access. Also, I think it is silly to add a citation needed note to the fact distributing copyright material sets us in a bad light.

883:

v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry reference since it is the extreme exception, not the rule. Whoever put it there, searched case law far and wide to find the one case that made their point. They ignored the thousands of cases that were laughed out of court.

2138:

I would take the tagging as that of an admin or bot and respond likewise. NE2 is neither admin nor authorized bot, and I have a right as an editor to pull his deletion tags and replace with valid use copyright tags, if the ones NE2 put on aren't

2011:

the US itself. Unless it as PD in Poland itself before a scertain date (wich escape me at the moment) I think the usual life +70 (or if author is not known 120 years from creation or 95 years from publication (wichever is shorter)) rule apply.

827:

A user has copy-pasted to the Turkish Knowledge (XXG) an article from a commercial site written in Turkish, this text was a translation of an article in the English Knowledge (XXG). Is this submission to the Turkish Knowledge (XXG) a copyright

2676:

a thus altered version of the text can *only* be re-used under GFDL/WP:C (other/prior copyright holders of previous unaltered versions can not impose different conditions/permissions unilaterally on the modified "Knowledge (XXG)" version). --

430:, accompanied with a couple of sentences summarising it, and a reference to the full copyright text. I've never ever considered the idea that a reference to the full text without any enumeration of copyright holders would be legally valid. 2176:

If you'd just left me a note that you thought that map was out of a book, I would have fixed it, since it apparently IS out of a book (I had no idea, since I didn't make it originally) I will replace it. I would ask in the future that you

1689:

Actually, I was asking you to explain the difference between the two tags because another user, long ago, had mentioned that the "norightsreserved" was only for new images. I never said I thought that was true, I was asking if it was.

2152:

a problem, I'll just scribble up a diagram myself. IMA, I can get probably better pix of Brighton Park Junction off Trainweb, or just walk down there and take a freaking picture myself. I still want to know what NE2's problem is with

1788:

It looks like that the statement "In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)", contained in WP:COPYRIGHTS is not compatible with

1619:, and clarify just what their release is. Husnock claims they are releasing it for any purpose, but it does not strike me as that. This is why it is important to have this contact information to help clarify situations like this. 1413:

After forwarding a consent receipt via email to permissions, how do I acknowledge the source using the {{confirmations}} template? I have received consent for Image:Seymour Knox I.jpg and Image:Seymour Knox III, II, and IV.jpg.

685:

Copyright notices (or registrations) have not been required in the U.S. since 1989. There is apparently no difference legally in having the notice or note. Having the material registered does allow a slight advantage in court.

652:

of copyright does material without explicit copyright notes default to? (My reason for asking: If we don't make valid specific copyright notes, perhaps this default is what the courts would find really holds for our material.)

2166:

I was looking at articles and saw a map that I had seen before. I went to the image description page and the information was incomplete. Thus I checked through all your images and found a few more with incomplete information.

2648:

license, if the prior web version is licensed differently from the book). Which means: if you copy it from a source that makes the text available under GFDL (...Knowledge (XXG)), you'd need to follow these license conditions

1597:

As noted, their information is already posted on the web. What we need is the title and name of the person who made the release, so we don't have to cast about within the city government trying to find the right person.

2936:

I'd like to see this page unprotected - adminstrators don't have any special legal knowledge, and this has not to my knowledge been the subject of serious vandalism to the degree that it needs protection permanently. -

2496:

The shortcut used to be WP:C, but it was just changed to WP:CR, along with many changes to other pages using that shortcut. Why was this done? This seems like a big change to happen with no discussion beforehand.

2234:

No good to make such a significant change without allowing for discussion first. You seem to have made the change, then posted to "discussion." Please undo the edit, then we'll discuss the change here. Thanks.

716: 613: 2206:

I believe this is the correct interpretation, this old paragraph that said that fair use was acceptable as long as no free licensed work was available is clearly out of step with the more recent changes to

1053:

is correct, then the present copyright policy is not sufficient. Based on your statement of the law from Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, I have added the following to the copyright policy:

2290:

Hi, Maybe you missed the call for a discussion here, but I had asked for it deliberately after seeing JW's intervention elsewhere in an ongoing RfC in which the longstanding policy figured prominently:

1480:

you also release the material written by you under a different license than exclusively GFDL, and/or via a medium different from Knowledge (XXG), all the conditions of the GFDL license, as clarified in

574:

The formatting of your comment makes it hard to read, but I think you're asking if Knowledge (XXG) articles are copyrighted, if so who holds the copyright, and what you're allowed to do with articles.

541:

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, each contribution is copyrighted under the GDFL by the person having made the contribution, at the time the contribution was made, as recorded in the history pages.

1998:

to be copyright it had to follow the copyright rules in 1940s --for USA, it had to be registered at US Copyright Office. That was not done so it was never under US copyright, then or now, I believe.

213: 2617:? (...how would one establish that without at least some e-mail communication? - forwarding/CC-ing such communications to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" wouldn't be too difficult I suppose) 1555:, etc) probbaly have better things to do than file lawsits (which they would lose) against Knowledge (XXG). I mean no offense to this person, it just seems that we should all remember the policy 2383:

still agree with you on the fair use thing; we should be able to use promophotos under fair use, but this didn't really make a good argument. Nice try though.)--Jeff 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

769:

Which copyright license would you guys recommend for an image if the main requirement is attribution (eg. the name of the original photographer)? The Free Software Foundation recommends the

949:

75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) the court only found liabilty after the defendant was enjoined from itself posting the infringing copies directly, and replaced the material with links.

2060:

As far as I can see, you're not being harrassed. The two of you are simply disagreeing. If Tubezone has Bill Gustason's permission to upload said image, he should forward the e-mail to

612:

To make point two more clear, the United States is considered the country where the material is published (although some countries may disagree, regardless most countries are under the

945:, 337 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1202 n.12 (N.D. Cal. 2004) the court said "Hyperlinking per se does not constitute direct copyright infringement because there is no copying." Also note that in 1499:, but for clarity:) note also that if you contributed unacceptable material that is permanently deleted from Knowledge (XXG), it would be better not to implicate Knowledge (XXG). -- 675:

I cannot accept, without some guarantee that the professionals do have looked into it, found solutions, - and that their rules are followed, not voted away by a majority of laymen.

2850:

at the end, but I have never came to the end (re article size). I don't think it really qualifies as a manual, although it is an (overly) comprehensive language reference, akin to

2130:

Really, does this qualify as harrassment? When these deletion notices turned up on my watchlist, I assumed a bot or admin had done it, and it had admin authority to tag them, like

2854:. I'm not sure how the article structure and intention matches WP policies — there are just a few similar ones, and it is a borderline case. But my original intention was to ask 1457:

Suppose I contribute an article to Knowledge (XXG) (written entirely by me as of now). A friend wants to publish that in his blog. Does he attribute it to me or to wikipedia? --

1569:

I am not asking for personal information or private phone numbers. I am asking for a contact point to be able to independently verify copyright status if such is necessary.

2672:

will also define which conditions need to be followed (depending on case: GFDL, or publisher's permission, or whatever that applies for the source where you copied from).

1847:

one. If this rule means we will miss a picture of a CMOS chip in a $ 3,000 professional camera, or of a cut away Lamborghini V-10 engine, well, it is not such a big loss.

644:

First two follow-ups: If I understand your answers concerning what you call point two (the only important point here) correctly, you mean that an explicit copy notice is

2354:) which nullifies a point I have presented in talks going on right now regarding various users systamaticly tagging fair use images which are in need of justification. 1000: 992: 981: 867: 2846:. I know very well that the article is far from perfect; I did spend some time on wikification myself, but gave up after about a third of it. I thought the reference 394:(where some authors questioned the right to translate articles from other language WPs), I have spent some time trying to understand the copyright discussion on the 586:

of this copyright and exactly who holds it in the case of a collectively-edited document like a wiki page hasn't been determined by the courts, but it still exists.

2414:

Hi, is it allowable to reference radio interviews? If so, is it allowable to upload a radio interview into a free hosting website, and use that as the reference?

1961: 293:

I dont know where to report this-but there's a huge copyright violation on Yael Dayan's wikipedia page. I went to google her- and I found the same information on

2142:

I am still puzzled as to why my images are being targeted by NE2, or why anything I've written so far would even in the mildest sense be considered harrassment.

1711:

The CopyrightedFreeUse Template should never be used. It has been deprecated since february 2006 and will be deleted as soon as all transclusions are replaced.

590:

authorship. For a translation from Knowledge (XXG) in another language, this can be done by a note such as "Translated from the French Knowledge (XXG) article

1473:

You, Knowledge (XXG) or both. That is, if you didn't need to invoke "fair use" or anything in that vein when you authored that article "entirely by yourself".

2633:

of the copyright status of a copied text. But if you know how to reach the person in question, you're very well placed to send him a request as explained in

2512:

unavoidable or at least I do not know how to avoid it. I intend to do it again to enable me to use other encyclopedias as a source. See here for an example.

1197:

policy. In general, linking to known or probable copyvio material is forbidden, as it can be considered contributory copyright infringement by the courts. --

2634: 2604: 2316:

is as it is I think it's simply a matter of common sense to keep the policy pages internaly consistent in order to minimise confusion, and like it or not

2050:

and other similar images gave permission to license them appropriately. Can someone help? Was I too hard on him? Does he need more evidence? Thank you. --

1133:

I don't like the "sheds a bad light" wording at all — for one thing, it's POV. It seems like an unnecessary sentence to include at all. Can we strike it?

409:

Is the Knowledge (XXG) as a whole, ore are its articles, legally copyrighted? If so, how, and where can I read the actual legally valid copyright note(s)?

257: 2988: 2106:

to put a warning on the author's talk page when you tag his contributions for deletion. 2. Putting comments on my talk page that I might be a liar is a

424:

I have worked with a software project for a number of years. We license under a GPL version. However, that means that we start any document by a notice

395: 2528:. If they are long, it is a copyright violation. Obviously, this is something that could only be decided in court, so be careful; link where possible. 391: 2564:

re-publishes here under the GFDL, he is still free to publish it also at yet other places; the GFDL is a non-exclusive license. IANAL and all that.

1944: 498:

In the archived discussions, some contributers claimed that since the rule of citing up to 5 main contributers of an article only is mentioned for

988: 94: 790:

I believe CC-by-sa is considered a "free license" and it would certainly meet your (and our) needs. You can always add another license later. -

2661:

Knowledge (XXG), and for the content copied from Knowledge (XXG), if GFDL/WP:C is followed, Knowledge (XXG) doesn't need to "intervene" either.

1924: 141:

Instead of removing such links for third-parties who may believe this to be unethical, we should inform them of the points I made previously.--

2265: 1923:

Can a title made with WordArt and then saved as a .jpg/.png be uploaded under GFDL? what about if it is trying to emulate the "Steely Dan" of

1353: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2098:

edits, he pulled my images practically out of a hat to target, and I still don't know why. Here's the text of what I put on NE2's talk page:

1063:

Linking involves instructing another's browser to go to another Web site. Before considering using links in Knowledge (XXG), editors should:

548:

I think some people are of the opinion that this indeed is the correct interpretation of our copyright rules; so perhaps something like this

2249: 1049:

I see that you have been giving this same legal advise to others for some time and I believe that you are being sincere. If your reading of

468: 461: 2453:

Let's let those who know about these policies make a decision. As for the reason, I want to make sure we're not infringing on copyrights.

671:, then I'll drop this - but I'll also find any discussions on particular points a waste of time. On the other hand, a 'consensus' stating 2797:

article? As is, the "language features" article reads like a light "manual" to me (as Mike M. said, "based on overhead projector slides"

2307:

inconsistency between the two now that the fair use policy have been changed and speedy deletion criterea to enforce it have been added?

2610:

I don't see very well how otherwise one would demonstrate that a certain user account can be identified with the copyright holder(s)...

965: 2992: 2867: 2557: 371:

published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.", so at least there isn't room for quibbling about new versions there. --

2261: 1142: 3045: 2688: 2276:

not here, I just fixed the inconsistency between the two that was most likely a caused by a simple oversight in the first place. --

1867:

We have plenty of fair use images, with exception of dead people, almost all the news images can be replaced under that reasoning.

1357: 531:

or not; perhaps some wikipedian with legal training could answer that. Second, I don't understand where and how this is done here.

307:

Actually answers.com is a pretty well known mirror site of ours and is already listed in the link directly above your question. --

2891:

If there are still within the term of copyright, the state would hold it but many probably have other kinds of legal protections.

2756: 1699: 1611:

Further, I do not believe that the release that has been made is sufficient to our policies here. Quoting the release (posted at

2918:

I reprotcted Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights too much legal stuff and can't really be messed around with, that should be permanent

2077:

Actually I don't think it's a scan from a book, but an edited screenshot from a mapping program. That would make it unfree. --

2046:

I'm being harrassed by this user because I'm not an admin and suggested that he needs to provide evidence that the creator of

1612: 1539: 2762:) wrote a book about it, the least you could do is mention that book in a "references" section at the bottom of the article; 1556: 1439: 276: 506:

ones. Now, as fr as I understand the GNU text, this is just because a verbatim version is supposed to start with that line

2094:

Pardon me, but I'm not the one that brought up the copyvio issue. These images have been on WP for months. If you look at

1570: 1099: 2292: 1766:. In that time, we've received input from three people. I doubt we're going to get much, if any, additional traffic. -- 1175: 200:

Could the top anonymous contributer please give an example, I am struggling to understand what sort of thing you mean--

47: 17: 2829:

You could have asked and I'd have provided you full disclosure, instead of digging through the diffs and contributions

1674: 1664: 1654: 1378: 1279: 874: 1835:

I acknowledge that there is no consensus. But, for what is worth, I support the removal of fair use images that are

38: 2212: 941:

54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1344 (C.D. Cal. 2000), the court held that a link itself does not violate the Copyright Act, and in

810: 2948:

I second Jaranda's reasoning. This is one of those few pages that in practice should just about never be edited.

2938: 2910: 2766: 2713: 976: 862: 467:

Doing this explicitly does (I suppose) provide a legal copyright. I have found nothing similar to this anywhere (

376: 361: 2800:) - Instruction manuals etc are a no-no in Knowledge (XXG) (but they're definitely welcomed in Wikibooks!), see 2778: 1022:(since they had already decided to infringe and were not connected to the defendants), but the court found they 2691:

may, or may not, be applicable here too. Depends on case. If the content of the author's contribution would be

2498: 1762:

Also, this discussion started four days ago. Three days ago I posted a message about it at the far more active

1584:

You should be aware that a great number of U.S. government websites are blocked to me as I am currently in the

839:

the original text was really in the Public Domain: the translation is copyrighted and owned by the translator.

1361: 975:

knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of

961: 861:

knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of

648:

necessary under present US law. This was clearly not the case in older days; so when did the law change, and

1934: 1810:

The statements appear to reflect a lack of consensus in the community that extends quite a bit farther :-/.

1465: 315: 268: 183: 3041: 3033: 2650: 2146:

However, the cut-off text in the lower left corner makes me think that it is actually a scan from some book

1482: 953: 345: 2996: 2882: 1650:

Lastly, Husnock has used a tag that has been deprecated for more than half a year. The tag he has used is

1303:

Blaming Youtuble for provideing copyrighted material illegaly is like saying Knowledge (XXG) is inacurate.

656:

Second follow-up: Is the GFDL 1.2 simply obsolete, in demanding an explicit line with year and author(s)?

145: 2782: 2640:

Re. "re-use": the situation after GFDL has been applied to said text by the copyright holder(s) would be

1939: 737:

Is an anonymous IP address or an alias user name in the history list legally valid author determinations?

2805: 2696: 2677: 1500: 1443: 1397: 1385: 1366: 1211: 957: 911: 884: 1249: 3037: 2047: 873:

Intellectual Reserve is a Utah federal district court case from 1999. This policy also is repeated at

753: 595: 2878: 2750: 2746: 2253: 1525: 1106: 372: 357: 1227:

Right or wrong, it doesn't much matter, as the key issue here is Knowledge (XXG) policy anyway. The

1180: 1167: 773:

over Creative Commons licenses, but I'm concerned about where the FAL states "DIRECTIONS FOR USE...

483:

2533: 1150: 1046: 1028: 898: 699: 2919: 2949: 2629:

Who are or are not your acquaintances is irrelevant to the copyright issue, it doesn't establish

2422: 2347: 1930: 1616: 1548: 1458: 308: 261: 222: 132: 117: 348:

page itself, or is just an example or whatever. The argument may not be particularly valid, but

591: 3063: 3013: 2481: 2325: 2281: 2224: 2017: 1971: 1415: 552:

written in some legally valid document. If so, I'd very much wish a link to it. However, even

472: 161:, but normally we should not be linking from an article to a set of search results, anyway. - 142: 2208: 1518:

Submissions from the celebrity himself or herself or a legal representative of the celebrity.

637:'s answer) is that it would be a court or police matter to decide who really was the author, 3068: 3017: 3000: 2972: 2943: 2923: 2895: 2885: 2808: 2725: 2699: 2680: 2586: 2568: 2536: 2518: 2501: 2486: 2457: 2447: 2429: 2404: 2373: 2358: 2329: 2301: 2285: 2239: 2228: 2185: 2171: 2161: 2123: 2081: 2068: 2054: 2021: 2002: 1993: 1990: 1978: 1950: 1913: 1890: 1871: 1854: 1826: 1814: 1804: 1770: 1753: 1743: 1732: 1715: 1706: 1694: 1684: 1641: 1631: 1602: 1592: 1563: 1528: 1503: 1467: 1446: 1433: 1418: 1400: 1388: 1369: 1331: 1256: 1214: 1201: 1187: 1153: 1137: 1127: 1109: 1093: 1031: 1007: 926: 920: 914: 901: 887: 843: 832: 817: 798: 795: 784: 770: 756: 702: 690: 679: 620: 607: 568: 379: 364: 317: 301: 287: 284: 270: 250: 225: 207: 187: 169: 166: 148: 135: 120: 2877:

Does anyone know who holds copyrights of US state seals? What is their copyright status? /

2801: 2770: 2709: 2317: 2313: 2308: 2273: 2269: 2178: 2111: 1790: 1579: 1496: 669:

Don't bother, we know what we mean, and hopefully it will never be tested by a court anyhow

336:

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

111:

IMHO something needs to be added to the Copyrights Policy to prevent such disagreements. --

2473: 1851: 1801: 1103: 556:

there is such a note, and it is legally valid, I don't see how this solves most problems.

471:

someone, perhaps the author, who tried to make an explicit copyright note to a section of

247: 204: 179: 2858:— there is no point in fixing flaws of the article if it has to be deleted as a copyvio. 1763: 1275: 1228: 1194: 1121:

linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us.

910:

That is simply not a true statement under current US law. Stop spreading misinformation.

2863: 2721: 2582: 2553: 2529: 2469: 2454: 2444: 2436: 2426: 2415: 2236: 2131: 1328: 1146: 2708:

OK, thanks, will do the request for permission just to clarify the matter. There's no

1906: 1145:

only applies to the main namespace. All of our policies are POV, and for good reason!

2892: 2370: 2355: 2182: 2158: 2120: 2040: 1232: 1198: 1124: 1090: 1004: 687: 676: 634: 617: 604: 565: 218: 128: 113: 518:

without which the license is just an information of what a license would look like.

3009: 2985:

If not the Wikimedia Foundation, who exactly owns WP articles' copyrights, anyway?

2641: 2515: 2321: 2277: 2220: 2216: 2215:. Hopefully this will cut down on the confution about wether or not applying the {{ 2013: 1999: 1967: 1750: 1712: 1691: 1628: 1589: 1560: 1430: 1253: 1184: 829: 814: 1680:

because the image is not a 'new' image, but the application of the tag is new. --

1623:

administrator on this site for several years, when there are those out there who

740: 596:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mati%C3%A8re_f%C3%A9cale&oldid=10368554

446: 2401: 2393: 1986: 1839:, even when this is difficult to do so; after all, we are striving to produce a 1585: 811:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fair use#Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure

791: 781: 715:"? -- In the U.S., the law changed in 1989, when the U.S. became a party to the 564:

entry, in most cases. Does the non-named contributions enter the public domain?

298: 280: 162: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2435:

owner/subject to host it on a non-affiliated site. I uploaded it directly from

2397: 3055: 2298: 1887: 1868: 1823: 1767: 1740: 1729: 1703: 1681: 1638: 1599: 1543: 349: 201: 175: 2007:

I think (but am far from sure) that that only apply to stuff first published

999:

contribute to infringement by those websites' operators. Thus, I removed the

2859: 2717: 2695:, or blatantly self-promotional, etc... WP:COI would apply automatically. -- 2578: 2565: 2549: 2439: 2419: 2065: 1910: 1183:? Is there a passage in a policy statement that addresses this directly? -- 1134: 732: 1781:

Incompatibility between WP:Copyrights and Knowledge (XXG):Fair use criteria

991:, 114 F.Supp.2d 896, 920, (N.D.Cal., 2000), the court expressly found that 1850:

However, I see there is no consensus. So, what is people expected to do?--

294: 174:

Correct. Note that a serch query will return different results with time.

2851: 2802:

WP:NOT#Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information

2668:... that is no GFDL exclusivity, that is just general copyright law. So, 2525: 2168: 2095: 2078: 2051: 1210:

Ridiculous statement of a non lawyer. Links are almost never actionable.

1068:

First attempt to obtain permission for linking outside of Knowledge (XXG)

1179:

in this case copyrighted TV episodes uploade to YouTube -- excisable as

2794: 2507:

Unavoidable breach of copyright on talk page of controversial articles?

1811: 1163: 840: 2842: 2781:

seems to have been neglected. But I have a better idea: why don't you

2346:

Can people just change language of this policy without a disscussion?

778: 246:

is using wikipedia material without following licencing requirments.--

212:

I was the person who wrote the first two paragraphs. Here's the link.

2396:" and for some bio articles I would like to use some images from the 2213:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fair use#how to bring WP:FUC and WP:C into line?

1886:

We need to try and bring thes policies into line. Any ideas please?--

2790: 2418:

uploaded a radio interview into the free hosting website GoEar.com,

1985:

good sense to consider it acceptable fair use under our policies. -

2294:

We need to try and bring thes policies into line. Any ideas please?

1700:

Template_talk:CopyrightedFreeUse#This_template_should_be_deprecated

2148:

This has been shrunk and fiddled with numerous times, but if it's

717:

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

491:

to retain the ownership of the copyrights of their contributions,

2738:

Well, shows the downsides of discussing examples "in abstracto":

2595:(edit conflict, somewhat more elaborate answer:) Please make the 214:

Knowledge (XXG):Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 September 3

3059: 2786: 1552: 1018:

You are right they did not contribute to the infringment of the

673:

Don't bother, these things are too hard to understand for laymen

659:

Third follow-up: Can we use the GFDL 1.2 without complying with

1559:. Anyway, extra comments on this flag issue would be welcome. - 1080:

In your article, include disclaimers for outside web site links

238:

Webiste using wikipedia material without compliance to the GFDL

449:

our copyright page is referring to states about the GDFL 1.2:

25: 1797:

be created that would adequately give the same information".

534:

Perhaps it would be useful to write something somewhere like

479:

the section were promptly removed). There is a common way of

243: 2793:, leaving an appropriate interwiki-link to that page in the 2425:

article. Let me know if this violates the copyright policy.

2211:

wich I should take presidence on fair use matters. See also

1538:

I need some outside assistance and other editor opinions at

2777:

might be necessary to keep it in Knowledge (XXG), and also

1123:

I have added a "citation needed" note to that sentence.--

1424:

Placing copyright on material copied from Knowledge (XXG)

1098:

This is a question which really needs to be discussed at

809:

I've asked what I think is an important question over at

729:

Does the non-named contributions enter the public domain?

1440:

Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process

823:

Is translation of a public domain article public domain?

616:

and recognize copyright without an explicit statement.)

487:, namely that journal. In this case, however, we assume 2798: 2760: 2624:? (...might be the book publisher as mentioned by Lupo) 2542: 2513: 2367: 2351: 2257: 1627:

committing copyright violations harmful to this site. -

947:

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry,

777:, specify the names of the previous authors or artists" 421:; if so, I'd like to have a short explanation of this. 1522:

I think it should be changed to "herself or himself."

2477: 339:

Content on Knowledge (XXG) is covered by disclaimers.

2613:

Is the Knowledge (XXG) user account operated by the

1514:

In the section on Celebrity photographs, it writes:

805:Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure 1800:Which of the two policies rules over the other?-- 260:asking them to give credit to Knowledge (XXG) -- 2543:Author's publication of text on WP and elsewhere 2272:to enforce it... Fair use policy is detailed on 2202:Regarding my recent edit to the fair use section 1905:I'm not a fan of the directions in the section " 1051:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 1001:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 993:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 982:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 868:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 2635:Knowledge (XXG):Example requests for permission 2605:Knowledge (XXG):Example requests for permission 2320:describe how things are corrently working... -- 1962:Image:Lapanka zoliborz warszawa Polska 1941.jpg 1362:Expositions - Ministère des Affaires étrangères 1003:citation and added a "citation needed" note.-- 995:held that posting links to infringing websites 1571:Knowledge (XXG):Image_use_policy#Adding_images 328:On the Copyrights page, it says this in bold: 258:Knowledge (XXG):Standard GFDL violation letter 3062:to the present. It is an ongoing project. -- 2767:Fortran language features#Internal procedures 2664:Note that when re-using you'd always need to 2410:A question about referencing radio interviews 741:http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html 8: 2468:I just found links in a couple of articles ( 2366:FYI that language I refer to was first seen 2219:}} tag to images is within policy or not. -- 1488:If you contributed to Knowledge (XXG) as an 1356:, but apparently no one knows. According to 663:specific demands for author specifications? 392:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Mathematics 103:What about torrents? Torrent search engines? 2607:) to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". 1248:Also, please accept a friendly reminder to 765:Which license for attribution requirements? 735:article needs to say something about this. 1282:are Knowledge (XXG) guidlines, not policy. 1613:Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg 1540:Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg 1354:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Free image resources 582:Knowledge (XXG) articles are copyrighted. 460:(You have the same text on the wikipedia 442:I really licensing (in the legal sense)? 386:Where is WP material legally copyrighted? 2524:If the quotes are short, it is probably 2262:the talk page of publicity photots essay 1115:As shedding bad light on Knowledge (XXG) 989:A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 495:agree on GFDL terms for this copyright. 398:page, and on the archived talkpages for 2873:Who holds copyrights of US state seals? 2712:whatsoever, the article in question is 2119:issue, they're available for free use. 813:, and I'd appreciate anyone's input. – 419:implicit copyright notes with templates 396:Wikipedia_talk:Translation into English 352:can still take lots of time and money. 295:http://www.answers.com/topic/yael-dayan 242:I'm not sure where to report this, but 159:in an article on torrent search engines 1968:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 529:implicitly specified copyright holders 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2268:, various RFC's etc and naturaly the 1702:is a possibly good place to start. -- 1670:. Husnock claims that it's ok to use 1660:. But, that tag has been replaced by 434:other words, by submitting I clearly 7: 2689:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest 2421:and used that as a reference in the 1907:If you find a copyright infringement 1793:"No free equivalent is available or 1358:Knowledge (XXG):Free image resources 943:Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc. 1637:particularly valid from my view. -- 1074:Periodically visit all sites linked 641:the thing ever got legally tested. 502:versions, it does not apply to the 2653:), which includes republishing it 2110:that is prohibited by policy. See 1348:French Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1174:This is a similar to the original 275:And the main place to not this is 24: 2771:Knowledge (XXG)'s Manual of style 2765:Expressions like "We say that " ( 1557:Knowledge (XXG):Assume good faith 1119:The policy presently states that 277:Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks 2841: 2062:permissions AT wikimedia DOT org 1235:points out, prohibit such links. 1100:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Disclaimers 29: 2769:) aren't really optimal w.r.t. 919:Stop spreading misinformation. 157:So it would be an illegal link 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Copyrights 2266:Wikiproject fair use talk page 2116:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat 426:Copyright (C) <name(s): --> 380:11:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 365:10:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 324:Clarity of application of GFDL 318:04:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 302:01:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 288:17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 271:03:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 251:01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 226:03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 208:13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 3069:00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 3018:08:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 3008:The people who wrote them. -- 3001:05:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 2973:00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 2944:05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 2924:03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 2896:21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 2886:19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 2868:16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2809:15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2741:The article completely lacks 2726:14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2700:12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2681:11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2587:11:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2569:10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2558:10:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 2519:21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2502:18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 2487:23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 2342:"If you find copyright Image" 2330:09:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2302:08:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2286:07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2248:It's been debated plenty see 2240:06:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2229:16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2186:18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2172:12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2162:10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2124:06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2082:09:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2069:08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2055:06:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2022:09:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2003:20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1994:20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1979:17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1951:14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1914:23:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 1891:15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 1872:02:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1855:23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1827:19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1815:16:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1805:16:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1771:14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1754:06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1744:05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1733:02:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1707:14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1695:14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1685:14:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1642:14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1632:14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1603:14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1593:14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1564:04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1529:00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1504:13:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 1468:12:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 1447:19:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1434:19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1138:23:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 1128:17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1110:09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 1094:00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 1032:17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 1008:17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 875:links normally to be avoided. 598:)" as the first edit summary. 512:Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME. 188:19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 170:19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 149:21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 136:05:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 121:02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2779:Knowledge (XXG):Article size 2620:Is the author the exclusive 2458:22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 2448:20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 2430:19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 2405:08:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 2398:Nord Stream AG image gallery 2374:05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 2359:05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 1716:17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 1419:23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 1401:09:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 1389:08:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 1370:22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 1332:12:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 1280:links normally to be avoided 1257:13:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 1215:07:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 1202:06:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1188:20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 939:Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com, 927:11:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 915:08:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 902:08:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 888:07:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 855:As contributory infringement 850:Linking to copyrighted works 844:15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 833:13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 818:17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 757:17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 667:If the consensus opinion is 485:to an explicitly named party 2537:08:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 2350:carfully changed language ( 2258:policy vilage pump archices 1394:Magnifique! Merci beaucoup! 1154:08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 859:The sentence inquestion is 799:02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 785:09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 703:15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 691:14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 680:12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 621:03:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 608:01:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 569:21:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 3085: 2651:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights 614:Berne Copyright Convention 475:she had written; the note 346:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights 2911:User talk:Aaron Brenneman 2714:Fortran language features 977:contributory infringement 968:) 03:21, 13 November 2006 863:contributory infringement 2666:mention where you got it 2270:speedy deletion criterea 447:one of the GNU documents 126:Copied from archives. -- 2789:, or maybe even better 1617:Commons:Email templates 1379:French Foreign Ministry 1352:I tried asking this at 1231:policy does indeed, as 1176:question about torrents 713:when did the law change 390:Due to a discussion on 3029:published? ~ Kristin 2804:for further detail. -- 1485:, need to be followed. 979:in the United States ( 865:in the United States ( 2991:comment was added by 2254:mailing list archives 1927:(for a WikiProject)? 1384:should do the trick! 1143:Neutral Point of View 603:I hope this helps. -- 42:of past discussions. 2032:Article Subbmission? 1843:encyclopedia, not a 1483:wikipedia:Copyrights 522:Implicit authorship? 256:You can send them a 2743:external references 2599:of the text send a 2597:copyright holder(s) 2499:Milo H Minderbinder 2352:see comparison here 2250:archives of WT:FAIR 1901:Role of Wikipedians 1497:Assuming good faith 1327:blame never arises 1047:User:Dragons flight 489:the various authors 2745:: If Mike M. (aka 2478:http://boomp3.com/ 2423:Midnight Syndicate 2348:User:Alex_Bakharev 1956:Can we presume PD? 1675:CopyrightedFreeUse 1665:No rights reserved 1655:CopyrightedFreeUse 1549:Republic of Turkey 1534:Outside assistance 1476:Note however that 1278:and in particular 436:agree to licensing 3050: 3036:comment added by 3004: 2932: 2913: 2603:(in the sense of 2492:Changed shortcut? 2392:For the article " 2179:assume good faith 2048:Image:Brpkmap.jpg 1020:website operators 970: 956:comment added by 924: 592:fr:Matière fécale 473:Biological patent 186: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3076: 3049: 3030: 3016: 2986: 2969: 2967: 2965: 2963: 2961: 2941: 2930: 2908: 2866: 2845: 2806:Francis Schonken 2724: 2697:Francis Schonken 2678:Francis Schonken 2670:where you got it 2622:copyright holder 2585: 2556: 2438:to the new site 2328: 2284: 2227: 2020: 1976: 1974: 1947: 1942: 1937: 1679: 1673: 1669: 1663: 1659: 1653: 1501:Francis Schonken 1463: 1444:Francis Schonken 1383: 1377: 1365:are uploaded? — 987:is not true. In 969: 950: 922: 771:Free Art license 731:No. I think the 427:<year(s): --> 313: 266: 178: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3084: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3054:Every day from 3031: 3026:Knowledge (XXG) 3012: 2987:—The preceding 2983: 2959: 2957: 2955: 2953: 2951: 2939: 2904: 2875: 2862: 2720: 2581: 2552: 2545: 2509: 2494: 2474:Joseph McCarthy 2466: 2412: 2390: 2344: 2324: 2280: 2223: 2204: 2108:personal attack 2044: 2034: 2016: 1977: 1972: 1966: 1958: 1945: 1940: 1935: 1921: 1903: 1783: 1677: 1671: 1667: 1661: 1657: 1651: 1536: 1526:Stovetopcookies 1512: 1459: 1455: 1426: 1411: 1381: 1375: 1350: 1172: 1117: 951: 857: 852: 825: 807: 767: 524: 456: 388: 373:Coffee2theorems 358:Coffee2theorems 350:stupid lawsuits 326: 309: 262: 240: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3082: 3080: 3072: 3071: 3021: 3020: 2982: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2946: 2931:End copied bit 2916: 2915: 2903: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2874: 2871: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2763: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2703: 2702: 2684: 2683: 2673: 2662: 2638: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2618: 2608: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2572: 2571: 2544: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2508: 2505: 2493: 2490: 2470:Amelia Earhart 2465: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2416:User:GuardianZ 2411: 2408: 2389: 2388:Ask for advice 2386: 2385: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2343: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2243: 2242: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2140: 2132:User:OrphanBot 2128: 2127: 2126: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2072: 2071: 2063: 2043: 2038: 2033: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 1965: 1957: 1954: 1920: 1917: 1902: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1848: 1830: 1829: 1818: 1817: 1782: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1760: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1535: 1532: 1520: 1519: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1493: 1486: 1474: 1454: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1425: 1422: 1410: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1360:, photos from 1349: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1276:External links 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1229:external links 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1205: 1204: 1195:external links 1171: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1116: 1113: 1087: 1086: 1077: 1071: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1029:Dragons flight 1024:did contribute 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 971: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 917: 905: 904: 899:Dragons flight 891: 890: 856: 853: 851: 848: 847: 846: 824: 821: 806: 803: 802: 801: 775:if appropriate 766: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 747: 746: 745: 744: 723: 722: 721: 720: 706: 705: 700:Dragons flight 694: 693: 666: 626: 625: 624: 623: 601: 600: 599: 587: 583: 576: 575: 546: 545: 544: 543: 523: 520: 516: 515: 514: 513: 458: 453: 451: 414: 413: 412: 411: 387: 384: 383: 382: 341: 340: 337: 334: 325: 322: 321: 320: 291: 290: 273: 239: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 193: 192: 191: 190: 172: 152: 151: 138: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3081: 3070: 3067: 3066: 3065:Donald Albury 3061: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3028: 3027: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2980: 2974: 2971: 2970: 2947: 2945: 2942: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2921: 2914: 2912: 2906: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2880: 2872: 2870: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2810: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2739: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2694: 2693:controversial 2690: 2686: 2685: 2682: 2679: 2674: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2636: 2632: 2631:verifiability 2628: 2623: 2619: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2609: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2538: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2514: 2506: 2504: 2503: 2500: 2491: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2484: 2483:Donald Albury 2479: 2475: 2471: 2463: 2459: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2446: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2417: 2409: 2407: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2387: 2381: 2380: 2375: 2372: 2369: 2368:July 31, 2006 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2341: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2310: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2241: 2238: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2201: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2156: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2122: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2100: 2099: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2070: 2067: 2061: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2053: 2049: 2042: 2041:User:Tubezone 2039: 2037: 2031: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2010: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1975: 1969: 1963: 1955: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1933: 1932: 1926: 1918: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1908: 1900: 1892: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1820: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1803: 1798: 1796: 1792: 1786: 1780: 1772: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1752: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1731: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1676: 1666: 1656: 1649: 1643: 1640: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1621: 1620: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1604: 1601: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1580: 1577: 1572: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1545: 1542:. There is a 1541: 1533: 1531: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1464: 1462: 1452: 1448: 1445: 1441: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1432: 1423: 1421: 1420: 1417: 1408: 1402: 1399: 1398:BrianSmithson 1395: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1387: 1386:193.251.1.172 1380: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1368: 1367:BrianSmithson 1363: 1359: 1355: 1347: 1333: 1330: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1281: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1258: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1216: 1213: 1212:71.139.23.245 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1155: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1114: 1112: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1096: 1095: 1092: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1075: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1052: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1033: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1009: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 983: 980: 978: 973:The sentence 972: 967: 963: 959: 958:67.188.38.151 955: 948: 944: 940: 936: 935: 928: 925: 918: 916: 913: 912:71.139.23.245 909: 908: 907: 906: 903: 900: 895: 894: 893: 892: 889: 886: 885:71.139.23.245 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 872: 869: 866: 864: 854: 849: 845: 842: 837: 836: 835: 834: 831: 822: 820: 819: 816: 812: 804: 800: 797: 793: 789: 788: 787: 786: 783: 779: 776: 772: 764: 758: 755: 751: 750: 749: 748: 742: 738: 734: 730: 727: 726: 725: 724: 718: 714: 710: 709: 708: 707: 704: 701: 696: 695: 692: 689: 684: 683: 682: 681: 678: 674: 670: 664: 662: 657: 654: 651: 647: 642: 640: 636: 632: 622: 619: 615: 611: 610: 609: 606: 602: 597: 593: 588: 584: 581: 580: 579:The answers: 578: 577: 573: 572: 571: 570: 567: 563: 557: 555: 551: 542: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 532: 530: 521: 519: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 505: 501: 496: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 465: 463: 457: 450: 448: 445:This is what 443: 441: 437: 431: 429: 422: 420: 410: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 401: 397: 393: 385: 381: 378: 374: 369: 368: 367: 366: 363: 359: 353: 351: 347: 338: 335: 331: 330: 329: 323: 319: 316: 314: 312: 306: 305: 304: 303: 300: 296: 289: 286: 282: 278: 274: 272: 269: 267: 265: 259: 255: 254: 253: 252: 249: 245: 237: 227: 224: 221: 220: 215: 211: 210: 209: 206: 203: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 171: 168: 164: 160: 156: 155: 154: 153: 150: 147: 144: 143:Frenchman113 139: 137: 134: 131: 130: 125: 124: 123: 122: 119: 116: 115: 109: 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: 3064: 3025: 3024: 3022: 2993:74.38.35.171 2984: 2950: 2929: 2917: 2909:Copied from 2907: 2876: 2856:in abstracto 2855: 2847: 2840: 2775:wikification 2774: 2753: 2742: 2692: 2669: 2665: 2658: 2654: 2645: 2644:(maybe even 2642:dual license 2630: 2621: 2614: 2600: 2596: 2546: 2510: 2495: 2482: 2467: 2433: 2413: 2391: 2345: 2293: 2205: 2181:on my part. 2154: 2149: 2145: 2135: 2115: 2107: 2103: 2045: 2035: 2008: 1959: 1929: 1928: 1922: 1904: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1799: 1794: 1787: 1784: 1726: 1624: 1575: 1537: 1524: 1521: 1513: 1510:Gender issue 1489: 1477: 1460: 1456: 1427: 1416:TonyTheTiger 1412: 1393: 1351: 1173: 1120: 1118: 1097: 1088: 1083: 1079: 1073: 1067: 1062: 1050: 1023: 1019: 996: 984: 974: 946: 942: 938: 870: 860: 858: 828:violation?-- 826: 808: 774: 768: 736: 728: 712: 672: 668: 665: 660: 658: 655: 649: 645: 643: 638: 630: 627: 561: 558: 553: 549: 547: 540: 533: 528: 525: 517: 503: 499: 497: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 466: 459: 452: 444: 439: 435: 432: 425: 423: 418: 415: 408: 399: 389: 354: 342: 327: 310: 292: 263: 241: 217: 158: 127: 112: 110: 106: 78: 43: 37: 3038:70.111.79.2 3032:—Preceding 2791:Wikiversity 2394:Nord Stream 2312:as long as 1837:replaceable 1586:Middle East 952:—Preceding 754:68.0.120.35 36:This is an 3056:January 15 2922:wat's sup 2902:Protection 2787:Wikibooks: 2773:. Further 2747:Mr.Fortran 2655:under GFDL 2601:permission 2464:Boomp3.com 1925:this album 1852:Panarjedde 1802:Panarjedde 1625:really are 1544:User:Durin 1104:Physchim62 633:(based on 400:Copyrights 146:on wheels! 95:Archive 10 3023:When was 2981:Who Owns? 2940:brenneman 2783:transwiki 2530:Superm401 2455:Dionyseus 2445:GuardianZ 2427:Dionyseus 2237:Badagnani 2217:subst:rfu 1919:Word(Art) 1409:Next step 1329:Nil Einne 1162:Links to 1147:Superm401 733:copyright 650:what kind 244:this site 176:≈ jossi ≈ 90:Archive 9 85:Archive 8 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 3046:contribs 3034:unsigned 2989:unsigned 2893:Rmhermen 2852:C syntax 2785:this to 2757:contribs 2577:Thanks. 2526:fair use 2371:Hackajar 2356:Hackajar 2183:Tubezone 2159:Tubezone 2121:Tubezone 2096:User:NE2 1845:fair use 1578:posted ( 1576:publicly 1453:Question 1250:be civil 1233:Carnildo 1199:Carnildo 1193:Try the 1125:Jreferee 1091:Jreferee 1005:Jreferee 966:contribs 954:unsigned 937:FYI, in 688:Rmhermen 677:JoergenB 635:Rmhermen 618:Rmhermen 605:Carnildo 566:JoergenB 554:arguendo 504:verbatim 500:modified 3010:Sherool 2920:Jaranda 2795:Fortran 2659:outside 2516:Andries 2322:Sherool 2278:Sherool 2221:Sherool 2209:WP:FAIR 2136:assumed 2014:Sherool 2000:Rjensen 1931:Nautica 1785:Hello. 1751:Husnock 1713:Kaldari 1692:Husnock 1629:Husnock 1590:Husnock 1561:Husnock 1431:InfoCan 1254:Rrburke 1185:Rrburke 1181:copyvio 1168:copyvio 1164:YouTube 997:did not 921:— Matt 830:InfoCan 815:Quadell 562:history 481:ceeding 39:archive 3014:(talk) 2710:WP:COI 2646:triple 2615:author 2402:Beagel 2326:(talk) 2318:WP:FUC 2314:WP:FUC 2309:WP:FUC 2282:(talk) 2274:WP:FUC 2225:(talk) 2150:really 2139:valid. 2112:WP:NPA 2104:polite 2018:(talk) 1987:Jmabel 1791:WP:FUC 1728:else. 1478:unless 1170:videos 1107:(talk) 923:Crypto 792:Jmabel 782:Shawnc 469:except 438:, but 333:Texts. 281:Jmabel 163:Jmabel 2952:: --> 2883:Chess 1973:talk 1869:PPGMD 1824:PPGMD 1795:could 1768:Durin 1764:WP:AN 1741:Durin 1730:PPGMD 1704:Durin 1682:Durin 1639:Durin 1600:Durin 1166:etc. 631:guess 219:Kjoon 202:BozMo 129:Kjoon 114:Kjoon 16:< 3060:2001 3042:talk 2997:talk 2968:< 2879:Fred 2860:Duja 2751:talk 2718:Duja 2687:PS, 2649:(... 2579:Duja 2566:Lupo 2550:Duja 2534:Talk 2472:and 2440:HERE 2299:luke 2066:Lupo 1991:Talk 1936:Shad 1911:Schi 1888:luke 1841:free 1553:Iraq 1490:anon 1461:Lost 1252:. -- 1151:Talk 1135:Schi 962:talk 796:Talk 462:here 377:Talk 362:Talk 311:Lost 285:Talk 279:. - 264:Lost 248:Peta 205:talk 167:Talk 2848:was 2476:to 2169:NE2 2079:NE2 2052:NE2 1960:In 1089:-- 661:its 646:not 493:but 477:and 464:.) 299:Max 223:lee 133:lee 118:lee 3058:, 3048:) 3044:• 2999:) 2759:) 2716:. 2532:- 2497:-- 2264:, 2260:, 2256:, 2252:, 2167:-- 2157:. 2155:me 2012:-- 2009:in 1989:| 1812:Rl 1678:}} 1672:{{ 1668:}} 1662:{{ 1658:}} 1652:{{ 1598:-- 1551:, 1442:-- 1396:— 1382:}} 1376:{{ 1149:- 1102:. 985:). 964:• 871:). 841:Rl 794:| 752:-- 639:if 550:is 440:am 375:| 360:| 297:-- 283:| 216:-- 182:• 165:| 64:← 3040:( 3003:. 2995:( 2966:t 2964:n 2962:a 2960:i 2958:d 2956:a 2954:R 2881:- 2864:► 2754:· 2749:( 2722:► 2637:. 2583:► 2554:► 1970:| 1946:s 1941:e 1690:- 1495:( 960:( 719:. 711:" 594:( 428:. 184:@ 180:t 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Copyrights/Archive 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index