User talk:Hrabia Ehrenkreutz Sas

Copyright problems with Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.ur.umich.edu/0708/Apr28_08/obits.php. As a copyright violation, Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There IS NO PROBLEM and or NO conflict with any of provided materials. Obituaruies are NOT materials protected by copyright law. So to viloate copyright the material first need to be copyrighted, and this is not the case. One needs also to understand when and how the copyrigted materials can be used. Please learn first the FAIR USE doctrine, and donot come up with immatuure and strictly childlish comments such as of an alleged copyright infringement. Apply the law, do not make your own laws. PLEASE RESTORE THE ARTICLE AS IT WAS SUBMITTED!

Where do you have an evidence that OBITUARIES are in any way copyrigted materials? Let's not be ridicoulous!

• Fair Use doctrine

Hrabia Ehrenkreutz Sas (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz

I'm not sure where you got the idea that "only work for financial gain is copyrighted" because it's definitely not true in the U.S. or Canada. Obituaries can certainly be subject to copyright, even if they are written with the permission of the family. The copyright could be held by the individual who wrote it, or by the newspaper that published it, depending on what sort of agreement is in place. For the Andrew Stefan Ehrenkreutz article, the copyright would be held either by the person who originally submitted it (Marian Krzyzowski), or the The Regents of the University of Michigan who published it (probably the latter, since the bottom of the page shows "Copyright 2008 The Regents of the University of Michigan"). There is no indication that the text was released under the GFDL, which is what is required to reproduce the content on Wikipedia.

As for your claim of "fair use", please note point three of the fair use test: the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. This means that parts of the work can be copied if the purpose is to illustrate the whole, or to mount a criticism or analysis. It does not mean that the whole thing can be copied word for word, no matter if it's for commercial or non-commercial use.

Finally, the decision of SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. states that TV shows can be recorded for noncommercial home use; that is, for private purposes and not public exhibitions. Wikipedia is not a household, it's a public entity, so the analogy does not hold.

Wikipedia's policy regarding copyright can be found here: WP:COPY. ... discospinster _talk 01:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)