Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-25/Op-ed

Discuss this story

The text above says[edit]

The text above says "I looked for attribution of Wikipedia in the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses and a release of this book under an open license as required by Wikipedia, and the result was that neither of these have been performed. The hardcover version of the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses retails for $375. I discussed this issue with the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation, who contacted the Oxford University Press. We were hoping that they could negotiate both attribution and release under an open license." This contains an important fallacy: that by using some paragraphs of text from Wikipedia in a 900-page multi-author textbook somehow legally requires the entire book to be released under an open licence. The CC licence is not viral and was not designed to be. Additionally, a licence has no legal power to compel anyone - because if they don't obey the terms of the licence then the benefits of the licence cease to exist along with those terms. Without those benefits, they are simply in the same situation as if the textbook had lifted some text from another all-rights-reserved book under copyright.

I assume "attribution of Wikipedia" is a simple mistake since Wikipedia is not the author -- attribution belongs to all the (many) authors who wrote that text collectively. But it is a mistake many publishers make in their attribution when they do give it.

Have they taken sufficient text for this to be considered a copyright violation? I am no lawyer but if this is less than a page of text taken from part of an article and used in a 900 page book, I very much doubt it. And even if it was a copyright violation, it isn't the WMF legal team who could sue because WMF do not own the text. That belongs to the various authors who's work was taken. Perhaps WMF legal would offer to help those authors sue -- but what award would a judge give to two or three random people? What are their losses? They gave the work away for free. Just a few hundred words? It isn't like they stole a 50-page chapter. This seriously is not worth the legal expense. However, if we believe the text taken is too minimal to be copyright theft, the most the authors of the textbook are likely guilty of is plagiarism. Naughty. Slap on the wrist. Reputation harmed. But not illegal. Possibly Oxford will be more cautious about accepting work from those authors again.

If they want future editions of the book to be free of legal issues while retaining the same text, then some attribution would be added and at most the chapter by those authors would be released under a free licence. It depends how integrated the text is with the chapter. Alternatively, they could just offer those two authors $100 to waive their licence terms, which would probably be much more attractive option to everyone.

Another example is if someone uses a picture from Commons then they should provide appropriate licence information and attribution. But it only makes that one picture free (i.e., someone could scan or photograph the picture from the book and publish it again with a free licence) -- it doesn't affect anything else. -- Colin°^Talk 11:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author was a little optimistic to hope for either the chapter or book to be released under an open license, but it does no harm to ask. The article does not imply that there was a legal requirement to release anything new under on open license.

As to whether the amount of text would constitute a copyvio, certainly that is debatable. The size of the book or chapter it is in, however, is irrelevant (were it otherwise Wikipedia, being so large would be able to copy almost anything with impunity). It is a significant portion of the work (article) copied. Moreover the question could be decided in English courts, American courts or indeed any country where OUP publishes. Would there be sense in suing? Probably not, but if the practice were not reined in, it might provide motivation.

Regardless the text, unattributed, constitutes plagiarism.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

It is, moreover, dictum that copyright does not attach to mere logical statement or compilation of facts. To the extent that the statements of numbers are such compilations, they are not covered by copyright no matter who publishes them (sports leagues which assert "copyright" over scores and stats are not on firm ground, AFAICT). OPU may indeed have found a lazy employee who plagiarized a bit - a student would get suspended at many schools - but it unclear as to whether the Wikipedia article has any literary value. By the way, Wikipedia is so often used by newspapers etc. as to make concerns now a tad risible. Collect (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To echo the comments below, this is an incredible find. It seems that the author of the chapter, who copied major sections from Wikipedia, is more responsible than the publisher, who can't be expected to source-check every submission. OUP's reported inaction, however, begins to put them on the side of defending their, and their author's, actions. If contact with OUP is ineffective, perhaps it would be appropriate to contact the author and/or his employers about this action, taking full caution about British libel laws. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to source-check every submission. Running it through Turnitin would be sufficient to pick up stuff like this. Of course the PR outcome of admiting to needing to run a $300 textbook through Turnitin would cause its own problems.©Geni (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am not under the impression that they need to release the whole book under an open license. They do need to release the one chapter however under an open license as much of it was more or less from Wikipedia (from a few different articles in fact).

Yes simply attributing Wikipedia is not technically enough, but at least it shows someone is trying and that is good enough for me. People can then come to Wikipedia and figure out who the real authors are which we do not make easy. But that is our own fault.

Yes we asked for the whole book to be release. And yes I considered this a very looong shot which it was. Those not the least bit surprised that they refused as they have no legal requirement to do so.

I agree that "release of this book under an open license" should be "release of this text under an open license" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: they don't "need" to do anything. They haven't broken a criminal law. Only the authors of the copied material can sue, and they are both unlikely to do so and unlikely to win enough to bother with. Photographs are a different story with a track-record of achieving pay-outs. Has anyone ever received court-awarded payment for re-use of text contributed to a multi-author free-content project? So they have broken some moral/ethical laws but in practice they "can" continue to publish that book with the small amount of copied material. There is Notice and take down for digital content online, but I have no idea if any country has the powers to block continued publication of book that is 99% original text. And as I said, any company faced with such a legal challenge would offer cash before even paying for one hour for an expensive lawyer's time. As for "attributing Wikipedia" being enough, well that might be a reasonable sentiment for multi-authored text but sure isn't enough for a photographer who's work is attributed to "Wikimedia". -- Colin°^Talk 13:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, my point is that fussing over legal and licence-related issues of the incorrect re-use of Wikipedia text is somewhat pointless. It will only induce an ulcer. The more fundamental issue is the moral one of plagiarism. And on that issue Wikipedia is at least, if not more, guilty than professional publishers. -- Colin°^Talk 13:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were three cases of plagiarism from the Wikipedia in academic books this past year in Germany, all three have been taken off the market. One was a book about sea battles, one on the history of computing (!), and one about a Venetian printer; they were published with supposedly respectable publishing houses C. H. Beck, Springer, and Wagenbach. Apparently, the editing process, should it actually take place, does not include checks for plagiarism. Portions of the plagiarism have been documented on the VroniPlag Wiki: [1] - [2] - [3]. There was quite a discussion about this in Germany, the editor from Beck who was responsible for the book attended the WikiCon in Cologne to discuss Wikipedia and academic publishing. Apparently there are those who find Wikipedia in its present form "unciteable" or only a collection of "facts", and thus take texts and pictures at will. Wikimedia Germany determined that indeed, only the (many) authors of an article could sue for breach of copyright. Interesting is that in Germany, if they were to sue, the use of the text is considered unlicensed, as OUP did not follow the rules. That makes a settlement much more expensive. VroniPlag Wiki also has a collection of doctoral theses that have at times quite extensive, unattributed use of the Wikipedia in doctoral dissertations. One 61 page thesis in medicine has 13 pages taken from just one Wikipedia article [4]. I have suggested, only partially in jest, that Wikipedia needs to be granted an honorary doctorate for its widespread use in academia. WiseWoman (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes German masters thesis in public health that was mostly based up our article on obesity was finally pulled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great contribution[edit]

Great contribution from Doc James, thank you.

— Cirt (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Cirt. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. The second of two great op-eds from Doc James in the last month. Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fourth the motion! Paired with the fantastic analysis of the participatory grantmaking article in News & Notes, I'm going to call it. This week's Signpost game: strong.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]