Copying articles and copyright issues

Question

It appears sometimes that entire articles are cut and pasted into the 'Biography' section in profiles.  Some short questions here:

1) Are most people looking for short and biographical summaries that get to main points of biographies without long prose text?  Those wanting to read books could instead be directed to books listed in the Sources/bibliography section.

2) Is is better to link obituaries or other text copied from other sources in the "Source" section?  Meanwhile, main points from the obituaries can be added instead.

3) Are there also potential copyright problems when entire paragraphs are cut and pasted into profiles?

4) How do we diplomatically edit profiles for conciseness and directness without causing offense to people who have added large amounts of text, especially if it is copied and pasted from somewhere else?

5) Would it be a good idea to ask people to enter biographies as bulleted historic facts with dates instead of writing long paragraphs, wherever possible?  This makes summarizing data easier, saves computer server space, and in addition avoids potential copyright claims due to lengthy copied text.

Comments

3.  If your question #3 is about copying copyrighted material, I believe the answer is probably to follow the law at minimum for sure.  Some say 400 words at most in a single quote, but it isn't an exact number (only courts can decide).

Personally, I try to not quote copyrighted material, even if it is is permitted.

---

If you're bored being in lock down Blake, LOL, you may want to read this G2G discussion.

Advice needed on copyright

And if you are really bored.....

Please, please, please don't cut and paste bios.

---

I'm not bored, and am reading through your suggested links. In addition to what is copyrightable (usually, original intellectual creations) or not, and in which country by its unique laws that may not apply elsewhere -- is also how much space is taken up in profiles by rambling eulogies versus lists of biographical facts for the reader to evaluate for themselves... and can photos of influential or wealthy people identifying crimes or public corruption be truly copyrighted for the purpose of censorship or criminal coverups?  Some of those laws appear to vary widely according to the specific country, and may or may not be enforceable in countries outside their borders.  In some countries not founded on democratic principles, there are laws that exist primarily to protect the interest of the uberwealthy alone. Translations from one language to another are also an example where in one country a translation is considered a "derived work" copyrightable by the owner of the book/article in the original language, while in another country it is considered an original and legally copyrightable work of the translator.  This is of greater importance now with the internet and cheap publishing in sweatshop countries copying and selling books for prices driving original authors/writers, or translators, who do that for a living, broke or the street, and the pirates don't care, and unappreciative of what are sometimes years of grueling research and work to produce books of any substance.

My question is what if someone else cuts and pastes bios into a profile with your name on it as manager... then what do you do?  Are you held responsible for what they did because your name is on the label?  How do you minimize risk of copyright claims without offending people who ignored them, regardless of intentions?  This is where a category called "Biographical Facts", instead of "Biography" might protect everyone from copyright challenges, and shorten information to facts removed from fiction or opinion (which is often fiction)..

---

Most countries not formerly associated with the Eastern Block have signed the Geneva Accords on copy right even since those discussion were made.  So you do have to follow the country of origins rules and laws.

To the gist of your question, if you come across any image you feel may infringe on copyright laws you can remove it as WikITree absolutely frowns on copyright infringement.  This is whether it is your Profile or not.  And so as to not create any acrimony over this action, you should have a good reason and place that in the comment section of the Profile and I would PM whoever added the image.

Copied and pasted text would also follow this for your Profiles.  While we do not own the Profiles we create, as we are the managers of these Profiles, how we formulate the Biography is up to our discretion.  Except for proper sourcing, there really aren't any de facto rules on how to create a Profile.  If you want to write a historical tome on each Profile, fine.  Just use a bulleted timeline, fine.  Pasting the complete census record for each year you find, fine. You don't write anything in the Biography section and just have a bunch of Sources on the bottom, fine.  Everyone has their own stylistic format for Profiles and everyone doesn't like the way other members create theirs.  LOL

So if someone changes the way you like to format your Profiles, change it back and kindly let the Member who changed it know that while you appreciate their generosity in adding to the Profile, it is not in your style. To each his own on an Open Site.

And as there is a detailed record of changes to Profiles, it is easy to show you were not responsible for any errant additions by others. Thank you WikiTree for that.

Answer 1

Hi Blake, there is a page in the help index that addresses some of what you're talking about: 

Help:Copying Text

As a general rule, do not copy-and-paste content you find on another website, even if you believe it's not copyrighted. Instead:

• Summarize the key points.
• When quoting small amounts of relevant text, use quotation marks.
• Cite the source of the content.
• Link to the web page that has the full text.

Comments

the link would be included in the source citation within [] characters?

Answer 2

I think the issue of copying content has been covered by Dale, but on your other points: I sympathize with the desire for a concise summary, but I think biographies are actually intended to be biographies, with as much detail as possible. I personally tend to leave details in the Source section, if only because I am bad at writing biographies, but I do not think saying people can see details somewhere outside Wikitree, in a book or whatever, is adequate. Actually people often cannot see things elsewhere, owing to limitations of money, time, transport and public facilities, etc.

I also dislike lists, with or without bullets. They're less readable and encourage a terseness which can reduce thoughtfulness. If all you have to do is for example list 'marriage' and cite a source, it makes it less likely you'll notice and investigate or substantiate any odd features in that marriage, that you might if you had to describe it fully.

Comments

Deborah - exactly...just recently I had a couple of interesting marriages, one where the first wife died and the sister was in his household in the 1900 census and they married a couple months later. The other was a first cousin marriage where she was named in her brother's probate. Neither of these were mentioned in the published county history...

Answer 3

My experience with Wikitree is that everyone seems to interpret "biography" in their own way.   If your objective is "just the facts", most of that is covered in the detail boxes at the top... bmd date,  place,  sibling and children.   If that is what you want to add then a list of sources for those facts is all that is needed in the biography section.   

I agree that we should not be copying text from other sources and we do have rules about that.

I came here 4 years ago interpreting a "biography " to be what the name implies... the story of the life of a person.   I try to pull together all the details I can find  (with sources) to tell a chronological story.   My thoughts are that not everyone who comes here is a "genealogist".  Some just  want a story about someone from their past.   It also helps me to evaluate "facts and sources " from other sites.   Sometimes the "Thomas Turner " in a record is not the one in the profile I am working on and the writing of the biography clears things up.

I appreciate Wikitree making it possible to share a biography and that is what sets it apart from other sites.   I love finding an actual biography when I look at a profile.   Please don't edit for conciseness if that means just a list of facts.

Answer 4

I have done a lot of biographies on Wikitree and while I try hard to stick to facts and not inflate things (like so many older biographies did back in the late 1880's to early 1900's), sometimes you are looking at a source that is not easily obtained online. Maybe it's behind a paywall like Ancestry or AmericanAncestors.org or it's a genealogy book that is more recent and still under copyright.

The only places I have used long quotes were on family members where the source was one mentioned above and what is available on other websites have conflated what is in the copyright source with information from other sources to the point that everyone uses that website as the gospel because they don't have access to the original source. The only option was to provide a direct quote from the source so others could see for themselves that the other information has been added by others and did not come from this source.

I personally don't like to quote more than a sentence but in this case (Adkins-300 and Parker-2190) I did about 6 shorter paragraphs because they were necessary to tell the tale of their lives.

I hope this helps?

Edited to add: I transcibe from the original source myself and agree that you should never copy and paste.

Answer 5

I think the hardest question to answer is #4, how to diplomatically edit a lengthy copy and paste entry.  I recently had to do that.  It was a good source and had quite a few important points about this person.  I started with a small edit and said Reducing a lengthy copied copyrighted article.  I began to remove less important paragraphs with explanations, such as Removed paragraph about father.  Removed paragraph about . . .  So the PM could see why each part was carved out.
Then gave the kept paragraphs quotes and a source citation to the original article using in line named refs.

Comments

You know, you say you "had to do that," but I would have to question why?  It may be OK if you hold a copyright that was violated, or it may sometimes be OK if you are also a descendant of the subject with personal interest, or the profile manager is inactive or non-responsive.  But as a general practice, this seems to me to be treading into the area of policing style.  Why is your judgment superior about what should be included in the Bio?  IMHO if we had clear, consistent, objective guidelines about how much is too much, and a team of people charged with spot-checking profiles, that would not entirely unreasonable.  To have individual members arbitrarily imposing their own opinions about it seems like a slippery slope to me.  Just my $0.02.

Edited to add:  I want to be clear that I am not advocating or encouraging lengthy cut-and-paste bios.  I agree that's not a good practice either.

---

Thanks for your thoughtful answer.  The issue that remains is if the identified profile manager is held responsible for clear copyright violations on original intellectual works committed by those who don't understand or care about text copyright issues, or have not yet developed the skills to separate fact from fiction.  For example, if someone else cuts and pastes entire multi-paragraph bios or obituaries from a book or a newspaper into a profile where you are indicated as the manager.  Are you, as the manager, held responsible for a clear copyright violation if you don't edit it down to non-copyrightable facts separated from evaluative prose text?  How do you tell someone you think there may be a copyright violation, or protect them or yourself on such issues without getting into a ruckus with them?  Would it be appropriate to indicate "Biographical Facts" instead of "Biography" as the category title in order to minimize the risk of copyright issues?

---

Blake, when I saw your comment I wasn't sure who you were thanking, since it was under Cindy's answer.  But the edited version looks like you could be talking to me, so at the risk of speaking out of order, I'll go ahead and respond.

I'm sure you know that if there is such a thing as a "clear" copyright violation, there are legal remedies available to the copyright holder.  The problem is that you can't get clear, definitive, objective guidance from editors, lawyers, or anyone else as to what constitutes a "clear" violation.  If there has ever been a test case on a WikiTree profile, I'm not aware of it.  Presumably we all know and understand that copyrights are to be respected here.  If we had a single enforcer, or a small team, with some training, who could make the call objectively and consistently, I could live with that.  But I would have a lot of reservations about individual members taking it upon themselves to decide, somewhat arbitrarily, where the line is between fair use and copyright violation, and then edit away.  I'm assuming that Chris and Co. don't believe the site to be in any legal jeopardy over this issue, or we would have some structure in place.  So if there's jeopardy, it must fall to the individual PMs, but again, I don't know of a case study.  I think it's OK for you to warn another member that you think he/she may be in violation, but I doubt if you'll get a warm, friendly reception.  And, as Cindy suggests, it's probably OK to add quotes and a source citation for a flagrant case, but she probably won't be getting any valentines from that PM either.  It's a hard problem, but we just can't handle it effectively with separate individual initiatives.