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

Question

Writing bios takes time. I found a couple of profiles I manage have had cut and paste bios attached including an error from the secondary source. I know I haven't yet written the bio myself and I welcome all the help I can get, but cut and paste bios are against policy, I believe. Please don't do it or, if you really feel you must, then do remove those links that don't go anywhere.

Comments

And here's the Wikitree help text about this:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Copying_Text

---

Please, please, please don't overgeneralize. Sometimes people do it horribly, sometimes they do it well. If they do it horribly, it's bad, yep.

Answer 1

Here is what probably is most reflective on copying from other works that affects WikITree users.  The doctrine of Fair Use per Wikipedia.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

Fair use  

For more on Fair Use see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Fair use is the use of limited amounts of copyrighted material in such a way as to not be an infringement. It is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, and states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." The section lists four factors that must be assessed to determine whether a particular use is fair. There are no bright-line rules regarding fair use and each determination is made on an individualized case-by-case basis.

1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are more likely to be fair use. This does not mean that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair use or that all commercial uses are not fair. Instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

2. Nature of the copyrighted work: Using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.

3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. Using a large portion of the copyrighted work is less likely to be fair use. However, courts have occasionally found use of an entire work to be fair use, and in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair use because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.

4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

In addition to these four factors, the statute also allows courts to consider any other factors that may be relevant to the fair use analysis. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on the specific facts of that case. There is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.

The justification of the fair use doctrine turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. "The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test.... If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings-- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society."

WikiTree, the organization, is covered from legal problems by the concept of Safe Harbor for content providers. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA)

The gist is, copying portions of something is ok with one big caveat: DON'T MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT!  Since what we do here is informative and or educational with no monetary gain, copying information is usually fine under the law.  And giving credit where credit is due is also important.  Trying to pass it off as your own is strictly prohibited by case law.  Cite the source!!!!!!

Answer 2

cutting and pasting is fine if it is from a referenced sourced account. You just got too make sure it is neat,productive,categorized,and accurate. And as long as the research goes along with it, cutting and pasting is just a part of editing, in general. I cut and paste all the time, I have too it saves days of time.

Comments

Cutting and pasting is fine if you cut and paste small extracts of online bios (with sources matching those on the profile, of course). I do it fairly often, and I assume that's what you do as well. That's not really simple cut& paste, there is some editing involved.

BUT copying a full page and simply pasting it to a Wikitree profiles is not allowed. And we have issues with it. A lot of sites have their content copyrighted (like Medieval Lands, for instance, I think) and while quotes are accepted, copying the whole article is not.

---

Agreed, yeah copying and pasting is a short cut.Copying whatever it says on the internet from a website that someone wrote up and pasting it in whatever font, is different because it is not your own words and may very well not be accurate. Nothing wrong with some "Ibid" type stuff, just explain it too, and back it up with referenced records.

---

There is obviously the issue of plagiarism (which is a legal issue!) if you cut-and-paste from a site that is not your own. You can cite a phrase or paragraph or even paraphrase (write something in your own word) and add the link. "Such and Such said this..." <ref > Add citation source here</ref>, but you also need to back up part of the bio that you put in with facts as you can find them (such as birth, baptism, marriage, death). This is also where the radio buttons for locations and birth and name come in : about/uncertain, certain/exact and don't know.

Answer 3

I "cut and paste" bio's at times but I do try to get back and re write them as soon as possible. I also try to add other sources that confirm what is written. Sadly sometimes I do not get back to them as quickly as I would like but having all of the information in one place where I can easily view it when I am trying to write the bio is a big timesaver and for me at least it reduces the number of errors I make.

Comments

Yeah having too go back and edit is just part of the process and == sections == and   === sub sections ===  is how too properly organize the research. What's most important is that you provide links along with your <ref>source</ref> and explain the info in full, either brief or extensive which ever length is applicable.

Answer 4

I totally agree that large sections of copy/pasted material (even with proper attribution) has no proper place on Wikitree. We should summarize and/or rewrite and cite properly.

I recognize the fact that "we" copy/paste information into our own home databases on a regular basis, I do also. That's for our own personal use, and never meant for public consumption.

Unfortunately, when we then convert our databases into gedcoms and import them, the copy/paste comes along. Also unfortunately, many people add their gedcoms and think they're done, never even looking at the results, which is one of the reasons there is so much copy/paste on Wikitree.

Comments

I just came across one of these yesterday. Someone had pasted an entire message board post into the imported GEDcom, leaving in place phrases such as "I am not sure but...' and "I believe that..."  Who is "I"? I remember the post as an old one from the late '90s or early 2000s, but others who see the information may think it represents the opinion of the current or original profile manager.

Answer 5

Cutting and pasting bios is not good practice

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Copying_Text

Copying and pasting  in the case of recently written works is the theft of intellectual property

I have often come across  c and p of articles from History of Parliament online which has an explicit copyright statement on how much of an article may be copied with proper attribution http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/about/faqs

Yes it takes time to write a biography especially if you have lots of information with which to create it. (at least when it gets copied elsewhere, as from personal experience it may be, then you can be flattered and adopt the moral high ground, whilst being annoyed that someone hasn't the courtesy to provide at least a link back to the original )

edit, sorry hadn't realise that Jillaine had already posted the link to the help page, I went off looking for the HOP so missed it.

Comments

If it wasn't for Fair Use, there would be a lot fewer college degrees handed out and dissertations would be a lot lighter.

---

.When you are writing a dissertation you have to be very aware that in most cases only small amounts are permissable and of course only with proper attribution.

Not whole biographies  which is why I pointed to the info on HOP on the amount that they suggest is 'fair'. Copying whole bios is not fair use even with attribution.

Answer 6

It is against Wiki-Tree Policy to Cut and Paste because of copyrights. Rather just add the link where you found the info.

Answer 7

While we are on the subject of copyrighted material...

A text can be rewritten or quoted but how about pictures? Should we even remove those that don't have a source to show they are open-source-material?? I'm not talking about family pictures, rather something "borrowed" online.

Comments

Photos as copyrightable material also fall under the Fair Use Rule I just added.  Are you using it for informative or educational purposes and not receiving remuneration?  Cool. Again, make sure the creator of the work is cited.

Photos are tricky. A problem with photos is that it is usually copied as an image in it's entirety and not a portion of the image.  And it is hard to be transformative with a photo.  An AP photo published across many forms of media can be considered more viable as a Fair Use item.  A photo taken from a private collection that are for sale of the photographer is not.

Also, a photo that is sold to a publisher, print or on-line, now become the property of the publisher under the doctrine of For Hire under copyright law.

Also websites who claim images on their site are copyrighted by them and cannot be used under terms of agreement, well, I never signed a term of agreement and passive usage of the site is not considered a contract of mutual consent.  Becoming a member of the site will now put you under their copyright rules as that will be undoubtedly covered under the Terms of Agreement and Usage you didn't bother to read. Notice how many news sites the first time you use it, a little pop up box appears and says that "By Continued Use of the Web Site You Agree to Terms of Use".  If you continue to use the site, that agreement has been made.  You had a choice to leave and  never go back to that site.

---

I think you'll find that Wikipedia is a great source for Public Domain photos, as they have essentially the same policy we do as it relates to photo copying. So they have a section called "Wikipedia Commons" that explains their reasoning why the photo is in the Public Domain, cites the legalities for this, and documents the title and dates of the photos taken. They also explain the specifics there as to whether you are allowed to copy the photo and what citations need to be provided on the photo to make it acceptable and legal.

---

I know of Wikipedia commons and also a lot of museums (at least in Sweden) have public Domain pictures or a licence that allows them to be used. I am very picky about the photos I "borrow" and I always cite where I found it. If it is a photo of a painting I often even mention who painted it.

I was more wondering how you would handle pictures found on WikiTree that seems to have been "borrowed" without given a source as to where from or anything else.

As for now I have actually not done anything, but wonder if I should have contacted the manager or mailed info at wikitree about it.

---

From Wiki Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing  Concerning copyright rights and public domain

Material in the public domain

Material released under a license like CC-0 is considered the equivalent of public domain material; works that lack originality and edicts are in the public domain; a few governments around the world, including the US Federal, California, and Florida governments place most of their works, including most of their public records in the public domain; the English Wikipedia's guideline on public domain material more precisely defines these many exceptions.

Commons accepts material that is in the public domain, that is, documents allowed by the above exception, or that are not eligible to copyright, or for which the copyright has expired. But the "public domain" is complicated; copyright laws vary between countries, and thus a work may be in the public domain in one country, but still be copyrighted in another country. There are international treaties such as the Berne Convention that set some minimum standards, but individual countries are free to go beyond these minimums. A general rule of thumb is that if the creator of a work has been deceased for more than 70 years, their works are in the public domain in the country the creator was a citizen of and in the country where the work was first published. If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication.

Many countries use such a copyright term of 70 years. A notable exception is the U.S. Due to historical circumstances, the U.S. has more complex rules. In the United States, copyright generally lasts:

• Works published before 1923 are in the public domain.
• for works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication (and is therefore currently expired) unless the owner filed for renewal (during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication) in which case rights were extended to 95 years after first publication—the large majority of works published before 1964 have passed into the public domain, but it is imperative to determine that copyright was not renewed (which can be done through an online search at the Copyright Office for works published since 1951)
• for works first published before 1978: until 95 years after the first publication
• for works first published 1978 or later: until 70 years after the author's death. Anonymous works or work made for hire: until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since the creation of the work

For works created before 1978 but only published 1978 or later, there are some special rules. These terms apply in the U.S. also for foreign works.

However, the year and location of publication is essential. In several countries, material published before a certain year is in the public domain. In the U.S. this date is January 1, 1923. In some countries, all government-published material is public domain, while in others governments claim some copyright (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory).

Also see a quick and easy chart for determining what is and isn't copyrighted in the United States, The Hirtle Chart: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Hirtle_chart

---

Pictures, like text, are a tricky business. It's hard to know if it's truly public domain, fair use, or just plain illegal to copy unless you have all the facts. It's awfully easy to accuse someone of careless behavior in copying a photo from a website, only to find out later that they requested and received special permission to do so and just failed to properly document it. I would be the first to agree that would be the rare exception rather than the rule, but I do like to give others the benefit of the doubt when possible.

That being said, if you question whether or not an image was copied illegally to WikiTree and you want to be sure, I don't see anything wrong with asking the person who copied the photo. I would just try to be more curious than confrontational, and ask if they believed they had proper permission to copy the image, and who provided it to them. Images can be removed if it is determined that they were brought over illegally, but it is more typically done in a private manner so that we don't (for example) publicly embarrass anyone in a G2G forum. If you need to contact an admin regarding an image identified as illegal, you should email info@wikitree.com with the profile and image information along with why you believe it is illegal and someone will review the situation and respond.

At least I think this would be the correct approach. I'll have to poke around at the help files to see if additional recommendations might be found there.

---

Thanks, both LJ and Scott. I actually copied your answers to my Scratch pad so I will have your advise once I find an image like that again.

Tried to find the profile (and the pictures) again but can't remember who the profile belonged to or how I got there. Probably something I stumbled on as a Data Doctor.

---

Thanks Maggie, just remember what I brought over from Wikpedia deals only with written text and images first published in the United States.  Music and movies are a whole different game. Also, infringement in the USA for those two are basically handled in civil courts and have no criminal repercussions, there are some exceptions which in the perview of WikiTree will probably never occur.  There is no government body in the USA that has enforcement jurisdiction of copyright in the USA. It is up to the holder of the copyright to bring a case of infringement before a court of jurisdiction to enforce their rights. Text and images first published outside of the USA usually follow the copyright laws of that country.  The Hirtle chart mentioned above, is your best source for figuring out what is and isn't infringement in the USA.

I am not a lawyer and do not purport to be.  The information I have given is only to be used a guide and not a legal representation.  Sadly, I feel compelled to add these lines as I live in the USA and ours is a litigious society.  LOL

All the best, LJ

Answer 8

So far, this thread seems to be focused on copyright, so I won't repeat any of that. :)

I struggle when I come across profiles of my ancestors that have huge sections of copy/pasted material from other sites with no citations.

While the material and the lack of citations is frustrating, the bigger problem to me is when we have a group of profiles that have obviously copy/pasted material that is historically significant but there is little to no information about the PERSON!

I'll make up a few examples here to not call out particular profiles or managers.

Let's say for example, I stumbled across an ancestor what was a Volga German and someone had created a profile for my ancestor, their ancestors, their siblings, and all their descendants and on every profile was a detailed explanation of what a Volga German was, the history of Catherine the Great, the history of how Volga Germans were treated, murdered and imprisoned by the Russians and how some escaped to the U.S. and elsewhere that was copy/pasted from Wikipedia, a historical society, etc. This information is important, but does not belong in a profile of a person, let alone dozens of profiles.

If you look a Wikipedia, biographies of famous and infamous individuals do not duplicate the work of other sources. They may paraphrase it and source it, or it may just be mentioned in a few words that are a hyperlink to another Wikipedia article.

The really cool thing about the internet is the ability to link to anywhere else on the internet! There is no reason to copy/paste the internet content into a WikiTree profile.

I get geeking out about history and finding cool things out about our ancestors, and I am not discounting someone's desire to write their own version of the history, but this doesn't belong in every profile. Instead, this is what projects and Free Space Profiles are for.

We can create Free Space profiles, for example, for Volga Germans, everyone can contribute to the Volga German profile and use it like a Wikipedia article, and then all person profiles can then link to that Free Space profile for the details on Volga Germans.

Profiles of persons should not be run-on, or long, they should be easy to read and concise and provide details about how that person fit into history, not an essay on history itself.

I get that this is more personal opinion than WikiTree standard. But I'm using the fact that WikiTree is a wiki, like Wikipedia and we can learn something from how information is presented there, as well as the fact that we have a template for long profiles: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:LongProfiles