[WikiEN-l] Copyright and Britannica Article List

Sat Jun 25 07:13:49 UTC 2005

No, I don't think a list of alphabetically ordered article names is in
any way creative or copyrightable. The other list could - IMO of
course - be reinstated, but asking Jimbo is probably a safe thing to
do.

-Mgm

On 6/25/05, DF <dragons_flight at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Issue
> 
> Whether or not using the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica
> to form a list of articles that Britannica has but
> Wikipedia doesn't constitutes a violation of
> Britannica's copyright?
> 
> The list:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics
> 
> Background
> 
> The WikiProject:Missing encyclopedia articles
> currently uses four very large lists of topics that
> appear in other encyclopedias but do not appear in
> Wikipedia.  Of these lists, two are from sources whose
> copyright has expired, one is a composite of multiple
> unnamed sources, and the last is based on the 2004
> Encyclopedia Britannica (hereafter "EB").
> 
> On the talk page,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Copyright.3F,
> there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a
> copyright in the list of articles itself.  Under US
> copyright law (e.g. Feist v. Rural), a mere list of
> facts, topics, names, etc. can be protected by
> copyright if the selection and/or arrangement of those
> items is, in and of itself, a creative expression.
> Since the selection of articles for an encyclopedia is
> certainly an act of creativity, this may grant EB a
> copyright over the list of articles in their
> encyclopedia.  If true, then creating derivative works
> from their list of articles (i.e. by making a list of
> articles that they have but we don't) is likely to be
> a copyright violation.
> 
> As can be seen from the talk page, not everyone agrees
> that this applies to the EB list.  This includes
> conflicting opinions from users Jamesday and Postdlf,
> both of whom I respect for their legal acumen.
> 
> Precedent
> 
> In March 2004, a very similar situation occurred when
> someone created a list of missing topics based on the
> Columbia Encyclopedia.  At that time, it was decided
> by community consensus to delete that list as a likely
> copyright violation.
> 
> Archive of that discussion (look under March 2):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=2710783
> 
> In my opinion, the only real difference between the
> two cases is that the EB list has existed for four
> months without being challenged, whereas the Columbia
> list was challenged and removed almost immediately
> after its creation.
> 
> 
> So what now?
> 
> Either we need to accept that such a list, though
> potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern
> to keep around.
> 
> OR
> 
> We need to come to some agreement that such lists will
> be maintained despite the potential liability.  In
> which case, Jimbo probably needs sign off since he is
> ultimately the one who is liable.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Related links
> 
> WikiProject: Missing encyclopedia articles:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles
> Feist v. Rural:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service
> US Copyright Code:
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/toc.html
> 
> 
> -DF
> User:Dragons flight
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>