The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

	Archives for the Copyrights talk page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

See also:

• Wikipedia:Media copyright questions - ask all questions about whether you can use an image here
• Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Credit repair - case study relating to external links and attribution
• Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages
• WikiProject Copyright Cleanup – see how you can help

Commons:Licensing – Related at Wikimedia Commons

Username of real name? [edit]

Sometimes authors of photos are mentioned just as nicknames of a Wikipedia user. When attributing the used photo from Wikipedia with author, is is enough just to use the nickname? Sometimes there is also a real name mentioned and nickname: in this case do I use both?

Thank you for any advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vennett (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

While Wikipedia's editors (including me) are not authorized to give you legal advice, I will say that I myself would default to whatever it says in the author information section - nickname, real name or both - unless the specific form of attribution is set out elsewhere in the image attribution page. :) If you want a more definite answer, I'm afraid you'll have to ask them or consult an intellectual property attorney with jurisdiction in your area. (This is for your own protection, and not because I'm trying to be difficult. See the disclaimer in the lead of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. All I can do is tell you what I'd do, but I can't guarantee that I'd be right. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

interwiki [edit]

Hi, please add the urdu interwiki link to this page [[ur:منصوبہ:حقوق نسخہ]], thanks. محمد شعیب (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut needs Rcat update [edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A shortcut REDIRECT to this policy needs updated categories. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] {{R from shortcut}} {{R from Unicode}}
[[Category:Protected redirects]]

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]
Please leave one line blank.
{{Redr|to project|from shortcut|protected}}

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut that is used to categorize redirects. The Unicode category now has other uses, and {{R protected}} has replaced the use of the linked category, [[Category:Protected redirects]], on redirect pages. Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr. Stradivarius! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Web archives [edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove, It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. struck, see later comments 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I can find no reason why these certain websites are treated any differently to any other link to copyrighted work. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is policy and has been in policy for almost six years. Consensus can change, of course, but consensus requires discussion. To get consensus for the change, you may wish to visit WP:VPP and/or launch an RFC here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

See [1]. Trying to keep discussion in one place, for now... 88.104.28.176 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)`

I've put back your full request. Please don't modify comments after people have responded and especially after they have quoted you. :) It confuses things. See WP:TALK. If you didn't mean to ask for that to be removed, you can strike it out and explain the issue or simply leave a note here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I know all that, and didn't want to confuse anything; it's just that I noticed my request had quoted too much of the policy, not the specific sentence. I'll strike it. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Since I've quoted it in completion elsewhere, I don't want to confuse others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Archival websites RFC [edit]

It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time.

Why?

I can find no reason why websites that are 'internet archives' should be treated any differently to any other websites.

I accept that there are certain provisions within DCMA that allows such websites to avoid legal repercussions on condition that they immediately remove any content that is disputed.

However, Wikipedia does not link to copies of copyrighted websites. Full stop.

I see no reason why it's acceptable for us to link to a copy of a copyrighted work just because it is on "WayBack Machine" or any other similar site, but not link to copyrighted works on random-other-websites. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not full stop. Full stop implies there is nothing more in the policy. As per WP:COPYLINK, "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time." Unclear, except for many court cases in which claims were dismissed on the basis of fair use. We have a policy that says we can link to the WayBack Machine et al. and you're trying to change it based on a flawed interpretation of another policy (which you've been proven wrong on User talk:Jimbo Wales). So, in bold, oppose any change based on flawed interpretations and misinformation. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note that wmf:Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities tells that you may not be "Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law." The words "applicable law" appear at various places in the terms of use and sometimes there is a statement indicating that applicable law may include the law of the country where the editor is residing. Since it is illegal to link to copyright violations in a lot of countries, it seems that it may be against the terms of use for editors in those countries to add links to the Wayback Machine.

Please explain why. Why do you think it's acceptable to treat "WayBackMachine" differently to Joe's blog site? Thanks. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the WayBack Machine and others like it (big full fledged archiving websites) have been treated differently by the law. The courts have said that these websites who exist to archive, in full, websites for future use are not violating any copyright. Plus, since the WMF servers are in the USA, we abide by US law, in which the WayBack Machine type sites are under fair use. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see in what way linking to material hosted by Webcite or the Internet Archive without the permission of the copyright holder is any different to linking to material hosted on Youtube without the permission of the copyright holder. I assume that the word "acceptable" needs to be changed into "unacceptable" unless the copyright holder has granted a licence to the archive which allows hosting verbatim copies of the material. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

1st sentence - yep, exactly. 2nd sentence - I see no need; just remove it. No reason to specify "WayBackMachine" or "Webcite" any more than there is to specify YouTube, or Joes-blog, or whatever.

Copyvio is copyvio, why the hell are we promoting it? 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but this isn't copyvio. This is fair use, and has been determined by courts that exact replication, in whole, of a website is not a violation of copyright if for the use of archival of previous versions of websites. Therefore, not copyvio (and that has been explicitly stated, that it's not copyvio, multiple times in court cases). gwickwire^talk_editing 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me that law, or those multiple court cases? 88.104.28.176 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Depends which state you want, never said law by the way. Google "court cases internet archives fair use" and you'll find tons. Granted, a lot ended with the archival site removing it because they felt a moral responsibility to do so, but there rarely is a court that orders an archival site to take down something. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that US courts apparently "look kindly" on sites that remove info when asked, but the fact remains that they're violating copyright.

I have to insist - please, substantiate your argument with direct evidence, not just saying "there are tons of cases" - I've looked, and I cannot find anywhere that US courts have said it is OK to 'archive' (ie COPY) something that is copyrighted. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There's evidence, all emphasis mine gwickwire^talk_editing 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, you say it's never been okay to copy something copyrighted? Why the hell do we have fair use then? Why can I copy anything I want copyrighted if I previously purchased/obtained access to it for my own personal use as long as I don't use it for commercial gain (and it's not explicitly prohibited in the terms of use of the thing)? There's TONS of exceptions to copyright violation law, and this is one of them. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

"Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement" - fine. But, Wikipedia is not a search engine.

"make up to three copies of a work for preservation purposes" - we're not doing that either.

Wikipedia is free - and can be freely copied even for "commercial gain". That is exactly why it must be so careful not to use resources that are copyrighted. copying cannot be for "direct or indirect commercial advantage" - right.

Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. - WP:FAIRUSE

Even commercially. We want people to be able to copy our work, even if their website has adverts.

It is antithesis to the mission to link to copies of copyrighted works.

"Why can I copy anything I want copyrighted if I previously purchased/obtained access to it for my own personal use as long as I don't use it for commercial gain" - because, it's copyright. And even if you could, that does not apply here on Wikipedia.

"Fair use" is, frankly, a load of shit. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws. Your original argument was "we can't link because these websites are violating copyrights". Now you're saying we can't host copyrighted content? We aren't doing so. We are linking to it, legally doing so. By the way, you misquoted me in your second to last, I said "Why can I do so?" because it is perfectly legal for me to do so. Your arguments are fundamentally wrong, and you've given us no good reason to feel that the policy should be changed. I'm done arguing about this now, because you seem to be failing to listen to me and others. My oppose any change vote above still stands. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you accept that we're linking to copies of copyrighted content, right?

You have not explained why that is OK if it's WayBackMachine, and not OK for YouTube. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I accept that, and I'm done after this clarification: Youtube does not legally host copyrighted content, users upload copyrighted music/works all the time in violation of copyright law. Also, Youtube is almost never a reliable source, so there's rarely a reason to link to it. The WayBack Machine hosts old copies of newspapers, etc. that otherwise would be dead, unverifiable, links, and since they don't violate copyright law there's no reason for us to not link to them, but all the reason to link to them. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that it is legal to distribute digital copies outside a company's building because you've found a document which says that it is legal to keep digital copies of a work as long as the copies aren't distributed outside the company's building? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue where I said that. I clearly said personal use, how is distributed personal use? You're trying to discredit me now, and that's why I'm not going to continue. There's the evidence right there, and there's more in court documents scattered across the web. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments are nonsensical; when we've asked for specific clarification, you've not given any. Please stop espousing nonsense about alleged myriad "court documents" if you cannot support it with cold hard factual references. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I make no comment on the legal position, but merely note the following, quoting from the evidence provided by gwickwire above in relation to the DMCA (my emphasis):

"Furthermore, the copies can be digital, so long as they are not distributed digitally nor made available to the public in a digital format outside the premises of the library or archives.

… If digital copies are made, access to the digital version must be limited to the premises of the library or archives."

So this would not allow publication on a publicly-accessible website, thus, it does not support your argument. —sroc (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This isn't really a good forum for deciding what the law is. If it's believed that links to archive sites are illegal, the best thing to do would be to raise the question with WMF. The question for this discussion should be limited to whether or not the policy is good or bad. Formerip (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I already asked Jimbo about that; he didn't answer, and I was advised by Moonriddengirl (who works for the Foundation) to make this RFC instead.

It actually doesn't matter to us whether the sites are breaking the law. The question is just, should we link to suspected copyright violations. These 'web archives' clearly contain copies of copyrighted pages. DMCA provisions mean they are not likely to be libel for fines, as long as they agree to quickly remove anything if asked to do so. But that does not change the fact that they're providing copyrighted material that they do not have permission to reproduce.

We do not link to other sites that are suspected of violating copyright (example, youtube) - so why are these considered different/special? 88.110.246.208 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. ... Why? Because the content is (to the best of our knowledge) hosted legally, and linking to legally hosted content is (to the best of our knowledge) fine. If either of those things changes, we'll have to review our position, and potentially mass-remove a boat-load of links via bot (which would be bad, but not actually very hard). That seems unlikely to happen, and I don't see why we should worry about it unless there's some actual sign of legal issues arising. There's really no need to be more Catholic than the Pope. Rd232 ^talk 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think they're hosted legally? I can't see anything that indicates they are. Just a bunch of copyright notices. As mentioned, they're usually not fined as long as they conform to DCMA take-downs, but that doesn't mean it's legal.

If it was a legal copy, why do they have to respond to take-downs?

I've looked, and can't find any indication that they're legal copies. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use can be pretty wide-ranging, and depends on many factors. The value of having such a service may very well outweigh most copyright claims against it, in its particular form. That doesn't mean one can copy the content for other purposes, but I think they would have a pretty strong claim to fair use. What makes you think it is illegal (i.e. outside the bounds of fair use)? It has existed for years and to this point has not been ruled to be a copyright violation; the longer it goes that way tends to lead credence towards the assumption it is fair use. In the end, I think we would need an actual court ruling against it to change policy. I would agree that if the Wayback Machine archived a site which was a copyright violation in the first place (one of the reasons they have to respond to DMCA take-downs), we shouldn't link to it -- but if it had been acceptable to link to the original site I don't see any issue in linking to the archived version. A big part of Wikipedia is the need for verifiability, and the ability to continue to link to reliable content dramatically helps the stability of articles (otherwise people could somewhat control the content of Wikipedia by getting content removed from websites, forcing us to remove content which used that as a source if your proposed policy is accepted). We have a pretty strong fair-use need to continue such links. The IA documents the history of websites and little else. Google also archives content to aid in searching (both images and the web); those have been actually found fair use (even their book search) and I don't see why the IA's claim would not be at least as strong. For me, we would need actual court rulings to reverse existing policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Such cases already exist - you can read about some of them in Internet_Archive#Controversies_and_legal_disputes.

If you recognize the fact that the sites contain copyright material, then the simple question remains - why are we linking to them but not to other sites that contain copyright material (such as YouTube news clips, for example)? The only argument seems to be that it's very useful to link to web archives.

An example archive, the "United States 108th Congress Web Archive", says this - which is quite pertinent;

Many, if not all, of the Web sites in the collection and elements incorporated into the Web sites (e.g., photographs, articles, graphical representations) are protected by copyright. The materials may also be subject to publicity rights, privacy rights, or other legal interests.

Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with the person desiring to use the item. You will need permission from the copyright owners or rights holders for reproduction, distribution, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. [4]

Harvard web-archive says, The Site and its content are being made available for the purpose of private study, scholarship and research. The Site and its content are protected by copyright.[5] Those purposes are not compatible with Wikipedia.

To come back to the primary point - I do not understand why the current policy considers it OK to link to a copyrighted work that happens to be stored on the WayBack website, but not if it is on YouTube, or Random-blog, or anywhere else. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would assume Wikipedia is compatible with "private study, scholarship and research" Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an incorrect assumption; wikipedia can - and is - freely copied on commercial websites; that's why we have to be so careful to use truly free content;

Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. WP:NFC

Furthermore, let me use a simple example; a CNN news article.

1. It's copyrighted, so we cannot copy-paste it on Wikipedia.

2. We can link to the information at CNN, because it's their own site.

3. We cannot link to a copy of that copyrighted site on e.g. "joe's blog"

That makes sense.

4. (Current policy) We can link to a copy on WayBack.

Why?

If you claim some kind of 'fair use' then we could just copy the whole thing to Wikipedia - the article, the pictures, everything. If it's not "fair use" then we can't link to a copyright-violation either.

Why is it apparently magically OK if it is on "WayBack" (as the current policy says)?

If I posted the CNN article on my own website, I couldn't link to that, right? Or if I made a YouTube video of the website.

I see absolute no reason for any difference, and so far nobody has given any difference. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In those cases, I think we could link to the WayBack cnn.com archive, but should not link to the WayBack "joe's blog" archive. I don't think being on the Internet Archive should change its status one way or the other. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If the person uploading it to YouTube had permission (i.e. it was a corporate account and uploaded by the copyright owners), I can't see a problem with that type of link either. If it is an unauthorized copy on YouTube (quite common), it's a completely different situation (and if the WayBack site archived that bad copy, we should not be pointing there either). There may well indeed be some problematic content on the Internet Archive -- that can happen with the automated archiving they do -- but in general all such content has been made previously available for free on public websites, which avoids some copyright pitfalls (the right of first publication for example which can outweigh many other fair use factors). They are making such copies available only on a fair-use basis, that is quite true, and that protection does not extend to other uses people make of that material if they copy it -- that is only what those terms of use sections say. That does not make their presence illegal though, and more importantly, does not make links to them illegal either (links can only be contributory infringement, not direct infringement, since no copyrightable material is actually copied). And in the end, if there are particular instances of content which should not have been made available there, the solution is to file a request to the Internet Archive itself. They can remove the content there, which additionally means that Wikipedia can no longer link to it, which would solve both issues at once. There is no need for Wikipedia to do anything in particular. Our use is also for private study and scholarship; we are not copying content and as such that content does not need to be "free"; we just need to make sure our links follow the law (the problem with contributory infringement would be pointing people to infringing copies on the net; there should be no problem referring people to non-infringing copies, and a copy covered by fair use would not be infringing). Wikimedia would be protected by fair use as well. The fact that there are likely a few instances of inappropriate content does not mean that we should avoid linking to the other 99.9999% of the material they have. I could see discretion on things like the Omni magazine being made available wholesale -- that could have just been a mistake in robots.txt on the original website with no particular intent to copy the magazine -- and we should use common sense in those situations, and probably no link to it. If an individual makes a similar copy available, it's different, as they were knowingly targeting that particular work rather than the publicly-available Internet as a whole. Fair use determinations are made based on the entire situation and all facts involved; a similar act but in different circumstances may end up with a completely different result. We do need to be somewhat careful about sites we link to -- in the Internet Archive's case though I think that would only extend to sites that were originally a problem as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So, if I start a blog which copies CNN news articles every day, we can use that as a reference too? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The intent and situation would be a bit different, again -- you would be targeting one particular copyright owner, not making a general archive. That would likey change the fair use determination. Secondly, the Internet Archive typically does not make copies available for months or even a couple years after they archive them -- for current content you need to go to the original site, and that is where a lot of the commercial value is. I suspect that if the WayBack machine were to make up-to-the-minute copies available it would be a different situation with some content (such as those with ad revenue). The content there is also not typically included in Google searches, so they are not trying to draw traffic there. Their goal is to make historical content available, not be an ad-free alternate for currently-available content. There is a public interest in that, but there are limits, and your blog would have to demonstrate a similar level of balancing of the public interest and copyright owner's rights in order to demonstrate fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So, I'll make a site that archives CNN news every month (and not before) - does it then become OK as a reliable source?

I'm sorry to get so hypothetical, but it's actually a quite reasonable concern. I just don't see why "WayBack" is such a special case. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are targeting one specific site, yes I think that is different -- that is prejudicial to that particular copyright owner. Fair use isn't really set in stone, and a judge could fix on one particular facet to distinguish one case from another even if they seem largely similar. There is some further info here. If you are focusing on only providing archives of one site, or commercially-oriented content only, it would be much less safe ground. The CNN archives are a relatively small portion of the WayBack Machine's entire site, but that would not be true of a CNN-targeted archive. It's also entirely possible that certain archives would not really be permissible on the Internet Archive either if it came down to it, but that is best determined by if they take down access upon request rather than guessing here. Website owners know about the WayBack Machine, and given that there are automated ways of preventing copying it's somewhat tacit permission for that use in particular -- those factors may also be considered. Fair use inherently has a certain amount of uncertainty to be sure, and without something more solid (in the form of actual rulings) I don't think we should assume that their use is inherently infringing. They have a pretty good case in most situations, I'd think. The nature of websites are different than a book or magazine, as well. As for being a "reliable" source... if we know it's an accurate copy that would technically qualify on that regard but it can be hard to tell if someone with an agenda might have slightly altered it, and that kind of thing, which is why even apparent copies on "joe's blog" are not really considered reliable.

OK, my blog will keep a copy of CCN and Fox News, and the BBC news, and Ouest France. I know it's facetious but, I do not understand why you think 'WayBack' should be specifically excluded from our policy on not linking to copies of copyrighted works. I'm pretty sure "YouTube" tries hard to avoid copyright too, and they have lots of (unofficially uploaded) news reports - I don't know why you think they're any more 'trustable' than Wayback? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a side note on YouTube (this does not address the issue of Wayback): Unless something has changed recently, we actually are allowed to link to YouTube videos that are posted by their copyright holders (Example, a video of BBCNews report hosted on the BBCNews YouTube Channel is acceptable). What we can not link to are copies of that same news report copied and posted by someone other than the BBC. Those other users are violating BBC's Copyright when they copy and post the video. Also, please remember that there are multiple reasons for our limitations on YouTube besides the issue of copyright... a major one is the issue of reliability (An anonymous YouTuber can not be relied on to present a "true and accurate" copy of the original... he/she might edit or alter the report in some way). Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that's fine. We can link to CNN publishing their own copyrighted works on YouTube - no problem with that. But we can't link to <random> posting them. So why can we apparently link to WayBack posting them? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately its because the foundations lawyers say we can.

(now for some speculation from a non-Lawyer as to why this might be:) It might be because WayBack doesn't actually "copy and post" the webpages you see... Wayback archives the actual websites themselves (complete with the original URL). In this regard, it may help to think of Wayback as a library that keeps old editions of the dead tree paper books in its collection. As each new edition of the book comes out (containing corrections and changes, or even complete rewrites), the library puts it on the shelves next to the older editions... but library users still have access to the older editions, for reference. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, the Foundation lawyers don't care if we link to WayBack or YouTube or Joe's Blogg. It is not illegal to use a link to a copyright violation. Current policy says we should try not to do so - which makes sense. The question is, why it excludes links to WayBack. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason I just set out. When we link to unauthorized YouTube postings, or Joe's Blogg, we are essentially pointing the reader to a copy of the material. It's like pointing to an unathorized xeroxed copy of a book. When we link to an archived page on a site like Wayback, however, we are not pointing the reader to a copy... we are pointing to a previous edition of the actual website in question. It's like pointing readers to an old out of print edition of a book located in the Public Library. Depending on the circumstances, it can be a copyright violation for people to xerox pages from old editions of books, and make them available to the public... it is never a copyright violation for a public library to make an old edition of the actual book itself available to the public. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WayBack provides copies of the original - exactly the same as YouTube or whatever else.

Public libraries loan books to individuals for personal use - they do not publish them. If they published copyrighted materials, for example by posting them on a website, that would be a copyright violation. Otherwise, libraries could make all their books available on the internet.

Pointing to the WayBack copy is not showing readers where they could obtain the material, it is directly linking to the material.

Going back to the example - if WayBack is providing a CNN news story, they do not have any permission to do so. Same as someone other than CNN posting a CNN video on YouTube. 88.110.248.82 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, they do not have permission. Their defense would be fair use, which does not require permission. Someone posting a CNN video on YouTube could try a fair use defense but would be very unlikely to win. The same act done for different purposes can end up with different rulings -- the "character and purpose of the use" is one of the four fair use factors. Any judge would get into why the act was done, and if that reason was good enough to override normal copyright. The why question between the Internet Archive and someone uploading a single video is completely different, as might be the "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". If you were to put as much effort into creating an archive of the entire Internet as they do, only then would the situations be reasonably comparable. The "nature of the copyrighted work" is also at play in fair use; there is no way the Internet Archive could make available copyrighted books without permission but the nature of website material is not the same. Every situation is going to be a little bit different, no matter how similar it might seem to you, and the small differences are often the difference between being found guilty or innocent. For one example, see the judge's reasoning in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., where they go over the four fair use factors and weigh each one carefully. Copying entire works is normally not fair use but is going to be necessary to provide an archive -- the judge must decide if the public interest in having that archive is enough to outweigh normal copyright. In the WayBack Machine's case that is likely for the vast majority of their content; for someone just making copies of news stories it is a lot less likely. If you wanted to have a site such as WebCite, which makes targeted copies for bilbliographic purposes, you may be OK. But as for just uploading to YouTube, where it is out of your control and you are just making it available to others, it is not at all the same purpose and there is very little chance for a favorable fair use ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, actually it may be illegal. Providing links to known copyright infringements has been ruled contributory infringement in at least one case (en:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, which was after they had removed directly infringing copies from their own site but linked to others). Other courts have not always decided that way, but it's right on the borderline. Wikipedia is a very popular website and links to known infringing copies could be considered that we are actively directing users there and therefore contributing to direct infringement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need archive sites to deal with the huge linkrot problem on the internet. While the practice remains legal, we should not shoot ourselves in the foot over this. Any reuser who needs to also reuse an article's references will also not have a legal problem since they are merely pointing to the source of their information. It is not alright, of course, to link to an archive copy of a site that itself contained copyvio material, but I don't think that is what the proposer had in mind here. SpinningSpark 13:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)