I have added this copyright notice to prevent large-scale copying of the websites data onto other websites.
This is just a response to Shetlopedia being copied page by page onto another website. To protect the Shetlopedia users work, I have changed the licensing of the website.
This is still being worked on and will be updated again soon. I'm trying to find the best copyright notice for the users and the website. Something that allows the contributors to retain the copyright of their own material, and prevent the copying of the information to other sites.
I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions on this.
GaryWiki 10:27, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
- I'm 100% in agreement with anything that can hinder the wholesale plundering of our hard work. Afraid I can't offer any suggestions, just support for whatever you think is best.
Worth noting that the "Copyright Thingy" which appears, bottom left, on this page, doesn't appear atall on Firefox or Flock browsers. This could be an issue, as people copying could argue that they saw nothing.
--Robbie 11:08, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
- agreed - did some formatting ... @Robbie: Not knowing that it is forbidden to kick your neighbour doesn't allow you to do so ... ;-) Islandhopper 11:29, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
Please discuss copyright issues with knowledgeable people. Material that has been released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) can not legally be made proprietary. Further, all modifications are also under GFDL according to the GFDL. If you simply want to bluff people, you can say anything you want about your copyright. But don't expect it to hold up in court if you sue for copyright violation. By the way, the software you are using is also copy-left, so all modifications to it are also copy-left and free for anyone to take, use and modify. You wish to take from the copy-left community and not give back? Well, making that illegal was the very point of copy-left in the first place. Read up on Richard Stallman. 18.104.22.168 17:57, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
- If Shetlopedia was properly examined for copyright, well, there would be a lot of material which would be removed. Not least the unlicensed images which do not constitute fair use.--22.214.171.124 14:32, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
I hope you realise that this move is incredibly ironic!!! Firstly because you have taken a lot of your text from wikipedia (and format) to begin with, and secondly because an awful lot of your content may not have been so "copyright free" were you to actually acknowledge where it came from... For example, many of your pictures are not properly licensed at all, and come from probable non-copyright sources.
A very stupid solution if ever there was one, and a retrogressive move as the internet goes. Shetlopedia wouldn't even exist without copyright free material. Remember that. --126.96.36.199 14:30, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
- @188.8.131.52 Please specify URLs of the images which you feel qualify under your sweeping statements above.
- Ghostrider 14:38, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
- Try wikipedia itself for a start. As for images whose source is not given - try Rhoda Bulter's here, which is obviously scanned from a newspaper/book without permission. macd.JPG Young MacDiarmid, a well known portrait of him, taken without attribution. Other images which are obviously from elsewhere - tourist websites, scanned Xmas cards, Station Agreement 1894 Shetlopedia.com Shetland.jpg old documents, without attribution, another book/newspaper, no source given, or copyright status - obvious scan, - North Sea Traffic.JPG bad photo of Norwegian museum displays, without attribution, allegedly with "permission" from News of the World but probably not, Copyright violation again - at least with attribution this time. You really don't understand the concept of "commons" do you - it's going to be people like yourselves who will make it impossible for websites like this to run in the future.
^^^I would reply, but your links don't work, so I have nothing to reply to.
EDIT. Okay, some seem to be working now, and of those which are, none are mine, so it's not my place to comment on your allegations, I'll leave that up to the individuals responsible for their upload. However from what I do know about one or two of those, your citing of them do more to defeat your argument than support it.
Ghostrider 09:15, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- @ Anonynous User --- Two of those, I am responsible for. The Xmas card image is from a scan of a picture owned by me, which has been in my family since before my father was born. I own it, end of story.
Fish station agreement is for my Grandfather. I think it goes without saying that I have right to use that image, end of story.
I personally don't know about the others. But if you're going to object to me displaying images of my own property, as and how I wish, you are obviously living on the wrong planet.
Robbie 09:25, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- @Anon - you should be carefull with your accusations. For example tourist websites is a map drawn by myself with Corel4 - so you might guess how old it is - and from that time it was published on my own private website about Orkney and Shetland (click on link next to the title) and is not from any tourist web site as you claim. Copyright violation again - at least with attribution this time. is no copyright violation either; it was drawn by me, alterations were added by me (as stated) and it was first published in my own tourist guide to Orkney & Shetland, German copyright applies and that is mine - absolutely no need to add anything more just to please you! Islandhopper 09:50, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
@user 184.108.40.206 & 220.127.116.11
Firstly may you, please, have a look at wikimedia help pages were wikipedia/wikimedia themselves publish website images which are using wikimedia but are not run under GFDL but under individual copyright
Secondly will you please accept, that wikimedia/wikipedia interpretation and usage of GFDL is a very particular thing which is not generally and worldwide practiced in the same way - please compare the different practice eg on the en:WP vs de:WP vs fr:WP especially and wit regard to pics ... as a German contributer to this website I do know what I am speaking about
Thirdly would you please accept, that eg. as a German contributer to any website I legally can not give up, sell or loose my copyright - I can only give up and / or sell the right to use my material and that is what I agreed to with my uploads and edits to this website which does not force me to add any of these stupid wikipedia licencing tags. The same would be against wikipedia where you might force me to add a licencing tag to be in accordance to the laws which have to be applied against wikipedia - but with absolutely nil effect as far as my personal copyright under German law is concerned. Said so I'm absolutely not dependend on your reflections about what you call "fair use".
Fourthly your claim "once published under GFDL - always under GFDL" is simply and politely spoken nonesense when talking about anything else of creative work like images or texts instead of all that kind of creative work like computer programms for which GFDL was originally 'invented'. What's happening here is nothing else but a contract 'by tacit consent' between ME (the author) and SHETLOPEDIA (the publisher). Eg all my contributions (complete texts, essential edits and images) to Shetlopedia are under my copyright under German law - without any further declaration - and with the site published under British copyright. I granted the right to use my stuff - by consent - under the conditions under which Shetlopedia is published; I can withdraw my granted rights whenever I want but especially in any case when the publisher of the website changes the conditions under which the website is published. Saying so I am well aware that any right of usage of any of my work granted under GFDL by myself - at lifetime and under full controle of my intellectual ability - can not be withdrawn by any of my inheriters or any other third party. Publishing both websites and printed matters for more than 30 years I do know my rights as both author and publisher.
You are simply overestimating your copyright knowledge which seems to be entirely based on wikipedia/wikimedia interpretations. Please note, that this is a website under British copyright, where nothing else but British copyright applies to - it is not an US registered website like wikipedia where the US right in general and that of the State of Florida in particular applies to. That includes where you might found a quote from wikipedia or any other website without a proper reference (myself added such a reference to the only pic used from wikipedia which I did find a month ago or so) you are kindly requested to leave a note and it will be corrected according to RBC, UCC and/or more actual WIPO standards respectively and where suitable and neccessary. Nevertheless, for Shetlopedia as a website under British copyright there is absolutely no need to add and / or show any licencing tag for any of its content may it be text or images.
BDW: To me it is somehow interesting to see you publishing as anons ... ;-) and, yes, sorry for my humble English ... Islandhopper 17:12, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
Perhaps you can clarify some of the comments made by 'anonymous', regarding licensing of pictures. As the person who has added most pictures to the site, I am slightly concerned with their 'allegation', as I read it, that I have done something wrong. The images I have uploaded were all taken by me, and I assume, as photographer I hold copyright to those images.
There are some of the old pics which I own, and are over 75 years old, so again I assume I hold copyright to those images now also.
If any other site, including Wikipedia, were to ask me I would most likely be happy to provide pictures for them also. Although I have to say that as it appears to be Wikipedia who are upset with my pictures, I would be unlikely to allow them use now.
Robbie 02:09, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
when that anonymus user 18.104.22.168 states For example, many of your pictures are not properly licensed at all, and come from probable non-copyright sources he
i) is simply speculating because he doesn't know anything about the sources
ii) is entirely sticking to wikipedia rules where it ist not allowed to upload any image without a licencing tag
but both his points of view don't have anything in common with copyright. There is NO international standard ruling that any individual contribution to a website has to be licenced individually. Simply due to this fact wikimedia does provide the upload tool in such a way that it can easily customized that's to say in this case in any way suitable which does not enforce the usage of wikipedia's own licencing rules and routines!
As for the rest I will explain it with regard to my own stuff what makes it easier for me to find appropriate phrasing ... ;-)
i) all my stuff added to Shetlopedia is under my copyright
ii) using the upload tool provided by Shetlopedia I automatically granted the right of usage to Shetlopedia - or more correct to Gary as owner of the Shetlopedia copyright
iii) that includes the right to use in on Shetlopedia where ever suitable and anyone who is entitled to do so may move it to a different article, show it there in addition or exclusively or take it from the article where it was originally added to &c &c
iv) that applies to all images uploaded under my here known name as Islandhopper with the following exemptions
- it does not apply to the reloads of Peter's and other folk's pics which I have worked (eg cleaning up the dust, refreshing original colours &c)
- it does not apply to the reloads as 'talking pics' under my here known name which are based on either your images, Oddrun's images or any other third party image
because in both cases my attributions of minor content are not qualified to create a new copyright; in these cases my work was done with your consent and all the images will remain under your/the original uploader's and/or Shetlopedia's copyright.
Any other third party use of my stuff published on Shetlopedia and under its conditions is liable for breaching of copyright. I would of course consult with Gary and we might take joint legal action or not but with regard to my own stuff it is not neccessary. I am absolutely free to act in any way suitable to defend my copyright.
With regard to the old stuff (eg scans of postcards as both of us have uploaded some):
Where copyright expired you are entitled to do so (for British stuff in general the 70-years ruling applies except for Crown Copyright stuff with the British Crown Copyright being not a "simple copyright" as such but a declaration of being Crown Property instead which makes a sophisticated difference as far as printed and e-published matters are concerned). In all these cases you don't create a new copyright applying to the material item (the original postcard) but for your scan and the resulting image, only. That's to say: anyone who has his own copy of the same postcard is entitled to do so alike, scanning and publishing it but he is not entitled to copy and paste your scan ...
BDW: Shetlopedia.com was a UK registered website from its very first start and thus UK right applies only. To me as a German contributer and compared with German jurisdiction the differences are neglectable. I am not that sure about Oddrun's status as a Norwegian contributer ... I once had a funny discussion with a Norwegian author who claimed copyright for grouping the Shetland Islands into Mainland, The North Isles, Other Islands off the North Sea Coast and Islands off the Atlantic Coast. The resulting laugh-attack nearly killed my publisher ... ;-) Islandhopper 05:37, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- Thanks Islandhopper, That was plain English... I understand now.
I suppose I can see why Wikipedia might be a bit annoyed if we make it difficult to copy our material. Most of what they have written about Shetland contains so many errors, that they would be making a big improvement by pinching our stuff.
I know I'm going to take a very dim view of it if they use any of my pictures without asking permission. And I can be a very nasty b*****d when annoyed ;-)
Robbie 06:23, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- The "anonymous editor" is not speculating. Many of your pictures are obvious scans and copies (the ones of a high quality, instead of with a duff camera) - you can't just scan stuff from books and newspapers without permission. Even in the UK this is usually a breach of copyright.
- ^^^I repeat, please state URLs, a sweeping generalisation such as the term "many" is without the slightest worth. Of the list posted above by your Anon. co-supporter only three images, from the links that could be made to work (a Shetlopedian had to correct them to those images which could be identified, none worked as originally posted?!?), are still outstanding without explanation, at this stage due to the uploaders not as yet having supplied such. As it is less than 24 hours since said links were posted, I do not think that is yet an unreasonable sitiuation, and in any case, three images from the hundreds on this site, is an extremely small percentage anyway. No response has been made to the explanations given for those that have been addressed, so until such are, it is to be persumed they are no longer part of the debate. If you can identify others, or figure out what those are that your Anon. co-supporter's dead links are supposed to lead to and supply live links, please get on with it. If not....
- Ghostrider 06:38, 17 September 2007 (MDT)
As the person who has provided most pictures to this site, I am beginning to take these comments very personally. So it's time to clarify a few details.
Over the last year I have taken, (Yes with a duff camera, I can't afford a better one), and posted I would guess, in excess of 1200 pictures. I have also scanned pictures from my private collection, and friends and family members who have given me permission to use the images. Sadly these scans are with a very poor scanner, but when it's all that's available, it'll do.
Where I uploaded pictures which I had not personally taken, they were taken for me by either my sister, or my son. If need be I can get them to put it in writing that I have their permission to use the images.
Other contributors have scanned and posted pictures from their private collections, again the quality isn't great but better than no picture.
Among our contributors there are also those who have uploaded very professional quality pictures, taken by them, and posted on the site by themselves.
I can't personally vouch for every image on the site, but roughly 75% of the images are provided by my duff camera, or my duff scanner, and I will be quite happy to let anybody inspect my files to prove it.
In the past I have provided many of these duff images to other websites, and if Wikipedia ask me I would be more than happy to provide ones for them too, but since they have decided to launch a personal attack on my photography, and accuse me of using images to which I don't have the right to use, it's obvious that they don't want them.
Also, I'd like to add that I have never used Wikipedia as a source for any article I have written on Shetlopedia. And I can only say sorry to Wikipedia if they have inadvertently copied any of the articles I have written, because it's likely just as poor quality as my photos.
Robbie 08:53, 17 September 2007 (MDT)
The unregistered user is right. Shetlopedia wouldn't be where it is without wikipedia.
Why can't they take stuff from us? Everyone should appreciate more widly available information on Shetland.
Also, hasn't anyone read the bottom of the editing page?
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here
JAStewart 07:02, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- OK, If that's your attitude, In future, I won't
Robbie 07:09, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- I know, what a hypocrite. Not only is this whole site taken from wikipedia, right down to "the free, online, ...Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" tag and format, but the owner has the nerve to take various copyright free images, and brand them his own!
@JAS, I can only partly agree with you, as the quoted statement can be read two different ways, and it itself would need to be tested before a court before it's worth tuppence. As the saying goes, there's acting in the spirit of a given law, and there's acting to the letter of a given law, often two completely different things, the same principle applies to that statement.
I have nothing against someone using stuff from us in principle, that, to my understand is the Wiki set up ethos, to be able to share information, but a little common courtesey and respect would go a long way. They're welcome to read us, and paraphrase/abridge us in their own words, and I don't think I'd have any particular issue with passage(s) or even image(s) being copied and pasted, IF, credit is given to the originator. For someone to simply copy/paste from someone else and pass it off as their own, regardless of whatever fancy wording they hide it behind, is falling within the definitions of theft, fraud and deception plus several other lesser ones, held by the majority of Joe Public. The information is already on the net, wouldn't you rather prefer folks came here and read the original, in context, which has been created by folk with first hand knowledge, and has been discussed and debated over where necessary to try and obtain best possible accuracy, than them picking up a few disjointed snippets which just happened to fit within the perception of a page creator, with little or no prior knowledge of what they were talking about?
Ghostrider 08:00, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- On a seperate, but related note, the copyright logo bottom left has never appeared properly for me, all I've ever seen is a horizontal rectangular outer box containing the standard small square with a red "x" at left, and the clickable wording 'Copyright Shelopedia' in plain text.
- Ghostrider 08:43, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- @JAS, you should have followed the discussions elswhere on shetlopedia about this matter and you probably would not have the problem with understanding what you have quoted from the bottom of the edit-box: redistributed at will it reads, not redistributed arbitrarily - and Shetlopedia's WILL is defined without leaving any doubt in the article to this talk ... ;-)
- ... and of course it is unfair to use third party stuff without proper credit. That's why I have added the title, author's name and publisher to that wikipedia image on the Samphrey page ... guess who did upload it ... ;-) Islandhopper 08:50, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
It's a pity they managed to pinch the Shetland Bus text. There was a lot of research went into that.
But I'm pissing myself laughing at the fact they pinched my Yoal article. The way I wrote it, it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard without the link pages.. It's very possible that they understand enough of our dialect to fill in the red links for themselves.. :-))) :-)))
Maybe they'll try to pinch Auld Rasmie's dialect poems in the hope of finding translations for the boat parts.
Robbie 12:42, 16 September 2007 (MDT)
- Pinch?! You've some nerve. If you hadn't pinched the majority of your original material from wikipedia to begin with, Shetlopedia wouldn't exist. You're some hypocrite by the way - take other people's work, but not let others take yours. People worked on some of the articles you pinched. You don't exactly understand the concept of "fair use" do you? I thought the Shetlanders were reknowned for community spirit, not Thatcherite tendencies. p.s. The dialect is extremely easy to understand - it's not exactly proper Norn. I know some Icelandic and Norwegian anyway, so that helps too. þú hlýtur að vera að grínast!
- To The Anonymus User :
- May I draw your attention to this talk page on Wikipedia
The talk on the section "Shetlopedia" clearly says "pinch", and the user who used that word is the one who has copied several pages from Shetlopedia to Wikipedia !!
I also want you to give us the ULRs to the pages that you say that we have copied.....
I know one page that was on Shetlopedia for a long time, copied from Wikipedia, a page called "Norway". The person who added it to Shetlopedia is a Wikipedia user, he is the one who last made an edit on "The Shetland Bus" on wikipedia, he is not the one who copied it, but from history I see that he is a long time Wikipedia user.....
On this link you can see what we have done with it, take a look at "history", and also at the talk page :
I'm sorry that "The Shetland Bus" page has ended up in Wikipedia long before it was finished..... That means that me and Robbie has to re-write the whole start of it, if not, I guess that Wikipedia will accuse us for having copied their article....It is sad when thing like this happen, we are a very small site, with few contributors, all we want is to make pages about Shetland and Shetlanders that is as accurate as possible, and cover all parts of Shetland history, we use many sources for information, some may use Wikipedia, I don't know, I personally has never done it.
Another thing is the "bad museum photos" I've uploaded a while ago....They have never been used on pages, they were mostly meant as reminders for later use, and if I ever uses them on a page, I will tell were they came from, I've got the Director's permission to to use all picture I've taken in that place, so there is no problem at all...
Oddrun 06:13, 17 September 2007 (MDT)
- To The Anonymus User :
We changed the copyright on Shetlopedia because of the way the articles were being copied. As Ghostrider says, we wouln't mind articles being paraphrased/abridged on other sites, but we're not happy for complete articles to be copied from Shetlopedia in the way they were being copied. A lot of articles have already been copied, and more were regularly being added.
Shetlopedia was originally set-up as a sort of extension to Wikipedia.
Quote from our original press release:
"Wikipedia is an excellent general information resource, but by its own rules it is a general resource and contributors are urged not to put 'trivial' information into Wikipedia as it would become less useful to the casual user."
Shetlopedia was created to give us somewhere to post the sort of information you would not include on Wikipedia. From that the website has grown to almost 3,000 articles and a few thousand images. A number of dedicated users have put a lot of effort into this.
As Wikipedia has copied our articles, we're seeing more and more of our pages appear lower down the search engine rankings, and Wikipedia copies of our articles appearing above it. There's also the issue about how search engines like Google deal with duplicate content. Often removing duplicate pages from their index so that the same information only appears once in a search. As Wikipedia is such a well known website, it's unlikely that Google would select Shetlopedia content to appear on the list and exclude Wikipedia.
You say "If you hadn't pinched the majority of your original material from wikipedia to begin with, Shetlopedia wouldn't exist". I disagree with this. There are cases, particularly at the beginning of Shetlopedia where we used Wikipedia content. At the time though Wikipedia had very few pages with Shetland content, somewhere around 5 pages I think. Shetlopedia grew quickly, and of the small number of Wikipedia pages we used, most of that content was deleted and replaced with our own. If there is some wikipedia content still existing on Shetlopedia, please point it out to us and it will be replaced. Shetlopedia grew from the passion of its contributors, not by using a few articles from Wikipedia.
Even at the time of the official launch in July 2006, Shetlopedia already had more original content about Shetland than Wikipedia has ever had, that is until you recently made use of our content.
With regards to the photographs on the website, almost all of these photos on the site are originals taken by the website users. Images appearing on the website that weren't created by the contributor are displayed with permission from the copyright owners. Any images that should not be on the website are removed when we find them. I expect these are few and far between though, as we do carefully watch what is added to the site, and only a small number of users are uploading images. If you know of any copyright breaches on Shetlopedia then please let us know and we'll remove them.
Shetlopedia is a small community website, with a small number of users. Unlike Wikipedia we all pretty much know each other, and we do discuss issues regarding copyright, vandalism and abuse of the website via email, forums or even in person. For that reason we can maintain a high standard on the website and we can deal with any issues quickly. This is a small website, run by people passionate about Shetland. We make no money from the website and we have have no advertising on it. It's simply a website for all things Shetland.
Whilst we're happy to work with Wikipedia, we can't allow Shetlopedia to be copied in full. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. You can email me on admin @ shetlopedia.com and I'll get back to you.
GaryWiki 08:52, 17 September 2007 (MDT)
Disclaimer for work copyrighted by others (or released under a free license)
You should probably add something like "This website and its content is copyright of “Shetlopedia.com” - © “Shetlopedia.com” 2007, All rights reserved, unless explicitly otherwise stated." This would apply to images like Image:ShetlandMuseumPhoto P00545.jpg (where the page now technically has to conflicting copyright claims), and also allow you to use images from Wikimedia Commons or Geograph-project without unintentionally claiming copyright for works released under Creative Commons license by the owners. Finnrind 10:56, 27 April 2010 (MDT)
Hi Finnrid & welcome!
There are no such "conflicts" as you are talking about. It simply is a matter of "copyright and quotation", not a matter of "licensing" according to wikimedia standards or something else (see also above under Gary's remarks in general). cheers Islandhopper 14:20, 27 April 2010 (MDT)
- Hm, I may have been too long involved in wikimedia and similar free license projects ;) Anyway, congrats on a great project, I'm always happy to see the mediawiki-software in good use. Best regards, Finnrind 16:45, 27 April 2010 (MDT)