Talk:Daniel Everette Hale: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
George Swan (talk | contribs) (→provenance: new section) |
George Swan (talk | contribs) (Provenance) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
This article is entirely my own work, first started in the wikipedia's userspace. The wikipedia now has an article on Hale, started after this draft. I had nothing to do with it, and this article is entirely my work. [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] ([[User talk:George Swan|talk]]) 20:59, 19 May 2022 (CDT) | This article is entirely my own work, first started in the wikipedia's userspace. The wikipedia now has an article on Hale, started after this draft. I had nothing to do with it, and this article is entirely my work. [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] ([[User talk:George Swan|talk]]) 20:59, 19 May 2022 (CDT) | ||
* [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat]], WRT attribution to the wikipedia, as per [[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service|Feist v Rural]], the SCOTUS ruled that ordinary ''"lists of facts"'' are not protected by copyright, in the United States. Copyright protection requires at least a ''"spark of creativity"'' - their wording. | |||
: You added {{tl|WPAttribution}}. I think merely adding references taken from elsewhere, even if they are taken word for word, does not require {{tl|WPAttribution}}, because references are simple ''"lists of facts"''. | |||
: Images also do not require {{tl|WPAttribution}}, because their specific licensing terms are on the image's description page... [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daniel_Everette_Hale.jpg#Licensing Licensing ], in this particular case. [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] ([[User talk:George Swan|talk]]) 17:19, 16 April 2024 (CDT) |
Revision as of 16:19, 16 April 2024
|
Metadata here |
provenance
This article is entirely my own work, first started in the wikipedia's userspace. The wikipedia now has an article on Hale, started after this draft. I had nothing to do with it, and this article is entirely my work. George Swan (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2022 (CDT)
- Pat, WRT attribution to the wikipedia, as per Feist v Rural, the SCOTUS ruled that ordinary "lists of facts" are not protected by copyright, in the United States. Copyright protection requires at least a "spark of creativity" - their wording.
- You added {{WPAttribution}}. I think merely adding references taken from elsewhere, even if they are taken word for word, does not require {{WPAttribution}}, because references are simple "lists of facts".
- Images also do not require {{WPAttribution}}, because their specific licensing terms are on the image's description page... Licensing , in this particular case. George Swan (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2024 (CDT)
Categories:
- Military Category Check
- Law Category Check
- Politics Category Check
- Stub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Military Stub Articles
- Military Internal Articles
- Law Stub Articles
- Law Internal Articles
- Politics Stub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Military Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Law Underlinked Articles
- Politics Underlinked Articles
- Need def
- Military need def
- Law need def
- Politics need def
- Need rel
- Military need rel
- Law need rel
- Politics need rel
- Need bib
- Military need bib
- Law need bib
- Politics need bib
- Need ext
- Military need ext
- Law need ext
- Politics need ext
- Military tag