Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Talk:Quebec bashing
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Victoriagirl
Parties involved	Peregrine981, Mathieugp, Liberlogos, Nfitz
Mediator(s)	Geo.plrd
Comment	Copyright violation

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Talk:Quebec bashing]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Talk:Quebec bashing]]

Request Information

Request made by: Victoriagirl 07:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Quebec bashing

Who's involved?

Victoriagirl, Peregrine981, Mathieugp, Liberlogos, Nfitz

What's going on?

I questioned the use of a specific source, hoping that some sort of consensus could be reached as to the propiety. There has been little progress on the issue, instead the discussion has drifted off into a debate over history and politics.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like the issue to be addressed by all in a civilized manner without condescension. I would also like to know whether this matter is currently covered by any specific policy or guideline.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I'd like to be as open as possible. No discretion required. Thank you.

Mediator response

I will be mediating this case. Could the initiator place a statement summarizing the issue in the Disscussion section. Geo. 19:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

If the content is copyrighted and does not have permission to use, Wikipedia can not use it. You would be justified in deleting these links then, get sysop assistance if necessary. The case is therefore Closed. Geo. 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Having read the situation on the talkpage, I'd like to point out Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Please note that if the site in question has not secured permission to reproduce the copyrighted works in question, we are not allowed to link to it. Fair use in the United States (where Wikipedia is located, primarily) does not allow for wholesale copying of articles like this. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. What of the fact that the site is hosted in Quebec, Canada and keeps "wholesale" copies of newspaper articles published in Canada 99% of the time? Doesn't that mean we are talking about Canadian law here? (I see in Wikipedia:Copyrights mentions of copyright laws in many countries but not Canada.)

2. If doing what Vigile.net is doing is considered fair use in Canada, is it good enough for Wikipedia to continue linking this site as external source?

3. In light of the policy regarding the linking to copyrighted works, I think it would be best to ask Bernard Frappier, the person who operates the Vigile.net website, what information he has on this question. Shall we contact him instead of trying to guess? -- Mathieugp 18:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I see nothing in 'The Copyright Act' to indicate that what Vigile.net is doing is covered by fair dealing ("fair use" being a foreign term). With respect, I can't agree to Bernard Frappier's participation as he would certainly be in conflict of interest.

That said, as the reference links to Vigile.net violate Wikipedia policy, it would appear that further investigation would be an academic exercise at best. Victoriagirl 21:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victoriagirl's agreement to Bernard Frappier's participation is certainly not necessary. In a trial, what Victoriagirl is doing here would be the equivalent to her being a lawyer and objecting to the accused being able to speak because 'he would certainly be in conflict of interest'. Needless to say that such an objection would be dismissed by the court.

In order to render justice, we need elements of proof which presently we lack. No one has yet proved or disproved that 1) we are not dealing with a case of faire use (appearently called fair dealing in Canada) 2) that Vigile.net has not secured authorization for the use of press material, assuming it is actually required because not covered by fair dealing. Only after proving that there is a possible copyright violation would it make sense to avoid any linking to Vigile.net for the greater good of the Wikipedia project.

Regarding The Copyright Act, I found this section suggesting that maybe the site is operating under fair dealing after all:

29.2 Fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

(a) the source; and

(b) if given in the source, the name of the

(i) author, in the case of a work,

(ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance,

(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or

(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/230536.html#rid-230548

Proving or disproving 1) would required finding jurisprudence on this matter. I am not a lawyer. Can the Mediation cabal find one for us? Proving or disproving 2) would required communicating with the person responsible for the administration of Vigile.net. There couldn't be any valid reason to prevent this from happening in case it becomes necessary. -- Mathieugp 04:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, with respect, in objecting to Bernard Frappier being approached I am expressing a personal opinion as to the propriety. It is not my intention to act as a lawyer or a judge; rather I am interested in contributing to an article that is in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I merely point out that M Frappier has a vested interest in whether or not Vigile.net is linked, whereas those involved in this process do not.

Hoping to avoid legalese I offer the following:

29.2 of The Copyright Act concerns "news reporting". What Vigile.net is doing in the articles under discussion is posting previously published articles commissioned and created by others.

I have yet to come across mention on Vigile.net that any of the articles being reproduced are done so with permission of the newspaper, magazine or journalist involved; the latter being relevant in writing involving freelance writers as determined by the recent Supreme Court decision [1]. These sorts of notices are not at all uncommon. In fact, I came across such a notice this morning while researching another article [2].

As there is no evidence that M Frappier has permission from The Washington Post, L'actualité, The Gazette, Le Devoir, La Presse, The National Post (and The Financial Post), Le Droit, The Montreal Mirror, and the Canadian Press, or the freelance writers involved, it would appear that linking to the website is prohibited on Wikipedia. Victoriagirl 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fail to see how dealing with Wikipedia policy we can affort to 1) 'avoid legalese' and 2) disregard the facts that will allow us to know what is and what isn't. Presuming that the operator of Vigile.net would lie and feed us false information shows what appears to be a profound distrust and lack of respect or at best a bias in favor of acting before knowing the basics of what we are dealing with here. From what I read in an article on lautjournal.info, Bernard Frappier is a former professor of philosophy ( http://www.lautjournal.info/autjourarchives.asp?article=2574&noj=251 ) who dedicated most of his time to his daily Internet news site for the past 10 years. That's about the only information we can find on him and that certainly does not constitute a valid reason to doubt his honest cooperation.

Regarding the court case, it is written "In 1996, Robertson sued Thomson Corp., The Globe and Mail, and Information Access Co. for unauthorized reselling of her articles in their databases and CD-ROMs." Nobody here is talking about reselling anything, i.e., making money off of someone's else work and giving nothing in return.

Regarding the article mentioning 'Reprinted with permission from The Globe and Mail' at the bottom, that is nice. However Vigile.net mentions the Source, the Author (and the Date) at the beginning of every foreign article it includes, which fully respects the requirements for fair dealing (section 29.2) as far as I can understand.

As stated above, as nobody here appears to be a lawyer of Canadian copyright law, it probably is best to get all the facts straights and also some legal advice before reaching any conclusion. -- Mathieugp 12:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid my opinion regarding M Frappier's participation hasn't changed - of course, I am but one person, neither judge nor jury, and wouldn't presume to suggest that my position should prevent a user from contacting any person or organization, whether it be Vigile.net, The Washington Post, or The Gazette.

I mention the recent Supreme Court ruling as, I believe, it does speak to the rights of freelance writers in respect to material used by Vigile.net. While it is true that the case was brought on by a 1996 lawsuit prompted by the sale of articles, the class action lawsuit under discussion addressed the issue of ownership. In effect, the ruling stated that freelance writers own the copyright to their articles, and that they cannot be reproduced, whether gratis or at cost on online databases.[3]

While relevant, I think this is distracting from the central question: Has Vigile.net sought and obtained permission to reproduce the articles in question?

Although the original sources are provided, I venture to say it is telling that not one article includes "Reprinted with permission", or words to that effect, as here in this recent article reproduced from The National Post (one of the newspapers involved). [4] Victoriagirl 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the initiator of this case I am responding to the mediator's request (above) for a statement summarizing the issue:

Of the 56 unique references currently featured in the Quebec bashing article, 21 are linked to pages provided by Vigile.net. According to the site, these pages provide the text of articles published originally in The Washington Post, The Gazette, Le Devoir, La Presse, Le Droit, L'actualité, The National Post (and its precursor The Financial Post). I object to these links as there is no indication that Vigile.net has secured permission to reproduce the copyrighted works in question. As such linking to this site runs against official Wkipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Furthermore, as Vigile.net is a website with a clear political agenda, the accuracy of the transciptions may be questioned. Victoriagirl 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I note that:

1) There has been absolutely no mediation from Geo.plrd.

2) The majority of the invited parties neglected to participate.

3) None of the questions I asked got any answer. Before it was even possible to move forward, we at the very least, needed to know with certainty whether A) we were strictly dealing with Canadian copyright law B) assuming prevalance of Canadian law, whether "fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting" requires anything more than what is listed under section 29.2 of the Canadian Copyright Act

4) In spite of 1), 2) and 3) the user who requested the mediation assumed that the mediator's opinion was justification to move forward with her original plan.

5) Victoriagirl's arguments for removing the links to Vigile.net are logically flawed:

A) She claims that there is no indication that Vigile.net has secured permission to reproduce the copyrighted works, yet she rejects contacting the site's author to ask him precisely that. B) That very argument is itself based on the assumption that what is listed under section 29.2 is not sufficient to "secure permission". This is precisely one of the core points being discussed. It could be argued that we are in a case of fair dealing under Canadian law but we need to demonstrate it. So far, we have failed to prove or disprove any of this. -- Mathieugp 09:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Mathieugp said. This is like convicting someone of bank robbery because he had money in his pocket. If you don't want to contact M. Frappier, contact the copyright holders. John FitzGerald 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the evidence. Took me like three minutes to find it. This case seems to demonstrate a weakness of the mediation procedure. It seems both Victoriagirl and Mathieugp felt constrained from looking for evidence for quite understandable reasons. Roles need to be defined more clearly. John FitzGerald 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mathieugp has pointed out something I missed – the article i found is dated 1998. I've been unable to find anything later. As Mathieugp suggests, eight years later some accommodation has probably been reached. It's time to contact vigile.net. John FitzGerald 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well personally, this party didn't participate in the mediation, because no one ever notified him that there was mediation underway! I've looked in at the Quebec Bashing page somewhat, and felt no need to do anything. But I certainly hadn't read the Talk page, where this mediation was discussed. Shouldn't parties be notified on their talk pages, so that they know there is mediation underway? That said though, the outcome seems reasonable to me. There's no way under Canadian law that the wholesale reproduction of many articles is legal. And if Wikipedia can not link to pirated materials, then I think this is pretty clear cut. I don't see anything wrong, however, with simply listing the reference as the original article. Nfitz 00:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]