자기가 일단 새로 쓰고 살짝 막히는 부분이 있으면 각주나 참고문헌 달고 책을 살짝 컨닝(?)해서 쓰면 됩니다. 이렇게 해야 저작권 걱정이 없어요. 잘못된 내용 쓸까봐 걱정할 필요 없어요. 어차피 인터넷은 이상한 정보들도 많이 떠다닙니다. 저도 제가 쓴 예전글에 틀린 내용 간혹 발견하는데 누군가 고쳐줄수도 있고 제가 나중에 다시 보면서 스스로 고치기도 합니다.
위키백과에 올리는 글과 사진, 영상은 대한민국 저작권법과 미국 저작권법(DMCA)의 저촉을 받는데 공부하기 어려워서 그냥 자기가 새로 쓰거나 그리는게 속편하고 시간도 절약됩니다. 저작권 표기가 없다고 해서 반드시 자유로이 쓸 수 있는 것은 아닙니다. (또, 가끔씩 저작권이 없는 작업물에 저작권 표기가 잘못 되어 있을 수도 있습니다.) 불확실하다면 쓸 수 없는 것이라고 추정하는 게 좋습니다.
Some of the deprecated licences still apply full copyright to people in developed countries (Developing Nations Licence), or don't permit distribution of the whole work (Sampling Licence)
You can add any type of content if it has been made available by authors under an appropriate license (see below). It's not enough to have a license that restricts use only to Wikipedia or prohibits commercial use; these are treated as if there was no license at all. You can also add content if it is in the public domain, as discussed below. If the material you would like to use is not currently licensed compatibly with Wikipedia, you may be able to obtain permission to use it. See Requesting copyright permission for details.
(If copyright of the previously published text belongs exclusively to you, it must also be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) to comply with our Terms of Use. The Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License is not necessarily compatible with other copyleft licenses. An incomplete table of licenses compatible or not with Wikipedia is shown below. Remember that inputs of Creative Commons licensed text may require attribution; point to the source in your edit summary and, if necessary, with attribution on the article's face using {{CC-notice}} (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources).
en:Wikipedia:File copyright tags for some of the licenses permitted as well as an explanation of what criteria the license must meet.
Occasionally, the question is raised about the copyright status of press releases. While press releases are by nature intended to be reproduced widely, there is no inherent permission to alter them or create derivative works based on them, or to use them for commercial purposes. Accordingly, press releases are handled like other copyrighted content. In the absence of explicit disclaimer or permission, these may not be freely reproduced.
Under very narrow circumstances, copyrighted images and text can be used without permission under the "fair use" clause of US copyright law. Limited use of copyrighted text, for example, can be done without requiring permission from the rights holders for such things as scholarship and review. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and below for more information on when and how copyrighted text and images can be used on Wikipedia.
Unless copyrighted images and text meet Wikipedia's non-free content allowance, we can't use them or create "derivative works" of them. That means we can't translate too much from a copyrighted foreign language source to include it here or prominently feature a copyrighted image inside of a picture we take. (See below for more explanation of derivative works.)
Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. But be careful not to closely paraphrase; the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. The United States court of appeals noted in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that factual compilations of information may be protected with respect to "selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity," as "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers."[2] You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw.
제가 만든 문서에 다른 누군가가 만든 위키백과 문서의 그림을 쓸 수 있나요?
그 외에 다른 Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License 하에 배포되었거나 비슷한 자유 라이선스가 or a similarly free license provided you abide by the license conditions - include a link back to the wikipage for that picture or to the creator's website and license 모든 교정된 버전 you create under the same license as the original.
일부 텍스트는 CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA과 호환되는 라이선스 하에서만 도입되었고 GFDL는 적용이 안되어 있습니다. 이는 각 페이지 하단에서 확인하실 수 있으며 ; such text will be identified either on the page footer, in the page history or the discussion page of the article that utilizes the text. 2009년 6월 15일 이전의 위키백과의 텍스트는 GFDL로 배포되었으며 문서 편집 기록에서 이 날짜 이전에 쓰인 기록을 보면 GFDL와 호환되는 텍스트를 보실 수 있습니다.
만약 앞서 설명한 조건하에서 사용하기 싫으시다면 위키백과 컨텐츠를 사용하는 것은 불승인됩니다. 위키백과의 짧은 구절을 인용하는 건, 출처를 표시한다면 미국 저작권법의 공정 이용 하에서 허락될 것입니다. See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia for information about the proper citation of articles. No permission is needed to create a hyperlink to Wikipedia or its articles.
Images used in Wikipedia may have their own, completely independent licensing scheme. Looking at an image's description page by clicking on the image itself should ideally tell you the copyright status of the image. Many images are either in the public domain or licensed under copyleft licenses (such as the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License), but many are copyrighted and used on Wikipedia under the "fair use" clause of US copyright law.
문서를 인용할 때는 고유링크로
위키백과의 모든 문서는 계속 버전이 바뀌기 때문에, 어떤 내용을 인용할 때에는 '고유링크'를 쓰셔야 합니다. 고유링크는 특정 편집판의 주소인데, 문서 변경 내력(역사 탭)에서 확인할 수 있습니다. 예를 들어 현재 시각 기준 이 문서의 고유링크는 이것입니다. 그 화면에서 주소를 복사하시면 됩니다. 아래 그림도 참조하세요.
문서 역사 화면 외에도, 모든 문서 화면에서 왼쪽 아래를 보면 고유링크가 있습니다.
위키백과에 올라온 저작물 중 저작권을 위반한 작품이 있으면 어떻게 해야 하나요?
위키백과는 위키백과 바깥에서 제작된 저작물에 대해서 엄격히 다룹니다만 항상 그게 제때 처리되지 않을 수도 있습니다. 만약 저작권을 위반한 저작물이 위키백과에 올라온다면 {{삭제}} 틀을 이용해서 삭제 신청을 해주시거나, 백:문서 관리 요청을 통하여 삭제 신청을 해주세요.
저작권은 다른 사람들을 그것을 카피하는 것을 예방하기 위해 granted하고 있는 창조적인 일의 프로듀서 권리이다. patent와 달리, 그러나 , 대부분의 장소들(i.e., countries) 에서 너는 저작권을 위해 적용하지 않아도 된다 – 너는 너가 창조적인 일을 제작하는 매 시간마다 그것을 자동적으로 얻을 수 있다.
A creative work can be almost anything – a book, a song, a picture, a photograph, a poem, a phrase, or a fictional character. In the US, buildings built on or after December 1, 1990 are also eligible for copyright.[3]
라이선스 may be granted to others, giving them the right to copy the work subject to certain conditions. A license is similar to a contract – the work may only be copied under the conditions given by the copyright holder or if one of the other exceptions to the copy right applies.
Copyright laws vary between countries; the relevant US law is Title 17.[4] The Berne convention is a comprehensive international agreement on copyrights which is part of the copyright law of many nations.[5]
Copyright does not protect against all possible copying: both US law and the Berne Convention limit copyright scope and enable much copying without permission even if the copyright holder objects. For example, piano roll (mechanical) rights for music within the US are available under a compulsory license with licensing rates that are set by the US Copyright Office.[6] (To be covered by this compulsory license, the music in question must have been previously released to the public in the form of a recording at least once.)[6] In the US, fair use (in the UK, fair dealing) is explicitly permitted as well, as is the right to sell a licensed copy of a copyrighted work, such as a video tape or sound recording. Also, both the Berne Convention and US law require that a work have some original creativity to be eligible for a copyright monopoly. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service contains some examples of US decisions about what is and isn't original, including examples such as typo correction.
"Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government – it creates the legal fiction that a piece of writing or composing ... is property and can only be sold by those who have been licensed to do so by the copyright holder". – Orson Scott Card.[7] Note that it is limited to the form of expression, not to the ideas. Thus, a book by Agatha Christie is likely to be copyrighted, but the mere idea of a detective with an accent and odd personal mannerisms would not be, nor would a story about someone claiming to be the premier consulting detective in a major city be a violation of the Conan Doyle copyrights on Sherlock Holmes stories. Ideas and facts are not copyrightable in most places, only the form of expression of them.
퍼블릭 도메인이란 저작권이 없고 누구나 복사해서 가져갈 수 있는 작업물을 말합니다. It may have been placed in the public domain by its creator, it may be ineligible for copyright (not original enough or otherwise excluded), or the copyright may have expired: 예를 들어 미국에선, 1923년 이전에 발표된 모든 저작물은 퍼블릭 도메인입니다. 왜냐하면 이 저작물들은 영국과 유럽 대부분의 국가에서 저작권이 만료되었고, 모든 음반들은 발표된 지 50년 이상 지난 퍼블릭 도메인이기 때문입니다. (미국특별법에선 일반적인 기간을 지나 이런 저작물들에 대해 저작권을 확대할 것을 허용하도록 하였습니다.) 국가별 저작권 만료 기한 문서를 참조하세요.
미국 정부에서 제작한 저작물들은 미국 내에서 퍼블릭 도메인이며 따라서 미국 정부의 웹사이트 (.gov, .mil) 에 올라온 컨텐츠들은 모두 퍼블릭 도메인입니다. 하지만, 미국 정부 웹사이트에는 자주 다른 사람에게 저작권이 있는 저작물이 올라오며 the US government can even own copyright on works which are produced by others. 다시 말해, some US Federal websites can include works which are not in the public domain--check the copyright status before assuming something is public domain. Note also that this applies only to the US Federal government. Most state governments retain the copyright on their work (California and Florida being notable exceptions).
영국 정부에서 만든 작업물들은 퍼블릭 도메인이 아닙니다. 이들은 크라운 저작권에 의해 다뤄집니다.
인터넷에 올라와 있는 아무런 저작권 표시가 없는 저작물은 퍼블릭 도메인이 아닙니다.
만약 저작권이 있는 내용에 퍼블릭 도메인 저작물이 있다면 그건 퍼블릭 도메인이 아닙니다. The portions of the new copyrighted work that are from a public domain source may be removed and copied without permission. 예를 들어 when a public domain text is included in a Wikipedia article any additional text or new creative elements are still under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.
You may not distribute a derivative work of a work under copyright without the original author's permission unless your use of their content meets fair use or fair dealing. (일반적으로, 작품의 축약이나 분석은 2차적 저작물이 아닙니다.)
Taking a work in the public domain and modifying it in a significant way creates a new copyright on the resulting work. 예를 들어, 올손 스콧 카드의 작품 《홈커밍 사가》는 모르몬의 책을 재해석한 것입니다. 그러므로, the books in the Homecoming series can be copyrighted. No Fear Shakespeare is a series adapting the works of Shakespeare into modern language. Even though Shakespeare's works are public domain, the No Fear Shakespeare series is protected by copyright. This is true as well of the translations in the Penguin Classics series. Although faithful translations of public domain works, they each are protected by copyright.
The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement. The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in originality. In their opinion, the Court noted: "There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify."[8]
This ruling only applies to two-dimensional works. For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken. Therefore, pictures of public domain 3D works are not free unless it was created by the uploader. In addition, in some countries such as the United Kingdom, simple diligenceis enough for a work to be copyrightable (including reproductions of public domain works). The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on this, however, is that any reproduction of a two-dimensional work in the public domain is not copyrightable, for otherwise the very purpose of the public domain would be defeated as to such works.[9]
저작권이 있는 건물의 그림들은 파노라마의 자유가 없는 국가 (예를 들어 프랑스나 이탈리아) 에서 찍은 사진이라 할지라도 2차적 저작물로 간주하지 않습니다. In United States copyright law though, "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work – but only if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."[10] As such, freely-licensed photos of copyrighted buildings (but not photos of copyrighted artwork attached to buildings) generally can be hosted on the US-based English Wikipedia regardless of where the photo was taken.[11]
공정 이용 조건 하에서라면, 당신은 원저자의 라이선스 없이 저작권이 있는 작품을 복제할 수 있을 것입니다. One of these limitations on the rights granted to the copyright holder 를 "공정 이용"이라 합니다. 더 제한된 범위로 설정한 버전을 페어 딜링이라 하며 보통 미국 바깥에서 적용됩니다.
일반적으로, 공정 이용의 예외 범위는 모호하고 국가별마다 다양합니다. 한 국가에서 공정 이용인 저작물이 다른 국가에선 아닐 수도 있습니다.
미국 저작권법하에서는, the primary things to consider when asking if something is fair use (set forth in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107) are:[12]
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
The nature of the copyrighted work;
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Asking yourself these questions might help you determine if something is fair use:
Is it a for profit competitor or not? Is it for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Is the use transformative (of a different nature to the original publication)?
Is it a highly original creative work with lots of novel ideas or a relatively unoriginal work or listing of facts? Is the work published (to a non-restricted audience)? If not, fair use is much less likely.
How much of the original work are you copying? Does the portion that you are copying constitute the "heart" of the work and/or its most powerful and significant part? Are you copying more or less than the minimum required for your purpose? The more you exceed this minimum, the less likely the use is to be fair. Are you reducing the quality or originality, perhaps by using a reduced size version?
Does this use hurt or help the original author's ability to sell it; in particular, does it replace the market for authorized copies? Did they intend to or were they trying to make the work widely republished (as with a press release)? Are you making it easy to find and buy the work if a viewer is interested in doing so?
None of these factors alone is sufficient to make a use fair or not fair - all of them must be considered and weighed. It's routine for courts to express degrees of acceptability or unacceptability for each factor and try to come to a summary and conclusion based on the balance.
1990년대 이래, US rulings on fair use have emphasized the two questions of (1) whether the usage was for a transformative purpose (i.e. a different purpose than the original market purpose) and (2) whether the usage was appropriate with regard to community practice in the community (i.e. higher education) in which the usage took place.[13]
Quotations are a very well known and widely used form of fair use and fair dealing and are explicitly allowed under the Berne convention.
If you produce a derivative work based on fair use, your work is a fair use work. Even if you release your changes into the public domain, the original work and fair use of it remains and the net effect is fair use. To eliminate this you must make the use of the original so insubstantial that the portion used is insufficient to be covered by copyright.
It is possible for a work to be both licensed and fair use. You may have a license which applies in one country or for one use and may make fair use in other cases. The licenses help to reduce the legal risk, by providing some assurance that there won't be legal action for the uses they cover.
Stanford University Library - Summaries of Fair Use Cases[14]
위키백과의 데이터베이스는 미국에 있기에 위키백과의 저작권법에 관해서는 미국 저작권법을 따르며 미국 저작권법 범위에 들지 않는 저작물에는 해당되지 않습니다. 위키백과:비자유 저작물의 인용은 an evolving page offering more specific guidance about what is likely to be fair use in the Wikipedia articles and what Wikipedia policy will accept, with examples. 일반적으로, 위키백과 문서의 교육적이고 변형적인 유형은 문서를 재생산하는 누구든지에게간에 최고의 공정 이용 사례를 제공할 것입니다.
Particularly in relation to photographers a number of other considerations may also restrict your right to take or publish photographs. For example a photograph of a person may infringe their right to privacy. Similarly you may not have the right to take photographs in non-public locations. These restrictions are often mistakenly referred to as copyright infringements when in fact other laws apply.
Useful short-hand guides may be found concerning certain rights and restrictions affecting photographs taken
라이선스는 라이선스에 설명된 방법으로 저작물을 사용할수 있는 권한입니다. 단일 저작물에는 작성자가 유용하다고 결정한만큼의 라이선스가 있을수 있습니다.
Example - the very widely used database MySQL is available with at least two possible licenses, one a GPL license, the other a license allowing distribution of modifications without compelling publication of source code.
It's very common for a copyright holder to provide licenses tailored to the needs of an individual large business customer; it's much less so for individual, and small business customers. Typically, individuals will use one of the following boilerplates:
비영리 라이선스에는 여러가지 종류가 있지만, 일반적으로 "비영리 목적으로 저작물을 사용, 복사 또는 배포할수 있습니다."와 같은 말을 사용합니다.
Example: "Images contributed to this database by the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes without asking permission from the COC or paying copyright royalty"
Jimbo has prohibited the use of these[18] and the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation passed an official resolution about this in 2007.[19] They may still be used under the doctrine of fair use in the English Wikipedia; some other projects, such as the Spanish Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons, prohibit them entirely.
교육 라이선스
과학 저작물이 교육적인 사용을 허용하는 매우 일반적입니다. What each publisher considers to be educational varies. Some consider only schools and colleges to be educational, others include all forms of public education, including encyclopedias, to be educational.
Jimbo has prohibited the use of these.[18] However, they may still be used under the terms of fair use.
허가된 라이선스
Permissive licenses allow for unrestricted use, modification, and distribution of a copyrighted work. The modified BSD license, the X11 license, and the MIT license are each examples of permissive licenses. These licenses seek to make it as easy as possible to reuse the licensed work: the objective is generally to make the work available and as widely used as possible, but without releasing it to the public domain. Those using permissively licensed works can relicense derivative work under more restrictive license terms.
Because of the very limited license requirements, license incompatibility problems with this type of license are relatively uncommon, so it is very easy to reuse these works.
An attribution license is a permissive license with an additional requirement of attribution of previous authors' works in any derivative work. An attribution licenses says (essentially): "You may use, copy, or distribute this work, as long as you give credit to the original author." The original "four clause" BSD license is an example of an attribution license.
Example: "Photo by John Smith. Copyright 1999. Permission granted for free use and distribution, conditioned upon inclusion of the above attribution and copyright notice."
카피레프트 라이선스
Some licenses are called "copyleft" licenses. Essentially, they have three key properties:
A work licensed with a copyleft license can be copied at will.
All published derivative works must use exactly the same license as the original: if you use the work, you're forced to use the same license for your own original work as well.
If your work is using a different license, you can't use the copyleft license, even if your work is also using a (different) copyleft licence.
If you don't want to accept the license of the copyleft work then you may not use the copyleft work as part of your own work
There is increasing awareness of the license incompatibility problem of copyleft licenses, since many people are simply trying to force reusers to publish the source of their work. This is why we, with the cooperation of the Free Software Foundation, arranged to migrate Wikipedia from the GFDL license to the CC-BY-SA license and why we recommend this license to others.
On Wikipedia, images licensed under incompatible but similar copyleft licenses are allowed, as they can be incorporated into articles at will (as the actual text under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and the GNU Free Documentation License just has a pointer to the image) and the only thing that can't be done is using parts of both images to create a new image (as derivatives must be under the same license).
Example: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or later
Some people have complained that the GFDL is too hard to interpret and too hard for reusers of small works to comply with because the license can be longer than the work covered by the license. This reflects its origins as a license intended for manuals, not small works. There is some hope that the FSF will help to remove these problems in a future version.
Most of the text on Wikipedia is also licensed under GFDL. In order to determine whether a page is available under the GFDL, review the page footer, page history, and discussion page for attribution of single-licensed content that is not GFDL-compatible.
전형적인 상업적 라이선스
전형적으로 상업적 라이선스는 별도의 허가가 없는 한 저작물의 일부분 까지 재배포가 금지하는 라이선스입니다. 라이선스가 없는 것 보다 라이선스가 있는 것이 더 나은 반면 이 라이선스 들은 매우 제한적입니다.
비상업적 혹은 교육을 위한 라이선스들도 겉보기에 공정 사용으로 보일지라도 위키백과에는 쓸 수 없을겁니다.
↑Statement from Deputy Director of the WMF "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain."
