Talk:Howard's 10 year party gatecrashed

Original reporting notes

Own research, hope this Isn't a problem.. --Goldiemicky 05:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, please make sure to add the original research tag. Is that your photo? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The article and the photo are copyvios. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

All information was writen by myself an is an account of events which transpired on the day. Also, the photograph which was added to commons was taken by myself. The link I made (the one where copyright violation is suspected) was to a cross posting on that media source created by myself whereby the licence is attrubuted to me, the author. The reason I linked to it because It has additional photos taken by me which Isn't suitable for the commons or wikinews articles in general. --Goldiemicky 23:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status

The copyright license of the Indymedia site is not compatible with the copyright license of Wikinews. Wikinews articles are licensed as CC-by, which means anyone may reuse our articles in any way so long as the original authors or Wikinews is cited and mention is made that the article is copyrighted. The Indymedia site has a license which is more restrictive:

N© Melbourne Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Melbourne Independent Media Center.

If you were to edit your article there and say that your article and images are free for any use, then this would not be a copyright violation. But because we allow commercial re-use of our content it is currently a copyright violation. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN}

I wrote the article directly into the wikipedia window, sigh.. I guess it's not news anymore now.. --Goldiemicky 08:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article Goldiemicky... I especially like the photo. I repost articles to Sydney Indymedia all the time. It's no problem at all, just that according to the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, Indymedia must attribute the article to Wikinews. See here for an example. If indeed you "wrote the article directly into the Wikinews window" then this article is not a copyvio - rather, Indymedia has used Wikinews content without attribution. I'm removing the copyvio tag. - Borofkin 02:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Very good work

Reads really well; made me feel like I was there. Neutralizer 05:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Goldiemicky states that s/he "wrote the article directly into the wikipedia window". I assume s/he meant "Wikinews window". If this is the case, then the content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, and it is not a copyvio for it to appear on Wikinews. Rather, Melbourne Indymedia has reused our content without attribution. I'm removing the copyvio tag. - Borofkin 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, according to the Indymedia timestamp, it was written there first. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I see the Wikinews article created at March 4, 15:00, and the Indymedia article created on March 4, 15:08, so the Indymedia article was created 8 minutes after the Wikinews article. I think this may be a timezone issue. - Borofkin 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I hadn't changed my preferences for Daylight savings. You think I'd have noticed that by now. I wonder if the Indymedia website is also wrong.... that 8 minute time difference is quite a co-incidence. - Borofkin 03:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)