Talk:Papa-Nicholas (Planas) of Athens

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Hyphen==
 +
Hi, the hyphen is actually part of how he is known ...taking out the hyphen is like changing his whole character. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 19:33, March 9, 2008 (PDT)
 +
 +
----
 
Do we have permission to use [http://evlogeite.com/?p=74 this text]? It is not clear what is being used from which source.  Also, a specific URL should be linked. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 10:03, February 25, 2008 (PST)
 
Do we have permission to use [http://evlogeite.com/?p=74 this text]? It is not clear what is being used from which source.  Also, a specific URL should be linked. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 10:03, February 25, 2008 (PST)
 
:Hi, honestly I have not asked because I did not realise that blog spots are also copyright, especially if you reference them? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 13:34, February 25, 2008 (PST)
 
:Hi, honestly I have not asked because I did not realise that blog spots are also copyright, especially if you reference them? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 13:34, February 25, 2008 (PST)
Line 5: Line 9:
  
 
::The law in the United States changed several years ago so that whenever someone writes something, takes a photography, or composes some new work, it is automatically assigned a copyright unless an the originator expressly notes otherwise. For those who write articles in the Orthodoxwiki, a copyright is assigned as noted in the Orthodoxwiki governing rules. Information can be taken from copyright material but must be re-written as a "new" article. Copyright laws may differ in other countries, but it is safe to say that one canNOT assume verbatim copies can be made of ANY published material that is not distinctly marked with permission to copy.[[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 17:03, February 25, 2008 (PST)
 
::The law in the United States changed several years ago so that whenever someone writes something, takes a photography, or composes some new work, it is automatically assigned a copyright unless an the originator expressly notes otherwise. For those who write articles in the Orthodoxwiki, a copyright is assigned as noted in the Orthodoxwiki governing rules. Information can be taken from copyright material but must be re-written as a "new" article. Copyright laws may differ in other countries, but it is safe to say that one canNOT assume verbatim copies can be made of ANY published material that is not distinctly marked with permission to copy.[[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 17:03, February 25, 2008 (PST)
 +
 +
:::OK, what is the technical definition of "new" article? Is modifying classified as "new"? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 17:18, February 25, 2008 (PST)
 +
 +
::::[[w:IANAL|IANAL]], but FWIW, authorship-implies-copyright is also the case in Australia.  ''But'', a person cannot copyright ''facts'' - they can copyright their creativity (e.g. how they wrote the article); they can copyright their research (but, other people can build on ideas); but not the facts themselves.
 +
::::The way that I've gotten around it is to take an article and strip it of any creativity.  Most articles that have a biographical timeline have been done this way (see [[Irinej (Dobrijevic) of Australia and New Zealand]]) - the idea is that later, someone will go through and rewrite it into an article, and because the original article has not been seen (or, more likely, has been forgotten), there is no feasible way to plagiarise. {{unsigned|Pistevo}}
 +
 +
:::::Pistevo, what is FWIW? LOL ... that makes sence and is quite easy rule to follow. Strip an article of descriptive sentences and keep facts alone and then build upwards again. THANKS for the advise. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 17:48, February 25, 2008 (PST)
 +
 +
::::::"The use of a copyright notice has not been required under U.S. law since March 1, 1989."[http://www.copyrightkids.org/cbasicsframes.htm] Blogs may be NOT considered a free-for-public-use tool.  If a website or other work does not have an obvious copyright notice, it should be assumed that the work is under copyright, and permission must be sought, and obtained before the work is used.  This includes blog posts and images one finds online.  FWIW means "for what it's worth."  —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 17:59, February 25, 2008 (PST)
 +
 +
==Apolytikion==
 +
Hello, it would be really good to be able to add the apolytikion of the Saint to this website. I've been unable to find it in English. Any ideas of where to find it?

Latest revision as of 17:31, October 8, 2012

Hyphen

Hi, the hyphen is actually part of how he is known ...taking out the hyphen is like changing his whole character. Vasiliki 19:33, March 9, 2008 (PDT)


Do we have permission to use this text? It is not clear what is being used from which source. Also, a specific URL should be linked. —magda (talk) 10:03, February 25, 2008 (PST)

Hi, honestly I have not asked because I did not realise that blog spots are also copyright, especially if you reference them? Vasiliki 13:34, February 25, 2008 (PST)
In the style manual it says "... most things are copyrighted by default." At the bottom of each page, just above the summary: "By submitting your work you promise that you wrote it yourself, obtained explicit permission, or copied it from public domain or similar free resources — this does not include most web pages!" My understanding is that if you create something, you own the copyright on it unless you specifically give up your rights to it, whether it's a masterpiece on canvas or your personal diary. One difficulty in copyright disputes is proving your right to it, by showing that you created it (or created it first). It seems unfair to use someone else's work without permission. Another aspect is that we want the best sources on OrthodoxWiki. If we cite everything, then people who have a problem with the information can check: "Oh, here's where St. Athanasius wrote that." That's one reason I like to put the "(OCA)" and "(GOARCH)" links after sources for saints, so that readers understand the links they click on are from legitimate Orthodox sources. For instance, many Catholic books look down on St. Photius the Great, considering him a schismatic.[1] By pointing out that such a statement comes from a non-Orthodox background helps to sort through information. Pointing out when sources come from Orthodox sources, in turn, helps readers (at least myself) feel more sure of the information on OrthodoxWiki. —magda (talk) 14:05, February 25, 2008 (PST)
I see your point regarding quality of work - I agree with u that information used on OrthodoxWiki should really be from the most reputable sources, so I will take further care to make sure that I abide by this from this point on. I do want to ask though, on some Blogs there is not indication of the copyright at the bottom of the page. In those cases (where copyright is not plastered all over the page) can we presume that we can use the information (if we know it is correct) since blogs are sort of considered a free for public use type of tool? Vasiliki 14:24, February 25, 2008 (PST)
The law in the United States changed several years ago so that whenever someone writes something, takes a photography, or composes some new work, it is automatically assigned a copyright unless an the originator expressly notes otherwise. For those who write articles in the Orthodoxwiki, a copyright is assigned as noted in the Orthodoxwiki governing rules. Information can be taken from copyright material but must be re-written as a "new" article. Copyright laws may differ in other countries, but it is safe to say that one canNOT assume verbatim copies can be made of ANY published material that is not distinctly marked with permission to copy.Wsk 17:03, February 25, 2008 (PST)
OK, what is the technical definition of "new" article? Is modifying classified as "new"? Vasiliki 17:18, February 25, 2008 (PST)
IANAL, but FWIW, authorship-implies-copyright is also the case in Australia. But, a person cannot copyright facts - they can copyright their creativity (e.g. how they wrote the article); they can copyright their research (but, other people can build on ideas); but not the facts themselves.
The way that I've gotten around it is to take an article and strip it of any creativity. Most articles that have a biographical timeline have been done this way (see Irinej (Dobrijevic) of Australia and New Zealand) - the idea is that later, someone will go through and rewrite it into an article, and because the original article has not been seen (or, more likely, has been forgotten), there is no feasible way to plagiarise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pistevo (talkcontribs) .
Pistevo, what is FWIW? LOL ... that makes sence and is quite easy rule to follow. Strip an article of descriptive sentences and keep facts alone and then build upwards again. THANKS for the advise. Vasiliki 17:48, February 25, 2008 (PST)
"The use of a copyright notice has not been required under U.S. law since March 1, 1989."[2] Blogs may be NOT considered a free-for-public-use tool. If a website or other work does not have an obvious copyright notice, it should be assumed that the work is under copyright, and permission must be sought, and obtained before the work is used. This includes blog posts and images one finds online. FWIW means "for what it's worth." —magda (talk) 17:59, February 25, 2008 (PST)

Apolytikion

Hello, it would be really good to be able to add the apolytikion of the Saint to this website. I've been unable to find it in English. Any ideas of where to find it?

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox