User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2017/February
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This really takes the biscuit
I've seen books of collected wikipedia articles before but this one takes the biscuit. I was looking for a citation for some text in an article, searched for it in google and came across The Esoteric Codex: Shapeshifters in google books with the exact string of text I'd entered. It soon became clear that was because I was reading the same article I'd taken the text from. Looking through the book it then became apparent it was just a collection of wikipedia articles, complete with the hatnotes, See alsos and External links. There are some articles in there that I know you and Sagaciousphil have put a lot of work into, such as Kelpie. Now, I'm not bothered about someone using our work elsewhere - that's the deal after all - but I would like them to at least clean them up a bit and take out the innapropriate parts, and using the images is a whole different ball game. The cheeky sod has it up for sale for £21.15 at lulu.com (the link is blacklisted but you can follow it from google books) where it says "copyright public domain" - which it isn't, it should be under a commons license. As it is, there is a button there for "report this content to lulu" so I've done that and told them that it's ok to use the text with appropriate attribution - which to be fair, they seem to have done - but if they are using images they need to check every one for its licensing and copyright status. It will be interesting to see how they respond. Richerman (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- This image appears on page 2 and is non free use; I wonder how many more there are? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)