Talk:Bates method/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Meir Schneider

Could this Israeli news broadcast be used as a source? We have discussed the general lack of secondary sources regarding modern Bates method proponents, but Meir Schneider is one who does have a media presence. He was named one of Israel's ten most inspiring people. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the best way to use it is as an External Link. That way readers can watch it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I recently read Schneider's book, which it might also be legitimate to cite. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There could be one problem with this. When I looked it over, I couldn't find the copyright information. If the copyright information is not present, then it should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of copyright is that it concerns itself with copying. Providing a link is not copying, and cannot be a breach. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ELNEVER --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the Youtube channel hosting this video belongs to Meir Schneider's "School of Self-Healing" [1], so I seriously doubt that it is a copyright violation. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:ELNEVER. The copyright would usually be held by the TV station. Since no one can find the copyright information, it should not be included. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's quite easy to make enquiries and find out if it can be used with permission. I don't see that the owners would have any objection to it being used, but no harm in asking.--ReTracer (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, WP:ELNEVER doesn't say where the burden is in the event of uncertainty about an external link. I would further point out that #1, the video has been up since December 2007 without a copyright claim, otherwise it would have been taken down by Youtube, and #2, rather than being posted by some random person, the video is hosted on an account connected to the individual featured in the news broadcast, so there is a very good chance he got permission to use it. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and would like some clarity on this given all the recent discussions about such Youtube links. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is already complete clarity. We do not infringe copyright. WP:ELNEVER rightly insists that we do not knowingly publish links where others have infringed copyright. It does not suggest that there is a burden of proof on us that copyright has been respected, and such a burden would make thousands of external links unusable. In this case there is nothing to suggest that copyright has been infringed, and we can proceed with clear consciences. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So we don't care if there is no copyright information? I'll follow up at Wikipedia talk:External links. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary: it's pretty obviously a commercially-prepared and -broadcast video. It would be the height of disingenuousness to pretend that we don't suspect it is copyrighted material. YouTube is notoriously indifferent to copyright violation until the copyright holder complains; that doesn't give us a license to pirate. When in doubt, leave it out. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, the Youtube account hosting the video is verifiably connected to Meir Schneider. That makes it much more likely, I would say exponentially so, that permission was granted than it would be if the video had been posted by some random person. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it again. There's very strong consensus now that YouTube links should not be included unless the copyright info is provided, or there is no doubt that the video is not violating any copyrights. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So we assume bad faith on the part of Meir Schneider? Assume that he is pirating the news broadcast featuring himself? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. My guess is that they just didn't think about it. A number of items from their site don't have copyright notices. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the video once more, I don't think the English translation is from the news station. Whoever added it probably removed any copyright information, if it existed at all. None of their other YouTube videos have any copyright information. --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Their other five videos appear to be original. So a lack of copyright information for them doesn't tell us anything. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They are all examples of what I noted earlier, items from them where they failed to add copyright notices. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/user/SFSHMedia The other five videos all appear to be the original work of the owners of the Youtube Channel (i.e. Meir Schneider and his School of Self-Healing.) So this is apples to oranges as far as assessing their tendency in presenting copyright information. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They didn't give any copyright info in any of the videos. I take this to be a sign that they're unfamiliar with basic copyright law. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the other five videos are the original work of the owners of the account, if they don't give copyright info then there presumably is no copyright. And regarding the video in question, the reason it contains no copyright information is probably because it is only a segment of the news program. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Under the Berne convention, copyright is automatic, and does not need to be explicitly asserted. Therefore "I take this to be a sign that they're unfamiliar with basic copyright law" and "there presumably is no copyright" are both incorrect. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I take this to be a sign that they're unfamiliar with basic copyright law." While a copyright is automatic, it should still be asserted. That's the problem here. Either the copyright holder hasn't identified themselves, or the copyright information has been edited out. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still apples to oranges since five are original and the other isn't. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use?

Regardless of what is discussed above, it seems likely that this falls under fair use, especially in that the video is preserving the news story. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Let's just follow ELNEVER and the feedback from Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Youtube_link_where_we_cannot_find_any_copyright_info, rather than discussing basic copyright laws. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If we follow the feedback from there, does that mean we add http://www.self-healing.org to the External links, per Dreamguy's recommendation? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that, but you got in first. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy was responding to the specific issue of the YouTube video and the uncertain copyright. The YouTube link does not belong. We're all clear on that now?

The link to self-healing.org doesn't belong per ELNO #13. #2, #4, #14 appear to apply as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the aforementioned restrictions might not apply to self-healing.org due to it being an official site of a practitioner of the article's subject, per the lead sentence of WP:ELNO. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask about this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Ronz, I don't understand your comment "Let's just follow ELNEVER and the feedback from Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Youtube_link_where_we_cannot_find_any_copyright_info, rather than discussing basic copyright laws." Basic copyright laws are at the heart of the issue. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about non-free content, but on external links where the link in question is a YouTube link with no copyright information where the copyright holder is in question. That question has been answered, at great length.

If you want to discuss basic copyright laws in order to make exceptions for WP:ELNEVER, then continue the discussions there. If you want to understand basic copyright laws and their application to more general situations, do so on the appropriate policy talk page. If you just want to learn about basic copyright laws, read the appropriate policy and article pages, then ask questions on the appropriate policy talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "copyright information". At first I thought you meant a "used with permission" note. However, from what you've said since, that does not appear to be what you meant. As far as where it originated, the beginning of the video does say that it comes from Channel 2 in Israel, which had been noted next to the External link here. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The underlying issue here doesn't seem to be copyright information. The question is whether it is a copyright violation. If one provided every detail of a copyright, that still wouldn't make infringement any less so. This is where I am getting confused by your focusing on "copyright information". PSWG1920 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, in regards to your comment that "The issue is not about non-free content", that is wrong. This is definitely about non-free content. If we could prove that it was free, there would be no problem with the link (or at least the discussion would shift away from copyright issues.) Assuming that it's not free, the question before us is whether this reproduction is legitimate. There are three distinct ways in which it could be even assuming it isn't free. If Meir Schneider actually owns the copyright (unlikely), if he got explicit permission to reproduce it (seems very likely, but I can't prove it), or if it falls under Fair use (which I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it does.) PSWG1920 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The case for fair use

I'm becoming convinced that this is indeed a case of fair use even if explicit permission was not granted (and I would guess that it was, for reasons explained previously.)

• It's only a five minute segment of a news broadcast, not an entire edition.
• The reproduction is in effect preserving the story.
• It is being transformed in that English translation is provided here.
• It's very unlikely that Channel 2 in Israel is losing profit as a result of this.

PSWG1920 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i would have to agree with you as i came to the same conclusion prior to reading this section. additionally, youtube channels, myspace pages, and other types of services are increasingly being used as a sort of new-tech autobiography. Whereas in a book Shneider might merely mention this broadcast, he now has the ability to directly show it. We are not violating WP:ELNEVER by linking to a site which is using content under fair-use. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AGF or remove? Example

Here's an example to illuminate the points I have been trying to make. Chapter 3 of Philip Pollack's book is reproduced on Quackwatch. Because that is currently the only online resource which contains the complete text of that chapter, it is currently linked to in the chapter's citation in this article. I personally think that's a good thing, since it enables readers to easily check the references. But is the site complying with copyright laws? At the bottom of the page, it is stated "This article was originally published as Chapter 3 in Dr. Pollack's book The Truth about Eye Exercises, published in 1956 by the Chilton Co of Philadelphia." So there's the copyright information. But there is no explanation offered as to why it is OK to be reproducing the chapter. So perhaps it should be de-linked from here as a possible copyright violation. Or maybe we should assume good faith on Stephen Barrett's part, that somehow he made sure this use was permissible. I would suggest the latter, and I hesitated to point this out for fear that it would be de-linked from the references as a result. But now perhaps it is more clear what I mean when I suggest assuming good faith on the part of Meir Schneider regarding the video. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)