User:Sphilbrick/Proposed changes re copyright issues
Anyone who has worked in copyright areas has seen examples of contributors with blatant disregard for copyright. We cannot, and do not abide this, and address problems with file deletion, warnings, and blocks, if necessary.
That said, anyone who has worked in copyright has also seen improper uses of material under copyright where the editor may be simply ignorant of our copyright rules, or worse, where an editor is making a good faith effort to comply, but has missed some nuance of the myriad of complicated copyright rules and laws.
As a project, we are dedicated to complying with copyright laws, and our own rules, which are sometimes more restrictive than the laws. We continue to do so, even when additions are done form ignorance or good faith errors.
However, we send messages to all editors that often do not adequately distinguish between serial, deliberate violators of copyrights and good faith attempts to follow the laws and rules.
When it comes to vandalism, we adopt a tiered approach with our responses, attempting to AGF first attempts, using cautious and conciliatory language, then ramping up the tone for repeat offenders.
In short, I propose the same paradigm. An editor involved in a copyright issue for the first time, should be seeing a message that is primarily helpful, and assumes the edit or upload was a good faith attempt. Repeated infractions should get stronger language.
The vandalism sequence has four levels. For copyright, I think three is enough.
Level 1 – First time offender
This is the default, and assumes the offender did not intend to break a rule.
Level 2 —Repeat offender, but may simply need some guidance
Level 3 – Has received sufficient warnings that good faith is no longer warranted, and warns that next edit/upload may result in block
- Identify relevant templates and other text.
- Wordsmith proposed revisions
- design instructions for use
- community feedback on wording and instructions