Atpugkapeed

Molly Springfield

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Molly Springfield, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mollyspringfield.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Atpugkapeed, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Copyright concerns

Hi. I wanted to drop you a line after reading your note at Talk:Molly Springfield, "There is no copyright violation. Mollyspringfield.com is the artist's website -- i.e. the website of the subject of the article". I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. If you mean that copyright concerns do not exist when we use a subject's own publications to discuss the subject, I'm afraid this is not correct under the US law that govern Wikipedia. For example, in Salinger v. Random House, Random House was forbidden to copy letters written by J.D. Salinger in its biography of the author. They were permitted to use the information in the articles, but had to properly paraphrase the text. If you mean that the website has been compatibly licensed for reuse with Wikipedia, I do not see that notice. However, copyright concerns have been eradicated by the rewriting of the material.

On Wikipedia, all previously published content is presumed copyrighted unless we are able to verify that it is either public domain or licensed compatibly for reuse. (See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information on licensing, including how to verify permission if you have been given it or own the previously published text). Contributors to Wikipedia may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Our guideline on non-free text give information on how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text.

If you have questions about any of this, please feel free to come by my talk page, which you can reach by following the "talk" link after my username. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)