I also do some of what the teacher in Comment 1 does, showing kids CC sites, and giving them CC materials. I also give them accurate information. I tell them for unpublished multimedia projects in class, they could use copyright materials, but why? They will never be able to publish it on the internet, so start with cc, then they can.

This is all very interesting to me because the issue of using cut and paste came up last week in the lab. I have been asking fifth graders to read content pages, and then write a couple sentences about what they learned.

http://oakridgefifthgrade.edublogs.org/2008/01/26/assignment-20/

Many have asked (or just gone ahead and done it) if they could cut and paste. I told them they need to put it in their own words. I will be doing a follow-up lesson showing them why I want them to summarize (to show they have learned).

One of the advantages of being the computer lab teacher is that I’ll have most students for more than a year, in fact I may have some for up to seven years.

One of the important points from an educator’s standpoint is that failing to properly cite an article or content in WikiPedia isn’t illegal.

I hadn’t heard about the new Israeli copyright act, I’ll have to read up on it. So the key takeaways here appear to be:
1- WikiPedia content is NOT public domain.
2- WikiPedia content is licensed under the GFDL.
3- Proper citation is expected under the GFDL, but the exact requirements and legal ramifications of proper/improper citations under this license are not clear at the current time.
4- Fair use determinations are secondary / apart from discussions about whether the GFDL terms are followed in a particular instance.

Bottom line: Students SHOULD cite their sources properly (including WikiPedia) but it is not clear that source citations (the bibliography or works cited section) impact the legality of quoting or using content.

All of this does not address one of the key questions of this post originally, however, which is: How can we help students understand the IMPORTANCE of respecting intellectual property rights and not plagiarizing?

“You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.”

The exact requirements for giving credit under the GFDL are a matter of some debate. Generally it is accepted that credit is required although the exact form such credit should take is uncertain due to the lack of relevant case law.

Fair use is a secondary issue since it would only likely apply for small scale copying and in any case the principle of fair use only exists under 3? (I’m not sure of the new Israeli copyright act has come into force yet) legal systems.

I stand corrected, thank you for this important clarification. According to the WikiPedia page for the GFDL the license:

…gives readers the same rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license.

You are correct, content included in WikiPedia is not in the public domain, since its commercial redistribution IS limited by the terms of this license.

In the case of citing WikiPedia when content there is quoted or utilized under fair use, I understand that the legal determination of “fair use” in the United States is not directly impacted by a person’s proper attribution of the source. Therefore, I do not think your statement “Failing to provide such attribution… would be unlawful” is accurate. I could be mistaken, of course, and it is good to be having this conversation to clarify this.

Several years ago, I heard an intellectual property lawyer from the Texas Tech law school state at forum on copyright that lawyers never look to someone’s bibliography or “works cited” page to determine the legality of the use when “fair use” is in question. I suppose that still can be true, and a failure to properly cite a source could be a violation of the licensing terms. That would be a different issue/question than whether a reuse constitutes “fair use.”

I don’t find anything about “proper academic citation of WikiPedia is required” on on the GFDL WikiPedia page. If proper citation IS required to comply legally with the license, then I would think that should be included on that page.

What IS explicitly prohibited by the GFDL license terms is commercial reuse.

I don’t think it is accurate to say a student who does not properly attribute their sources when quoting WikiPedia is breaking the law. They are breaking the norms of academic source citation, but I don’t think they are breaking the terms of the license or the law.

If others have perspectives and clarifications on this, please share them. These are important questions.