For this and all the other infringements: the original materials were acquired in contravention of the regulations of the website. User:Fentener van Vlissingen did NOT register for the use of the website (a requirement) and downloaded the materials and used them for the Wikipedia articles. Even though he used "his own words", this stipulates a violation of copyright and intellectual rights, as well as the legal provisions put in place for the use of the website and the materials thereon (see: http://gcdb.doortmontweb.org/disclaimer.php), all in good order under Dutch laws, which regulate the use of that website. The website in its current form is NOT a source, as Fentener van Vlissingen states, but a publication in its own right. The article Willem George Frederik Derx is fully based on these materials, others are so also in full or in part. Michel Doortmont 20:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Both, because the use of materials from the database, in whatever form is regarded as a copyright issue in law. The core issue of the usage of data from http://gcdb.doortmontweb.org/index.php is about the right to use database materials, which in this case is governed by these considerations: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights, more specifically the European Database Directive. And this should then govern both the use of raw data, text, format, and images.Michel Doortmont 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
As far as I understand database rights, that concerns the protection of the database as a whole. To reiterate: I did not copy any material from your website. I used your website as a source for my article, just like I use other publications as sources for articles I write. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doortmont, the "regulations" of your website have no standing whatsoever in a Wikipedia discussion. Wikipedia is not responsible for enforcing a private website's terms of use, only for enforcing copyright law and its own policies. Since you acknowledge that Fentener put the information on your website into his own words when he used your website as a source, under the law his use constitutes "fair use" and there is no issue for the Wikipedia community to deal with. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The complaint seems to be that because it is used as a source it's a copyright violation because it violates the terms of service. How ever under US Contract Law these TOS should be considered null and void. Signing up amounts to agreeing to the TOS but you can not read the TOS until after you sign up. Your database was not wholly copied. The information it's self, the dates and facts regarding to Willem George Frederik Derx do not have a copyright. If you have any copyright at all it's in the arrangement of data and the specific data chosen. You do not dispute the data as presented on Wikipedia by editor Fentener van Vlissingen is in this editors own words. There's a clear case of fair use.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No vio found, claim has been actively invalidated by the claimant's own words. Neither copyright nor database rights (which aren't relevant to this US-based website anyway) are infringed when someone uses a website as a source for writing his own original text. Tag removed from article. --Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, Mmyers1976, the No vio found action disregards several issues. Most importantly, the usage of materials from a digital database is strictly regulated in law and does not depend on the location of the database, but on the location of the author / owner. In this case this means that European laws on digital database usage - much stricter than the US ones - apply for any usage of the materials. Also, it means that any additional regulations added to the (limitations on the) use of such database are binding. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights, more specifically the European Database Directive. And this should then govern the use of raw data, text, format, and images inclusively. Contrary to your opinion Mmyers1976 I think this is an issue for the Wikipedia community to deal with. There is no case for "fair use" here -Serialjoepsycho- nor has it anything to do with US contract law, as the materials were under the Database Directive rules possibly neither legally obtained nor used. As a second consideration I would put it to the WIkipedia community and the administrators that if Wikipedia is not responsible for enforcing a private website's terms of use, only for enforcing copyright law and its own policies this means that the community is in danger of condoning the use of stolen materials on Wikipedia pages. I do not think that can be the intention of this consideration (b.t.w. not saying this is necessarily the case here). Moreover, in this case it is not about enforcing a private website's terms of use, but about upholding the rule of law that governs usage of materials. And in the administrators opinions I g=have so far not seen any evidence based position with regard to my complaint that the rules of Database Directive were not upheld. Hence I have reinstated the tag, and request a further investigation and discussion on the issue. I have removed the tag on Carel Hendrik Bartels for the moment. If and when my objection is agreed upon, I will claim the issue on all other articles involved as well as the images now in Wikimedia Commons. Michel Doortmont 12:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation are located in the United States, which means the contents on Wikipedia are subject to US law. A US judge cannot enforce a Dutch copyright law or database right law. Secondly, I think you misunderstand database right. Database right was invented to protect data that can normally not be protected by copyright, such as telephone numbers or birth dates. Database right protect the maker of a database against the further distribution of his entire database without his consent, something which is not protected by copyright law (because database entries are not always an original work). Citation rights apply to database rights, see articles 3 and 5 of the Dutch database rights law, so my citation of your database also amounts to fair use under Dutch law. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the Dutch database rights law, the quoted articles are less than straightforward, as you make them out to be. Your claim that the database is / was open to the public is false, I contend. Access is limited to screened and registered users, which is a group of people that, under Dutch and European law, cannot be defined as "the public". So there is a legal issue there, which would focus on (a) whether you accessed the database legally; (b) if the fact that you could access it was intended by the owner; and (c) if you accessing the database as a non-registered user means that the database "is made available in any way to the public". I would like to see jurisprudence on that. And when dealing with a non-public database, the regulations for use of the database are valid. Equally so, the European Database Directive then makes for a very clear position: not the location of the servers, but the location of the owner / publisher is decisive for the application of law. The fallacy is here that you keep emphasising that the database is a public database, which it is not; it is PRIVATE. Your access to it was not intended, which is made very clear in the description, the necessity to register, and the regulations for its use. Michel Doortmont 14:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Michael Doormant, No Database right exist in the United States. The Database directive is incompatible with the United States constitution. A US Court can not offer you Sui generis database right. The English Wikipedia is Governed by US Copyright law. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
No vio found, claim has been actively invalidated by the claimant's own words. Neither copyright nor database rights (which aren't relevant to this US-based website anyway) are infringed when someone uses a website as a source for writing his own original text. Tag removed from article. --Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)