Talk:ASIC v Kobelt

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal ASIC v Kobelt is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Speedy deletion, contest

The directly copied sections from the article are copied quotes from the High Court. Direct quotes from courts are not copyright violations under wikipedia guidelines Jack4576 (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shirt58, the parts of the article that are similar have been cited directly. They have been re-worded, extracted, and re-expressed in a way so as not to amount to a copyright violation. In addition, the parts that are similar from the article simply recount the facts of the court case. Those facts mentioned in the article are lifted directly from the judgement. To claim that a reciting of the case's facts is plagiarism, is simply untrue. The author has also been cited directly each time this has happened; so plagiarism cannot be an issue. This article does not 'pass off' the author's work as wikipedia's own. Jack4576 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the sections that appear later that are also from the OpinionsOnHigh piece, are also lifted directly from the judgement (for example, the quote about 'humbugging' by relatives.) This, especially with regard to an article that is directly cited each time this happens is not Plagiarism (which is the representation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work). Wikipedia is not an academic journal. The author has been cited, and there is no copyright violation. This is an article about a court case, quoting sections of the judgement as extracted by an expert academic on the subject, who is extensively cited within the article. There is simply no reason for deletion, or extraction of the relevant quotes from the judgement. Jack4576 (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio tag

I ran the duplication detector at https://dupdet.toolforge.org/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.unimelb.edu.au%2Fopinionsonhigh%2F2019%2F06%2F20%2Faustralian-securities-and-investments-commission-v-kobelt%2F&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.riteme.site%2Fwiki%2FASIC_v_Kobelt&minwords=12&minchars=13

and the longest duplicates detected were in quotes. RJFJR (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The potions taken from the article directly, are quotes of the High Court judgement. Including them within this wikipedia article, especially while citing the academic who extracted those quotes from the judgement, is not a copyright violation. Jack4576 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]