From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

15 April 2011

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2011-04-15 Edit

2011-04-15 (Suspected copyright violations)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Not a false positive; attributed split. VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
The 'Wayback machine' indicates significant content was on that URL in 2009 [1] and this page was created September 2010 [2]. Tagged, because I am not certain for now of the %age, and if there is any content salvagable.  Chzz   ►  05:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Most of the text in the article was copied/pasted from the organization's site. I cleaned it and stubified the article. Copyvio tag still present until closed.-- NortyNort (Holla) 02:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --CactusWriter (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. -- NortyNort (Holla) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    Doesn't look like a copyvio. Text in original article version was copied/pasted from the Catholic Encyclopedia 1 which was published in the U.S. prior to 1923 and PD. -- NortyNort (Holla) 02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Looks like a mirror. A search for the text hits in known and attributed mirrors. The two websites I was unsure of, here (Jan 2011) and here (Sep 2010) both published the text after it originated in the article.-- NortyNort (Holla) 02:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This is also listed at 16 April 2011.-- NortyNort (Holla) 03:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Red XN Concur that this is backwards copying. Content in the article prior to an early correction is not present in any other page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Green tickY It's pretty vague: "Most of the public record posted on Commonwealth Websites can be copied and used for any purpose. For example, all judicial opinions and all laws and regulations are public record. However, some of the public record posted on the Commonwealth's Web sites is also copyrighted material (for example, regulations based on technical codes developed and copyrighted by private organizations). With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act." So, the Commonwealth can copyright content and only specifically excludes "judicial opinions and all laws and regulations"--which are already excluded by US copyright law. I'm not sure we can safely conclude much of anything is PD based on that release. :/ In any event, the current version is clear. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

15 April 2011

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2011-04-15 Edit

2011-04-15 (Suspected copyright violations)
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Not a false positive; attributed split. VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
The 'Wayback machine' indicates significant content was on that URL in 2009 [1] and this page was created September 2010 [2]. Tagged, because I am not certain for now of the %age, and if there is any content salvagable.  Chzz   ►  05:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Most of the text in the article was copied/pasted from the organization's site. I cleaned it and stubified the article. Copyvio tag still present until closed.-- NortyNort (Holla) 02:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --CactusWriter (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. -- NortyNort (Holla) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    Doesn't look like a copyvio. Text in original article version was copied/pasted from the Catholic Encyclopedia 1 which was published in the U.S. prior to 1923 and PD. -- NortyNort (Holla) 02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Looks like a mirror. A search for the text hits in known and attributed mirrors. The two websites I was unsure of, here (Jan 2011) and here (Sep 2010) both published the text after it originated in the article.-- NortyNort (Holla) 02:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This is also listed at 16 April 2011.-- NortyNort (Holla) 03:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Red XN Concur that this is backwards copying. Content in the article prior to an early correction is not present in any other page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Green tickY It's pretty vague: "Most of the public record posted on Commonwealth Websites can be copied and used for any purpose. For example, all judicial opinions and all laws and regulations are public record. However, some of the public record posted on the Commonwealth's Web sites is also copyrighted material (for example, regulations based on technical codes developed and copyrighted by private organizations). With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act." So, the Commonwealth can copyright content and only specifically excludes "judicial opinions and all laws and regulations"--which are already excluded by US copyright law. I'm not sure we can safely conclude much of anything is PD based on that release. :/ In any event, the current version is clear. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook