2017 January 27
- Sexually transmitted infection ( history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.health.am/sex/more/sexually_transmitted_infections/ The second paragraph in the section Epidemiology matches to the source, but it only explains statistics. It's outside my field and I'm not sure it is a copyvio under the US law. Darklanlan ( talk) 08:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Has been removed, I think it is indeed a copyright violation.
Hut 8.5
21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. The problem has been resolved by another user. Darklanlan ( talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Has been removed, I think it is indeed a copyright violation.
Hut 8.5
21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- The article DAISY Digital Talking Book in the DAISY Consortium DAISYPedia looks like a slightly improved version of the December 2009 version of DAISY Digital Talking Book on Wikipedia. The DAISY Consortium claims copyright for their article, without attribution to Wikipedia. The page footer also says that, "Text is available under the terms of the DAISY Consortium Intellectual Property Policy, Licensing, and Working Group Process." without mentioning a specific licence, although the DAISYpedia is probably available under a Creative Commons licence (see section 4.2 of the IP policy document). -- ChristopheS ( talk) 12:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think is a reverse copyvio. The Internet Archive doesn't have copies of DAISYPedia from before mid-2010, which would fit with the fact that it resembles the article from then. The material wasn't added to the Wikipedia article at once, it was added incrementally by several different people and some parts of the text are several years older than 2010. I don't see any reason to think this is a copyright violation of DAISYPedia. They might be violating our copyright but there isn't much we can do about that. Hut 8.5 21:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- List of Encantadia (2016 TV series) episodes ( history · last edit · rewrite) I think this is okay. I checked it to Earwig's Copyvio Detector and no violation detected. Kindly remove the heading on the article, admins after you check. Thanks. from . Leo kingston ( talk) 14:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Has been cleaned, see listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 January 26. Hut 8.5 21:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Legal tender ( history · last edit · rewrite) from [1] and [2], two U.S. Government sites. Per a lengthy discussion on the article talk page, an IP editor, @ 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135: is asserting that the material removed here is a copyright violation and/or improperly attributed. I'm bringing the discussion here to get proper and broader consensus on what I believe is a non-violation of copyright and/or attribution. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- A
very similar discussion with the same editor occurred on my talk page, and may be helpful as well.
Garchy (
talk)
20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- These two users are under the impression that all .gov are in public domain (not) and that one or two words changed is enough to neither quote nor directly state where the material came from ("____ says...") before per the closed paraphrasing guidelines. The Federal Reserve is not a US Government entity but quasi private. There are many non-Federal US Government entities using .gov, including most states, cities, and local governments. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 ( talk) 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
-
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. --
Hut 8.5
21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
-
2017 January 27
- Sexually transmitted infection ( history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.health.am/sex/more/sexually_transmitted_infections/ The second paragraph in the section Epidemiology matches to the source, but it only explains statistics. It's outside my field and I'm not sure it is a copyvio under the US law. Darklanlan ( talk) 08:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Has been removed, I think it is indeed a copyright violation.
Hut 8.5
21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. The problem has been resolved by another user. Darklanlan ( talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Has been removed, I think it is indeed a copyright violation.
Hut 8.5
21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- The article DAISY Digital Talking Book in the DAISY Consortium DAISYPedia looks like a slightly improved version of the December 2009 version of DAISY Digital Talking Book on Wikipedia. The DAISY Consortium claims copyright for their article, without attribution to Wikipedia. The page footer also says that, "Text is available under the terms of the DAISY Consortium Intellectual Property Policy, Licensing, and Working Group Process." without mentioning a specific licence, although the DAISYpedia is probably available under a Creative Commons licence (see section 4.2 of the IP policy document). -- ChristopheS ( talk) 12:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think is a reverse copyvio. The Internet Archive doesn't have copies of DAISYPedia from before mid-2010, which would fit with the fact that it resembles the article from then. The material wasn't added to the Wikipedia article at once, it was added incrementally by several different people and some parts of the text are several years older than 2010. I don't see any reason to think this is a copyright violation of DAISYPedia. They might be violating our copyright but there isn't much we can do about that. Hut 8.5 21:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- List of Encantadia (2016 TV series) episodes ( history · last edit · rewrite) I think this is okay. I checked it to Earwig's Copyvio Detector and no violation detected. Kindly remove the heading on the article, admins after you check. Thanks. from . Leo kingston ( talk) 14:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Has been cleaned, see listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 January 26. Hut 8.5 21:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Legal tender ( history · last edit · rewrite) from [1] and [2], two U.S. Government sites. Per a lengthy discussion on the article talk page, an IP editor, @ 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135: is asserting that the material removed here is a copyright violation and/or improperly attributed. I'm bringing the discussion here to get proper and broader consensus on what I believe is a non-violation of copyright and/or attribution. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- A
very similar discussion with the same editor occurred on my talk page, and may be helpful as well.
Garchy (
talk)
20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- These two users are under the impression that all .gov are in public domain (not) and that one or two words changed is enough to neither quote nor directly state where the material came from ("____ says...") before per the closed paraphrasing guidelines. The Federal Reserve is not a US Government entity but quasi private. There are many non-Federal US Government entities using .gov, including most states, cities, and local governments. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 ( talk) 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
-
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. --
Hut 8.5
21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
-