7 May 2019
-
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (
history ·
last edit ·
rewrite)
- The article is quite old and the user has left Wikipedia since. But while they were active here they uploaded
File:IPBES header.png which was deleted as unused nonfree file. The file is the logo of
IPBES which its website says its content is copyrighted.
The large chunck of this article was copied from https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-05/ispo-efa052313.php which seems to have a relationship with IPBES and also their content is copyrighted as well. Other high matching copyrighted links can been see here, including the IPBES websites and archived contents. The article has been here since 2012, so a lot of sentences were rearranged, and also more copyrighted content were added like can be seen in this 2015 edit, there's definitely a problem here. I came across this after it's been nominated for listing on Mainpage, hope someone more familiar with CV to speedily look into this issue. Thanks. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article is quite old and the user has left Wikipedia since. But while they were active here they uploaded
File:IPBES header.png which was deleted as unused nonfree file. The file is the logo of
IPBES which its website says its content is copyrighted.
I think copyright isn't a problem here; see: https://shop.un.org/rights-permissions
- "Excerpts
- Excerpts from a non-sales publication
- No permission is necessary to reproduce excerpts from a non-sales publication provided that proper credits are given."
- And further down that page:
- "United Nations emblem
- Use and display of the United Nations emblem is highly restricted and essentially limited to the organization’s activities. You may not use any trademark, official mark, official emblem, flag or logo of the United Nations, or any of its other means of promotion or publicity, to represent or imply an association or affiliation with the United Nations without the United Nation’s prior written consent."
- Obviously, Wikipedia just reproduces the logo without implying any association.
- Since the IPBES is very much in the news right now, and as no complaint has been received for all the years that the page has existed, I'm going to revert the copyright tag.
Clark42 (
talk) 14:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have restored it. And as I said on the talkpage, I'd caution you against restoring copyrighted content without the issue being fully resolved. The url you provided https://shop.un.org/rights-permissions is completely irrelevant here because entire text in question is not from there, nor was it from any UN website. Read the report again and see where it was copied from and then find out the statements on copyright. – Ammarpad ( talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ammarpad, here is the Terms and Conditions page for the source you're concerned about; EurekAlert seem to want their material disseminated; I have included more detail on the article's Talkpage:
- https://www.eurekalert.org/terms.php
- Please consider at least applying the Copyright Tag more selectively. At present, material from all 23 citations is missing from an article about a UN body which is currently making international headline news; blanking the entire article seems excessive since only seven non-verbatim paragraphs are of concern.
Clark42 (
talk) 00:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- IPBES doesn't seem to make any clear pronouncement about the licensing status of their news releases, and their archive only goes back to 2016 [1] - so can't even check whether this originates from them verbatim. In any case, it's clearly suboptimal to have a large chunk of the article consist of news release phrasing. Seems like it's basically the "History" and "Founding motive" sections plus some lede [2], so if these could be removed or rewritten, that would do it. I agree that I hate seeing the article blanked at this time because what just came out is something of a landmark report in environmental assessment, and people will come looking. At the same time, I don't have the time to do a rephrase/original concoction here. Can we chop the offending sections and purify the lede as an interim measure? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- As suggested by Elimdae, I have removed the disputed sections from the lede and localised the copyvio to the History and Founding Motive sections, which I have moved to the end of the article. Clark42 ( talk) 12:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bryan Llenas ( history · last edit · rewrite) from https://www.foxnews.com/person/l/bryan-llenas. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 13:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
7 May 2019
-
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (
history ·
last edit ·
rewrite)
- The article is quite old and the user has left Wikipedia since. But while they were active here they uploaded
File:IPBES header.png which was deleted as unused nonfree file. The file is the logo of
IPBES which its website says its content is copyrighted.
The large chunck of this article was copied from https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-05/ispo-efa052313.php which seems to have a relationship with IPBES and also their content is copyrighted as well. Other high matching copyrighted links can been see here, including the IPBES websites and archived contents. The article has been here since 2012, so a lot of sentences were rearranged, and also more copyrighted content were added like can be seen in this 2015 edit, there's definitely a problem here. I came across this after it's been nominated for listing on Mainpage, hope someone more familiar with CV to speedily look into this issue. Thanks. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article is quite old and the user has left Wikipedia since. But while they were active here they uploaded
File:IPBES header.png which was deleted as unused nonfree file. The file is the logo of
IPBES which its website says its content is copyrighted.
I think copyright isn't a problem here; see: https://shop.un.org/rights-permissions
- "Excerpts
- Excerpts from a non-sales publication
- No permission is necessary to reproduce excerpts from a non-sales publication provided that proper credits are given."
- And further down that page:
- "United Nations emblem
- Use and display of the United Nations emblem is highly restricted and essentially limited to the organization’s activities. You may not use any trademark, official mark, official emblem, flag or logo of the United Nations, or any of its other means of promotion or publicity, to represent or imply an association or affiliation with the United Nations without the United Nation’s prior written consent."
- Obviously, Wikipedia just reproduces the logo without implying any association.
- Since the IPBES is very much in the news right now, and as no complaint has been received for all the years that the page has existed, I'm going to revert the copyright tag.
Clark42 (
talk) 14:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have restored it. And as I said on the talkpage, I'd caution you against restoring copyrighted content without the issue being fully resolved. The url you provided https://shop.un.org/rights-permissions is completely irrelevant here because entire text in question is not from there, nor was it from any UN website. Read the report again and see where it was copied from and then find out the statements on copyright. – Ammarpad ( talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ammarpad, here is the Terms and Conditions page for the source you're concerned about; EurekAlert seem to want their material disseminated; I have included more detail on the article's Talkpage:
- https://www.eurekalert.org/terms.php
- Please consider at least applying the Copyright Tag more selectively. At present, material from all 23 citations is missing from an article about a UN body which is currently making international headline news; blanking the entire article seems excessive since only seven non-verbatim paragraphs are of concern.
Clark42 (
talk) 00:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- IPBES doesn't seem to make any clear pronouncement about the licensing status of their news releases, and their archive only goes back to 2016 [1] - so can't even check whether this originates from them verbatim. In any case, it's clearly suboptimal to have a large chunk of the article consist of news release phrasing. Seems like it's basically the "History" and "Founding motive" sections plus some lede [2], so if these could be removed or rewritten, that would do it. I agree that I hate seeing the article blanked at this time because what just came out is something of a landmark report in environmental assessment, and people will come looking. At the same time, I don't have the time to do a rephrase/original concoction here. Can we chop the offending sections and purify the lede as an interim measure? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- As suggested by Elimdae, I have removed the disputed sections from the lede and localised the copyvio to the History and Founding Motive sections, which I have moved to the end of the article. Clark42 ( talk) 12:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bryan Llenas ( history · last edit · rewrite) from https://www.foxnews.com/person/l/bryan-llenas. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 13:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)