This help page is a
how-to guide. It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of
consensus and
vetting. |
This is a guide for administrators and editors working through Wikipedia:Copyright problems, CopyPatrol, and Category:Possible copyright violations. The main copyright problems page has a link to each day's daily log page. The 'edit' link for the daily log page can be reached from the main copyright problems page. There are also some suggestions at the bottom of the page for addressing image violations, although these are not listed at WP:CP.
It is important to thoroughly investigate each article before deciding to keep, alter, or delete it. The investigation process includes evaluating the article and source and, if copyrighted text has been used, ensuring that proper permission to use the text has been granted. For listings at the copyright problems board, there may be relevant comments from other editors at the board itself or on the article's talk page; remember to check for these.
Sometimes articles are tagged with {{ copyvio}} without a source being named. Frequently, articles tagged for {{ Close paraphrasing}} or {{ Copy-paste}} do not identify their sources. If the source is not obvious, a Google search using quotation marks "" around suspicious sentences or a scan with The Earwig's tool can help. Most articles copy from the sources cited; only a few rare cases do not. If you cannot find a source, consider who placed the tag, and who added the alleged copyright violation. If it looks like disruption, remove the tag. Otherwise, handling depends on which tag it is.
{{
cv-unsure|1=[[User:Username]]|2=permanent link to the tagged version}}
on the talk page, replacing the usual ~~~ with the username or IP of the contributor who tagged the article.If a source is located, you can proceed with evaluating the issue.
At each stage, an answer of "yes" or "maybe" to the core question indicates a need to continue. An answer of "no" does not. If a copyright problem cannot be substantiated, you should communicate your findings at the image's or article's talk page to help avoid future mistaggings.
When a contributor gives credible claim of permission or ownership, they should be given notice of how to proceed under Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and permitted time to verify before an article is deleted. Seven days is commonly allowed, and the article remains templated while awaiting verification, or reverted to the last clean version in the history.
To see if permission is asserted, check the talk page, edit summaries, and the user talk page of the contributor who added the text. Sometimes new editors are unsure where to claim permission and could state their claim in unlikely places. You may choose to operate as though a credible claim of permission has been asserted if the contributor's username suggests an affiliation with the suspected source. If a contributor has asserted permission but was not recently notified of the process for verification, relist under an appropriate date to extend that deadline. If the contributor was not notified how to verify at all, remedy that and relist under today's date.
Some common sense is necessary here. The "copyright problem" template that blanks an article's face itself provides instruction for verification. If a contributor has been routinely contributing to the talk page of a blanked article, they may be presumed to have seen the template and read it. Likewise, if a contributor has been advised how to verify in the past, they do not need to receive a separate notice how to verify for each new copyright problem.
No matter how credible an editor's claim is, every claim of permission must be verified officially through one of the processes below. If permission is verified through either of these processes, close the listing, as the article is not a copyright violation. Text for which permission has not been verified in due time is treated substantially the same as text for which permission is not asserted, although it is courteous to alert the contributor to deletion with {{ Cup}}.
If a copyright violation is substantiated (that is: if the text is the same as or too similar to that of a source that has or may have been previously published, and that source is not in the public domain or compatibly licensed) and there is either no credible assertion of permission or an assertion has not been verified in due time, the text will need to be removed.
Old daily log pages can be found at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/year month day/Articles]] or [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/year month day/Images]].
Notations used on the copyright problems board by admins and clerks are found below. They can also be located in the edit notice at the top of every page in the "copyright problems" space.
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wikipedia:Non-free content is the policy governing non-free images. Images that are blatant copyright infringement should be tagged for speedy deletion with {{ db-f9}}. Images that are less clear should be listed for investigation at Wikipedia:Files for discussion.
Images tagged with {{ db-f9}} should be blatant image copyright infringements, images for which the source is known and which cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine. Examples include derivative works of copyrighted images and images for which free alternatives exist.
If the image is identical to the image found at the given URL and it cannot be used on Wikipedia under fair use or a free license:
If the image has been tagged by the uploader with a free license when that is obviously not the case:
If the image seems like a copyright infringement but there is no URL given in the report for the source, or you're uncertain about its copyright status:
If the image is a logo or cover art, or an image that can be used under WP:NFC but lacks a rationale or a license:
As a courtesy, tag the captions in the article(s) in which the image is used and notify the uploader per instructions.
If there was no copyright violation:
This help page is a
how-to guide. It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of
consensus and
vetting. |
This is a guide for administrators and editors working through Wikipedia:Copyright problems, CopyPatrol, and Category:Possible copyright violations. The main copyright problems page has a link to each day's daily log page. The 'edit' link for the daily log page can be reached from the main copyright problems page. There are also some suggestions at the bottom of the page for addressing image violations, although these are not listed at WP:CP.
It is important to thoroughly investigate each article before deciding to keep, alter, or delete it. The investigation process includes evaluating the article and source and, if copyrighted text has been used, ensuring that proper permission to use the text has been granted. For listings at the copyright problems board, there may be relevant comments from other editors at the board itself or on the article's talk page; remember to check for these.
Sometimes articles are tagged with {{ copyvio}} without a source being named. Frequently, articles tagged for {{ Close paraphrasing}} or {{ Copy-paste}} do not identify their sources. If the source is not obvious, a Google search using quotation marks "" around suspicious sentences or a scan with The Earwig's tool can help. Most articles copy from the sources cited; only a few rare cases do not. If you cannot find a source, consider who placed the tag, and who added the alleged copyright violation. If it looks like disruption, remove the tag. Otherwise, handling depends on which tag it is.
{{
cv-unsure|1=[[User:Username]]|2=permanent link to the tagged version}}
on the talk page, replacing the usual ~~~ with the username or IP of the contributor who tagged the article.If a source is located, you can proceed with evaluating the issue.
At each stage, an answer of "yes" or "maybe" to the core question indicates a need to continue. An answer of "no" does not. If a copyright problem cannot be substantiated, you should communicate your findings at the image's or article's talk page to help avoid future mistaggings.
When a contributor gives credible claim of permission or ownership, they should be given notice of how to proceed under Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and permitted time to verify before an article is deleted. Seven days is commonly allowed, and the article remains templated while awaiting verification, or reverted to the last clean version in the history.
To see if permission is asserted, check the talk page, edit summaries, and the user talk page of the contributor who added the text. Sometimes new editors are unsure where to claim permission and could state their claim in unlikely places. You may choose to operate as though a credible claim of permission has been asserted if the contributor's username suggests an affiliation with the suspected source. If a contributor has asserted permission but was not recently notified of the process for verification, relist under an appropriate date to extend that deadline. If the contributor was not notified how to verify at all, remedy that and relist under today's date.
Some common sense is necessary here. The "copyright problem" template that blanks an article's face itself provides instruction for verification. If a contributor has been routinely contributing to the talk page of a blanked article, they may be presumed to have seen the template and read it. Likewise, if a contributor has been advised how to verify in the past, they do not need to receive a separate notice how to verify for each new copyright problem.
No matter how credible an editor's claim is, every claim of permission must be verified officially through one of the processes below. If permission is verified through either of these processes, close the listing, as the article is not a copyright violation. Text for which permission has not been verified in due time is treated substantially the same as text for which permission is not asserted, although it is courteous to alert the contributor to deletion with {{ Cup}}.
If a copyright violation is substantiated (that is: if the text is the same as or too similar to that of a source that has or may have been previously published, and that source is not in the public domain or compatibly licensed) and there is either no credible assertion of permission or an assertion has not been verified in due time, the text will need to be removed.
Old daily log pages can be found at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/year month day/Articles]] or [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/year month day/Images]].
Notations used on the copyright problems board by admins and clerks are found below. They can also be located in the edit notice at the top of every page in the "copyright problems" space.
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wikipedia:Non-free content is the policy governing non-free images. Images that are blatant copyright infringement should be tagged for speedy deletion with {{ db-f9}}. Images that are less clear should be listed for investigation at Wikipedia:Files for discussion.
Images tagged with {{ db-f9}} should be blatant image copyright infringements, images for which the source is known and which cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine. Examples include derivative works of copyrighted images and images for which free alternatives exist.
If the image is identical to the image found at the given URL and it cannot be used on Wikipedia under fair use or a free license:
If the image has been tagged by the uploader with a free license when that is obviously not the case:
If the image seems like a copyright infringement but there is no URL given in the report for the source, or you're uncertain about its copyright status:
If the image is a logo or cover art, or an image that can be used under WP:NFC but lacks a rationale or a license:
As a courtesy, tag the captions in the article(s) in which the image is used and notify the uploader per instructions.
If there was no copyright violation: