![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello, I am new and would like to know how I go about finding out if I can use images from Crimson Skies Universe. Much of this material is available in a downloadable "Fansite Kit".
~ E. Todd Quigley 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Could do with some advice on the copyright status of Image:Triforce.svg. I created it using a text editor as a replacement for Image:Three Triangles.svg and use in {{ User Zelda}}. I originally released it under {{ PD-self}} but this has since been removed by Durin who subsequently then removed it from several templates it is being used in. I don't personally think it is copyrightable because it is a basic Sierpinski triangle and not a Nintendo image but I could do with expert opinions. — Ian Moody ( talk) 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have found a copyright violation in the article on Leeds Town Hall--most of the article is copied directly from a website which is copyright of Leeds City Council. The article does acknowledge that this is the case, and the person who has been involved in editing the article has quoted an email from the original author of the text (note: not Leeds City Council) saying that it's OK for her text to be used in Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't amount to a GFDL licence, and I've told the editor so.
Should the article be reverted until he can get proper permission? I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so am not all that confident that I know the right proceedure to follow. MLilburne 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be a problem on Wikipedia:Copyright problems: {{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings}} is not transcluded anymore. I have looked for what could be the cause of the problem, and the only thing I found is that it may be related to the number of transcluded pages in the article (pages may not get transcluded if there are too many of them). Anyone know anything about this ? One easy way to improve the situation would be to sort out the backlog, but there is not much I can do (admins needed !). Schutz 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across an article that appears to be a copyvio. The article is here: Jeremy Michael Boorda and the page a majority of the text comes from is here: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/May1996/940421-A-0000D-001.html. I know that images that come from government sources are PD but I did not know if that applied to biographical text. The bio is on a military site but I still think that the article is a copyvio but I wanted to check here before I blanked the page.-- NMajdan• talk 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I am rather pissed-off today. On this article John Tavares, I have been the originator and primary editor. On that article, I had an image and, as required by Wikipedia, I explained the origin of the image. Months later, I was flagged as a potential copyright violation, but was given the chance to explain further. I seriously perused Wikipedia's Fair Use policy. After some serious consideration, I felt use of the image was, in fact, valid fair use. Today, I learned that some person from Norway deleted my image with this statement "removing image with invald fair use claim". Furthermore, with that deletion, was the deletion of my fair use claim, so now no one can even review what I wrote.
My question is this:
Considering that I strongly suspect this person is not a member of the American Bar Association nor a lawyer I challenge 1) his authority to delete, and 2) his competency in American copyright law for passing judgment that the image should have been deleted. I wish to have my fair use claim re-examined. So, the bottom line question for me is this: What, if any, is Wikipedia's process for resolving such disputes? If one exists, what is the next step?
I submit to the authorities and administrators of Wikipedia. I value the service and recognize its importance. Furthermore, I realize and accept that, do to the open nature of the project, problems may arise such as sabotaging articles or distributing false information.
Still, there needs to be some formal process in a matter such as this. Again, I submit and if there is a consensus that my use of the image was not a valid fair use instance, then I accept that. I would accept it because several experienced people gave it thought, not a single judge whose judgment is suspect.
I love Wikipedia - I really do and I plug it every day - but if it claims to abide by the laws of the United States of America, I would hope that Wikipedia reviews American History, government, and dispute resolution processes.
Thank you for any assistance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Ree ( talk • contribs)
Hi. Vin here. I'm afraid I don't understand.
The bottom line is not how the material is put up or even what it is (for the moment), but who decides what is a copyright violation or not. I see no authority granted to nor qualifications for the person who did the deletion. I understand the universality of the ability to delete, but deletion on those grounds is serious. Frankly, Wikipedia should have one person who actually is a copyright lawyer review material which is flagged as a potential copyright violation. If such a person said I violated copyright, then I'd feel alot better and accept judgment. However, the person who deleted my image isn't a copyright lawyer - or a lawyer - or even an American. For that reason, I question his qualifications for understanding American copyright law. At the very minimum, I see no evidence whatsoever that he is more qualified to judge a copyright violation than me.
Given that, in principle, I should be able to re-upload my image and have it re-assessed by somebody who has some credentials in the copyright field. Would I be penalized if I re-uploaded the image? Would a continous vicious circle of deletion and re-upload ensue? Would that eventually lead to me being banned?
If so, then that would imply that the people who admin Wikipedia are just a hypocritcal clique. I say that because the evidence would indicate that, despite having no actual authority, qualifications, nor creditials indicating their superiority, they de facto are solely by being "members of the club", so to speak. The Wikipedia organization being a clique would sadden me greatly and tarnish the reputation of Wikipedia as an organization dedicated to fairness and freedom of information for all. The new perception of Wikipedia might instead be that the Wikipedians are just the 21st Century's "Audio Visual Squad". I refuse to believe that that is so.
To alleviate your fears, I will not re-upload the image. Nonetheless, I would like to have my image re-evaluated by another person as to whether the image is used in a Fair Use fashion. I have reread the critical aspects of this from both Wikipedia's Fair Use article and the Deletor's article on Copyright (the bulk of which conveniently was copied from Wiki's Fair Use article - hmmmm.... and no credit was given....). Once again, if English is your first language, it should be readily clear that my image is covered under the Fair Use.
Please forgive my sarcasm, but I have not been this pissed-off in years. I have been thoroughly supportive of Wikipedia, its ideals, policies, and objectives, and am constantly plugging it. Right now I feel that I was bitch-slapped by somebody who, despite their intentions, is no better than me at judging my actions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Ree ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for both looking and teaching me about the tildes! I did not know that. God bless you for at least taking the time to listen. Vincent Ree 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I replaced some transclusions with links to cut down on template transclusion load for this page. See Wikipedia:Template limits for the relevant discussions, especially Wikipedia talk:Template limits#Limit increased, links added. -- Ligulem 12:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What happends if there is a copyright violation but the source is a book, not a URL. -- Deenoe 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This page is bloody rifed with copyright violations. I counted a total of 11 images to illustrate an article that's not even that long. I need help in deciding which ones would fall under fair use and which ones would not, and whether those could safely go on other pages, or if they shoudl be deleted outright. Hbdragon88 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I needed some other opinions as the Talk page appeared to not be very helpful. Hbdragon88 19:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been putting messages on Talk pages where some text in an article has been copied from somewhere but it turns out the text is actually in the public domain or under the GFDL, e.g. [1], [2]. I think the idea is good, perhaps there is a template that already does this or one should be made, or a message put on the main article as was done for Britannica 1911 and similar things? — Centrx→ talk • 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with the copyright status of this image. The tag says that it is in public domain as a work of the United States Government, but the image itself claims copyright by someone else. The image itself also states that permission has been given to use, but I suspect this permission was only for the source website, which is not listed in the image description. What should I do? - Runningonbrains 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, having a few problems. User:Lahiru k has been creating articles on Sri Lankan Military Medals, but has been taking text (and possibly images) from the Sri Lankan Navy website [3]. He's asserting that as a member of the navy he has permission to use the text. I'm not familiar enough with copyright policy to determine whether that is enough, and there is also a language barrier. Please see User talk:Lahiru k, User talk:Djbrianuk, Desha Putra Sammanaya, Weerodara Vibhushanaya and Parama Weera Vibhushanaya vs the navy website link above. exolon 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A user recently added a link to a trailer for this show on YouTube. I removed it as I didn't think we should be linking to non-copyright use of BBC material, but the user has reinstated the link saying that a trailer is acceptable fair use and not a copyright infringement. What's the Wikipedia position on trailers hosted on third party sites like this? Angmering 06:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled accross Image:Myoregonsymbol.png. The author states explicitly "I created this to avoid copyright infringement - it is close, but my own design." It is apparent they they copied the exact Oregon Ducks logo Image:Nikeized logo.jpg. Just because they created it themselves and it's not an exact replication, it gets the point accross that the image is supposed to represent the University of Oregon Ducks sports teams. It's mainly (only?) used in this template {{ User:Z4ns4tsu/Userboxes/NCAA-Ducks}}. Is this a simple copyvio and should be speedy deleted? Or is this okay since the image is actually the work of the author? Any help is appreciated. My gut feeling is this is wrong. MECU≈ talk 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this user had been given several warnings (see User talk:TournamentKing14) for uploading images with the incorrect tags. He's now taken to uploading images like Image:ImaginationIsland.jpg with Self-published work, Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 and GFDL. Yet these look like fair use images at best. They look like copies of VHS covers, screenshots, etc. They have been at this for a while upload log. Not sure what the correct procedure is here, do I delete the images or just change the tags? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The Thai Wikipedia, in an article called Wikipedia:How to contribute without violating copyright states (in Thai, my translation) that "translating article content from another language will not create copyright problems. It is like putting our own words into the article. However, using machine translation is a violation of copyright because it is word by word copying, and in addition, the results are hard to read and unreadable." The article doesn't seem to have any english language equivalent, or any equivalent in any other languages. It strikes me quite strange that translations would not violate Wikipedia copyright policies - would I really be able to translate a Thai encyclopedia into English and use that in a en.wikipedia article? Or is this guideline specific to Thailand? Patiwat 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a few misconceptions here. First off, materials submitted to Wikipedia are still copyrighted. They are just released under the GFDL, so it isn't a violation to copy and paste them into another GFDL project. Second, a translation of a work is almost always a derivative work, so we can't put our own translations of non-free text into Wikipedia (though translations of free text are fine). This is true of machine translations as well as manual translations. But sometimes it may not be a derivative work, if you're careful. I'll explain.
If I write a poem and you translate it, that's definitely a derivitive work (and it's a copyright violation if I don't authorize the translation). But if I write out some facts, like "Billy is exactly six feet tall, and he was born in 1975.", then I don't own the copyright to the facts, only the presentation of those facts. If you rewrote it in your own words, like "Bill (b. 1975) is 6'0" tall.", then you aren't violating my copyright. You have to be very careful that no trace of my own original presentation remains, though. Many encyclopedia articles are like this: a list of facts, organized into paragraphs. So if you translate an article, and rewrite it in your own words, and reorganize it as needed, then it's not a copyvio. There's a lot of gray area here, but that's the basic idea. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, guys and gals! That really cleared things up. The sentences in question on th.wikipedia have been fixed accordingly. Patiwat 01:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Would another editor kindly review the removal of my copyvio report on Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg? This image is indeed a copyvio as the artist (whose name Wikipedia actually knows) is not being attributed as Fair use policy #10 specifies. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 02:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Netscott had relisted it. I will discuss this where it was added. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This article on Rodney Ansell seems to include some plagiarism, as some of the information is almost word-for-word identical to this article on the BBC website [4].-- H-ko 23:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if this belongs here. If not, please move it appropriate location. I am still a novice on wikipedia.
While asking for permission to use some material for wikipedia under GFDL, I was replied a "No" and was also informed about possible legal action against Wikipedia for other (possible) copyright violations. I am not sure what I should do in this case. Somebody please take appropriate steps for this (or guide me).
Here is the email I sent (email addresses removed):
"
From: E Square To: susuhanan Date: Sep 2, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Permission to use the image of coat of arms - Bhavnagar state
Hi,
I am editing an entry of Bhavnagar on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavnagar).
I was doing research on Bhavnagar history, and came to know your wonderful site The Royal Ark at http://4dw.net/royalark/.
I wanted to use one of the images from your website (the image of coat of arms of Bhavnagar at http://www.4dw.net/royalark/India/bhavnaga.htm). Would it be possible to use it for Wikipedia website under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL)?
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.
- Square
"
Please note that I have not used any material so far from this website before or after this email exchange, and hence I think the person is referring to other possible violation.
And here is the response:
"
From: Christopher Buyers <susuhanan> To: Square Date: Sep 3, 2006 1:32 AM Subject: RE: Permission to use the image of coat of arms - Bhavnagar state WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear Mr Square,
Thank you for your e-mail.
I regret that I have a general ban on the use of any materials from my Royal Ark website on wikipedia and related websites.
We are consulting our legal advisers on taking our legal procedings against that website for the unauthrised use of our materials.
With best wishes, Christopher Buyers The Royal Ark
"
-- Square 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have come across an editor who uses phrases and sentences verbatim from sources, mixed in with paraphrasing and a bit of original wording. I asked them to watch out for copyright violations in a very civil manner (although we have a bit of an uncomfortable history), and they responded by claiming I didn't know what I was talking about and how their edits are perfectly fine. I would like a second opinion so I am posting here.
Take Carol Downer. This is the diff and this is the source. The following phrases are verbatim copied with no quotes or inline citation:
And this isn't a freak occurance. The same sort of verbatim copying appears with Alice Wolfson and [ [5]], Barbara Seaman and [6], and probably more. So is this sort of verbatim copying allowed? Read the user's comments on my talk page and see whether a) the comments were civil and b) whether its an acceptable justification for this verbatim copying. Thanks for considering this topic. -- Andrew c 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Can images of the Atomium in Brussels be used under fair use in the English-language Wikipedia? -- 84.61.33.80 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Zone46 has made page after page of That 70's Show episodes. The plot is a complete copy and paste job from what I can tell. Join Together (That '70s Show episode) is a recent example of what Zone did: copied the text from the That 70's Central website. Is this a copyright violation or no? I checked the website and didn't see anything that said you needed permission or not... but I somehow think it could be. Direct copy and paste is just wrong in itself, and shows laziness in my opinion. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted them, hopefully all of them, and left the user a message about not posting copyrighted material. If they begin again, inform the user on their talk page that they will be blocked if they do not stop, and post a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents referring to this section of this talk page asking another administrator to deal with it. — Centrx→ talk • 06:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the rule that we can only attach speedy delete tags to blatant copy violations on pages created in the last 48 hours. What about blatant copy violations on older pages - they're even more damaging to wikipedia by sticking around a long time? Why the strange distinction? It seems illogical/counterproductive Bwithh 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The article Gasotransmitters has many of the hallmarks of copyright infringement.
However I cannot find a source on the internet for it. I would appreciate feedback on wether this is likely to be copyright infringement or not. It doesn't seem to talk much about Gasotransmitters themselves, only discoveries relating to them, and in my opinion should be expanded, moved or deleted, but I daresay that is what the cleanup tag is there for! JPilborough 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Done. Thanks JPilborough 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Channel 31 in San Francisco, a new CW affiliate, has copied and pasted Wikipedia's article on The CW into their site. While it would normally be a little flattering to see a professional company use Wikipedia's text, the site includes a copyright notice which strongly implies they consider all the content on their site to be copywritten. See this copyright notice, specifically this phrase: "CBS has a long-standing company policy that does not allow CBS to accept or consider creative ideas, suggestions or materials other than those CBS has specifically requested." and this one: "The Site contains material which is derived in whole or in part from material supplied by CBS and other sources, and is protected by international copyright and trademark laws. No material (including but not limited to the text, images, audio and/or video) and no software (including but not limited to any images or files incorporated in or generated by the software or data accompanying such software) (individually and collectively the "Materials") may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way..." here is the page in question. Compare with our page on The CW, here. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Because of some recent disputes over the Armia Krajowa article, and increasing number of citations requested templates and unformatted citations, I decided to add few references. As two of them looked relativly easy (numbers), I went to my favourite fack-checking source, Google Print - and promtly discovered one source which gave not only those numbers, but, virtually word for word, contained the entire section of the article. My first assumption was that we have a copyvio section, and we need to remove it or rewrite from our article. However I have been working on that article for years now, and I remembered that this section was there for some time - while the book has the copyright stamp (all rights reserved, btw) from 2006 ( Google Print front cover with a date). The book, btw, is Sorcha Faal, The Partisans Handbook, Long Trail Acres Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0975322850 ( Google Books about page). The section from Armia Krajowa article is the 'Weapons and equipment' section - which dates to May 1, 2005 ( see the original entry by User:Balcer). See the following pages for similarities (they are very obvious, the paras were virtually not changed at all: 35, 36, 37, [7]). Our entry from 2005, book copyrighted from 2006? Uh-oh. But wait, it gets even better (or worse). The page 33 which begins the description of AK has text taken straight from the old 'Origins' section of the article (now expanded into the History section), has text taken straight from the very first edit to our page on 2002. And for a final touch, it is not just Wikipedia that seems to be plagariazed in the book. Page 6 and several which follow has text lifted straight from World War II -- 60 Years After: Legacy Still Casts Shadow Across Belarus Radio Free Europe article by Jeffrey Donovan, dated to May 4th, 2005 ( Google Cache link - sorry, page is offline and seems not to be in Internet Archieve). At that point I decided to stop searching for other hits and to bring this case to you, as I am not sure if we should write a Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter to the publisher or somebody's else. Plus I expect it may become something big (book plagiarizes Wikipedia...), and make a good WP:POST story.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Unlisted is a bot-generated list of articles that are tagged {{ copyvio}} but are not listed here. This bot was approved (for a trial run, at the moment), under the condition that the list of these articles is posted on a separate page rather than included with the others: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DumbBOT. This list could however be linked from this page, as far as I can say. Any idea as to the best place for this link? ( Liberatore, 2006). 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Having a second list is definitely harder to manage. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The article Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P. is virtuallly completely copied from their website at [11]. History is copied from that page, then the Areas of Practices and Industries are copied from the menus. The only revision not a copyvio is the very first one - [12]. However this is barely even a stub. Do you think I should flag the article for deletion or revert it to this version?
I started to wikify this article before I noticed...oops! JPilborough 14:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I tagged this article with {{ Db-copyvio}}, as it was created on 17th with the original text all copied from the source given there. Since then, it underwent some modifications and came to its present condition, though except for the lead, the entire article still remains copied. My question is, have I used the right template? Or since the article underwent some modifications, I should be using a {{ copyvio}} tag instead? -- Lost (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Prosopon's opening paragraph matches that of what is in Britannica according to [13]. I do not have a copy of Britannica, could someone verify this isn't an exact copy (it isn't of their online concise edition [14]. Computerjoe 's talk 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've run into a animated TV screenshot that was edited by a Wikipeida user (cropped to show a specific character.) That editor applied the tag template:PD-self, but its my understanding that this is not correct, since screenshots of the show would remain property of the show's owners. Would it be proper, than, to simply replace the tag with Template:tv-screenshot?-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I came across Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png, which is scanned from a newspaper ad and alleges fair use. It is used in the article about one of the attorneys in the ad, who is also a political candidate ( Peter Roskam) to illustrate that he is a personal injury attorney. I have two questions:
Thanks -- rogerd 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm havin trouble deciding what licensing should be used on the pictures of Zaib-un-Nissa Hamidullah. Their copyright holder, Yasmine S. Ahmed, has given me permission to upload and use them on Wikipedia, but not for third parties. So I put "with permission", but it says you need another type of licensing too. Please help ASAP.-- Le Grey Intellectual 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds great. What's the coding for that license, tho? Just cc-by-sa-2.0?-- Le Grey Intellectual 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This pasted an entire journal article into Definition and it is still basically intact. There is a URL at the end to the original pdf file, which has a permissions statement at the bottom of the first page. -- Jtir 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure where this should be, but User:Bobabobabo has a mass of copyrighted images. I have removed them twice, only to be reverted by some anon. Can I please have someone with a better footing with this explain to the anon that the use of copyrighted images in user pages expressely isn't allowed? Interrobamf 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
After tagging an image with {{ fair use disputed}}, do I need to list it anywhere? Secondly, is there a readymade template to inform the uploader that I tagged the image as above? -- Lost (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am attempting to look into a copyvio template posting at Peter Medawar from a couple of weeks ago. The result is evidently that the copyvio was found to have been over billed, but... There are a few references to archives of the copyright problem page, but I've looked around the backstage machinery and have had no sightings. Can some kind guide point out the hidden pot at the end of the copyvio rainbow? Where, oh where, is a stage hand when one needs one?! Thanks. ww 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've put this on the list as all but the very first uplaod are copyvio of the url I linked to, but I've reverted to the original upload rather than delete it and replace it with the copyvio tag, but I'm not sure if that's what I should have done. To be honest I probably hadn't got the patience to check I did everything right because I'd just spent ages putting in a few changes to make it a better article and only found out the problem when I was sorting out the links at the bottom. Terri G 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Got a bit of a problem at the article Friends of Real Lancashire. The initial article was a copy--and-paste of a webpage (see Talk:Friends of Real Lancashire). The article has since been incrementally edited so that it no longer contains any prose from that website, but this was done gradually so that purging the copyvio from the history will be tricky. Would anyone like to suggest what could be done about this? Morwen - Talk 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What do we do with imagevios that are non-commercial use only but have been tagged as fair use promotional material rationale? Do we imagevio them and add them here without non-commercial categorying them? Do we imagevio them and add them here and also non-commercial categorise them? Do we remove the fair use rationale (since it doesn't apply) and just add them to the non-commercial category them? Do we not remove the fair use rationale but do add them to the non-commercial category? The last one sounds a bit risky since when someone may later get confused and think the fair use rationale is justified without properly checking and therefore remove them from the non-commercial category and they may not be deleted (since we appear to be very slow at deleting images in the non-commercial category even those that were added after 2005) Nil Einne 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it a copyright infringement to slightly rewrite every sentence of a paragraph and then use it is as an article on Wikipedia? The source is clearly marked as copyrighted material, and no one would doubt that the article came from that source. What's the Wikipedia rule on this? KP Botany 20:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
So, I found some more information about the book. It was originally published in 1894. I don't know when the author died, so it's not necessarily out of copyright. However, let's assume it is in the public domain. In which case, shouldn't Wikipedia articles that simply take its text inform the reader of the source, not just as a reference, as if the article's editor had researched the topic using the source then used his own words, but the actual source of the text, like the articles that mosly come from the public domain encyclopedia? A disclaimer at the bottom stating, this is from John Dowson's 1894 book, which came into the public domain in 1973 or whatever? KP Botany 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I wish to know if images from wikimapia used in illustrating wikipedia article is violation of US copyright laws? The terms of use is explicitly as nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_local.html Can the use be defended as fair use? Legaleagle86 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Quadell writes that 'maps that are copyright Google may not be used on Wikipedia, even under a "fair use" claim' (emphasis added on a part of his statement you seem to have ignored). This is perfectly correct. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think at least some (all?) of the articles deleted through "copyright problems" should be left in stub form rather than being completely obliterated. Delete the copyrighted text but always leave a stub entry. In my interpretation this "copyright problems" policy shouldn't even have the power to obliterate/delete an article, that should be a separate consideration for AfD and other policies to decide. zen apprentice T 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Zen, are you suggesting we leave a blank article after the text is removed? In such a case, we can simply delete the blank page under our speedy deletion criteria. Or are you suggesting that we leave the copyright infringement on Wikipedia? That's obviously against policy. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 22:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Copyvio in history: nasty tangle" discussion section above claims that copyvios are only removed from history (presumably manually by a developer?) if the copyright holder specifically complains, is that accurate? Completely obliterating all trace of an article, its history and its discussion page is much much much worse that the problem of having some copyvio text available in history. zen apprentice T 07:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Responding to Garion96, the "possible" copyright problems template encourages people to recreate the tagged article temporarily as a sub article, that is effectively the same thing as obliteration. I seriously doubt all history (which means each and every word and letter submitted) for numerous articles with numerous edits are 100% copyvios. I think the potential for sneaky censorship is way too high using this policy, Wikipedia should err on the side of preserving history pristinely, not potential copyright problems. zen apprentice T 05:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Consider the following case: I am the author and owner of a website dealing with peas. One day, I copy and paste some of the text of my website into Wikipedia to create a new article Pea. This text is 'obviously 100% copyrighted' and in your model would be speedily deleted. But as the copyright holder, it is perfectly legal for me to add my text to Wikipedia.
User:Legaleagle86 and I are reverting and discussing back and forth about the applicability of fair use to certain material in Research and Analysis Wing. This diff includes the material under consideration. It is taken from [18], which may quote another source at length. Please weigh in on the talk page. NatusRoma | Talk 06:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Some discussion/suggestion on the talk page will defenitely be helpful to sort out the issue Legaleagle86 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I came across Wealthiest Americans (1957). I believe that it is normally a copyvio to put a list on Wikipedia from a magazine, for example, I've seen Lists of Top 100 Albums from Rolling Stone Magazine and similar things get removed. I also know that some copyrights expire after 70 years or something like that. I do not know if any of this applies in this case. I guess someone could argue that this list is factual and therefore not proprietary of the magazine, but I think that since the methodology for producing lists of "richest individuals" are often debated, that would mean that Fortune Magazine's list is unique thought. I figured that I could post a {{ Cv-unsure}} on the talk page, but I don't really know the proper procedure to follow in a case like this, so I would appreciate some feedback before I take any action. -- After Midnight 0001 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
International HapMap Project contains a large section of information that was apparently copied and pasted from a government website. This section takes up approximately 80% of the article. Although this is not a copyright violation, does this violate WP:WWIN (Wikipedia is not a mirror)? Thanks! - AED 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You can copy the content that was from the goverment website (although really you need to find the site or a mirror of it to prove it so), however if you use content which is from this 'article' which contants both goverment content (which is public domain) and their writings, then it would be a copyright violation (I am refering to UK law here, although copyright is pretty universal). Basically, you need to work out which bits came from the goverment, and you can use them. With regards to WP:WWIN it depends on how it would help the article, and it is extremely likely that you would need to in turn edit it to make it more suited. Note that any content in the public domain can be edited upon without credit, and for any purpose, but subsecuent edits are copyright to the person who wrote it (and only the new content they wrote), unless they choose to release some of those rights. The above advice is provided for your general information only. The information writen by myself should not be treated as a substitute for obtaining professional medical or legal advice. Ian¹³ /t 17:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked what I think is an important question over at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure, and I'd appreciate anyone's input. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just found that an image (which I didn't add) on a page I recently edited has the wrong copyright attribution tag. The tag says, "This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less."
The problem is that according to a reliable secondary source, Eaton and Haas's "Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy", the image was taken just under 100 years ago, in 1910. Therefore "life of the author plus 100 years" can't be the case. The photo was taken in the United States before 1923 so it should be in the public domain in the US. Can I be bold and change the public domain notice, and if I do which template should I use? Does it matter that Guggenheim lived mainly in France and not in the US?
The image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BGuggenheim.jpg
Thanks! -- Charlene.fic 01:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a new tag in town: {{subst: Replaceable fair use}}. Details and discussion are here. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has been pointed out for copyright infringement. The material that has been stated to be copyright violation comes from the official website of the organization, the article is being used to illustrate. Doesn't that come in the scope of fair use. The material is only being used for the description of the organization. Voldemortuet 09:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello, I am new and would like to know how I go about finding out if I can use images from Crimson Skies Universe. Much of this material is available in a downloadable "Fansite Kit".
~ E. Todd Quigley 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Could do with some advice on the copyright status of Image:Triforce.svg. I created it using a text editor as a replacement for Image:Three Triangles.svg and use in {{ User Zelda}}. I originally released it under {{ PD-self}} but this has since been removed by Durin who subsequently then removed it from several templates it is being used in. I don't personally think it is copyrightable because it is a basic Sierpinski triangle and not a Nintendo image but I could do with expert opinions. — Ian Moody ( talk) 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have found a copyright violation in the article on Leeds Town Hall--most of the article is copied directly from a website which is copyright of Leeds City Council. The article does acknowledge that this is the case, and the person who has been involved in editing the article has quoted an email from the original author of the text (note: not Leeds City Council) saying that it's OK for her text to be used in Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't amount to a GFDL licence, and I've told the editor so.
Should the article be reverted until he can get proper permission? I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so am not all that confident that I know the right proceedure to follow. MLilburne 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be a problem on Wikipedia:Copyright problems: {{Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings}} is not transcluded anymore. I have looked for what could be the cause of the problem, and the only thing I found is that it may be related to the number of transcluded pages in the article (pages may not get transcluded if there are too many of them). Anyone know anything about this ? One easy way to improve the situation would be to sort out the backlog, but there is not much I can do (admins needed !). Schutz 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across an article that appears to be a copyvio. The article is here: Jeremy Michael Boorda and the page a majority of the text comes from is here: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/May1996/940421-A-0000D-001.html. I know that images that come from government sources are PD but I did not know if that applied to biographical text. The bio is on a military site but I still think that the article is a copyvio but I wanted to check here before I blanked the page.-- NMajdan• talk 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I am rather pissed-off today. On this article John Tavares, I have been the originator and primary editor. On that article, I had an image and, as required by Wikipedia, I explained the origin of the image. Months later, I was flagged as a potential copyright violation, but was given the chance to explain further. I seriously perused Wikipedia's Fair Use policy. After some serious consideration, I felt use of the image was, in fact, valid fair use. Today, I learned that some person from Norway deleted my image with this statement "removing image with invald fair use claim". Furthermore, with that deletion, was the deletion of my fair use claim, so now no one can even review what I wrote.
My question is this:
Considering that I strongly suspect this person is not a member of the American Bar Association nor a lawyer I challenge 1) his authority to delete, and 2) his competency in American copyright law for passing judgment that the image should have been deleted. I wish to have my fair use claim re-examined. So, the bottom line question for me is this: What, if any, is Wikipedia's process for resolving such disputes? If one exists, what is the next step?
I submit to the authorities and administrators of Wikipedia. I value the service and recognize its importance. Furthermore, I realize and accept that, do to the open nature of the project, problems may arise such as sabotaging articles or distributing false information.
Still, there needs to be some formal process in a matter such as this. Again, I submit and if there is a consensus that my use of the image was not a valid fair use instance, then I accept that. I would accept it because several experienced people gave it thought, not a single judge whose judgment is suspect.
I love Wikipedia - I really do and I plug it every day - but if it claims to abide by the laws of the United States of America, I would hope that Wikipedia reviews American History, government, and dispute resolution processes.
Thank you for any assistance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Ree ( talk • contribs)
Hi. Vin here. I'm afraid I don't understand.
The bottom line is not how the material is put up or even what it is (for the moment), but who decides what is a copyright violation or not. I see no authority granted to nor qualifications for the person who did the deletion. I understand the universality of the ability to delete, but deletion on those grounds is serious. Frankly, Wikipedia should have one person who actually is a copyright lawyer review material which is flagged as a potential copyright violation. If such a person said I violated copyright, then I'd feel alot better and accept judgment. However, the person who deleted my image isn't a copyright lawyer - or a lawyer - or even an American. For that reason, I question his qualifications for understanding American copyright law. At the very minimum, I see no evidence whatsoever that he is more qualified to judge a copyright violation than me.
Given that, in principle, I should be able to re-upload my image and have it re-assessed by somebody who has some credentials in the copyright field. Would I be penalized if I re-uploaded the image? Would a continous vicious circle of deletion and re-upload ensue? Would that eventually lead to me being banned?
If so, then that would imply that the people who admin Wikipedia are just a hypocritcal clique. I say that because the evidence would indicate that, despite having no actual authority, qualifications, nor creditials indicating their superiority, they de facto are solely by being "members of the club", so to speak. The Wikipedia organization being a clique would sadden me greatly and tarnish the reputation of Wikipedia as an organization dedicated to fairness and freedom of information for all. The new perception of Wikipedia might instead be that the Wikipedians are just the 21st Century's "Audio Visual Squad". I refuse to believe that that is so.
To alleviate your fears, I will not re-upload the image. Nonetheless, I would like to have my image re-evaluated by another person as to whether the image is used in a Fair Use fashion. I have reread the critical aspects of this from both Wikipedia's Fair Use article and the Deletor's article on Copyright (the bulk of which conveniently was copied from Wiki's Fair Use article - hmmmm.... and no credit was given....). Once again, if English is your first language, it should be readily clear that my image is covered under the Fair Use.
Please forgive my sarcasm, but I have not been this pissed-off in years. I have been thoroughly supportive of Wikipedia, its ideals, policies, and objectives, and am constantly plugging it. Right now I feel that I was bitch-slapped by somebody who, despite their intentions, is no better than me at judging my actions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Ree ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for both looking and teaching me about the tildes! I did not know that. God bless you for at least taking the time to listen. Vincent Ree 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I replaced some transclusions with links to cut down on template transclusion load for this page. See Wikipedia:Template limits for the relevant discussions, especially Wikipedia talk:Template limits#Limit increased, links added. -- Ligulem 12:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What happends if there is a copyright violation but the source is a book, not a URL. -- Deenoe 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This page is bloody rifed with copyright violations. I counted a total of 11 images to illustrate an article that's not even that long. I need help in deciding which ones would fall under fair use and which ones would not, and whether those could safely go on other pages, or if they shoudl be deleted outright. Hbdragon88 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I needed some other opinions as the Talk page appeared to not be very helpful. Hbdragon88 19:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been putting messages on Talk pages where some text in an article has been copied from somewhere but it turns out the text is actually in the public domain or under the GFDL, e.g. [1], [2]. I think the idea is good, perhaps there is a template that already does this or one should be made, or a message put on the main article as was done for Britannica 1911 and similar things? — Centrx→ talk • 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with the copyright status of this image. The tag says that it is in public domain as a work of the United States Government, but the image itself claims copyright by someone else. The image itself also states that permission has been given to use, but I suspect this permission was only for the source website, which is not listed in the image description. What should I do? - Runningonbrains 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, having a few problems. User:Lahiru k has been creating articles on Sri Lankan Military Medals, but has been taking text (and possibly images) from the Sri Lankan Navy website [3]. He's asserting that as a member of the navy he has permission to use the text. I'm not familiar enough with copyright policy to determine whether that is enough, and there is also a language barrier. Please see User talk:Lahiru k, User talk:Djbrianuk, Desha Putra Sammanaya, Weerodara Vibhushanaya and Parama Weera Vibhushanaya vs the navy website link above. exolon 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A user recently added a link to a trailer for this show on YouTube. I removed it as I didn't think we should be linking to non-copyright use of BBC material, but the user has reinstated the link saying that a trailer is acceptable fair use and not a copyright infringement. What's the Wikipedia position on trailers hosted on third party sites like this? Angmering 06:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled accross Image:Myoregonsymbol.png. The author states explicitly "I created this to avoid copyright infringement - it is close, but my own design." It is apparent they they copied the exact Oregon Ducks logo Image:Nikeized logo.jpg. Just because they created it themselves and it's not an exact replication, it gets the point accross that the image is supposed to represent the University of Oregon Ducks sports teams. It's mainly (only?) used in this template {{ User:Z4ns4tsu/Userboxes/NCAA-Ducks}}. Is this a simple copyvio and should be speedy deleted? Or is this okay since the image is actually the work of the author? Any help is appreciated. My gut feeling is this is wrong. MECU≈ talk 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this user had been given several warnings (see User talk:TournamentKing14) for uploading images with the incorrect tags. He's now taken to uploading images like Image:ImaginationIsland.jpg with Self-published work, Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 and GFDL. Yet these look like fair use images at best. They look like copies of VHS covers, screenshots, etc. They have been at this for a while upload log. Not sure what the correct procedure is here, do I delete the images or just change the tags? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The Thai Wikipedia, in an article called Wikipedia:How to contribute without violating copyright states (in Thai, my translation) that "translating article content from another language will not create copyright problems. It is like putting our own words into the article. However, using machine translation is a violation of copyright because it is word by word copying, and in addition, the results are hard to read and unreadable." The article doesn't seem to have any english language equivalent, or any equivalent in any other languages. It strikes me quite strange that translations would not violate Wikipedia copyright policies - would I really be able to translate a Thai encyclopedia into English and use that in a en.wikipedia article? Or is this guideline specific to Thailand? Patiwat 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a few misconceptions here. First off, materials submitted to Wikipedia are still copyrighted. They are just released under the GFDL, so it isn't a violation to copy and paste them into another GFDL project. Second, a translation of a work is almost always a derivative work, so we can't put our own translations of non-free text into Wikipedia (though translations of free text are fine). This is true of machine translations as well as manual translations. But sometimes it may not be a derivative work, if you're careful. I'll explain.
If I write a poem and you translate it, that's definitely a derivitive work (and it's a copyright violation if I don't authorize the translation). But if I write out some facts, like "Billy is exactly six feet tall, and he was born in 1975.", then I don't own the copyright to the facts, only the presentation of those facts. If you rewrote it in your own words, like "Bill (b. 1975) is 6'0" tall.", then you aren't violating my copyright. You have to be very careful that no trace of my own original presentation remains, though. Many encyclopedia articles are like this: a list of facts, organized into paragraphs. So if you translate an article, and rewrite it in your own words, and reorganize it as needed, then it's not a copyvio. There's a lot of gray area here, but that's the basic idea. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, guys and gals! That really cleared things up. The sentences in question on th.wikipedia have been fixed accordingly. Patiwat 01:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Would another editor kindly review the removal of my copyvio report on Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg? This image is indeed a copyvio as the artist (whose name Wikipedia actually knows) is not being attributed as Fair use policy #10 specifies. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 02:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Netscott had relisted it. I will discuss this where it was added. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This article on Rodney Ansell seems to include some plagiarism, as some of the information is almost word-for-word identical to this article on the BBC website [4].-- H-ko 23:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if this belongs here. If not, please move it appropriate location. I am still a novice on wikipedia.
While asking for permission to use some material for wikipedia under GFDL, I was replied a "No" and was also informed about possible legal action against Wikipedia for other (possible) copyright violations. I am not sure what I should do in this case. Somebody please take appropriate steps for this (or guide me).
Here is the email I sent (email addresses removed):
"
From: E Square To: susuhanan Date: Sep 2, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Permission to use the image of coat of arms - Bhavnagar state
Hi,
I am editing an entry of Bhavnagar on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavnagar).
I was doing research on Bhavnagar history, and came to know your wonderful site The Royal Ark at http://4dw.net/royalark/.
I wanted to use one of the images from your website (the image of coat of arms of Bhavnagar at http://www.4dw.net/royalark/India/bhavnaga.htm). Would it be possible to use it for Wikipedia website under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL)?
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.
- Square
"
Please note that I have not used any material so far from this website before or after this email exchange, and hence I think the person is referring to other possible violation.
And here is the response:
"
From: Christopher Buyers <susuhanan> To: Square Date: Sep 3, 2006 1:32 AM Subject: RE: Permission to use the image of coat of arms - Bhavnagar state WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear Mr Square,
Thank you for your e-mail.
I regret that I have a general ban on the use of any materials from my Royal Ark website on wikipedia and related websites.
We are consulting our legal advisers on taking our legal procedings against that website for the unauthrised use of our materials.
With best wishes, Christopher Buyers The Royal Ark
"
-- Square 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have come across an editor who uses phrases and sentences verbatim from sources, mixed in with paraphrasing and a bit of original wording. I asked them to watch out for copyright violations in a very civil manner (although we have a bit of an uncomfortable history), and they responded by claiming I didn't know what I was talking about and how their edits are perfectly fine. I would like a second opinion so I am posting here.
Take Carol Downer. This is the diff and this is the source. The following phrases are verbatim copied with no quotes or inline citation:
And this isn't a freak occurance. The same sort of verbatim copying appears with Alice Wolfson and [ [5]], Barbara Seaman and [6], and probably more. So is this sort of verbatim copying allowed? Read the user's comments on my talk page and see whether a) the comments were civil and b) whether its an acceptable justification for this verbatim copying. Thanks for considering this topic. -- Andrew c 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Can images of the Atomium in Brussels be used under fair use in the English-language Wikipedia? -- 84.61.33.80 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Zone46 has made page after page of That 70's Show episodes. The plot is a complete copy and paste job from what I can tell. Join Together (That '70s Show episode) is a recent example of what Zone did: copied the text from the That 70's Central website. Is this a copyright violation or no? I checked the website and didn't see anything that said you needed permission or not... but I somehow think it could be. Direct copy and paste is just wrong in itself, and shows laziness in my opinion. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted them, hopefully all of them, and left the user a message about not posting copyrighted material. If they begin again, inform the user on their talk page that they will be blocked if they do not stop, and post a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents referring to this section of this talk page asking another administrator to deal with it. — Centrx→ talk • 06:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the rule that we can only attach speedy delete tags to blatant copy violations on pages created in the last 48 hours. What about blatant copy violations on older pages - they're even more damaging to wikipedia by sticking around a long time? Why the strange distinction? It seems illogical/counterproductive Bwithh 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The article Gasotransmitters has many of the hallmarks of copyright infringement.
However I cannot find a source on the internet for it. I would appreciate feedback on wether this is likely to be copyright infringement or not. It doesn't seem to talk much about Gasotransmitters themselves, only discoveries relating to them, and in my opinion should be expanded, moved or deleted, but I daresay that is what the cleanup tag is there for! JPilborough 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Done. Thanks JPilborough 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Channel 31 in San Francisco, a new CW affiliate, has copied and pasted Wikipedia's article on The CW into their site. While it would normally be a little flattering to see a professional company use Wikipedia's text, the site includes a copyright notice which strongly implies they consider all the content on their site to be copywritten. See this copyright notice, specifically this phrase: "CBS has a long-standing company policy that does not allow CBS to accept or consider creative ideas, suggestions or materials other than those CBS has specifically requested." and this one: "The Site contains material which is derived in whole or in part from material supplied by CBS and other sources, and is protected by international copyright and trademark laws. No material (including but not limited to the text, images, audio and/or video) and no software (including but not limited to any images or files incorporated in or generated by the software or data accompanying such software) (individually and collectively the "Materials") may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way..." here is the page in question. Compare with our page on The CW, here. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Because of some recent disputes over the Armia Krajowa article, and increasing number of citations requested templates and unformatted citations, I decided to add few references. As two of them looked relativly easy (numbers), I went to my favourite fack-checking source, Google Print - and promtly discovered one source which gave not only those numbers, but, virtually word for word, contained the entire section of the article. My first assumption was that we have a copyvio section, and we need to remove it or rewrite from our article. However I have been working on that article for years now, and I remembered that this section was there for some time - while the book has the copyright stamp (all rights reserved, btw) from 2006 ( Google Print front cover with a date). The book, btw, is Sorcha Faal, The Partisans Handbook, Long Trail Acres Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0975322850 ( Google Books about page). The section from Armia Krajowa article is the 'Weapons and equipment' section - which dates to May 1, 2005 ( see the original entry by User:Balcer). See the following pages for similarities (they are very obvious, the paras were virtually not changed at all: 35, 36, 37, [7]). Our entry from 2005, book copyrighted from 2006? Uh-oh. But wait, it gets even better (or worse). The page 33 which begins the description of AK has text taken straight from the old 'Origins' section of the article (now expanded into the History section), has text taken straight from the very first edit to our page on 2002. And for a final touch, it is not just Wikipedia that seems to be plagariazed in the book. Page 6 and several which follow has text lifted straight from World War II -- 60 Years After: Legacy Still Casts Shadow Across Belarus Radio Free Europe article by Jeffrey Donovan, dated to May 4th, 2005 ( Google Cache link - sorry, page is offline and seems not to be in Internet Archieve). At that point I decided to stop searching for other hits and to bring this case to you, as I am not sure if we should write a Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter to the publisher or somebody's else. Plus I expect it may become something big (book plagiarizes Wikipedia...), and make a good WP:POST story.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Unlisted is a bot-generated list of articles that are tagged {{ copyvio}} but are not listed here. This bot was approved (for a trial run, at the moment), under the condition that the list of these articles is posted on a separate page rather than included with the others: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DumbBOT. This list could however be linked from this page, as far as I can say. Any idea as to the best place for this link? ( Liberatore, 2006). 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Having a second list is definitely harder to manage. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The article Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P. is virtuallly completely copied from their website at [11]. History is copied from that page, then the Areas of Practices and Industries are copied from the menus. The only revision not a copyvio is the very first one - [12]. However this is barely even a stub. Do you think I should flag the article for deletion or revert it to this version?
I started to wikify this article before I noticed...oops! JPilborough 14:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I tagged this article with {{ Db-copyvio}}, as it was created on 17th with the original text all copied from the source given there. Since then, it underwent some modifications and came to its present condition, though except for the lead, the entire article still remains copied. My question is, have I used the right template? Or since the article underwent some modifications, I should be using a {{ copyvio}} tag instead? -- Lost (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Prosopon's opening paragraph matches that of what is in Britannica according to [13]. I do not have a copy of Britannica, could someone verify this isn't an exact copy (it isn't of their online concise edition [14]. Computerjoe 's talk 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've run into a animated TV screenshot that was edited by a Wikipeida user (cropped to show a specific character.) That editor applied the tag template:PD-self, but its my understanding that this is not correct, since screenshots of the show would remain property of the show's owners. Would it be proper, than, to simply replace the tag with Template:tv-screenshot?-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I came across Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png, which is scanned from a newspaper ad and alleges fair use. It is used in the article about one of the attorneys in the ad, who is also a political candidate ( Peter Roskam) to illustrate that he is a personal injury attorney. I have two questions:
Thanks -- rogerd 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm havin trouble deciding what licensing should be used on the pictures of Zaib-un-Nissa Hamidullah. Their copyright holder, Yasmine S. Ahmed, has given me permission to upload and use them on Wikipedia, but not for third parties. So I put "with permission", but it says you need another type of licensing too. Please help ASAP.-- Le Grey Intellectual 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds great. What's the coding for that license, tho? Just cc-by-sa-2.0?-- Le Grey Intellectual 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This pasted an entire journal article into Definition and it is still basically intact. There is a URL at the end to the original pdf file, which has a permissions statement at the bottom of the first page. -- Jtir 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure where this should be, but User:Bobabobabo has a mass of copyrighted images. I have removed them twice, only to be reverted by some anon. Can I please have someone with a better footing with this explain to the anon that the use of copyrighted images in user pages expressely isn't allowed? Interrobamf 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
After tagging an image with {{ fair use disputed}}, do I need to list it anywhere? Secondly, is there a readymade template to inform the uploader that I tagged the image as above? -- Lost (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am attempting to look into a copyvio template posting at Peter Medawar from a couple of weeks ago. The result is evidently that the copyvio was found to have been over billed, but... There are a few references to archives of the copyright problem page, but I've looked around the backstage machinery and have had no sightings. Can some kind guide point out the hidden pot at the end of the copyvio rainbow? Where, oh where, is a stage hand when one needs one?! Thanks. ww 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've put this on the list as all but the very first uplaod are copyvio of the url I linked to, but I've reverted to the original upload rather than delete it and replace it with the copyvio tag, but I'm not sure if that's what I should have done. To be honest I probably hadn't got the patience to check I did everything right because I'd just spent ages putting in a few changes to make it a better article and only found out the problem when I was sorting out the links at the bottom. Terri G 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Got a bit of a problem at the article Friends of Real Lancashire. The initial article was a copy--and-paste of a webpage (see Talk:Friends of Real Lancashire). The article has since been incrementally edited so that it no longer contains any prose from that website, but this was done gradually so that purging the copyvio from the history will be tricky. Would anyone like to suggest what could be done about this? Morwen - Talk 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What do we do with imagevios that are non-commercial use only but have been tagged as fair use promotional material rationale? Do we imagevio them and add them here without non-commercial categorying them? Do we imagevio them and add them here and also non-commercial categorise them? Do we remove the fair use rationale (since it doesn't apply) and just add them to the non-commercial category them? Do we not remove the fair use rationale but do add them to the non-commercial category? The last one sounds a bit risky since when someone may later get confused and think the fair use rationale is justified without properly checking and therefore remove them from the non-commercial category and they may not be deleted (since we appear to be very slow at deleting images in the non-commercial category even those that were added after 2005) Nil Einne 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it a copyright infringement to slightly rewrite every sentence of a paragraph and then use it is as an article on Wikipedia? The source is clearly marked as copyrighted material, and no one would doubt that the article came from that source. What's the Wikipedia rule on this? KP Botany 20:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
So, I found some more information about the book. It was originally published in 1894. I don't know when the author died, so it's not necessarily out of copyright. However, let's assume it is in the public domain. In which case, shouldn't Wikipedia articles that simply take its text inform the reader of the source, not just as a reference, as if the article's editor had researched the topic using the source then used his own words, but the actual source of the text, like the articles that mosly come from the public domain encyclopedia? A disclaimer at the bottom stating, this is from John Dowson's 1894 book, which came into the public domain in 1973 or whatever? KP Botany 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I wish to know if images from wikimapia used in illustrating wikipedia article is violation of US copyright laws? The terms of use is explicitly as nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_local.html Can the use be defended as fair use? Legaleagle86 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Quadell writes that 'maps that are copyright Google may not be used on Wikipedia, even under a "fair use" claim' (emphasis added on a part of his statement you seem to have ignored). This is perfectly correct. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think at least some (all?) of the articles deleted through "copyright problems" should be left in stub form rather than being completely obliterated. Delete the copyrighted text but always leave a stub entry. In my interpretation this "copyright problems" policy shouldn't even have the power to obliterate/delete an article, that should be a separate consideration for AfD and other policies to decide. zen apprentice T 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Zen, are you suggesting we leave a blank article after the text is removed? In such a case, we can simply delete the blank page under our speedy deletion criteria. Or are you suggesting that we leave the copyright infringement on Wikipedia? That's obviously against policy. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 22:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Copyvio in history: nasty tangle" discussion section above claims that copyvios are only removed from history (presumably manually by a developer?) if the copyright holder specifically complains, is that accurate? Completely obliterating all trace of an article, its history and its discussion page is much much much worse that the problem of having some copyvio text available in history. zen apprentice T 07:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Responding to Garion96, the "possible" copyright problems template encourages people to recreate the tagged article temporarily as a sub article, that is effectively the same thing as obliteration. I seriously doubt all history (which means each and every word and letter submitted) for numerous articles with numerous edits are 100% copyvios. I think the potential for sneaky censorship is way too high using this policy, Wikipedia should err on the side of preserving history pristinely, not potential copyright problems. zen apprentice T 05:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Consider the following case: I am the author and owner of a website dealing with peas. One day, I copy and paste some of the text of my website into Wikipedia to create a new article Pea. This text is 'obviously 100% copyrighted' and in your model would be speedily deleted. But as the copyright holder, it is perfectly legal for me to add my text to Wikipedia.
User:Legaleagle86 and I are reverting and discussing back and forth about the applicability of fair use to certain material in Research and Analysis Wing. This diff includes the material under consideration. It is taken from [18], which may quote another source at length. Please weigh in on the talk page. NatusRoma | Talk 06:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Some discussion/suggestion on the talk page will defenitely be helpful to sort out the issue Legaleagle86 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I came across Wealthiest Americans (1957). I believe that it is normally a copyvio to put a list on Wikipedia from a magazine, for example, I've seen Lists of Top 100 Albums from Rolling Stone Magazine and similar things get removed. I also know that some copyrights expire after 70 years or something like that. I do not know if any of this applies in this case. I guess someone could argue that this list is factual and therefore not proprietary of the magazine, but I think that since the methodology for producing lists of "richest individuals" are often debated, that would mean that Fortune Magazine's list is unique thought. I figured that I could post a {{ Cv-unsure}} on the talk page, but I don't really know the proper procedure to follow in a case like this, so I would appreciate some feedback before I take any action. -- After Midnight 0001 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
International HapMap Project contains a large section of information that was apparently copied and pasted from a government website. This section takes up approximately 80% of the article. Although this is not a copyright violation, does this violate WP:WWIN (Wikipedia is not a mirror)? Thanks! - AED 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You can copy the content that was from the goverment website (although really you need to find the site or a mirror of it to prove it so), however if you use content which is from this 'article' which contants both goverment content (which is public domain) and their writings, then it would be a copyright violation (I am refering to UK law here, although copyright is pretty universal). Basically, you need to work out which bits came from the goverment, and you can use them. With regards to WP:WWIN it depends on how it would help the article, and it is extremely likely that you would need to in turn edit it to make it more suited. Note that any content in the public domain can be edited upon without credit, and for any purpose, but subsecuent edits are copyright to the person who wrote it (and only the new content they wrote), unless they choose to release some of those rights. The above advice is provided for your general information only. The information writen by myself should not be treated as a substitute for obtaining professional medical or legal advice. Ian¹³ /t 17:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked what I think is an important question over at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure, and I'd appreciate anyone's input. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just found that an image (which I didn't add) on a page I recently edited has the wrong copyright attribution tag. The tag says, "This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less."
The problem is that according to a reliable secondary source, Eaton and Haas's "Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy", the image was taken just under 100 years ago, in 1910. Therefore "life of the author plus 100 years" can't be the case. The photo was taken in the United States before 1923 so it should be in the public domain in the US. Can I be bold and change the public domain notice, and if I do which template should I use? Does it matter that Guggenheim lived mainly in France and not in the US?
The image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BGuggenheim.jpg
Thanks! -- Charlene.fic 01:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a new tag in town: {{subst: Replaceable fair use}}. Details and discussion are here. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has been pointed out for copyright infringement. The material that has been stated to be copyright violation comes from the official website of the organization, the article is being used to illustrate. Doesn't that come in the scope of fair use. The material is only being used for the description of the organization. Voldemortuet 09:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)