This page 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. |
I was under the perhaps errant assumption that press releases were ok to use on Wikipedia? Though if an article has text copied and pasted from a press release it likely should be rewritten anyway as it will undoubtedly read like an advertisement. zen apprentice T 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday Jimbo modified WP:CSD so that A8 (now G12) now allows speeding most of copyright violations:
I am cross-posting this in case it has been missed. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's great, although it would have been helpful a year or two ago. ;-) My concern is that some admins, especially newbies, cannot seem to tell a Wikipedia mirror apart from an original source. Also, there are quite a few cases when other websites have copied from us. If the article was created pretty recently, it's probably a copyvio, but in other cases you need to do some detective work to figure it out. I'm worried that people are not going to do that. -- Kjkolb 09:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
compare the wikipedia article La Rouche (July 2005) with the [ Peoples Daily] (English Edition, November 2005).
It seems as if Yong Tang just copied the introduction verbatim.
possible alternative explanation: The article was not written in November, but in June and was updated in November. In this case the wikipedia user is guilty of copyvio.
I also asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations because of a number of situations where editors are adding schedules to TV and radio articles, but I shall ask here as well:
Under section 176 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, TV schedules and programme information require royalties to be paid to the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (which is collected by Broadcasting Dataservices (BDS)). Publishing a schedule without paying a royality is a criminal offence. I believe this could also apply to BBC Radio services and maybe commercial network services too.
I have two questions:
One further question I didn't ask if it does affect question one and two:
I ask because an edit was made a few days ago I reverted at BBC Radio 2 and someone else has added a schedule to the GMTV article (which would be illegal to use under UK law because no royalty payment has been paid to ITV for use), but I am unsure whether this law would apply to Wikipedia as its servers are based in the United States. I have tagged the schedule as unencyclopedic regardless, but I could do with a defintive answer on the legal status of schedules for UK TV/radio stations in Wikipedia. -- tgheretford ( talk) 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is what the Broadcasting Dataservices website schedules say regarding copyright of schedules (I had to register with them to confirm this), and I quote:
-- tgheretford ( talk) 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't where I should aks this question. I'd like to ask about this template: Template:No rights reserved. It is a contradictionary, IMO, as it says copyrighted but no rights reserved, and thus anything can be done to the image, including exploited in any way. This term is prone to abuse the image. Is the template officially recognized from WP? Thanks. — Indon ( reply) — 16:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So if the uploader is not the copyright holder, then the source of the file should have written statement of no rights reserved, isn't it? — Indon ( reply) — 10:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
When people were working on the copyvio list. See [2]. I noticed some editors/admins were simply reverting or stubbing and some were deleting all the copyright violations from the history. Currently the instructions on the project page are that reverting is good enough, unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it from the history. Should that perhaps be changed? I don't mind either way, although it's of course much easier to revert. See also this old page and the discussion here. Garion96 (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute about whether passports of various countries are in the public domain or not. If you have any clue, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#October 7. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Feburary, User:RJNeb2 has been adding bios for movie actors, directors, etc, all in roughly the same style. There are a number of copyvio notices on the user's talk page, so s/he has had at least a handful of those articles deleted as copyvio already. I've been working my way backwards through the user's edit history (see my notes so far.) Of the articles the user has contributed that still exist, about 1/3 so far are word-for-word matches of bios on Allmovie. Do I assume that the rest are copyvio as well, even though I can't find a source? I suspect that s/he's working his/her way through a volume of bios on early film figures - possibly the articles that are on allmovie are copied from the same book? -- Vary | Talk 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been adding a notice like this to the talk page. The information needs to be recorded. — Centrx→ talk • 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Here it is:
— Centrx→ talk • 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been discovered that there are an incredible number (500-1000+) of articles on individual historical samurai and related subjects that could be construed as copyright violations. Some are direct copy-and-paste, some are simply rewordings of precisely what is said in one single source. Many of these are poorly written to the point of being nearly useless (meaningless). Many are cited poorly (e.g. writing simply "Samurai Sourcebook" is not a citation), and many are not cited at all. Much of this is the work of a single editor, who writes that he never meant to be disruptive and wants to do things properly, but who has been given more than enough chances on this and other issues.
I am going to start labeling these as copyvios, but it's going to be a lot of work, and a long process. For that reason, I'm mentioning it here rather than simply starting to address these articles one-by-one. I'm using AWB, so it's not quite as difficult as it would be otherwise, but still if there's any way to mass delete or mass tag these articles, I'd love to know about it.
Please see my talk page for the background of this situation, and the resulting discussion. Again, any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you. LordAmeth 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
On the Hippy article we have had several images by Robert Altman (photographer). He originally gave permssion for the images to be used on wikipedia, but now realising the extent of the right he is giving away has now withdrawn that right and has asked for the images to be deleted.
Altman is generally supportive of wikipedia and, in an email to me, seems happy to have the images on wikipedia if greater protection could be provided. I'm wondering what the strongest licencing protection we could grant him and still have the images on wikipedia. Also might it be possible to use the images under fairuse on the page about him? -- Salix alba ( talk) 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just tagged this image Image:Rodin_Portrait.jpg for possible copyvio. The uploader has given a proof by copy-pasting his correspondence email with the photographer agency. Could somebody please take a look at the image page? Is it enough by giving such a proof? The source still says (c) All rights reserved. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it a problem for copyvio to be retained in the edit history of an article?
After a lengthy discussion in Talk:Master of Business Administration about the inclusion of published rankings of MBA schools in a related article MBA Rankings (with a capital R; there are variants of the title with different capitalization), we agreed that the including MBA rankings from the Financial Times web site constituted a copyright violation, because their Terms and Conditions page explicitly prohibit republishing their content: ("You may not copy, reproduce, publish, broadcast, transmit, modify, adapt, create derivative works of, store, archive, publicly display or in any way commercially exploit any of the FT Content.")
So, we agreed that the MBA Rankings article should be removed and redirected back to Master of Business Administration (from which it originally derived). This has been done, but the copyvio still exists in the edit history of the MBA Rankings article. Does this matter? - Amatulic 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A recent edit to When Johnny Comes Marching Home includes an external link to a clip of the movie Stalag 17 on YouTube. Is this permissible? JQ 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at User:Amine2 image uploads, not a single upload is correctly tagged with a source and license and almost every second is clearly stolen from other websites. His talk page is filled with Orphanbot messages but this user ignores them. Any advice ? -- Denniss 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I blocked for 31 hours. It looks like he is trying to be productive and there may be language difficulties. This will at least get him to take the time to learn about it. — Centrx→ talk • 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. — Centrx→ talk • 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page of this article. The article is completely unsourced and uncited, and while I was assessing it for WikiBiography Project I found a paragraph that had been lifted verbatim from her obituary. That looks like plagiarism to me. I reported it to the Biography Project, and someone suggested I discuss it with someone here. Thanks Jeffpw 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Under Turkish Air Forces wikipedia uses updated inventory numbers taken from http://warriorsoul.4t.com/index.html.(Warrior soul updates his page when a plane is lost etc.) In the sources section no source has such information. But when we add warriorsoul's website to the sources we are warned for making advertisement and the source is removed.I asked admins then where did the data came from, they just said as warriorsoul's site is fanmade they cannot add it to the sources.(funny thing is there are 2 fanmade sites in the sources section)
My question is can wikipedia get relevant data but don't credit the website? 19.21 8.11.2006
Thanks for fast response,then we can add it under references, right?If not, where? 22.11 8.11.2006
Hi. Please see Talk:Star Trek planet classifications. The list there has been taken, pretty much blow-for-blow (although paraphrased) from a book named the Star Trek Starcharts. I've posted some examples on talk of the entries in the book, and what they have been translated to for our version: the transformation is so minimal that it seems to me to be a copyvio (even if we can get away with that we should cite the source anyway). Can anyone proffer advice as to whether my reading of the situation is correct. Morwen - Talk 07:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Under the "Instructions" section of the talk project page, there seem to be two different paths to follow under the same circumstances, and it's leaving me a bit confused. In the first box, criteria for speedy deletion of copyvios are listed, followed by directions to use the {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} template and not to blank the page. Directly under that box, the same criteria are listed, and the instructions say to blank the page and use the {{copyvio | url=insert URL here}} template.
Have I missed some important distinction?
Thanks! Kathy A. 14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Please can someone show me where to go to report commercial websites that publish Wikipedia content without acknowledgement, in apparent violation of the GFDL? I mean localcricket.org and onlinecricket.org. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following post has been moved from Suspected Copyright Violations. I believe here it will get more feedback than the administrator's noticeboard. Please move if another place is even a better than this one. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
... I couldn't see where to put issues about patterns suggesting possible copyright violations. If this is not the place, can someone please move this appropriately?
Someone with experience should look into the images uploaded by User:Cristian Adrian. He's had a tendency after being warned by Orphanbot to simply tag things as GFDL, but it's really hard for me to believe that is accurate.
It is possible that some of his images are his own and are OK, but quite a few look very professional and not recent. Either he is a professional quality photographer, whose work includes a picture of Unirii Square in Bucharest almost certainly taken no later than 10 years ago ( User:Dahn and I both think it is that old), aerial photography of Bucharest, and a very good but (look to the lower right) doctored night shot of Bucharest or he is uploading other people's images. The relatively low resolutions of these photos is also atypical of people uploading their own digital or scanned photography. I asked a question on the talk page of the Unirii Square question, which is the one that initially got my attention (I also added a caption to it), then I noticed that the issue might be more general. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone posted a link to a very recently released commercial CD in its article. I removed it, but there seems to be neither a template nor a policy to warn a user for piracy/a blatant copyvio of this nature. MSJapan 02:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
A user uploaded an image, Image:39 Ottl Andreas.jpg, whose copyright is owned by Bayern Munich. He claims the image was released under GFDL by the copyright owner. I asked him to put the email exchange on the image talkpage, but he answered he will provide the emails to everyone who requests them, and put his email address in the image page. Is this sufficient to accept the image under GFDL?
Best regards, Panarjedde 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This article Badrinath temple has a recently uploaded image Image:Badrinath.jpg claiming
{{ PD-art}}
However, the same image is found here [7] where you can order a custom print of it. I do not know how to check out if it is in the public domain. I also don't know where to report it as I would do if it were a copyvio of text. Can you advise me how to handle this? Thanks!
So I am asking here what to do. I have noted the problem on the Discussion page of the article. Thanks! Mattisse (talk)
I presume an editor has no basis for calling a screen capture he made from a television program he did not produce and doesn't hold the copyright to a User-created public domain image? Shoot on sight? -- Rrburke 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Lawrence Reed is (substantially) the bio from his website, which the talk page claims is released under the following license:
The bolded clause at least restricts editing, and it would seem to reuire that our mirrors copy more than the text of the article. Is this acceptable? (The question of whether it meets WP:SPAM is completely separate.) Septentrionalis 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can a list be copyrighted? Archbishop of Mount Sinai and Raithu states at the end that (It reports: "© 1995-2005 B. Schemmel. Data from this site may be queried and copied on a not-for-profit basis only if the source is accurately credited. All rights are reserved for profit-seeking purposes.") If such data can be copyrighted, the article should be deleted. I have queried in the talk page, but have not received reply since June. -- ReyBrujo 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[8] – uses creative fair use licenses, such as {{ bookcover}} for Image:Maharaj-ji.jpg. For two images that had the source given – websites – I changed the tags to {{ promophoto}}s, but we still don't know the source for Image:Maharaj-ji.jpg and Image:Neemkarolibaba.jpg. Further, Image:Sribhagavandas.jpg is cut from an album cover... does that still qualify as {{ albumcover}}?
[9] – uses the following "Terms of Use":
1/ All users of this image are required to attribute this work to "Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry" and the url: " http://www.nambassa.com " is to acompany all use.
2/ Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
3/ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Statement by Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry
The images are also tagged with {{ cc-by-2.5}}. Are the two compatible? Are the terms appropriate for wikipedia?
Also, the images all have the "nambassa.com" watermark on them. Is this not allowed or discouraged?
Sorry for the multitude of questions and links... I kind of get lost in licensing terms once I venture outside my trusted {{ cc-by-sa-2.5}} :) -- user:Qviri 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
http://pdimages.com do not give any source information for the images on their website. Thus we cannot verify their copyright status. According to Wikipedia's criterias, that is not acceptable. While http://pdimages.com may feel that their images are free to use in the US, I can not see how it could work for a reputable encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I expressed discomfort with image Image:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg that was recently kept, as said on Image_talk:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg. If you feel this is not a copyright issue, I can probably bring the question at a no source department on Wikipedia....
Fred- Chess 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Caligvla ( talk · contribs · block log) uploaded three photographs of pages of a book (the National Geographic Atlas) and has claimed that they are released into the public domain by himself, the "author" [10] [11] [12]. I don't feel comfortable about this though, could someone please confirm that these are not copyright infringements. Thanks.-- Euthymios 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
See User talk:Daniel.Bryant#boulder opal. I vaguely remember reading a page which will outline the procedure for this kind of situation, but I can't find it. Any ideas? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I just found out that the reason the summaries in the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes are often the same as the ones at TV.com - the same person is writing them for both sites. What are the policies about what can and cannot be done about identical text appearing on diffferent websites when submitted by the same person? CovenantD 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I found that a particular section of the article Zakir Naik was a copied from [13]. I could not locate the original non-copyright-violating version in the article history. I therefore blanked the particular section and listed the page on WP:CP as the instructions on the main page indicated. Can someone with experience in such matters, please look over my actions and see if I followed the correct process ? Thanks. Abecedare 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of you may have seen this before, but I do think it is important and I am getting no informed replies at all. If there is somewhere else to raise this, please say so.
It seems to me that Wikimapia, full as it is of Google Earth images, but be a copyright violation. (Yes, I've asked on Talk:Wikimapia, but I couldn't say there was a definitive reply.) The reason this is relevant is that there are thousands of pages linking to wikimapia.org, all of which are against the guidelines in WP:EL if the site is a copyvio. I removed one link before realising the scale of the problem. My own license for Google Earth gives me rights only in "home, personal or recreational use", and I think Wikimapia can't really be described as any of those. Anyway, I think this is an important point. If it was already discussed, a pointer on Talk:Wikimapia may save wasted energy in the future. Notinasnaid 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is at the end of the first paragraph and links to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia the page on Meta.wikimedia has no references and seems to be rant on personal opinions of why copyrights do or do not mater. I strongly question the correctness of inlcuding a link to that page from this one. Jeepday 13:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
(Also posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam) I've noticed a few folks use Image:SpamInACan.jpg in relation to the Spam WikiProject and other efforts related to the usage of "spam" as it refers to unsolicited commercial messages. It seems that it might be a copyright or trademark violation to do so. The actual image is purported to be a US Air Force photo so it's likely in the public domain. However, it's an image of a trademark and is often used in relation to (mis)uses of that trademark. In addition to any legal issues, there is also the issue of plain "niceness" as Hormel as been extraordinarily reasonable with the use of their trademarked term to refer to unsolicited commercial messages but they do " object to the use of...our product image in association with that term." I am not suggesting that their objection carries legal weight but certainly it should carry some weight in maintaing our own public image. I also am not suggesting that the image needs to be deleted as it clearly may have some legal uses.
As you can tell, this appears at first glance to an non-expert to be a good mix of copyright, trademark, and non-legal issues. I'm certainly no expert in copyright or trademark so I wanted to post this message so that others more knowledgable in those areas can offer some insight and advice. -- ElKevbo 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Wherebot found that Akiyama Nana was an exact copy from http://wiki.theppn.org/Akiyama_Nana, and we are still not sure how to act. ThePPN releases text under Creative Commons Share Alike. Personally, I believe the licenses are not compatible, as text in Wikipedia is released under GFDL, and CCSA asks you to release derivative work under the same CCSA license. However, we would like to hear a second opinion about this matter. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 11:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Srkris has uploaded some images lifted from a newspaper ( The Hindu) website:
When I and User:Venu62 tagged them with copyright violation tags, the user reverted the edits calling them "bad faith". Although The Hindu website has an explicit copyright message, the user argues that thse images are "low-res newspaper scans". I pointed out that the images are not scanned by him, but directly lifted from The Hindu website. The user accepted that the images are from the website, but argued that it doesn't matter who scanned the images. He claims that since "all images from non-digital era are through scans", The Hindu must have scanned them. So, it is a low-res newspaper scan and therefore fair use.
Also, some images copied from chembai.com, and tagged with {{PD}} and {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}:
Chembai.com doesn't have an explicit copyright message, but in my knowledge, that doesn't mean that they are not copyrighted. And tagging the images as PD and GFDL is certainly not justified.
The Hindu website has an explicit copyright message. I wonder whether the user's argument is valid? utcursch | talk 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The following language is from the locked policy page on Wikipedia copyrights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement
This written copyright policy on Wikipedia clearly indicates usage of said photographs does not violate copyright, is legitimate, and is permissble on Wikipedia. The above statement does not mandate the above entities license said images under a GFDL, and it's inherent from the outset that the above entities do not generally license their work under GFDL in nearly all cases, rather Fair Use. They are in these businesses, and as businesses, generally distribute work for either paid or promotional purposes only under Fair Use.
However, the admins now enforcing Fair Use images are deleting nearly any image of a living person, regardless of whether it comes from a source such as that indicated above, as long as the image is of a living person, claiming the image could be at some point be replaced by a GFDL or CC image. It does not matter whether such a GFDL image in fact exists, how difficult it might be to obtain, or whether the celebrity provided a Fair Use image themselves. Following the rationale now being enforced, it would seem impossible for a living celebrity to ever have an image on Wikipedia, as their celebrity alone would make them available for the potential creation of a GFDL image in essentially any case. I have recently had 32 images deleted, nearly all of which fell into these categories. The above policy has no meaning whatsover to the enforcing admins, who see the primary goal as a "totally free" encyclopedia. Some also view deleting otherwise permissible fair use images as advancing the goal of encouraging persons to find or create or take GFDL images. A variety of other claims, including that of "freedom to the downstream user", are also advanced. Most celebrities want exactly the opposite, as they do not want their images used for endorsement or other purposes without permission, which a GFDL license allows in perpetuity.
A number of users who have had legitimate Fair Use images deleted and replaced by amateur photographs have begun to raise the issue of United States state laws, some of which do not allow distribution of images of celebrities without the expressed consent of said celebrity, including amateur images. Those arguments have so far been ignored, and it would follow that Wikipedia would in fact be exposed to more, not less, potential liability than it would by distributing Fair Use images released by the copyright holder or celebrity for just such a purpose, for which liability is essentially zero. Not to mention that the professional images are often of a far higher quality than the amateur images now being substitutued, and advance the goal of a quality encyclopedia better.
Another aspect of this issue is that Fair Use images of deceased persons are used at will under the premise that no Fair Use image can possibly be created. This would seem to fly in the face of the entire "totally free" argument from the outset, and there are thousands of other fair use images that remain on Wikipedia regardless, such as for album, CD and DVD covers, which have and will likely remain untouched. I also believe it's possible, in fact likely, that licensing rights of images of deceased celebrities would transfer to the estate, and that Wikipedia is under no more, or less, potential liabilty than for the living, marking the distinction of dead vs. living as a potential red herring.
The enforcing admins and supporting users in this area have been described by some as "jihadists" in their deletion of all fair use images of living persons including celebrities. My experience would indicate that is an appropriate view, as 32 of 35 disputed images were removed, including numerous images gained from celebrities themselves for use on Wikipedia, despite lengthy fair use rationales. Every image I've loaded was immediately examined and challeged in some respect, beginning immediately after I posted critical comments on the enforcement of Fair Use at the Chowbok Rfc page, the largest hub of several similar Rfc pages which have had the net effect of zero on the above policy's interpretation and enforcement by the admins in question.
All of this has led to many angry Wikipedians, some of whom have left in complete disgust. I myself have stopped loading images of any kind to the project, including many original images I had considered licensing as Creative Commons, because of how these fair use images of celebrities are being treated at present. I am now advising celebrities I know and contact of how said policy is being enforced, and also advising them not to license images under GFDL without being fully aware of the potential downstream use of said images, over which they will have no control whatsoever.
I post this as a commentary, and invite others, epecially admins who view the above policy implementation as heavy handed or incorrect, to comment. Thank you. Tvccs 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
On some pages, editors have deleted material on the basis of "presumed copyright violation" when they have not looked for a source, or not found one, but do so on the basis that, for example, a large technical edit is likely to have been copied form somewhere. (General) comment invited--I am not involved in any specifc problem of the sort. DGG 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For example, take todays featured article. I go back to the initial 2001 entry in the page history:
"
James Joyce was an Irish writer and poet.
One of the most significant writers of 20th century. Born into a well-off Catholic family in Dublin, the family suffered a set-back in their fortunes, and slid into poverty. He left the city in 1904 to spend the rest of his life on the Continent.
His Irish experiences are essential to his writings which are exclusively on Irish subjects. The early volume of short stories, Dubliners, is a penetrating analysis of the stagnation of Dublin society. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, largely autobiographical, shows the process of attaining maturity and self-consciousness by a young gifted man.
The main character is Stephen Dedalus. In this novel some glimpses of Joyce's later technique can be noticed, in the use of interior monologue and in the concern with the psychic rather than external reality. In Ulysses, definitely Joyce's masterpiece, he uses the stream of consciousness technique to present his characters. The novel sets the ancient myth of Ulysses, Penelope and Telemachus in modern Dublin and impersonates them in the characters of Mr. Bloom, his wife Molly and Stephen Dedalus, parodistically contrasted with their lofty models. The book explores various areas of Dublin life, dwelling on its squalor and monotony. Joyce employs a variety of literary styles to suit his purpose. His method of stream of consciousness, literary allusions and free dream associations was pushed to the limit in Finnegans Wake, which abandoned all conventions of plot and character construction, and is written in a peculiar obscure language."
I challenge this as possibly taken from some textbook, because it is the sort of material found in textbooks. It cannot be PD, because it mentions works published after 1924. Suppose the editor defends it as a rewriting of material based on standard works X and Y & shows the sentences and phrases do not match either of them. I now say it is not his rewriting. How does he prove it is? DGG 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, is it allowable to reference radio interviews? If so, is it allowable to upload a radio interview into a free hosting website, and use that as the reference? User:GuardianZ uploaded a radio interview into the free hosting website GoEar.com, [20] and used that as a reference in the Midnight Syndicate article. Let me know if this violates the copyright policy. Dionyseus 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In the internet game Kingdom of Loathing, there are six items, named plexiglass _______ (i.e., pleixiglass pants and plexiglass pocketwatch). Recently, a user has been changing many instances of "plexiglass" to "acrylic glass" or "Plexiglas®" (marking most of these controversial edits as minor). Anyway, on the Kingdom of Loathing page, the items are called plexiglass _______, and not acrylic glass ________. Also, the user acknowledges (on the game's talk page) that he worked for the company making plexiglas, making him possibly not the proper person to decide on its usage here. I'm not sure on the legality of using "plexiglass", but it seems as though it would be proper to use it, as that is the in-game name. Quentin mcalmott 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The test is usage. Nowadays that is rather easy. On the web, I see a similar number of uses with and without a Trademark TM designation, even in formal writing, and even in postings that use TM for other products. The company can still use it as if it were, but it is ultimately a matter for a jury. In any case, using it is not a copyright violation. I think you are correct to use it as you see it on the game. Claiming it for this use is stretching it a good deal, but don't blame him for trying. DGG 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the procedure for dealing with images that have a copyright tag, but the tag is clearly wrong? The case in question is Image:Empire Cover-1-.jpg. Its tagged with Template:bookcover but that's quite clearly wrong: the title and cover image of the book ( Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)) are yet to be released. This, in fact, merely an artist's concept of what the cover MIGHT look like. In this situation, is it permissible to simply remove the incorrect tag and mark it as missing copyright info, or is there some other process to undertake?-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Consider this hypothetical: An editor owns and runs a website. The copyright policing in the editors's country of residence doesn't prevent uploading any copyrighted image into his website. He uploads a copyrighted image onto his website. He displays a GDFL message on his website, giving access to the material on his website to all and sundry. The editor then uploads the same image on to Wikipedia Commons, claiming that it was from his own website and he gives 'permission' for the image to be used. Does the WP fairuse policy allow this?
Now consider these images:
I just wanted to clarify the policy details here, because by allowing editors to upload images from their own website, we are opening a flood gate of copyright violations. Thanks Parthi talk/ contribs 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I need some assistance with this article. User:Makimant is a single purpose account and has been adding copyright material to the Vaisala article claiming permission. See contributions. I've let the user know about this at User talk:Makimant but they don't reply. Anybody care to help try and explain this better. Of course the other problem is that the inserted material looks like an advert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
who is permitted to comment on a suspected copyright violation listed on these pages? Only admins, or other people who may have relevant information? If so, where is the appropriate place? DGG 00:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have an image under Crown copyright where the copyright holder said that it is "in the public domain and is a freely-licensed official image?" Someone took down the image's tag and put up a copyright violation tag anyway. When I reverted, I got a message saying that I shouldn't remove the copyight violation tag. What process do I have to go through to get the proper tags put back? Thank you, Arctic Gnome 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering what to do in a case like this.
I found Rules of the Death Note where it has word for word, lifted the text from entire pages from all 11 volumes of the manga. I'm fairly certain that isn't fair use, however I don't know if Template:Copyvio is the correct one, as it specifies a URL, and it's copied from a book not electronic media. I'm sure this was answered before, but I can't find it on the main page.-- Toffile 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the following template be deleted:
This article or section may have been
copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of
Wikipedia's copyright policy. |
This is an end-run around the proper copyvio checking and handling process. It says "This smells like a copyvio, but I can't prove it."
The problem is that there is no real way to guarantee that something is not copyvio. You can search Google for the text, but Google is hardly the sum of all published works.
I'm hearing in the TFD that this is deemed OK, because it is like a "can someone else check this out for copyvio?" request. But even if someone checks it out, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of copyvio. That is, unless it does get a match and checks out to be free-use, but that's the exception and not the rule.
WP:CV points out that all material in articles is subject to further review. That would further seem to make this "possible copyvio" assertion redundant. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
DGG 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently AfD'd. The bulk of it consists of a reproduction of author Asra Nomani's ten-point Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque. One of the links in the article is to Beliefnet, which also reproduces the Bill with the statement "Reprinted from 'Standing Alone in Mecca' by Asra Q. Nomani with permission of HarperSanFrancisco." I've noted on the article's talk page and deletion page that inclusion of the full list - with not even an attempt at fair use commentary - this is a probable copyright violation. Given the AfD status, I haven't taken the step of deleting the copyright material.
I've been advised by one editor that as the author probably wants it distributed, its use here is okay. Am I being copyparanoid, or is this a violation? - Eron Talk 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You can see the discussion at Talk:Voyager 2#text_source_issue, User:Ijon-Tichy has claimed that chunks of Voyager 2 have been taken from the BBC program The Planets, and provided us with a nice comparison. I've traced the text to edits by User:217.37.214.57 and User:84.65.34.122. (The specific edits are diff 1 and diff 2, with related edits on the talk page.)
I'm not sure how to proceed from here, because this is the first copyright violation case where the source is not on the web. Thanks. -- JamesHoadley 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've written a new article 16 days ago, could an admin move the new article into place? Cheers. -- Pizzahut2 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue has been resolved. -- Pizzahut2 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I recently discovered that the article New York, New York (Ja Rule song) contained the song lyrics in every version of the article (so there was no version available to revert to). However, the article would have been coherent, albeit a stub, if the lyrics were simply removed, since the first paragraph was original text about the song and recording.
If we find an article which contains copyrighted material, but also has original text, should we report the article as a copyright problem to ensure that the copyrighted lyrics will be removed from the edit history? Or is it enough to edit the article to leave out the copyrighted material? The instructions for Wikipedia:Copyright problems are unclear in this regard. -- Metropolitan90 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a penalty for intentionality proving false information about an image's copy right status? Over the past few months, a user has been uploading various NFL media photos, and claiming them to be his own work. Three other users and myself have already warned to user to stop uploading copy-vio images, but he has shown no signs of stopping. Does WP have any strict rules or warnings against this? -- ShadowJester07 00:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Does it violate copyright, if I translate things from copyrighted book in Russian (almost literally) and put the translation into Wikipedia, mentioning the source of material? Geevee ( talk| contribs) 10:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We have working on a rewrite of the section on a Federal Copyright Infringement lawsuit for the Free Republic article, and seek some third-party input.
Here is a description of the lawsuit which was over posting the full text of copyrighted news articles on the www:
There are some disagreements over the NPOV of the rewrite. Although some of the people involved have been banned for sockpuppetry, I would like to get this section as accurate as possible. If any of you could comment, I'd appreciate it greatly. - LINK HERE / F.A.A.F.A. 07:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I was under the perhaps errant assumption that press releases were ok to use on Wikipedia? Though if an article has text copied and pasted from a press release it likely should be rewritten anyway as it will undoubtedly read like an advertisement. zen apprentice T 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday Jimbo modified WP:CSD so that A8 (now G12) now allows speeding most of copyright violations:
I am cross-posting this in case it has been missed. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's great, although it would have been helpful a year or two ago. ;-) My concern is that some admins, especially newbies, cannot seem to tell a Wikipedia mirror apart from an original source. Also, there are quite a few cases when other websites have copied from us. If the article was created pretty recently, it's probably a copyvio, but in other cases you need to do some detective work to figure it out. I'm worried that people are not going to do that. -- Kjkolb 09:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
compare the wikipedia article La Rouche (July 2005) with the [ Peoples Daily] (English Edition, November 2005).
It seems as if Yong Tang just copied the introduction verbatim.
possible alternative explanation: The article was not written in November, but in June and was updated in November. In this case the wikipedia user is guilty of copyvio.
I also asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations because of a number of situations where editors are adding schedules to TV and radio articles, but I shall ask here as well:
Under section 176 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, TV schedules and programme information require royalties to be paid to the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (which is collected by Broadcasting Dataservices (BDS)). Publishing a schedule without paying a royality is a criminal offence. I believe this could also apply to BBC Radio services and maybe commercial network services too.
I have two questions:
One further question I didn't ask if it does affect question one and two:
I ask because an edit was made a few days ago I reverted at BBC Radio 2 and someone else has added a schedule to the GMTV article (which would be illegal to use under UK law because no royalty payment has been paid to ITV for use), but I am unsure whether this law would apply to Wikipedia as its servers are based in the United States. I have tagged the schedule as unencyclopedic regardless, but I could do with a defintive answer on the legal status of schedules for UK TV/radio stations in Wikipedia. -- tgheretford ( talk) 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is what the Broadcasting Dataservices website schedules say regarding copyright of schedules (I had to register with them to confirm this), and I quote:
-- tgheretford ( talk) 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't where I should aks this question. I'd like to ask about this template: Template:No rights reserved. It is a contradictionary, IMO, as it says copyrighted but no rights reserved, and thus anything can be done to the image, including exploited in any way. This term is prone to abuse the image. Is the template officially recognized from WP? Thanks. — Indon ( reply) — 16:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So if the uploader is not the copyright holder, then the source of the file should have written statement of no rights reserved, isn't it? — Indon ( reply) — 10:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
When people were working on the copyvio list. See [2]. I noticed some editors/admins were simply reverting or stubbing and some were deleting all the copyright violations from the history. Currently the instructions on the project page are that reverting is good enough, unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it from the history. Should that perhaps be changed? I don't mind either way, although it's of course much easier to revert. See also this old page and the discussion here. Garion96 (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute about whether passports of various countries are in the public domain or not. If you have any clue, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#October 7. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Feburary, User:RJNeb2 has been adding bios for movie actors, directors, etc, all in roughly the same style. There are a number of copyvio notices on the user's talk page, so s/he has had at least a handful of those articles deleted as copyvio already. I've been working my way backwards through the user's edit history (see my notes so far.) Of the articles the user has contributed that still exist, about 1/3 so far are word-for-word matches of bios on Allmovie. Do I assume that the rest are copyvio as well, even though I can't find a source? I suspect that s/he's working his/her way through a volume of bios on early film figures - possibly the articles that are on allmovie are copied from the same book? -- Vary | Talk 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been adding a notice like this to the talk page. The information needs to be recorded. — Centrx→ talk • 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Here it is:
— Centrx→ talk • 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been discovered that there are an incredible number (500-1000+) of articles on individual historical samurai and related subjects that could be construed as copyright violations. Some are direct copy-and-paste, some are simply rewordings of precisely what is said in one single source. Many of these are poorly written to the point of being nearly useless (meaningless). Many are cited poorly (e.g. writing simply "Samurai Sourcebook" is not a citation), and many are not cited at all. Much of this is the work of a single editor, who writes that he never meant to be disruptive and wants to do things properly, but who has been given more than enough chances on this and other issues.
I am going to start labeling these as copyvios, but it's going to be a lot of work, and a long process. For that reason, I'm mentioning it here rather than simply starting to address these articles one-by-one. I'm using AWB, so it's not quite as difficult as it would be otherwise, but still if there's any way to mass delete or mass tag these articles, I'd love to know about it.
Please see my talk page for the background of this situation, and the resulting discussion. Again, any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you. LordAmeth 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
On the Hippy article we have had several images by Robert Altman (photographer). He originally gave permssion for the images to be used on wikipedia, but now realising the extent of the right he is giving away has now withdrawn that right and has asked for the images to be deleted.
Altman is generally supportive of wikipedia and, in an email to me, seems happy to have the images on wikipedia if greater protection could be provided. I'm wondering what the strongest licencing protection we could grant him and still have the images on wikipedia. Also might it be possible to use the images under fairuse on the page about him? -- Salix alba ( talk) 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just tagged this image Image:Rodin_Portrait.jpg for possible copyvio. The uploader has given a proof by copy-pasting his correspondence email with the photographer agency. Could somebody please take a look at the image page? Is it enough by giving such a proof? The source still says (c) All rights reserved. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it a problem for copyvio to be retained in the edit history of an article?
After a lengthy discussion in Talk:Master of Business Administration about the inclusion of published rankings of MBA schools in a related article MBA Rankings (with a capital R; there are variants of the title with different capitalization), we agreed that the including MBA rankings from the Financial Times web site constituted a copyright violation, because their Terms and Conditions page explicitly prohibit republishing their content: ("You may not copy, reproduce, publish, broadcast, transmit, modify, adapt, create derivative works of, store, archive, publicly display or in any way commercially exploit any of the FT Content.")
So, we agreed that the MBA Rankings article should be removed and redirected back to Master of Business Administration (from which it originally derived). This has been done, but the copyvio still exists in the edit history of the MBA Rankings article. Does this matter? - Amatulic 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A recent edit to When Johnny Comes Marching Home includes an external link to a clip of the movie Stalag 17 on YouTube. Is this permissible? JQ 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at User:Amine2 image uploads, not a single upload is correctly tagged with a source and license and almost every second is clearly stolen from other websites. His talk page is filled with Orphanbot messages but this user ignores them. Any advice ? -- Denniss 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I blocked for 31 hours. It looks like he is trying to be productive and there may be language difficulties. This will at least get him to take the time to learn about it. — Centrx→ talk • 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. — Centrx→ talk • 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page of this article. The article is completely unsourced and uncited, and while I was assessing it for WikiBiography Project I found a paragraph that had been lifted verbatim from her obituary. That looks like plagiarism to me. I reported it to the Biography Project, and someone suggested I discuss it with someone here. Thanks Jeffpw 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Under Turkish Air Forces wikipedia uses updated inventory numbers taken from http://warriorsoul.4t.com/index.html.(Warrior soul updates his page when a plane is lost etc.) In the sources section no source has such information. But when we add warriorsoul's website to the sources we are warned for making advertisement and the source is removed.I asked admins then where did the data came from, they just said as warriorsoul's site is fanmade they cannot add it to the sources.(funny thing is there are 2 fanmade sites in the sources section)
My question is can wikipedia get relevant data but don't credit the website? 19.21 8.11.2006
Thanks for fast response,then we can add it under references, right?If not, where? 22.11 8.11.2006
Hi. Please see Talk:Star Trek planet classifications. The list there has been taken, pretty much blow-for-blow (although paraphrased) from a book named the Star Trek Starcharts. I've posted some examples on talk of the entries in the book, and what they have been translated to for our version: the transformation is so minimal that it seems to me to be a copyvio (even if we can get away with that we should cite the source anyway). Can anyone proffer advice as to whether my reading of the situation is correct. Morwen - Talk 07:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Under the "Instructions" section of the talk project page, there seem to be two different paths to follow under the same circumstances, and it's leaving me a bit confused. In the first box, criteria for speedy deletion of copyvios are listed, followed by directions to use the {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} template and not to blank the page. Directly under that box, the same criteria are listed, and the instructions say to blank the page and use the {{copyvio | url=insert URL here}} template.
Have I missed some important distinction?
Thanks! Kathy A. 14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Please can someone show me where to go to report commercial websites that publish Wikipedia content without acknowledgement, in apparent violation of the GFDL? I mean localcricket.org and onlinecricket.org. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following post has been moved from Suspected Copyright Violations. I believe here it will get more feedback than the administrator's noticeboard. Please move if another place is even a better than this one. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
... I couldn't see where to put issues about patterns suggesting possible copyright violations. If this is not the place, can someone please move this appropriately?
Someone with experience should look into the images uploaded by User:Cristian Adrian. He's had a tendency after being warned by Orphanbot to simply tag things as GFDL, but it's really hard for me to believe that is accurate.
It is possible that some of his images are his own and are OK, but quite a few look very professional and not recent. Either he is a professional quality photographer, whose work includes a picture of Unirii Square in Bucharest almost certainly taken no later than 10 years ago ( User:Dahn and I both think it is that old), aerial photography of Bucharest, and a very good but (look to the lower right) doctored night shot of Bucharest or he is uploading other people's images. The relatively low resolutions of these photos is also atypical of people uploading their own digital or scanned photography. I asked a question on the talk page of the Unirii Square question, which is the one that initially got my attention (I also added a caption to it), then I noticed that the issue might be more general. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone posted a link to a very recently released commercial CD in its article. I removed it, but there seems to be neither a template nor a policy to warn a user for piracy/a blatant copyvio of this nature. MSJapan 02:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
A user uploaded an image, Image:39 Ottl Andreas.jpg, whose copyright is owned by Bayern Munich. He claims the image was released under GFDL by the copyright owner. I asked him to put the email exchange on the image talkpage, but he answered he will provide the emails to everyone who requests them, and put his email address in the image page. Is this sufficient to accept the image under GFDL?
Best regards, Panarjedde 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This article Badrinath temple has a recently uploaded image Image:Badrinath.jpg claiming
{{ PD-art}}
However, the same image is found here [7] where you can order a custom print of it. I do not know how to check out if it is in the public domain. I also don't know where to report it as I would do if it were a copyvio of text. Can you advise me how to handle this? Thanks!
So I am asking here what to do. I have noted the problem on the Discussion page of the article. Thanks! Mattisse (talk)
I presume an editor has no basis for calling a screen capture he made from a television program he did not produce and doesn't hold the copyright to a User-created public domain image? Shoot on sight? -- Rrburke 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Lawrence Reed is (substantially) the bio from his website, which the talk page claims is released under the following license:
The bolded clause at least restricts editing, and it would seem to reuire that our mirrors copy more than the text of the article. Is this acceptable? (The question of whether it meets WP:SPAM is completely separate.) Septentrionalis 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can a list be copyrighted? Archbishop of Mount Sinai and Raithu states at the end that (It reports: "© 1995-2005 B. Schemmel. Data from this site may be queried and copied on a not-for-profit basis only if the source is accurately credited. All rights are reserved for profit-seeking purposes.") If such data can be copyrighted, the article should be deleted. I have queried in the talk page, but have not received reply since June. -- ReyBrujo 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[8] – uses creative fair use licenses, such as {{ bookcover}} for Image:Maharaj-ji.jpg. For two images that had the source given – websites – I changed the tags to {{ promophoto}}s, but we still don't know the source for Image:Maharaj-ji.jpg and Image:Neemkarolibaba.jpg. Further, Image:Sribhagavandas.jpg is cut from an album cover... does that still qualify as {{ albumcover}}?
[9] – uses the following "Terms of Use":
1/ All users of this image are required to attribute this work to "Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry" and the url: " http://www.nambassa.com " is to acompany all use.
2/ Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
3/ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Statement by Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry
The images are also tagged with {{ cc-by-2.5}}. Are the two compatible? Are the terms appropriate for wikipedia?
Also, the images all have the "nambassa.com" watermark on them. Is this not allowed or discouraged?
Sorry for the multitude of questions and links... I kind of get lost in licensing terms once I venture outside my trusted {{ cc-by-sa-2.5}} :) -- user:Qviri 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
http://pdimages.com do not give any source information for the images on their website. Thus we cannot verify their copyright status. According to Wikipedia's criterias, that is not acceptable. While http://pdimages.com may feel that their images are free to use in the US, I can not see how it could work for a reputable encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I expressed discomfort with image Image:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg that was recently kept, as said on Image_talk:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg. If you feel this is not a copyright issue, I can probably bring the question at a no source department on Wikipedia....
Fred- Chess 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Caligvla ( talk · contribs · block log) uploaded three photographs of pages of a book (the National Geographic Atlas) and has claimed that they are released into the public domain by himself, the "author" [10] [11] [12]. I don't feel comfortable about this though, could someone please confirm that these are not copyright infringements. Thanks.-- Euthymios 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
See User talk:Daniel.Bryant#boulder opal. I vaguely remember reading a page which will outline the procedure for this kind of situation, but I can't find it. Any ideas? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I just found out that the reason the summaries in the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes are often the same as the ones at TV.com - the same person is writing them for both sites. What are the policies about what can and cannot be done about identical text appearing on diffferent websites when submitted by the same person? CovenantD 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I found that a particular section of the article Zakir Naik was a copied from [13]. I could not locate the original non-copyright-violating version in the article history. I therefore blanked the particular section and listed the page on WP:CP as the instructions on the main page indicated. Can someone with experience in such matters, please look over my actions and see if I followed the correct process ? Thanks. Abecedare 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of you may have seen this before, but I do think it is important and I am getting no informed replies at all. If there is somewhere else to raise this, please say so.
It seems to me that Wikimapia, full as it is of Google Earth images, but be a copyright violation. (Yes, I've asked on Talk:Wikimapia, but I couldn't say there was a definitive reply.) The reason this is relevant is that there are thousands of pages linking to wikimapia.org, all of which are against the guidelines in WP:EL if the site is a copyvio. I removed one link before realising the scale of the problem. My own license for Google Earth gives me rights only in "home, personal or recreational use", and I think Wikimapia can't really be described as any of those. Anyway, I think this is an important point. If it was already discussed, a pointer on Talk:Wikimapia may save wasted energy in the future. Notinasnaid 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is at the end of the first paragraph and links to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia the page on Meta.wikimedia has no references and seems to be rant on personal opinions of why copyrights do or do not mater. I strongly question the correctness of inlcuding a link to that page from this one. Jeepday 13:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
(Also posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam) I've noticed a few folks use Image:SpamInACan.jpg in relation to the Spam WikiProject and other efforts related to the usage of "spam" as it refers to unsolicited commercial messages. It seems that it might be a copyright or trademark violation to do so. The actual image is purported to be a US Air Force photo so it's likely in the public domain. However, it's an image of a trademark and is often used in relation to (mis)uses of that trademark. In addition to any legal issues, there is also the issue of plain "niceness" as Hormel as been extraordinarily reasonable with the use of their trademarked term to refer to unsolicited commercial messages but they do " object to the use of...our product image in association with that term." I am not suggesting that their objection carries legal weight but certainly it should carry some weight in maintaing our own public image. I also am not suggesting that the image needs to be deleted as it clearly may have some legal uses.
As you can tell, this appears at first glance to an non-expert to be a good mix of copyright, trademark, and non-legal issues. I'm certainly no expert in copyright or trademark so I wanted to post this message so that others more knowledgable in those areas can offer some insight and advice. -- ElKevbo 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Wherebot found that Akiyama Nana was an exact copy from http://wiki.theppn.org/Akiyama_Nana, and we are still not sure how to act. ThePPN releases text under Creative Commons Share Alike. Personally, I believe the licenses are not compatible, as text in Wikipedia is released under GFDL, and CCSA asks you to release derivative work under the same CCSA license. However, we would like to hear a second opinion about this matter. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 11:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Srkris has uploaded some images lifted from a newspaper ( The Hindu) website:
When I and User:Venu62 tagged them with copyright violation tags, the user reverted the edits calling them "bad faith". Although The Hindu website has an explicit copyright message, the user argues that thse images are "low-res newspaper scans". I pointed out that the images are not scanned by him, but directly lifted from The Hindu website. The user accepted that the images are from the website, but argued that it doesn't matter who scanned the images. He claims that since "all images from non-digital era are through scans", The Hindu must have scanned them. So, it is a low-res newspaper scan and therefore fair use.
Also, some images copied from chembai.com, and tagged with {{PD}} and {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}:
Chembai.com doesn't have an explicit copyright message, but in my knowledge, that doesn't mean that they are not copyrighted. And tagging the images as PD and GFDL is certainly not justified.
The Hindu website has an explicit copyright message. I wonder whether the user's argument is valid? utcursch | talk 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The following language is from the locked policy page on Wikipedia copyrights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement
This written copyright policy on Wikipedia clearly indicates usage of said photographs does not violate copyright, is legitimate, and is permissble on Wikipedia. The above statement does not mandate the above entities license said images under a GFDL, and it's inherent from the outset that the above entities do not generally license their work under GFDL in nearly all cases, rather Fair Use. They are in these businesses, and as businesses, generally distribute work for either paid or promotional purposes only under Fair Use.
However, the admins now enforcing Fair Use images are deleting nearly any image of a living person, regardless of whether it comes from a source such as that indicated above, as long as the image is of a living person, claiming the image could be at some point be replaced by a GFDL or CC image. It does not matter whether such a GFDL image in fact exists, how difficult it might be to obtain, or whether the celebrity provided a Fair Use image themselves. Following the rationale now being enforced, it would seem impossible for a living celebrity to ever have an image on Wikipedia, as their celebrity alone would make them available for the potential creation of a GFDL image in essentially any case. I have recently had 32 images deleted, nearly all of which fell into these categories. The above policy has no meaning whatsover to the enforcing admins, who see the primary goal as a "totally free" encyclopedia. Some also view deleting otherwise permissible fair use images as advancing the goal of encouraging persons to find or create or take GFDL images. A variety of other claims, including that of "freedom to the downstream user", are also advanced. Most celebrities want exactly the opposite, as they do not want their images used for endorsement or other purposes without permission, which a GFDL license allows in perpetuity.
A number of users who have had legitimate Fair Use images deleted and replaced by amateur photographs have begun to raise the issue of United States state laws, some of which do not allow distribution of images of celebrities without the expressed consent of said celebrity, including amateur images. Those arguments have so far been ignored, and it would follow that Wikipedia would in fact be exposed to more, not less, potential liability than it would by distributing Fair Use images released by the copyright holder or celebrity for just such a purpose, for which liability is essentially zero. Not to mention that the professional images are often of a far higher quality than the amateur images now being substitutued, and advance the goal of a quality encyclopedia better.
Another aspect of this issue is that Fair Use images of deceased persons are used at will under the premise that no Fair Use image can possibly be created. This would seem to fly in the face of the entire "totally free" argument from the outset, and there are thousands of other fair use images that remain on Wikipedia regardless, such as for album, CD and DVD covers, which have and will likely remain untouched. I also believe it's possible, in fact likely, that licensing rights of images of deceased celebrities would transfer to the estate, and that Wikipedia is under no more, or less, potential liabilty than for the living, marking the distinction of dead vs. living as a potential red herring.
The enforcing admins and supporting users in this area have been described by some as "jihadists" in their deletion of all fair use images of living persons including celebrities. My experience would indicate that is an appropriate view, as 32 of 35 disputed images were removed, including numerous images gained from celebrities themselves for use on Wikipedia, despite lengthy fair use rationales. Every image I've loaded was immediately examined and challeged in some respect, beginning immediately after I posted critical comments on the enforcement of Fair Use at the Chowbok Rfc page, the largest hub of several similar Rfc pages which have had the net effect of zero on the above policy's interpretation and enforcement by the admins in question.
All of this has led to many angry Wikipedians, some of whom have left in complete disgust. I myself have stopped loading images of any kind to the project, including many original images I had considered licensing as Creative Commons, because of how these fair use images of celebrities are being treated at present. I am now advising celebrities I know and contact of how said policy is being enforced, and also advising them not to license images under GFDL without being fully aware of the potential downstream use of said images, over which they will have no control whatsoever.
I post this as a commentary, and invite others, epecially admins who view the above policy implementation as heavy handed or incorrect, to comment. Thank you. Tvccs 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
On some pages, editors have deleted material on the basis of "presumed copyright violation" when they have not looked for a source, or not found one, but do so on the basis that, for example, a large technical edit is likely to have been copied form somewhere. (General) comment invited--I am not involved in any specifc problem of the sort. DGG 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For example, take todays featured article. I go back to the initial 2001 entry in the page history:
"
James Joyce was an Irish writer and poet.
One of the most significant writers of 20th century. Born into a well-off Catholic family in Dublin, the family suffered a set-back in their fortunes, and slid into poverty. He left the city in 1904 to spend the rest of his life on the Continent.
His Irish experiences are essential to his writings which are exclusively on Irish subjects. The early volume of short stories, Dubliners, is a penetrating analysis of the stagnation of Dublin society. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, largely autobiographical, shows the process of attaining maturity and self-consciousness by a young gifted man.
The main character is Stephen Dedalus. In this novel some glimpses of Joyce's later technique can be noticed, in the use of interior monologue and in the concern with the psychic rather than external reality. In Ulysses, definitely Joyce's masterpiece, he uses the stream of consciousness technique to present his characters. The novel sets the ancient myth of Ulysses, Penelope and Telemachus in modern Dublin and impersonates them in the characters of Mr. Bloom, his wife Molly and Stephen Dedalus, parodistically contrasted with their lofty models. The book explores various areas of Dublin life, dwelling on its squalor and monotony. Joyce employs a variety of literary styles to suit his purpose. His method of stream of consciousness, literary allusions and free dream associations was pushed to the limit in Finnegans Wake, which abandoned all conventions of plot and character construction, and is written in a peculiar obscure language."
I challenge this as possibly taken from some textbook, because it is the sort of material found in textbooks. It cannot be PD, because it mentions works published after 1924. Suppose the editor defends it as a rewriting of material based on standard works X and Y & shows the sentences and phrases do not match either of them. I now say it is not his rewriting. How does he prove it is? DGG 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, is it allowable to reference radio interviews? If so, is it allowable to upload a radio interview into a free hosting website, and use that as the reference? User:GuardianZ uploaded a radio interview into the free hosting website GoEar.com, [20] and used that as a reference in the Midnight Syndicate article. Let me know if this violates the copyright policy. Dionyseus 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In the internet game Kingdom of Loathing, there are six items, named plexiglass _______ (i.e., pleixiglass pants and plexiglass pocketwatch). Recently, a user has been changing many instances of "plexiglass" to "acrylic glass" or "Plexiglas®" (marking most of these controversial edits as minor). Anyway, on the Kingdom of Loathing page, the items are called plexiglass _______, and not acrylic glass ________. Also, the user acknowledges (on the game's talk page) that he worked for the company making plexiglas, making him possibly not the proper person to decide on its usage here. I'm not sure on the legality of using "plexiglass", but it seems as though it would be proper to use it, as that is the in-game name. Quentin mcalmott 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The test is usage. Nowadays that is rather easy. On the web, I see a similar number of uses with and without a Trademark TM designation, even in formal writing, and even in postings that use TM for other products. The company can still use it as if it were, but it is ultimately a matter for a jury. In any case, using it is not a copyright violation. I think you are correct to use it as you see it on the game. Claiming it for this use is stretching it a good deal, but don't blame him for trying. DGG 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the procedure for dealing with images that have a copyright tag, but the tag is clearly wrong? The case in question is Image:Empire Cover-1-.jpg. Its tagged with Template:bookcover but that's quite clearly wrong: the title and cover image of the book ( Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)) are yet to be released. This, in fact, merely an artist's concept of what the cover MIGHT look like. In this situation, is it permissible to simply remove the incorrect tag and mark it as missing copyright info, or is there some other process to undertake?-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Consider this hypothetical: An editor owns and runs a website. The copyright policing in the editors's country of residence doesn't prevent uploading any copyrighted image into his website. He uploads a copyrighted image onto his website. He displays a GDFL message on his website, giving access to the material on his website to all and sundry. The editor then uploads the same image on to Wikipedia Commons, claiming that it was from his own website and he gives 'permission' for the image to be used. Does the WP fairuse policy allow this?
Now consider these images:
I just wanted to clarify the policy details here, because by allowing editors to upload images from their own website, we are opening a flood gate of copyright violations. Thanks Parthi talk/ contribs 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I need some assistance with this article. User:Makimant is a single purpose account and has been adding copyright material to the Vaisala article claiming permission. See contributions. I've let the user know about this at User talk:Makimant but they don't reply. Anybody care to help try and explain this better. Of course the other problem is that the inserted material looks like an advert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
who is permitted to comment on a suspected copyright violation listed on these pages? Only admins, or other people who may have relevant information? If so, where is the appropriate place? DGG 00:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have an image under Crown copyright where the copyright holder said that it is "in the public domain and is a freely-licensed official image?" Someone took down the image's tag and put up a copyright violation tag anyway. When I reverted, I got a message saying that I shouldn't remove the copyight violation tag. What process do I have to go through to get the proper tags put back? Thank you, Arctic Gnome 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering what to do in a case like this.
I found Rules of the Death Note where it has word for word, lifted the text from entire pages from all 11 volumes of the manga. I'm fairly certain that isn't fair use, however I don't know if Template:Copyvio is the correct one, as it specifies a URL, and it's copied from a book not electronic media. I'm sure this was answered before, but I can't find it on the main page.-- Toffile 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the following template be deleted:
This article or section may have been
copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of
Wikipedia's copyright policy. |
This is an end-run around the proper copyvio checking and handling process. It says "This smells like a copyvio, but I can't prove it."
The problem is that there is no real way to guarantee that something is not copyvio. You can search Google for the text, but Google is hardly the sum of all published works.
I'm hearing in the TFD that this is deemed OK, because it is like a "can someone else check this out for copyvio?" request. But even if someone checks it out, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of copyvio. That is, unless it does get a match and checks out to be free-use, but that's the exception and not the rule.
WP:CV points out that all material in articles is subject to further review. That would further seem to make this "possible copyvio" assertion redundant. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
DGG 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently AfD'd. The bulk of it consists of a reproduction of author Asra Nomani's ten-point Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque. One of the links in the article is to Beliefnet, which also reproduces the Bill with the statement "Reprinted from 'Standing Alone in Mecca' by Asra Q. Nomani with permission of HarperSanFrancisco." I've noted on the article's talk page and deletion page that inclusion of the full list - with not even an attempt at fair use commentary - this is a probable copyright violation. Given the AfD status, I haven't taken the step of deleting the copyright material.
I've been advised by one editor that as the author probably wants it distributed, its use here is okay. Am I being copyparanoid, or is this a violation? - Eron Talk 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You can see the discussion at Talk:Voyager 2#text_source_issue, User:Ijon-Tichy has claimed that chunks of Voyager 2 have been taken from the BBC program The Planets, and provided us with a nice comparison. I've traced the text to edits by User:217.37.214.57 and User:84.65.34.122. (The specific edits are diff 1 and diff 2, with related edits on the talk page.)
I'm not sure how to proceed from here, because this is the first copyright violation case where the source is not on the web. Thanks. -- JamesHoadley 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've written a new article 16 days ago, could an admin move the new article into place? Cheers. -- Pizzahut2 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue has been resolved. -- Pizzahut2 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I recently discovered that the article New York, New York (Ja Rule song) contained the song lyrics in every version of the article (so there was no version available to revert to). However, the article would have been coherent, albeit a stub, if the lyrics were simply removed, since the first paragraph was original text about the song and recording.
If we find an article which contains copyrighted material, but also has original text, should we report the article as a copyright problem to ensure that the copyrighted lyrics will be removed from the edit history? Or is it enough to edit the article to leave out the copyrighted material? The instructions for Wikipedia:Copyright problems are unclear in this regard. -- Metropolitan90 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a penalty for intentionality proving false information about an image's copy right status? Over the past few months, a user has been uploading various NFL media photos, and claiming them to be his own work. Three other users and myself have already warned to user to stop uploading copy-vio images, but he has shown no signs of stopping. Does WP have any strict rules or warnings against this? -- ShadowJester07 00:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Does it violate copyright, if I translate things from copyrighted book in Russian (almost literally) and put the translation into Wikipedia, mentioning the source of material? Geevee ( talk| contribs) 10:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We have working on a rewrite of the section on a Federal Copyright Infringement lawsuit for the Free Republic article, and seek some third-party input.
Here is a description of the lawsuit which was over posting the full text of copyrighted news articles on the www:
There are some disagreements over the NPOV of the rewrite. Although some of the people involved have been banned for sockpuppetry, I would like to get this section as accurate as possible. If any of you could comment, I'd appreciate it greatly. - LINK HERE / F.A.A.F.A. 07:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)