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. |
1. From section " Contributors' rights and obligations":
Who can tell me if the terms are compatible? Is there a "list" of the compatible licenses or I can decide on my own?
2. For example, can I contribute a text under MIT license ( [1])? A friend told me it's like a CC BY where the author decides a custom attribution style ( [2], attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor) can you confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.6.57 ( talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
How is it possible that one can relicense CC BY-SA-only content to CC BY-SA + GFDL, if s/he is not the author of the text? When I submit content to Wikipedia, I'm dual-licensing it, while the page states, You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you are its sole author. and you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license, or ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.6.57 ( talk) 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
In response to a request at WP:AN I've closed an RFC on this page about countries without copyright relations with the US. Some additional steps are needed to implement the conclusion.
In updating the policies, I would add in a reference to principle 3 in my closure ( Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Closure), perhaps in a footnote - but I'll leave that and everything else to others. Rd232 talk 12:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have a link to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing somewhere in the policy, just to make sure that new contributors reading the page for the first time can see that just altering a few words of a copyrighted source and then uploading it to Wikipedia still counts as a copyright violation. The link is also missing from a few other important pages, for example WP:COPYVIO and WP:FAQ/Copyright, but I thought I would start my enquiries at the most important one. :-) Do people think this would be worth including? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
One of the images I uploaded was tagged. It was from San Marino, San marino cable car view.jpg
So what is the decision, we leave as is, which is unclear? Oaktree b ( talk) 20:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a friend who has their own Wikipedia page that doesn't have an image. I was hoping to add a candid & non-copyrighted image that this person took of themselves & sent to me personally via. text message. What is the best/easiest way to do this? I understand how to do it from a technical standpoint.....I only need to know how to go about it from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. I mean, since she took the picture of herself on her cell phone & personally sent it to me via text message....does that give me the right to use it so as to add a decent pic to her Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbs173 ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What does "page footer" as used as used in the following two sentence fragments mean? Are wikipedia editors being asked to provide copyright information in the "footer?" I suggest clarifying these sentences, and/or providing links.
"such text will be identified either on the page footer"
"review the page footer"
Wikfr ( talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
From Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#CGI images
Some CGI images can be made, some cannot, and for some, it's not appropriate to try.
as an example of an image which is not appropriate, would this be correct, or too brief, to explain ? "A computer generated image, rendering or animation of a copyright free subject that could be recreated to a standard that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose."
as a clarification between for example, some thing that we can draw in the graphics lab, and say, a scene from toy story, avatar (movie) or elephants dream and so on. We can make some images to a reasonable standard ourselves, but not all CGI images would be handled the same way, so some sort of guidance for editors would help here I've noticed. Media outlets have their own graphics, and I figure it can't always be a good idea to copy them to wikipedia. There is not enough input on the policy talkpage, and I'd like guidance (not for myself but for other editors) which can be placed onto the policy page.
I personally don't need the clarification, I'm happy with the examples and actions taken either way, however I am certain some guidance written down is a great idea here. A link to something existing would be as good. Penyulap ☏ 19:38, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Is it OK to use long quotations (a paragraph or more) in an article under "fair use"? What about if the quotes come from a public domain source; e.g., the CBO, part of the US federal government? Specifically, the last paragraphs of United States fiscal cliff#Effects of sequestration? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it a WP:LINKVIO to add link to a Google Document Viewer (for a PDF document) available online? -- SMS Talk 19:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
If a disambiguation blurb is copied from the lead section of the respective article, or if text from an image description page is copied to serve as caption of that very image, do those need to be attributed per
WP:COPYWITHIN or is the implicit attribution from the page/image link sufficient to comply with our license? Assuming they are not common phrases anyway of course.
I am mainly asking whether those need to be repaired as part of copyright cleanup.
Cheers,
Amalthea 10:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I just tripped into an interesting site ( NimbleBooks.com) that sells automated compilations of Wikipedia pages for 49 cents each --- some of the current "titles" have two articles others ten or so. I understand there are more comprehensive compilations as well. I didn't pay the 49 cents to find out if the eBook has the appropriate Creative Commons license information and attribution to Wikipedia, etc. I have at least one researcher who has been frustrated with Amazon listing similar compilation books that have nothing but the material from Wikipedia and/or other sites. It concerns me that this may not be consistent with contributor expectations, and can also diminish the value of actual authored materials. JimInNH ( talk) 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: this was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, and it's been agreed that it's more appropriate to discuss it here. Ego White Tray ( talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Are MIDI files being treated as recordings or as electronic encodings of sheet music? Since MIDI files are not recordings, but instructions to synthesizers on which note to play, how long to play and which instrument to use, wouldn't this just be the original music score in a MIDI format, and thus also PD if the source music score is PD?
-- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 05:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing how this discussion relates to speedy deletion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Might be better discussed at WT:C rather than here, but asking if MIDIs are copyrighted is a bit like asking if photographs are copyrighted—the answer is "That's a broad question and it depends on the specifics." If it's a MIDI of a copyrighted work or a live performance, it most certainly is copyrightable. If it's a mechanical reproduction of public domain sheet music, such that anyone could do the reproduction using the same rules and get the same results, no, much like a photograph of a public-domain painting or electronic copies of a public-domain book are not copyrightable, because they are "slavish copies" and therefore do not rise to the threshold of originality. In any grey areas in between the two clear "yes" and "no" examples I noted, we would evaluate case by case but generally err on the side of caution; that is, unless we can confidently say "No, it can't be copyrighted", we'll presume it can be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
In light of this discussion, it might be a good idea to specify that the rules apply to talk pages. A user thought it would be all right to post an entire newspaper article I sent him because most people did not have access, in order to help people improve the article. I was reluctant to post it myself as he suggested and it turns out I was right, but I thought it might be all right since it wasn't for the encyclopedia itself.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The page currently located at Uta monogatari violated copyright in its initial version up until September 11/12 of this year. The page was a near carbon copy of the Santa Fe Poetry Broadside "A Brief Note Concerning Tanka Prose" by Jeffrey Woodward. It saw only relatively minor edits until User:Bagworm and myself basically overhauled it, and at least until that time entire sentences were still copied verbatim from the Woodward piece. I moved the page, and changed the subject (the original topic was not notable, and assuming good faith I guessed it was meant to be about uta monogatari, which I later found out was unrelated). Therefore, some of the text may still resemble the Woodward article, but in a completely different context and entirely by coincidence. However, I recently found out that on Japanese Wikipedia past versions of pages can get completely expunged if they are revealed to be copyright violations. This seems logical, since the offending material still exists in Wikipedia even if it has been removed in the current version of the article. Is this also policy on English Wikipedia? If so, is there a "past-edits for deletion" page I should consult? elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Simple question, we correctly assume that Billboard does not impinge on copyrights and as a matter of course is regularly linked by various editors as a matter of course - so far no problems. On this particular Billboard page there is a link to a YouTube video which is patently loaded up unofficially and without permission. It would be a violation if the YouTube page had been linked directly on WP, but what about through a third party? What then? Cheers.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 16:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content exists, I think the paragraph Prior to June 15, 2009, Wikipedia did permit some text under licenses that were compatible with the GFDL but might require additional terms that were not required for original Wikipedia text (such as including Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts). However, these materials could only be placed if the original copyright holders did not require that they be carried forward; for that reason, they impose no special burden for reuse. – which appears to suggest there's not practical effect of the original licensing conditions and therefore might be better confined to that dedicated page.
I think a {{ main}} link toWikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content should be added, and All text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility. worded a but differently for flow, perhaps Since all text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, you can ensure GFDL compatibility by using the page history to retrieve content published before that date. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
While participating at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Upgrade to Policy, I noticed that this page does not specifically discuss copying content within Wikipedia. Perhaps we should add a paragraph with a brief summary? How about this after the "Reusers' rights and obligations" part:
Thoughts? -
theFace 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MiszaBot put this topic in the archive. I just pulled it out. Even though only 4 people, myself included, supported this proposal, I really think this page should have a reference to WP:CWW, certainly since that guideline was close to becoming a policy itself some time ago (see here). I'm not an admin so I can't add the above text myself. Here's an edit request tag... - theFace 17:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So... I guess this proposal has wide support. Can someone implement it? Cheers, theFace 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Do films linked to YouTube through external links have to be PD in both the US and source country, or is PD in just the source country okay? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I originally posted the following on the WP:Donating copyrighted materials page but I see it has <30 watchers and is fairly inactive so I am also posting here for visibility:
Where should we report suspected violations of WP:COPYLINK? That is where Wikipedia articles cite links to copies of documents on a website which is infringing the copyright of the document owners. 212.183.140.60 ( talk) 10:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes authors of photos are mentioned just as nicknames of a Wikipedia user. When attributing the used photo from Wikipedia with author, is is enough just to use the nickname? Sometimes there is also a real name mentioned and nickname: in this case do I use both?
Thank you for any advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vennett ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please add the urdu interwiki link to this page [[ur:منصوبہ:حقوق نسخہ]], thanks. محمد شعیب ( talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded an image that I own, and submitted it for use in an article. Wikipedia says that I have not cleared the copyright procedure for this image to stay online. My question is, under what copyright is this image if I own it, and when I want to own exclusive copyright to it? Thanks to whoever is reading this! Thisisprovoke ( talk) 21:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with this? Thisisprovoke ( talk) 19:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A shortcut REDIRECT to this policy needs updated categories. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] {{R from shortcut}} {{R from Unicode}}
[[Category:Protected redirects]]
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]
Please leave one line blank.
{{Redr|to project|from shortcut|protected}}
Template {{ Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{ This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut that is used to categorize redirects. The Unicode category now has other uses, and {{ R protected}} has replaced the use of the linked category, [[ Category:Protected redirects]], on redirect pages. Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove, It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. struck, see later comments
88.104.28.176 (
talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I can find no reason why these certain websites are treated any differently to any other link to copyrighted work. 88.104.28.176 ( talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
See [4]. Trying to keep discussion in one place, for now... 88.104.28.176 ( talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)`
It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time.
Why?
I can find no reason why websites that are 'internet archives' should be treated any differently to any other websites.
I accept that there are certain provisions within DCMA that allows such websites to avoid legal repercussions on condition that they immediately remove any content that is disputed.
However, Wikipedia does not link to copies of copyrighted websites. Full stop.
I see no reason why it's acceptable for us to link to a copy of a copyrighted work just because it is on "WayBack Machine" or any other similar site, but not link to copyrighted works on random-other-websites. 88.104.28.176 ( talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Evidence
|
---|
Source: [5] Source: [6] I figured you'd rather have the nice pretty Stanford legal team version than the court cases, so I decided to give you that, with the links. gwickwire talk editing 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
There's evidence, all emphasis mine gwickwire talk editing 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"Furthermore, the copies can be digital, so long as they are not distributed digitally nor made available to the public in a digital format outside the premises of the library or archives.
… If digital copies are made, access to the digital version must be limited to the premises of the library or archives."
Comment: It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. ... Why? Because the content is (to the best of our knowledge) hosted legally, and linking to legally hosted content is (to the best of our knowledge) fine. If either of those things changes, we'll have to review our position, and potentially mass-remove a boat-load of links via bot (which would be bad, but not actually very hard). That seems unlikely to happen, and I don't see why we should worry about it unless there's some actual sign of legal issues arising. There's really no need to be more Catholic than the Pope. Rd232 talk 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Many, if not all, of the Web sites in the collection and elements incorporated into the Web sites (e.g., photographs, articles, graphical representations) are protected by copyright. The materials may also be subject to publicity rights, privacy rights, or other legal interests.
Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with the person desiring to use the item. You will need permission from the copyright owners or rights holders for reproduction, distribution, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions.
[7]
Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. WP:NFC
Carl Lindberg ( talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The English text of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses is the only legally binding restriction between authors and users of Wikipedia content.
Not! First, 'is' should be 'are'. But the sentence is false. There are lots of other restrictions. There are legally binding restrictions on your use of the FBI, NASA and IBM logos, for example, (but they don't relate directly to copyright).
How's this? Is this true? s/only/key? -- Elvey ( talk) 01:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The English texts of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses are the only legally binding copyright restrictions between authors and users of Wikipedia content.
How does copyright law apply to the use of musical scores in Wikipedia?
—
Wavelength (
talk) 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
In the US, do minors have the authority to license their own works under the license that Wikipedia requires for article contributions and uploads? Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Are there any plans to migrate to the version 4 of CC? Or will CC4 licences be available for uploaded files in the near future? After a bit of research I have growing objections against the harsh termination clause in CC 3 and earlier, according to which any usage of a file granted by the licence beyond standard copyright becomes illegal after even a single, temporary and accidental licence violation. Only an explicit statement by the copyright owner can "cure" the licence, while a simple re-download doesn't, as descriped in this CC Wiki FAQ. This could lead to serious "runaway" problems since any slight licence break would grow with time in legal severity. In German law, this could lead to a severe case of a long-lasting copyright violation which can be prosecuted ex officio, and thus possibly even against the copyright holder's interests.
CC4, however, includes an automatic reinstatement if the violation is stopped within 30 days of notice. For this reason, I would like to migrate all my uploaded files to the 4.0 version as far as time permits, but this would require an official OK for these licences in Wikipedia/Commons. Meanwhile, could a simple statement that, in addition to the rules of the actual licence, the licence termination is automatically cured under the rules of CC4 (or simply that the termination clause is entirely omitted for my works), help to avoid the legal runaway effects described above?-- SiriusB ( talk) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
We're looking for examples of how the unavailability of orphan works (works under copyright where the rightsholder is unknown or uncontactable) hurts the mission of the Wikimedia projects. Please see WP:VPM#Input wanted: orphan works. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Does it qualify as fair usage to website that host old computer manuals? It came with the product, which is no longer for sale, so no possible loss of revenue for them. I suggest we add a bit in the article to state that manuals for anything no longer being sold, are acceptable to link to. For manuals to things that are being sold, such as modern video games, then you still probably wouldn't have a problem, since people don't buy the games just to read the manuals, and anywhere you could download an illegal copy of a game would let you download the manual as well, so a site with nothing but manuals archived shouldn't be a problem. Any article talking about electronics would benefit those who are interested in such things and understand the tech side of them, by having a link to the manual that came with the product. Dream Focus 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pursuing a license grant on several photos. I see that a release listing a single license for images is acceptable (two for text). For simple, non-commercially viable photos like mine, which is suggested, GFDL or CC-by-sa-3.0? Also, the executive director of my organization is willing to grant such licenses, as they have published these photos previously. Can he do a combined release via e-mail to OTRS for a set of these? Or must he write a specific response e-mail for each one? Jax MN ( talk) 16:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just looking at an ITV press release webpage (here: [9]) where they provide a brief plot summary for an episode of Law & Order: UK. Above the summary they have written this: "The information contained herein is embargoed from press use, commercial and non-commercial reproduction and sharing - in the public domain - until Tuesday 30 July 2013." Now maybe I am just dumb, but it is not clear to me whether they are saying that after the date given that the text becomes public domain. Does anyone understand this better that I do? Also, if the text is in the public domain now, does that mean that the Wikipedia page with information about that episode can copy it verbatim? Any input is appreciated. 99.192.73.179 ( talk) 19:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_requested_for_ELNEVER_.22uses_the_work_in_a_way_compliant_with_fair_use.22. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
First, let me cite the relevant parts of LINKVIO and ELNEVER.
policy and guideline excerpts
|
---|
1. WP:LINKVIO Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content. However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ( Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [10]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use. 2. WP:ELNEVER For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.<ref>"In December 1999, for example, a U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah granted a preliminary injunction against a religious organization that maintained a Web site that established links to other sites containing material that infringed on the plaintiff's copyright. The court ruled that the links constituted "contributory infringement" and ordered them removed." ([http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyrightarticle/hypertextlinking American Library Association: Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues]) However, this remains a developing area of case law.</ref> If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. |
First, I am going to list, in bullet points, the key quotes relevant to my clarification request from the policies cited above:
Reading the above I believe that the primary purpose of those policies is to ensure we don't link to sites that engage in what is generally understood as piracy. The policy was intended to say that "in an article about a copyrighted work, don't link to it's torrent or such". Perfectly reasonable and understandable. But the question is - how far can we take it? In particular, I want to resolve the contradiction between the first two sentences of LINKVIO, "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" and the example that follows. It is clear that we should never link directly to a webpage that contains a copyvio'ed work, whatever the media. However, can we link to a relevant website, when we can be reasonably sure that at least a small portion of its contents are copyvio'ed? The thing is that virtually all websites, if we look hard enough, will have copyvio problems.
Consider the following example: even if a journalistic website uses content that can be argued is fair use, if it has a reader comments section that allows non-text media to be included, from avatars to embedded pictures, then it's almost certain that copyright will be violated - taken too far for fair use to rescue it. For example, User:Nikkimaria showed me recently that fair use does not allow for purely decorative use of works. Which means that any website that uses avatars or allows readers to post pictures is probably violating some copyrights. Examples? io9 portal, for example, allows for both ( [11] random article we use which I am sure in the readers comments at least violates fair use numerous times, [12] and we link to that website hundreds of time). And it's not like io9 is an exception; CNN allows registered readers to chose an avatar too. Worse, CNN for example has a "From around the web" section (see for example [13], another link chosen from [14]). Here, CNN links to headlines and images from other websites, which I think violates fair use as well (then there's also the commercial aspect). How about sites that have advertisements on them? It's certainly possible for an advertisement to violate copyrights (ex. [15]). Are we going to ban linking to all and any websites that carries advertisements? If we don't, we know that somewhere, someone will carry an ad that's a copyvio... All right, I hope this makes my point clear: on the modern Internet it is impossible not to violate copyrights. We (Wikipedia) do it, other websites do it even more. I think the cited policies should make it clear that we are not going to 1) link directly to COPYVIO'ed content, ex, torrents, files, listings of thereof and such and 2) sites that abet piracy (unless an article is about such a website), but are not restricting linking to websites that on some subpages run afoul of copyright as if we try to avoid that, we won't have any Internet to link to. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must have overlooked your specific proposal. Can you please pull out your specific proposal for changing this policy? The distinction between wikia and CNN is not solely related to which one can be used as a reference, although purpose and character is certainly part of it. It has to do globally with the tests of fair use - focusing in on "substantiality", a Wikia site that is dedicated to Pokemon runs the risk of substantially infringing the property. A CNN article that includes a tiny picture of a celebrity, considerably less so. Likewise, the Wikia site is more likely to have an effect upon the value of the property, where the tiny avatar (even multiple tiny avatars) almost certainly will not. The Pokemon wikia may supersede the original; the tiny avatar, not. These are all the kind of context considerations that should go into determining the usefulness of a link. The owners of the Pokemon property hold the rights to make derivative works of that intellectual content - for instance, they can and probably have licensed reference works. Reference works like a Pokemon Wikia may constitute fair use (reference works are generally encouraged), but they can lose that fair use defense if they appropriate too much of the creative content of the original. In terms of this particular issue, did you post at WP:ELN? That was what I suggested above. If not, that would be my suggested next step - to ask if specifically the link you want to include is permissible. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Are copyright usage limited to only the United States government, or other governments as well? Dark Liberty ( talk) 07:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Some time back, I remember seeing a discussion of lyrics-hosting sites that were compliant with their local copyright law. Does a page exist with a list of such sites? If so, we ought to link it from WP:COPYLINK (or at least say "See below for a list"), and if not, we ought to create one if possible. Nyttend ( talk) 21:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The website historylink [21] has a lot of good content about the History of Washington State, and I've noticed here and there that some of its content has been reused here. I had moved some of this content from an old Wikipedia to a new one and got speedy deleted for it - However, I go to the website and at the bottom see "This essay is licensed under a Creative Commons license that encourages reproduction with attribution" - so are we clear to reproduce content from here, or is that an infringement issue? Ego White Tray ( talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead section, Berne Convention is piped to a page that redirects back to it. User J. Dalek ( talk | contribs) 04:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the 3rd and 5th lines at the top:
...and...
...please be replaced with the following text, consecutively:
...and...
...? The changes to the hatnotes allow them to utilize the best possible existing hatnote template for their purpose, {{ Redirect3}}, rather than the generic {{ Hatnote}} (which, in this case, is actually {{ dablink}}, a redirect to {{ Hatnote}}). Steel1943 ( talk) 01:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Takingnotes21 ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)i would love to start source code on takingnotes21 Takingnotes21 ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Takingnotes21 ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I was told the following was copyright violation; but was wondering if it's because it was a press release or because too many words were similar.
"President Obama had picked up nicotine addiction in his late teens; though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007." [1]
The ref is no good for the biography, however that aside; is it because 2 facts from the same source were used; instead of just one? I'm wondering how many words need to be different from the source to constitute sufficient paraphrasing; blurry not clearly defined legal lines seem confusing to me. Bullets and Bracelets ( talk) 14:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Source text | Article text |
---|---|
Mr Obama, 49, has confessed to picking up the nicotine addiction in his late teens, though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007. | President Obama had picked up nicotine addiction in his late teens; though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007. |
The link to Jimbo's comment that "Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations" needs to have 'lists' substituted for 'mail'. 9carney ( talk) 22:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add to the policy on the following issue: If a source is copyrighted in one language, a translation into another language may be infringement, because it is under copyright law a derivative work requiring the copyright holder's permission, and that translation may not qualify as a paraphrasing, even though a close translation in either direction may show a proposed addition to Wikipedia as a paraphrasing. Even permission to use someone's work may not include permission to derive anything; I don't know whether permission to use and modify necessarily includes deriving. A safer solution may be to find a translation that has already been prepared in the desired ultimate language with the copyright holder's permission, paraphrase from that, and cite it. Generally, a translation using Google Translate or a similar service (by automation or human) does not qualify because it generally lacks the copyright holder's permission for the result, but possibly there's an argument that that's not true where, for example, a website provides a link to Google Translate for a visitor's use and the original-language content in question is on that site and under that site's owner's copyright. If you have a solution for cases where an intermediate translation is not available, please add that to this policy. I also don't know how copyright duration is calculated for a derivative made after the year of the original work's creation. This general subject is relevant to English Wikipedia for non-English sources and may be relevant for English sources because editors may be influenced by English Wikipedia policies when editing in other languages. Nick Levinson ( talk) 22:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to request an essay comparing Wikimedia Foundation's positions on copyright across its various projects and languages. Many of the Wikipedia pages are, at least by their terms, specific to Wikipedia or English Wikipedia. Some editors translate into various languages and edit other projects and tend to remember what we learned about the Foundation's positions from en-WP although that might not apply. On the other hand, it may be that what we learned is applicable; work being in another language generally does not alter which law applies. A table would probably be enough, so we can find needed links to policies, essays, FAQs, etc. The essay can be in English; it probably wouldn't be hard to translate it later. I'm not competent to write that essay. I don't see a place to request the creation of pages in nonmain namespaces, so I hope this is the right place. Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 22:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to include something about paid editors and works-for-hire. It should probably go in a paragraph before "You should never..." Something along the lines of
"Paid editors who insert text supplied by their employers must secure copyright permission to use the text and report it to OTRS. Other text inserted by paid editors will be assumed to be work-for-hire unless a release is secured."
Any comments appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
In any case the important section WP:COICOPYRIGHT of WP:COI now reads
permissions@wikimedia.org
). The release must include the name(s) of the author and copyright holder, and that the copyright holder has released the text under a free license."I'll ping a few editors that have contributed to this policy to see if we can get some input @ Piotrus, Moonriddengirl, and DGG: Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me try to come up with some simple text
permissions@wikimedia.org
) before the text is included in an article.permissions@wikimedia.org
), together with confirmation that they understand the text will be freely shared and modified. Alternatively the employer must confirm that they do not hold the copyright, and the release must be sent by the copyright holder.Carl, I'm not seeing what distinction you're drawing between images and text. I gave you an example of where I was asked to supply a release from the 13-year-old author, not from the author's mother, who had requested that he take the image. Similarly, we should make sure we are requesting releases from the authors of approved texts, because as things stand we don't know who wrote them. Some companies will allow the paid editor a free hand; others will want to exercise strict control.
We ought to make sure that the company's legal department has released the text, if they own it, and that the company understands the consequences of so doing.
Smallbones, this is a separate issue, but I wonder whether we ought to do spot checks of companies that have hired a paid editor, to avoid other Orangemoody situations. Perhaps a survey: were you approached by an editor and asked to pay; do you feel you got value for money; did you supply any text; were you asked to release it, etc. SarahSV (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
English Wikipedia includes dozens of pages which simply reproduce lists of top songs as compiled by other publications. For example, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1959, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1960, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1961, etc. The sources for the lists are owned by Billboard, and as our lists don't add any substantial original content (nor could they), our article must be a copyright violation, unless the original lists themselves aren't subject to copyright protection. Is there an existing consensus that these lists lack sufficient originality to benefit from copyright, or are we violating Billboard's copyright? Pburka ( talk) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been helping another editor, User:BaronBifford, on the new article Superman ownership disputes. He's done some excellent work using both book sources and old court decisions from decades ago, which are now freely available online. Since he's fairly new, essentially only on Wikipedia since September, he's asked me to see if an editor well-versed in copyright can look over the article and offer changes / corrections / suggestions. I'm not sure if this is the right forum to ask, but I figure it's a start. With thanks, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Does removing copyright infringements and links thereto constitute an exception to the three-revert rule? WP:3RRNO seems to state that it does. And if it does, would it be helpful to mention the exception on this policy page? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.235.101.205 ( talk) 05:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
By coincidence I have found a number (possibly hundreds) of product reviews (purportedly by an actual customer) of DVD's published on bol.com, a large, bonafide commercial website in The Netherlands, which appear to be machine translations of substantial sections of the English WP articles for the relevant films. All reviews are by the same user/customer, who seems to re-use WP content on a large scale. There is no attribution or reference to WP.
Though I think this is not the end of the world, I find it annoying, both as a WP editor and as a customer who keeps running into these fake product reviews. I also think it is illegal and misleading.
I am quite sure this is not the right page to discuss – but where can I take this issue? Is this something we act on? Superp ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Near the top of the page, the red box about emailing the Wikimedia Foundation mentions "your company or school or organization". I think that should be "your company, school, or organization". KSF T C 23:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found a grammar error (subject/verb agreement).
Change:
The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about is the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.
to:
The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.
(Emphasis added for clarity.)
Thanks, Discant X 06:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found a few very minor errors and unclear phrases.
In the red box near the top of the page, it says this:
"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations."
That means that they don't own copyright on both, but they could on one. I think it should be this:
"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations."
(emphasis added)
The paragraph under that box says this:
"such text will be identified either on the page footer, in the page history or the discussion page of the article"
That sentence uses "either" with three items, which is confusing, and it doesn't use a serial comma, which makes it ambiguous. I would write it like this:
"such text will be identified on the page footer, in the page history, or on the discussion page of the article"
The next sentence says this:
"Every image has a description page which indicates the license under which it is released"
Either there should be a comma before that "which" or it should be replaced by "that". I think the latter is better.
KSF T C 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about the articles recent expansion, included images uploaded as own work example of such. I was wondering, I have just posted on the articles talkpage, could someone with a better understanding of the process throw some light on the ins-and-outs. Thanks for your time. Murry1975 ( talk) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section: 3.1 Reusers' rights and obligations; Sub-section: Licensing notice
Original text: "Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text "
Change Request: Shouldn't "... CC BY-SA and either..." be changed to "... CC BY-SA by either..."? where, "and" is replaced with "by"; the present form does not appear to make much sense.
Regards, AhmadF.Cheema ( talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tosifafaqi ( talk) 12:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The "Important note" at the top of the page on a pink background is almost entirely unreadable on a mobile device in portrait orientation, at least this one*. The box it is in is just one character wide
What it looks like on the device in question
|
---|
a n d l o o k s l i k e t h i s : I m p o r t a n t n o t e : T h e W i k i m e d i a F o u n d a t i o n d o e s n o t o w n c o p y r i g h t o n W i k i p e d i a a r t i c l e t e x t s o r i l l u s t r a t i o n s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e p o i n t l e s s |
... to continue this sample any further. This is true whether I choose the mobile or the desktop version.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 04:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I have checked out a few of the passport stamps pictured at passport stamp and Gallery of passport stamps by country or territory and in each case the uploader has claimed the right to release them under CC BY-SA. Surely the copyright to a passport stamp is held by the issuing authority, not someone who has scanned it from a passport? Sorry if this is the wrong place to be asking but I'm not prepared to go through the process of tagging hundreds of files for WP:FFD. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 11:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
An academic I know contacted me to ask if a colleague can paste their own lecture notes into an article or articles on geology. If the notes have not been published anywhere, obviously this is not an issue. However, the notes have been placed online -- presumably at their academic institution -- and so may have an explicit or implicit copyright notice. In that case I assume an OTRS ticket would have to be opened to get permission. If there's no copyright notice, is there an issue? And what about plagiarism -- clearly we are fine with the academic re-using their own words without rephrasing, but is it going to appear to be plagiarism, and how can that be addressed so others don't remove that text once they find where it comes from? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I would like to know what is the policy concerning copyright to the former Wikipedia articles that were deleted after a nomination to AfD and disucussion. Does the text written by a user keep being "licensed to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL", after the deletion, or do the copyrights return to the original author as they are no longer Wikipedia content. In other words, are other people licenced to re-use the text originally written to Wikipedia and republish it elsewherem even after it has been permanently deleted from Wikipedia, or not? Please be kind to show links to specific regulations, if possible, while answering. I am not able to find this information in all the legal stuff I was looking through. Thank you. noychoH ( talk) 20:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I commented out a use of the logo of The Simpsons, File:Logo The Simpsons.svg, used on a talk page for humorous effect, as an impermissible use of a non-free work. This was reverted, presumably in good faith (though by an editor who acts in opposition to me on every single encounter; good-faith or not, I think it was a knee-jerk reaction and ill-considered). The image file is hosted here on WP, not Commons, and has a trademark template on it. It also claims a public-domain copyright template, but I believe this is erroneous, because a) it is not simply plain text, but a creative logo, and is thus almost certainly covered by copyright, even if the font used in it were a publicly available one (it's colored, bordered, canted, etc.), and b) even aside from that, it's not actually a font at all, but Matt Groening's handwriting adapted into a logo, which almost certainly makes it a copyrighted creative work from the start.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I posted a question about copyright at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Why_is_the_copyright_license_described_in_two_different_ways.3F. I am feeling unsure and seeking a few more comments. Thanks for anyone who can help. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
In the U.S., are historical markers (on public land) something that can be copyrighted? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Photos of ones made by the state or Georgia or the Georgia Historical Society are OK to use. I asked for permission and that is going through OTRS on Wikimedia right now. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I want to include an info box into the majority.fm article, best with the logo image included. Now, how do I manage that? Do I ask the folks at http://majority.fm if they agree to release the icon under one of the wikipedia acceptable terms? Starting with the ones that leave the most rights to them? If so, are there templates or howtos how to do so? Since I don't have the time to read all through all possible terms for such images and break them down into a few words short enough for them to read but still correct enough not to misrepresent the term(s)... -- Rava77 ( talk) 12:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────┘
Okay, thanks. I never uploaded anything to wikipedia, nor to commons. I tried to figure out how to do so with using the template by reading the info on the template {{Template:PD-logo}} but to no prevail... Mind giving me a shove to the right direction? Cheers, --
Rava77 (
talk) 21:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
And Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights currently states:The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.
The last RfC on whether or not the English Wikipedia should host such content was 4.5 years ago and was closed with no consensus for the status quo, and no consensus for change. Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)It is longstanding Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. What this means in practice is determined case by case, bearing in mind the goal of being able to freely distribute Wikipedia in the country an incorporated work originates from.
The case-by-case basis is what is in question here. I understand that the US does not recognize these images but I have a problem with the idea that anyone can grab any image they want that was produced in Iran (or any of those other countries) and use it freely to their heart's content. All that does is quash any desire for the legitimate release of images under a truly free license that can be used across all projects. Not to mention that the image that caused this whole RfC is only being used in a way that does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article in any determinable way. Also, if we do allow such things there needs to be a category for these images. If the US ever does restore copyright relations with these countries, see URAA and bilateral copyright agreements of the United States, then every image that is hosted this way needs to be immediately deleted. -- Majora ( talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest pinging WMF legal. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. Copyright is defined by national laws; in most countries, foreign copyright is based on reciprocity. The countries that don't have copyright relations with the US don't have copyright relations with most (if any) other countries. Therefore, the works from those countries are free of copyright in most countries. This is similar to the situation with freedom of panorama. Most countries do not allow freedom of panorama ( see Commons) and several only allow it for non-commercial purposes. However, since US law allows FoP for buildings, even for commercial purposes, we allow images of copyrighted buildings in countries without FoP ( example). The copyright policy on Commons--that a work must be free in both the US and country of origin--is in contrast to the policy of considering only US copyright on Wikipedia ( Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights).
I agree that images, such as the Isfahan metro photo (per Flagfox, the server hosting it is located in Iran), from countries without copyright relations with the US should be tagged with a copyright template that allows them to be identified and removed if they become copyrighted in the future if the country of publication joins the Berne Convention. No such copyright template presently exists for Iran. AHeneen ( talk) 17:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I would need to spend time to look up where he suggested it, but Jimbo did say that we shoukd treat works from these non binding countries as if they were copyrighted, and thus subject to hosting and usage as any other copyrighted image as defined under NFC. --
MASEM (
t) 08:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: I notified everyone who participated in the 2012 RfC with the following message:
Extended content
|
---|
Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US Hello, There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. --signature |
- AHeneen ( talk) 21:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The WMF policy (
wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy), mentioned among the oppose votes, reads in relevant part: All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.
(emphasis added). The
Definition of Free Cultural Works includes: In order to be considered free, a work must be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status must provide the same essential freedoms enumerated above.
(emphasis added). As I mention in previous comments, copyright for foreign works is based on reciprocity; as such, works first published in countries that are not a party to the Berne Convention and not published within a certain time (eg. 30 days under US copyright law) in a country that is a member are not copyrighted in Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states). Such content is free of copyright in the US and 7/8ths of the world and should not be considered non-free content, which several of the opposing voters mention.
All projects must adhere to U.S. laws (because of the location of WMF servers and the place of incorporation of the WMF), but the choice of other applicable law is
a project-by-project decision. The current choice of applicable law is found in the lead at
Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights: While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries.
Concerns about the reusability of such content are misfounded. As I mention above, we already allow images of buildings that are copyrighted in the origin country but that are free of the building's copyright in the U.S. under the freedom of panorama copyright exception (see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama). But the even greater issue is the inclusion of non-free content, based on the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. While similar exceptions can be found in the copyright laws of other countries (see Fair dealing#By country and Fair use#Influence internationally), such exceptions are far from universal. In the EU, member states can pick among 22 permissible copyright exceptions, but many countries have very restrictive exceptions. So an image that meets our NFC criteria and satisfies US fair use and UK fair dealing standards probably won't be free to use in France (which has few exceptions). In this way, Wikipedia content already is limited in its reusability, much more so than content that is free of copyright because the origin country is not a Berne Convention member state. Concerns about the future usability of files from non-members join the Berne Convention and images become copyrighted can easily be addressed by creating appropriate copyright templates. AHeneen ( talk) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to "Copyright violations" if there is no other content present, tag the page with {{ db-copyvio}} UpsandDowns1234 05:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 10:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Currently, {{ PD-US-1923}} redirects to {{ PD-US}}, a generic template that usually means it was published before 1923, but not always. On Commons, they are separate templates, and {{ PD-US}} is basically a disambiguation template. This helps ensure the rationale for why something is in the public domain is clear on the file description pages. Should we do the same here? This would involve splitting off {{ PD-US-1923}} into its own template and then going through {{ PD-US}} to determine what should be moved over (and also what should have a different licensing template or possibly be deleted). This can be expedited quite a bit by a bot searching for a "date" parameter that is before 1923. This would create something of a backlog, but it wouldn't be high-urgency and it would at least encourage better documentation going forward. Thoughts? ~ Rob13 Talk 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a couple Wikimania presentations that are relevant to the file process on enwiki. They are currently proposals. If you may attend Wikimania and would be interested in attending these presentations, feel free to indicate as such on the proposal pages. If anyone wants more information about these, leave me a talk page message.
I'd also definitely appreciate feedback on the Copyright for Dummies slides; if you see something that could make them more effective or something missing, let me know. Thanks! ~ Rob13 Talk 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add "WP:CONFIRMED" to the "WP:C redirects here" at the top of the page. UpsandDowns1234 ( Talk to me) ( My Contribs) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On an iPhone, in portrait view, the important note is collapsed to the left. Also, there is a typo at "You may request the material be removed...you may request the page be immediately removed...". Please fix this.
UpsandDowns1234 (
🗨) (
My Contribs) 18:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi - copyvio is not an area I am very familiar with, so please go easy with me if I am very off-piste. this image is of the crest of a house in Wilson's School#Houses. As you will see from the article, each of the 6 houses has a crest image in the article, in a rather ugly table. And each seems to have been contributed by the same editor Ricagambeda ( talk · contribs) and are annotated to say he is the copyright holder. But they also seemed to have been designed by someone else - a J Shaw. I would have thought that such crest images would be owned by the school itself rather than an individual. Also most of these crests are likely to be quite old and therefore may be out of copyright? Are these copyvios or not? I ask the experts. CalzGuy ( talk) 10:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion about uploading acceptable non-free images of deceased persons at WT:NFC. I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:cc-by-sa, currently a redirect to Template:cc-by-sa-1.0, has been nominated at RfD. The discussion would significantly benefit from the participation of those with knowledge of media copyrights and licensing issues. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The box at the top currently says: "It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images; even if rules at your company, school, or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content."
Please change the incorrect semi-colon (marked) to a comma. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What the policy says: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.
In general, the absolutist approach to copyrights in this policy is (IMO) the correct choice. However, on this very narrow point, I think that this statement is wrong, because we accept links under two significant circumstances:
I think we should consider clarifying this somehow (possibly not directly in this policy). What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
(Also posted in blocking) I recently created an article that in the opinion of another editor was a breach of copyright. Perhaps it was ... but I had a good reason in my own mind and felt it was fair use ... which is a separate point. Point is I did it in good faith, please take my word for it. Then one day I got this message, threatening blocking:
It felt unpleasant. If someone can give some thought to how we can be a bit more pleasant to each other would be good. Supcmd ( talk) 22:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
At Milkshake Duck, a meme started by a Twitter message (as well-documented in sources), it would seem to make sense to include the attributable Twitter message in full since the joke is partially based on how the text message was given. Technically this is the "whole work" if we're talking fair use issues, but it's also a tiny work and one that makes no sense to try to quote only part of (we can paraphrase though). Is it reasonable that as long as we include all relevant citations to include the full <=140 character Twitter message? -- MASEM ( t) 16:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a great article in its own right imho but could someone clarify two things, both under: Linking to copyrighted works please?
if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright
Should this read "or could reasonably suspect"?
linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use
If there is fair use, eg of a still from a movie, then isn't that a general position?
I am also confused as to why eg. citing words published in hard copy seems to be treated materially differently to citing eg. a clip from a movie. Are all creative works equal but some more equal than others? And should that for instance have been written with quotes and a citation reference approved by the author/publisher etc? I find it difficult to wrap my head around these apparent differences.
LookingGlass ( talk) 16:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use.
Please see my thread at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#ArbCom cases and attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Either "an" or "the" is missing in the lead, after the pink box, in the second paragraph, in the third sentence, in "Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license", before the penultimate word. License is a count noun, not a mass noun. I'm not an admin. Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 01:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Important note" with a pink background has its style set with margin-right:20em
but no min-width
. On a narrow screen, such as a mobile phone in portrait mode, this squeezes the box into a single-character column, which is impossible to read. Please add min-width: 20em
(or smaller, but not too small) to make it legible in such a situation.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
This journal article substantially duplicates a large amount of text from Wikipedia's amphetamine article without attribution, substantially duplicates 2 paragraphs of text from Wikipedia's Adderall article without attribution, and reused 2 images that I drew, uploaded to Commons ( [22] [23]), and published under CC-BY-SA-3.0, also without attribution.
Just to illustrate the extent of this issue, I've highlighted all of the sentences from the Wikipedia article and this journal article that are virtually identical in these pdfs: Amphetamine article (March 5 revision); journal article (March 10 submission date) (NB: orange highlighted text is copied from amphetamine; light blue highlighted text is copied from Adderall#Mechanism of action). Alternatively, see the results from the Earwig copyvio detector.
I'm not really sure how to provide an appropriate notice of copyright infringement in this context since the OMICS Publishing Group doesn't have a webpage dedicated to copyright issues. As far as I can tell, this contact page and the emails/phone numbers listed on that page appear to be the only means of communication with the publisher. Also, none of the model letters listed in Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter seem to apply in this context because this was published in an academic journal. Anyone have any advice? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 14:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
Psychostimulant addiction}}
into the lisdexamfetamine article (see
Special:diff/797902889/797906870). When viewing older revisions of the lisdexamfetamine article, it will show that figure as being a part of the article because it's being transcluded in from the current revision of the amphetamine article. In other words, at the time the journal article was published, only 1 of my diagrams was displayed in the lisdexamfetamine article. Even so, the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requires that a content creator be attributed unless waived by the licensor/creator (see the
Creative Commons FAQ for attribution) and the url where the content is hosted be specified if reasonable; consequently, citing the lisdexamfetamine article as an indirect citation to my figures isn't adequate at the very least because I didn't waive that right and I wasn't attributed. Moreover, several sections that were copied from the amphetamine and Adderall articles into the journal article are not transcluded into the lisdexamfetamine article (e.g., the text that was copied from
Amphetamine#History, society, and culture,
Amphetamine#Chemistry, and
Adderall#Mechanism_of_action).@ Crow: Roughly 12 hours after I emailed copyright@researchgate.net, they responded to me via email notifying me that they'd removed the offending content which I had specified in my email to them. They removed the pdf and HTML versions of the full text article on their website and all of the images from the article's figure preview page, even though only 2 of the 4 images violated my copyright. This is the pdf file from ResearchGate (NB: I'm hosting this file externally) that used to be available for direct download through this link, which now simply redirects to the article abstract on ResearchGate. The abstract contains no material that infringes upon copyrighted content from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons; I assume this is why they left that intact.
These are the urls that I indicated as containing material which violates my copyright in my email to ResearchGate
|
---|
|
I have yet to receive a response from OMICS. I'm going to wait a few days before sending a follow-up notice via email to contact.omics@omicsonline.org [nb 1] and request that they reply with information about how they intend to rectify the situation; if I receive no response to that email after exactly 1 week, I'm going to send a cease and desist notice. If even that doesn't elicit a response, I'm going to follow-up with a DMCA takedown notice roughly a week later. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear [redacted name]
We informed the mistakes in the pdf to author and he had done the corrections, once we receive the final corrected pdf we will update it online
Feel free to contact us for any further queries
With thanks,
Rezina
References
contact.omics@omicsonline.org
in my original email to OMICS. In my subsequent emails to them, I intend to add medical@omicsonline.com
(the contact address for medical journal content), contact.americas@omicsonline.org
(the contact address for "OMICS International Journals"), and contact.asiapacific@omicsonline.org
(the contact address for the world headquarters). Since the OMICS contact page doesn't include any email for copyright-related issues, I'm including every email address that is listed on the contact page which includes the journal in which the article was published within their scope.
The educational blog at Jokpeme has plagiarised the Wikipedia article Habitat without attribution. I know this because I wrote most of the article and took it to GAN. I was alerted to the blog when yesterday somebody added some information to the article that they had copied verbatim from the blog. Can this blogger, William Watson, be encouraged to acknowledge the source of his material? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This sentence: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely."
, in "Using copyrighted works from others", does IMHO not make sense, but has still been there since at least 2010 (which is as far back as I looked). Reading an encyclopaedia is legal even if there are copyvios in it, it's adding the copyrighted material, and keeping it in the encyclopaedia, that isn't legal. So the text should, again IMHO, say that it is legal to write about ideas, and describe copyrighted works of art, as long as editors use their own words when doing it, and don't follow the source too closely. - Tom |
Thomas.W
talk 15:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, the paragraph "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time." has been interpreted in one case as meaning "If you can't link to a current page because it contains a copyright violation, you can link to an archived copy instead".
That's clearly wrong. so I propose adding to the second sentence so that it reads "It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time (providing the original webpage does not itself contain a copyright violation)."
Any thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Where can I request an upload? I had an account that I lost the password to, but have no desire to create a new account? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question. 146.229.240.200 ( talk) 06:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we please add to WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER something like: "Non-open-access journals generally permit authors to make a pre-publication version of a paper available in many ways, sometimes with an embargo; many such journals do not give authors the right to make published versions of papers available anywhere - not even on their faculty websites. Linking to such published papers may be contributory copyright infringement and you should check the publisher's policy on authors' permission to post articles before linking."
Something like that. Folks have been using OAbot to add links to supposedly OA instances of published papers and I have been finding way too many links to published papers on academic websites, published by journals that do not allow this, as was done in this diff. Jytdog ( talk) 04:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
(and similarly for many other funders, many of them listed at [26], which are acceptable also , though the effective year of the policy varies.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_and_copyright_law. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I asked the owner of these websites about how he's handled copyrights. The response isn't remotely what I was expecting. He's definitely claiming he has the copyright for at least some of the manuals such as [27]. I'd like to have someone experienced with our copyright policy to ask him more specific questions so we can determine which, if any, of his manuals are appropriate as links. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
In the WP:COPYLINK section Contributory infringement points to a disambiguation page, it should point to Contributory copyright infringement. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Can we add a link to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources somewhere on this page? It explains a number of relevant copyright issues, and includes links to more detailed pages like Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia that readers of Wikipedia:Copyrights might be looking for. Daask ( talk) 20:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
By way of experiment, I put the article Sea urchin into Earwig's tool and it came up with a copyvio, a paragraph inserted in the article on 28 October 2008. Having found this violation, I thought I had better remove it and have now requested a rev-del, but that covers a vast number of revisions. If one searched diligently for copyvios, one might end up with large numbers of important articles being affected and needing rev-dels. Is that desirable? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 21:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Assault-on-Asilah.JPG asserts public domain because the tapestry is from 1471 (although, elsewhere on the page, it says 1852). But, this looks like a photograph of the original tapestry. Doesn't the photograph have its own copyright? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
A lot of articles about newer national anthems (e.g. National anthem of Mauritania, whose author is alive and well) have large quantities of copyrighted lyrics (and audio files), including multiple translations and unused verses. Is there some sort of exception for these or are they liberally abusing WP:NFCC? Jc86035 ( talk) 08:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Assistance is requested at User_talk:Neuroforever#Photographs_of_wax_works, the talk page of a good-faith user who has added his photographs of statutes in wax museums. The user has posed a question there which would best be answered by someone from this project. Thank you. Kablammo ( talk)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the redirect template for "C", I suggest that you should also list "C-class articles" as one of the options. I was trying to go there, and I got here. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the existence and notional use of Template:AHD-CC kosher? I was not under the impression that CC By SA 3.0 was compatible with CC By 4.0. -- Izno ( talk) 19:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per WP:ORDER hatnote should be placed above the tag policy notice. I think the shortcut in the hatnote is redundant, you can copy paste the source code for the hatnote below:
{{Redirect-for|WP:C|Wikipedia:Consensus|Wikipedia:Civility|Wikipedia:Categorization|Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries|Wikipedia:WikiProject Council|Wikipedia:C-class}}
{{Redirect-for|WP:COPY|Wikipedia:Copyright problems|Wikipedia:Basic copyediting|Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia}}
Hddty. ( talk) 08:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)#Image use policy. I did not directly perform the cleanup I've called for, because it's conceivable there's a valid fair-use rationale. I'm not a US intellectual property attorney, after all, nor a copyright-policy-enforcement admin, so some consensus discussion might be in order before such a major change. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 4#Template:Trademark (seems to have a dubious use case on this wiki, even if it may serve some purpose on Commons). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
A new user, Artistscolony, has created a draft article on an American painter, Draft:John Thomas Andrew. The draft as created asserted a claim of copyright. I blanked that claim and the related text. I suppose Wikipedia could stand on the waiver in the edit box and strike the claim, but if the author would prefer not to have the text in the public domain the draft in the edit history could be oversighted. I will notify the new user of this discussion. Kablammo ( talk) 02:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if a user is allowed to send a screenshot of an image on my user talk page in order to clarify a certain factual detail, or if that would violate the image use policy (which I am not too familiar with). You can take a look at the bottom of my talk page for specifics. Thank you. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Appears to have been resolved since post and reply were deleted.
|
---|
Andy Prada Born in May 26, 1992 focused on innovation from the initial beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyprada ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
|
I looked at a MoS info, at WP:Copy-paste. While reading there it says to raise a concern on here or else where. (I might of been running in circles in the past hour. Where to put the concern at.) So, on the page/ article, I saw the episode summaries that was copied from Crunchyroll at this; t.v. show's web-site as you press the individual episode, it was almost the same episode summary from that web-site. While on this I took the info out. Then the user has some history on my talk page about occasional messages about writting an episode summary. On here and this next edit. But my reasoning is that, I'll be late to a job. If I did. As I have some memory issues. Tainted-wingsz ( talk) 03:49, 2 February 2019 (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. |
1. From section " Contributors' rights and obligations":
Who can tell me if the terms are compatible? Is there a "list" of the compatible licenses or I can decide on my own?
2. For example, can I contribute a text under MIT license ( [1])? A friend told me it's like a CC BY where the author decides a custom attribution style ( [2], attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor) can you confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.6.57 ( talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
How is it possible that one can relicense CC BY-SA-only content to CC BY-SA + GFDL, if s/he is not the author of the text? When I submit content to Wikipedia, I'm dual-licensing it, while the page states, You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you are its sole author. and you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license, or ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.6.57 ( talk) 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
In response to a request at WP:AN I've closed an RFC on this page about countries without copyright relations with the US. Some additional steps are needed to implement the conclusion.
In updating the policies, I would add in a reference to principle 3 in my closure ( Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Closure), perhaps in a footnote - but I'll leave that and everything else to others. Rd232 talk 12:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have a link to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing somewhere in the policy, just to make sure that new contributors reading the page for the first time can see that just altering a few words of a copyrighted source and then uploading it to Wikipedia still counts as a copyright violation. The link is also missing from a few other important pages, for example WP:COPYVIO and WP:FAQ/Copyright, but I thought I would start my enquiries at the most important one. :-) Do people think this would be worth including? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
One of the images I uploaded was tagged. It was from San Marino, San marino cable car view.jpg
So what is the decision, we leave as is, which is unclear? Oaktree b ( talk) 20:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a friend who has their own Wikipedia page that doesn't have an image. I was hoping to add a candid & non-copyrighted image that this person took of themselves & sent to me personally via. text message. What is the best/easiest way to do this? I understand how to do it from a technical standpoint.....I only need to know how to go about it from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. I mean, since she took the picture of herself on her cell phone & personally sent it to me via text message....does that give me the right to use it so as to add a decent pic to her Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbs173 ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What does "page footer" as used as used in the following two sentence fragments mean? Are wikipedia editors being asked to provide copyright information in the "footer?" I suggest clarifying these sentences, and/or providing links.
"such text will be identified either on the page footer"
"review the page footer"
Wikfr ( talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
From Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#CGI images
Some CGI images can be made, some cannot, and for some, it's not appropriate to try.
as an example of an image which is not appropriate, would this be correct, or too brief, to explain ? "A computer generated image, rendering or animation of a copyright free subject that could be recreated to a standard that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose."
as a clarification between for example, some thing that we can draw in the graphics lab, and say, a scene from toy story, avatar (movie) or elephants dream and so on. We can make some images to a reasonable standard ourselves, but not all CGI images would be handled the same way, so some sort of guidance for editors would help here I've noticed. Media outlets have their own graphics, and I figure it can't always be a good idea to copy them to wikipedia. There is not enough input on the policy talkpage, and I'd like guidance (not for myself but for other editors) which can be placed onto the policy page.
I personally don't need the clarification, I'm happy with the examples and actions taken either way, however I am certain some guidance written down is a great idea here. A link to something existing would be as good. Penyulap ☏ 19:38, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Is it OK to use long quotations (a paragraph or more) in an article under "fair use"? What about if the quotes come from a public domain source; e.g., the CBO, part of the US federal government? Specifically, the last paragraphs of United States fiscal cliff#Effects of sequestration? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it a WP:LINKVIO to add link to a Google Document Viewer (for a PDF document) available online? -- SMS Talk 19:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
If a disambiguation blurb is copied from the lead section of the respective article, or if text from an image description page is copied to serve as caption of that very image, do those need to be attributed per
WP:COPYWITHIN or is the implicit attribution from the page/image link sufficient to comply with our license? Assuming they are not common phrases anyway of course.
I am mainly asking whether those need to be repaired as part of copyright cleanup.
Cheers,
Amalthea 10:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I just tripped into an interesting site ( NimbleBooks.com) that sells automated compilations of Wikipedia pages for 49 cents each --- some of the current "titles" have two articles others ten or so. I understand there are more comprehensive compilations as well. I didn't pay the 49 cents to find out if the eBook has the appropriate Creative Commons license information and attribution to Wikipedia, etc. I have at least one researcher who has been frustrated with Amazon listing similar compilation books that have nothing but the material from Wikipedia and/or other sites. It concerns me that this may not be consistent with contributor expectations, and can also diminish the value of actual authored materials. JimInNH ( talk) 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: this was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, and it's been agreed that it's more appropriate to discuss it here. Ego White Tray ( talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Are MIDI files being treated as recordings or as electronic encodings of sheet music? Since MIDI files are not recordings, but instructions to synthesizers on which note to play, how long to play and which instrument to use, wouldn't this just be the original music score in a MIDI format, and thus also PD if the source music score is PD?
-- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 05:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing how this discussion relates to speedy deletion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Might be better discussed at WT:C rather than here, but asking if MIDIs are copyrighted is a bit like asking if photographs are copyrighted—the answer is "That's a broad question and it depends on the specifics." If it's a MIDI of a copyrighted work or a live performance, it most certainly is copyrightable. If it's a mechanical reproduction of public domain sheet music, such that anyone could do the reproduction using the same rules and get the same results, no, much like a photograph of a public-domain painting or electronic copies of a public-domain book are not copyrightable, because they are "slavish copies" and therefore do not rise to the threshold of originality. In any grey areas in between the two clear "yes" and "no" examples I noted, we would evaluate case by case but generally err on the side of caution; that is, unless we can confidently say "No, it can't be copyrighted", we'll presume it can be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
In light of this discussion, it might be a good idea to specify that the rules apply to talk pages. A user thought it would be all right to post an entire newspaper article I sent him because most people did not have access, in order to help people improve the article. I was reluctant to post it myself as he suggested and it turns out I was right, but I thought it might be all right since it wasn't for the encyclopedia itself.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The page currently located at Uta monogatari violated copyright in its initial version up until September 11/12 of this year. The page was a near carbon copy of the Santa Fe Poetry Broadside "A Brief Note Concerning Tanka Prose" by Jeffrey Woodward. It saw only relatively minor edits until User:Bagworm and myself basically overhauled it, and at least until that time entire sentences were still copied verbatim from the Woodward piece. I moved the page, and changed the subject (the original topic was not notable, and assuming good faith I guessed it was meant to be about uta monogatari, which I later found out was unrelated). Therefore, some of the text may still resemble the Woodward article, but in a completely different context and entirely by coincidence. However, I recently found out that on Japanese Wikipedia past versions of pages can get completely expunged if they are revealed to be copyright violations. This seems logical, since the offending material still exists in Wikipedia even if it has been removed in the current version of the article. Is this also policy on English Wikipedia? If so, is there a "past-edits for deletion" page I should consult? elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Simple question, we correctly assume that Billboard does not impinge on copyrights and as a matter of course is regularly linked by various editors as a matter of course - so far no problems. On this particular Billboard page there is a link to a YouTube video which is patently loaded up unofficially and without permission. It would be a violation if the YouTube page had been linked directly on WP, but what about through a third party? What then? Cheers.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 16:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content exists, I think the paragraph Prior to June 15, 2009, Wikipedia did permit some text under licenses that were compatible with the GFDL but might require additional terms that were not required for original Wikipedia text (such as including Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts). However, these materials could only be placed if the original copyright holders did not require that they be carried forward; for that reason, they impose no special burden for reuse. – which appears to suggest there's not practical effect of the original licensing conditions and therefore might be better confined to that dedicated page.
I think a {{ main}} link toWikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content should be added, and All text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility. worded a but differently for flow, perhaps Since all text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, you can ensure GFDL compatibility by using the page history to retrieve content published before that date. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
While participating at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Upgrade to Policy, I noticed that this page does not specifically discuss copying content within Wikipedia. Perhaps we should add a paragraph with a brief summary? How about this after the "Reusers' rights and obligations" part:
Thoughts? -
theFace 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MiszaBot put this topic in the archive. I just pulled it out. Even though only 4 people, myself included, supported this proposal, I really think this page should have a reference to WP:CWW, certainly since that guideline was close to becoming a policy itself some time ago (see here). I'm not an admin so I can't add the above text myself. Here's an edit request tag... - theFace 17:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So... I guess this proposal has wide support. Can someone implement it? Cheers, theFace 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Do films linked to YouTube through external links have to be PD in both the US and source country, or is PD in just the source country okay? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I originally posted the following on the WP:Donating copyrighted materials page but I see it has <30 watchers and is fairly inactive so I am also posting here for visibility:
Where should we report suspected violations of WP:COPYLINK? That is where Wikipedia articles cite links to copies of documents on a website which is infringing the copyright of the document owners. 212.183.140.60 ( talk) 10:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes authors of photos are mentioned just as nicknames of a Wikipedia user. When attributing the used photo from Wikipedia with author, is is enough just to use the nickname? Sometimes there is also a real name mentioned and nickname: in this case do I use both?
Thank you for any advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vennett ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please add the urdu interwiki link to this page [[ur:منصوبہ:حقوق نسخہ]], thanks. محمد شعیب ( talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded an image that I own, and submitted it for use in an article. Wikipedia says that I have not cleared the copyright procedure for this image to stay online. My question is, under what copyright is this image if I own it, and when I want to own exclusive copyright to it? Thanks to whoever is reading this! Thisisprovoke ( talk) 21:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with this? Thisisprovoke ( talk) 19:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A shortcut REDIRECT to this policy needs updated categories. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] {{R from shortcut}} {{R from Unicode}}
[[Category:Protected redirects]]
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]
Please leave one line blank.
{{Redr|to project|from shortcut|protected}}
Template {{ Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{ This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut that is used to categorize redirects. The Unicode category now has other uses, and {{ R protected}} has replaced the use of the linked category, [[ Category:Protected redirects]], on redirect pages. Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove, It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. struck, see later comments
88.104.28.176 (
talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I can find no reason why these certain websites are treated any differently to any other link to copyrighted work. 88.104.28.176 ( talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
See [4]. Trying to keep discussion in one place, for now... 88.104.28.176 ( talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)`
It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time.
Why?
I can find no reason why websites that are 'internet archives' should be treated any differently to any other websites.
I accept that there are certain provisions within DCMA that allows such websites to avoid legal repercussions on condition that they immediately remove any content that is disputed.
However, Wikipedia does not link to copies of copyrighted websites. Full stop.
I see no reason why it's acceptable for us to link to a copy of a copyrighted work just because it is on "WayBack Machine" or any other similar site, but not link to copyrighted works on random-other-websites. 88.104.28.176 ( talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Evidence
|
---|
Source: [5] Source: [6] I figured you'd rather have the nice pretty Stanford legal team version than the court cases, so I decided to give you that, with the links. gwickwire talk editing 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
There's evidence, all emphasis mine gwickwire talk editing 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"Furthermore, the copies can be digital, so long as they are not distributed digitally nor made available to the public in a digital format outside the premises of the library or archives.
… If digital copies are made, access to the digital version must be limited to the premises of the library or archives."
Comment: It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. ... Why? Because the content is (to the best of our knowledge) hosted legally, and linking to legally hosted content is (to the best of our knowledge) fine. If either of those things changes, we'll have to review our position, and potentially mass-remove a boat-load of links via bot (which would be bad, but not actually very hard). That seems unlikely to happen, and I don't see why we should worry about it unless there's some actual sign of legal issues arising. There's really no need to be more Catholic than the Pope. Rd232 talk 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Many, if not all, of the Web sites in the collection and elements incorporated into the Web sites (e.g., photographs, articles, graphical representations) are protected by copyright. The materials may also be subject to publicity rights, privacy rights, or other legal interests.
Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with the person desiring to use the item. You will need permission from the copyright owners or rights holders for reproduction, distribution, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions.
[7]
Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. WP:NFC
Carl Lindberg ( talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The English text of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses is the only legally binding restriction between authors and users of Wikipedia content.
Not! First, 'is' should be 'are'. But the sentence is false. There are lots of other restrictions. There are legally binding restrictions on your use of the FBI, NASA and IBM logos, for example, (but they don't relate directly to copyright).
How's this? Is this true? s/only/key? -- Elvey ( talk) 01:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The English texts of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses are the only legally binding copyright restrictions between authors and users of Wikipedia content.
How does copyright law apply to the use of musical scores in Wikipedia?
—
Wavelength (
talk) 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
In the US, do minors have the authority to license their own works under the license that Wikipedia requires for article contributions and uploads? Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Are there any plans to migrate to the version 4 of CC? Or will CC4 licences be available for uploaded files in the near future? After a bit of research I have growing objections against the harsh termination clause in CC 3 and earlier, according to which any usage of a file granted by the licence beyond standard copyright becomes illegal after even a single, temporary and accidental licence violation. Only an explicit statement by the copyright owner can "cure" the licence, while a simple re-download doesn't, as descriped in this CC Wiki FAQ. This could lead to serious "runaway" problems since any slight licence break would grow with time in legal severity. In German law, this could lead to a severe case of a long-lasting copyright violation which can be prosecuted ex officio, and thus possibly even against the copyright holder's interests.
CC4, however, includes an automatic reinstatement if the violation is stopped within 30 days of notice. For this reason, I would like to migrate all my uploaded files to the 4.0 version as far as time permits, but this would require an official OK for these licences in Wikipedia/Commons. Meanwhile, could a simple statement that, in addition to the rules of the actual licence, the licence termination is automatically cured under the rules of CC4 (or simply that the termination clause is entirely omitted for my works), help to avoid the legal runaway effects described above?-- SiriusB ( talk) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
We're looking for examples of how the unavailability of orphan works (works under copyright where the rightsholder is unknown or uncontactable) hurts the mission of the Wikimedia projects. Please see WP:VPM#Input wanted: orphan works. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Does it qualify as fair usage to website that host old computer manuals? It came with the product, which is no longer for sale, so no possible loss of revenue for them. I suggest we add a bit in the article to state that manuals for anything no longer being sold, are acceptable to link to. For manuals to things that are being sold, such as modern video games, then you still probably wouldn't have a problem, since people don't buy the games just to read the manuals, and anywhere you could download an illegal copy of a game would let you download the manual as well, so a site with nothing but manuals archived shouldn't be a problem. Any article talking about electronics would benefit those who are interested in such things and understand the tech side of them, by having a link to the manual that came with the product. Dream Focus 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pursuing a license grant on several photos. I see that a release listing a single license for images is acceptable (two for text). For simple, non-commercially viable photos like mine, which is suggested, GFDL or CC-by-sa-3.0? Also, the executive director of my organization is willing to grant such licenses, as they have published these photos previously. Can he do a combined release via e-mail to OTRS for a set of these? Or must he write a specific response e-mail for each one? Jax MN ( talk) 16:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just looking at an ITV press release webpage (here: [9]) where they provide a brief plot summary for an episode of Law & Order: UK. Above the summary they have written this: "The information contained herein is embargoed from press use, commercial and non-commercial reproduction and sharing - in the public domain - until Tuesday 30 July 2013." Now maybe I am just dumb, but it is not clear to me whether they are saying that after the date given that the text becomes public domain. Does anyone understand this better that I do? Also, if the text is in the public domain now, does that mean that the Wikipedia page with information about that episode can copy it verbatim? Any input is appreciated. 99.192.73.179 ( talk) 19:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_requested_for_ELNEVER_.22uses_the_work_in_a_way_compliant_with_fair_use.22. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
First, let me cite the relevant parts of LINKVIO and ELNEVER.
policy and guideline excerpts
|
---|
1. WP:LINKVIO Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content. However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ( Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [10]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use. 2. WP:ELNEVER For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.<ref>"In December 1999, for example, a U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah granted a preliminary injunction against a religious organization that maintained a Web site that established links to other sites containing material that infringed on the plaintiff's copyright. The court ruled that the links constituted "contributory infringement" and ordered them removed." ([http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyrightarticle/hypertextlinking American Library Association: Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues]) However, this remains a developing area of case law.</ref> If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. |
First, I am going to list, in bullet points, the key quotes relevant to my clarification request from the policies cited above:
Reading the above I believe that the primary purpose of those policies is to ensure we don't link to sites that engage in what is generally understood as piracy. The policy was intended to say that "in an article about a copyrighted work, don't link to it's torrent or such". Perfectly reasonable and understandable. But the question is - how far can we take it? In particular, I want to resolve the contradiction between the first two sentences of LINKVIO, "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" and the example that follows. It is clear that we should never link directly to a webpage that contains a copyvio'ed work, whatever the media. However, can we link to a relevant website, when we can be reasonably sure that at least a small portion of its contents are copyvio'ed? The thing is that virtually all websites, if we look hard enough, will have copyvio problems.
Consider the following example: even if a journalistic website uses content that can be argued is fair use, if it has a reader comments section that allows non-text media to be included, from avatars to embedded pictures, then it's almost certain that copyright will be violated - taken too far for fair use to rescue it. For example, User:Nikkimaria showed me recently that fair use does not allow for purely decorative use of works. Which means that any website that uses avatars or allows readers to post pictures is probably violating some copyrights. Examples? io9 portal, for example, allows for both ( [11] random article we use which I am sure in the readers comments at least violates fair use numerous times, [12] and we link to that website hundreds of time). And it's not like io9 is an exception; CNN allows registered readers to chose an avatar too. Worse, CNN for example has a "From around the web" section (see for example [13], another link chosen from [14]). Here, CNN links to headlines and images from other websites, which I think violates fair use as well (then there's also the commercial aspect). How about sites that have advertisements on them? It's certainly possible for an advertisement to violate copyrights (ex. [15]). Are we going to ban linking to all and any websites that carries advertisements? If we don't, we know that somewhere, someone will carry an ad that's a copyvio... All right, I hope this makes my point clear: on the modern Internet it is impossible not to violate copyrights. We (Wikipedia) do it, other websites do it even more. I think the cited policies should make it clear that we are not going to 1) link directly to COPYVIO'ed content, ex, torrents, files, listings of thereof and such and 2) sites that abet piracy (unless an article is about such a website), but are not restricting linking to websites that on some subpages run afoul of copyright as if we try to avoid that, we won't have any Internet to link to. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must have overlooked your specific proposal. Can you please pull out your specific proposal for changing this policy? The distinction between wikia and CNN is not solely related to which one can be used as a reference, although purpose and character is certainly part of it. It has to do globally with the tests of fair use - focusing in on "substantiality", a Wikia site that is dedicated to Pokemon runs the risk of substantially infringing the property. A CNN article that includes a tiny picture of a celebrity, considerably less so. Likewise, the Wikia site is more likely to have an effect upon the value of the property, where the tiny avatar (even multiple tiny avatars) almost certainly will not. The Pokemon wikia may supersede the original; the tiny avatar, not. These are all the kind of context considerations that should go into determining the usefulness of a link. The owners of the Pokemon property hold the rights to make derivative works of that intellectual content - for instance, they can and probably have licensed reference works. Reference works like a Pokemon Wikia may constitute fair use (reference works are generally encouraged), but they can lose that fair use defense if they appropriate too much of the creative content of the original. In terms of this particular issue, did you post at WP:ELN? That was what I suggested above. If not, that would be my suggested next step - to ask if specifically the link you want to include is permissible. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Are copyright usage limited to only the United States government, or other governments as well? Dark Liberty ( talk) 07:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Some time back, I remember seeing a discussion of lyrics-hosting sites that were compliant with their local copyright law. Does a page exist with a list of such sites? If so, we ought to link it from WP:COPYLINK (or at least say "See below for a list"), and if not, we ought to create one if possible. Nyttend ( talk) 21:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The website historylink [21] has a lot of good content about the History of Washington State, and I've noticed here and there that some of its content has been reused here. I had moved some of this content from an old Wikipedia to a new one and got speedy deleted for it - However, I go to the website and at the bottom see "This essay is licensed under a Creative Commons license that encourages reproduction with attribution" - so are we clear to reproduce content from here, or is that an infringement issue? Ego White Tray ( talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver ( talk) 20:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead section, Berne Convention is piped to a page that redirects back to it. User J. Dalek ( talk | contribs) 04:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the 3rd and 5th lines at the top:
...and...
...please be replaced with the following text, consecutively:
...and...
...? The changes to the hatnotes allow them to utilize the best possible existing hatnote template for their purpose, {{ Redirect3}}, rather than the generic {{ Hatnote}} (which, in this case, is actually {{ dablink}}, a redirect to {{ Hatnote}}). Steel1943 ( talk) 01:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Takingnotes21 ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)i would love to start source code on takingnotes21 Takingnotes21 ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Takingnotes21 ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I was told the following was copyright violation; but was wondering if it's because it was a press release or because too many words were similar.
"President Obama had picked up nicotine addiction in his late teens; though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007." [1]
The ref is no good for the biography, however that aside; is it because 2 facts from the same source were used; instead of just one? I'm wondering how many words need to be different from the source to constitute sufficient paraphrasing; blurry not clearly defined legal lines seem confusing to me. Bullets and Bracelets ( talk) 14:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Source text | Article text |
---|---|
Mr Obama, 49, has confessed to picking up the nicotine addiction in his late teens, though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007. | President Obama had picked up nicotine addiction in his late teens; though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007. |
The link to Jimbo's comment that "Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations" needs to have 'lists' substituted for 'mail'. 9carney ( talk) 22:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add to the policy on the following issue: If a source is copyrighted in one language, a translation into another language may be infringement, because it is under copyright law a derivative work requiring the copyright holder's permission, and that translation may not qualify as a paraphrasing, even though a close translation in either direction may show a proposed addition to Wikipedia as a paraphrasing. Even permission to use someone's work may not include permission to derive anything; I don't know whether permission to use and modify necessarily includes deriving. A safer solution may be to find a translation that has already been prepared in the desired ultimate language with the copyright holder's permission, paraphrase from that, and cite it. Generally, a translation using Google Translate or a similar service (by automation or human) does not qualify because it generally lacks the copyright holder's permission for the result, but possibly there's an argument that that's not true where, for example, a website provides a link to Google Translate for a visitor's use and the original-language content in question is on that site and under that site's owner's copyright. If you have a solution for cases where an intermediate translation is not available, please add that to this policy. I also don't know how copyright duration is calculated for a derivative made after the year of the original work's creation. This general subject is relevant to English Wikipedia for non-English sources and may be relevant for English sources because editors may be influenced by English Wikipedia policies when editing in other languages. Nick Levinson ( talk) 22:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to request an essay comparing Wikimedia Foundation's positions on copyright across its various projects and languages. Many of the Wikipedia pages are, at least by their terms, specific to Wikipedia or English Wikipedia. Some editors translate into various languages and edit other projects and tend to remember what we learned about the Foundation's positions from en-WP although that might not apply. On the other hand, it may be that what we learned is applicable; work being in another language generally does not alter which law applies. A table would probably be enough, so we can find needed links to policies, essays, FAQs, etc. The essay can be in English; it probably wouldn't be hard to translate it later. I'm not competent to write that essay. I don't see a place to request the creation of pages in nonmain namespaces, so I hope this is the right place. Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 22:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to include something about paid editors and works-for-hire. It should probably go in a paragraph before "You should never..." Something along the lines of
"Paid editors who insert text supplied by their employers must secure copyright permission to use the text and report it to OTRS. Other text inserted by paid editors will be assumed to be work-for-hire unless a release is secured."
Any comments appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
In any case the important section WP:COICOPYRIGHT of WP:COI now reads
permissions@wikimedia.org
). The release must include the name(s) of the author and copyright holder, and that the copyright holder has released the text under a free license."I'll ping a few editors that have contributed to this policy to see if we can get some input @ Piotrus, Moonriddengirl, and DGG: Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me try to come up with some simple text
permissions@wikimedia.org
) before the text is included in an article.permissions@wikimedia.org
), together with confirmation that they understand the text will be freely shared and modified. Alternatively the employer must confirm that they do not hold the copyright, and the release must be sent by the copyright holder.Carl, I'm not seeing what distinction you're drawing between images and text. I gave you an example of where I was asked to supply a release from the 13-year-old author, not from the author's mother, who had requested that he take the image. Similarly, we should make sure we are requesting releases from the authors of approved texts, because as things stand we don't know who wrote them. Some companies will allow the paid editor a free hand; others will want to exercise strict control.
We ought to make sure that the company's legal department has released the text, if they own it, and that the company understands the consequences of so doing.
Smallbones, this is a separate issue, but I wonder whether we ought to do spot checks of companies that have hired a paid editor, to avoid other Orangemoody situations. Perhaps a survey: were you approached by an editor and asked to pay; do you feel you got value for money; did you supply any text; were you asked to release it, etc. SarahSV (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
English Wikipedia includes dozens of pages which simply reproduce lists of top songs as compiled by other publications. For example, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1959, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1960, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1961, etc. The sources for the lists are owned by Billboard, and as our lists don't add any substantial original content (nor could they), our article must be a copyright violation, unless the original lists themselves aren't subject to copyright protection. Is there an existing consensus that these lists lack sufficient originality to benefit from copyright, or are we violating Billboard's copyright? Pburka ( talk) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been helping another editor, User:BaronBifford, on the new article Superman ownership disputes. He's done some excellent work using both book sources and old court decisions from decades ago, which are now freely available online. Since he's fairly new, essentially only on Wikipedia since September, he's asked me to see if an editor well-versed in copyright can look over the article and offer changes / corrections / suggestions. I'm not sure if this is the right forum to ask, but I figure it's a start. With thanks, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Does removing copyright infringements and links thereto constitute an exception to the three-revert rule? WP:3RRNO seems to state that it does. And if it does, would it be helpful to mention the exception on this policy page? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.235.101.205 ( talk) 05:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
By coincidence I have found a number (possibly hundreds) of product reviews (purportedly by an actual customer) of DVD's published on bol.com, a large, bonafide commercial website in The Netherlands, which appear to be machine translations of substantial sections of the English WP articles for the relevant films. All reviews are by the same user/customer, who seems to re-use WP content on a large scale. There is no attribution or reference to WP.
Though I think this is not the end of the world, I find it annoying, both as a WP editor and as a customer who keeps running into these fake product reviews. I also think it is illegal and misleading.
I am quite sure this is not the right page to discuss – but where can I take this issue? Is this something we act on? Superp ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Near the top of the page, the red box about emailing the Wikimedia Foundation mentions "your company or school or organization". I think that should be "your company, school, or organization". KSF T C 23:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found a grammar error (subject/verb agreement).
Change:
The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about is the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.
to:
The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.
(Emphasis added for clarity.)
Thanks, Discant X 06:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found a few very minor errors and unclear phrases.
In the red box near the top of the page, it says this:
"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations."
That means that they don't own copyright on both, but they could on one. I think it should be this:
"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations."
(emphasis added)
The paragraph under that box says this:
"such text will be identified either on the page footer, in the page history or the discussion page of the article"
That sentence uses "either" with three items, which is confusing, and it doesn't use a serial comma, which makes it ambiguous. I would write it like this:
"such text will be identified on the page footer, in the page history, or on the discussion page of the article"
The next sentence says this:
"Every image has a description page which indicates the license under which it is released"
Either there should be a comma before that "which" or it should be replaced by "that". I think the latter is better.
KSF T C 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about the articles recent expansion, included images uploaded as own work example of such. I was wondering, I have just posted on the articles talkpage, could someone with a better understanding of the process throw some light on the ins-and-outs. Thanks for your time. Murry1975 ( talk) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section: 3.1 Reusers' rights and obligations; Sub-section: Licensing notice
Original text: "Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text "
Change Request: Shouldn't "... CC BY-SA and either..." be changed to "... CC BY-SA by either..."? where, "and" is replaced with "by"; the present form does not appear to make much sense.
Regards, AhmadF.Cheema ( talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tosifafaqi ( talk) 12:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The "Important note" at the top of the page on a pink background is almost entirely unreadable on a mobile device in portrait orientation, at least this one*. The box it is in is just one character wide
What it looks like on the device in question
|
---|
a n d l o o k s l i k e t h i s : I m p o r t a n t n o t e : T h e W i k i m e d i a F o u n d a t i o n d o e s n o t o w n c o p y r i g h t o n W i k i p e d i a a r t i c l e t e x t s o r i l l u s t r a t i o n s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e p o i n t l e s s |
... to continue this sample any further. This is true whether I choose the mobile or the desktop version.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 04:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I have checked out a few of the passport stamps pictured at passport stamp and Gallery of passport stamps by country or territory and in each case the uploader has claimed the right to release them under CC BY-SA. Surely the copyright to a passport stamp is held by the issuing authority, not someone who has scanned it from a passport? Sorry if this is the wrong place to be asking but I'm not prepared to go through the process of tagging hundreds of files for WP:FFD. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 11:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
An academic I know contacted me to ask if a colleague can paste their own lecture notes into an article or articles on geology. If the notes have not been published anywhere, obviously this is not an issue. However, the notes have been placed online -- presumably at their academic institution -- and so may have an explicit or implicit copyright notice. In that case I assume an OTRS ticket would have to be opened to get permission. If there's no copyright notice, is there an issue? And what about plagiarism -- clearly we are fine with the academic re-using their own words without rephrasing, but is it going to appear to be plagiarism, and how can that be addressed so others don't remove that text once they find where it comes from? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I would like to know what is the policy concerning copyright to the former Wikipedia articles that were deleted after a nomination to AfD and disucussion. Does the text written by a user keep being "licensed to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL", after the deletion, or do the copyrights return to the original author as they are no longer Wikipedia content. In other words, are other people licenced to re-use the text originally written to Wikipedia and republish it elsewherem even after it has been permanently deleted from Wikipedia, or not? Please be kind to show links to specific regulations, if possible, while answering. I am not able to find this information in all the legal stuff I was looking through. Thank you. noychoH ( talk) 20:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I commented out a use of the logo of The Simpsons, File:Logo The Simpsons.svg, used on a talk page for humorous effect, as an impermissible use of a non-free work. This was reverted, presumably in good faith (though by an editor who acts in opposition to me on every single encounter; good-faith or not, I think it was a knee-jerk reaction and ill-considered). The image file is hosted here on WP, not Commons, and has a trademark template on it. It also claims a public-domain copyright template, but I believe this is erroneous, because a) it is not simply plain text, but a creative logo, and is thus almost certainly covered by copyright, even if the font used in it were a publicly available one (it's colored, bordered, canted, etc.), and b) even aside from that, it's not actually a font at all, but Matt Groening's handwriting adapted into a logo, which almost certainly makes it a copyrighted creative work from the start.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I posted a question about copyright at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Why_is_the_copyright_license_described_in_two_different_ways.3F. I am feeling unsure and seeking a few more comments. Thanks for anyone who can help. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
In the U.S., are historical markers (on public land) something that can be copyrighted? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Photos of ones made by the state or Georgia or the Georgia Historical Society are OK to use. I asked for permission and that is going through OTRS on Wikimedia right now. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I want to include an info box into the majority.fm article, best with the logo image included. Now, how do I manage that? Do I ask the folks at http://majority.fm if they agree to release the icon under one of the wikipedia acceptable terms? Starting with the ones that leave the most rights to them? If so, are there templates or howtos how to do so? Since I don't have the time to read all through all possible terms for such images and break them down into a few words short enough for them to read but still correct enough not to misrepresent the term(s)... -- Rava77 ( talk) 12:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────┘
Okay, thanks. I never uploaded anything to wikipedia, nor to commons. I tried to figure out how to do so with using the template by reading the info on the template {{Template:PD-logo}} but to no prevail... Mind giving me a shove to the right direction? Cheers, --
Rava77 (
talk) 21:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
And Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights currently states:The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.
The last RfC on whether or not the English Wikipedia should host such content was 4.5 years ago and was closed with no consensus for the status quo, and no consensus for change. Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)It is longstanding Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. What this means in practice is determined case by case, bearing in mind the goal of being able to freely distribute Wikipedia in the country an incorporated work originates from.
The case-by-case basis is what is in question here. I understand that the US does not recognize these images but I have a problem with the idea that anyone can grab any image they want that was produced in Iran (or any of those other countries) and use it freely to their heart's content. All that does is quash any desire for the legitimate release of images under a truly free license that can be used across all projects. Not to mention that the image that caused this whole RfC is only being used in a way that does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article in any determinable way. Also, if we do allow such things there needs to be a category for these images. If the US ever does restore copyright relations with these countries, see URAA and bilateral copyright agreements of the United States, then every image that is hosted this way needs to be immediately deleted. -- Majora ( talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest pinging WMF legal. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. Copyright is defined by national laws; in most countries, foreign copyright is based on reciprocity. The countries that don't have copyright relations with the US don't have copyright relations with most (if any) other countries. Therefore, the works from those countries are free of copyright in most countries. This is similar to the situation with freedom of panorama. Most countries do not allow freedom of panorama ( see Commons) and several only allow it for non-commercial purposes. However, since US law allows FoP for buildings, even for commercial purposes, we allow images of copyrighted buildings in countries without FoP ( example). The copyright policy on Commons--that a work must be free in both the US and country of origin--is in contrast to the policy of considering only US copyright on Wikipedia ( Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights).
I agree that images, such as the Isfahan metro photo (per Flagfox, the server hosting it is located in Iran), from countries without copyright relations with the US should be tagged with a copyright template that allows them to be identified and removed if they become copyrighted in the future if the country of publication joins the Berne Convention. No such copyright template presently exists for Iran. AHeneen ( talk) 17:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I would need to spend time to look up where he suggested it, but Jimbo did say that we shoukd treat works from these non binding countries as if they were copyrighted, and thus subject to hosting and usage as any other copyrighted image as defined under NFC. --
MASEM (
t) 08:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: I notified everyone who participated in the 2012 RfC with the following message:
Extended content
|
---|
Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US Hello, There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. --signature |
- AHeneen ( talk) 21:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The WMF policy (
wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy), mentioned among the oppose votes, reads in relevant part: All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.
(emphasis added). The
Definition of Free Cultural Works includes: In order to be considered free, a work must be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status must provide the same essential freedoms enumerated above.
(emphasis added). As I mention in previous comments, copyright for foreign works is based on reciprocity; as such, works first published in countries that are not a party to the Berne Convention and not published within a certain time (eg. 30 days under US copyright law) in a country that is a member are not copyrighted in Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states). Such content is free of copyright in the US and 7/8ths of the world and should not be considered non-free content, which several of the opposing voters mention.
All projects must adhere to U.S. laws (because of the location of WMF servers and the place of incorporation of the WMF), but the choice of other applicable law is
a project-by-project decision. The current choice of applicable law is found in the lead at
Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights: While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries.
Concerns about the reusability of such content are misfounded. As I mention above, we already allow images of buildings that are copyrighted in the origin country but that are free of the building's copyright in the U.S. under the freedom of panorama copyright exception (see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama). But the even greater issue is the inclusion of non-free content, based on the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. While similar exceptions can be found in the copyright laws of other countries (see Fair dealing#By country and Fair use#Influence internationally), such exceptions are far from universal. In the EU, member states can pick among 22 permissible copyright exceptions, but many countries have very restrictive exceptions. So an image that meets our NFC criteria and satisfies US fair use and UK fair dealing standards probably won't be free to use in France (which has few exceptions). In this way, Wikipedia content already is limited in its reusability, much more so than content that is free of copyright because the origin country is not a Berne Convention member state. Concerns about the future usability of files from non-members join the Berne Convention and images become copyrighted can easily be addressed by creating appropriate copyright templates. AHeneen ( talk) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to "Copyright violations" if there is no other content present, tag the page with {{ db-copyvio}} UpsandDowns1234 05:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 10:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Currently, {{ PD-US-1923}} redirects to {{ PD-US}}, a generic template that usually means it was published before 1923, but not always. On Commons, they are separate templates, and {{ PD-US}} is basically a disambiguation template. This helps ensure the rationale for why something is in the public domain is clear on the file description pages. Should we do the same here? This would involve splitting off {{ PD-US-1923}} into its own template and then going through {{ PD-US}} to determine what should be moved over (and also what should have a different licensing template or possibly be deleted). This can be expedited quite a bit by a bot searching for a "date" parameter that is before 1923. This would create something of a backlog, but it wouldn't be high-urgency and it would at least encourage better documentation going forward. Thoughts? ~ Rob13 Talk 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a couple Wikimania presentations that are relevant to the file process on enwiki. They are currently proposals. If you may attend Wikimania and would be interested in attending these presentations, feel free to indicate as such on the proposal pages. If anyone wants more information about these, leave me a talk page message.
I'd also definitely appreciate feedback on the Copyright for Dummies slides; if you see something that could make them more effective or something missing, let me know. Thanks! ~ Rob13 Talk 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add "WP:CONFIRMED" to the "WP:C redirects here" at the top of the page. UpsandDowns1234 ( Talk to me) ( My Contribs) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On an iPhone, in portrait view, the important note is collapsed to the left. Also, there is a typo at "You may request the material be removed...you may request the page be immediately removed...". Please fix this.
UpsandDowns1234 (
🗨) (
My Contribs) 18:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi - copyvio is not an area I am very familiar with, so please go easy with me if I am very off-piste. this image is of the crest of a house in Wilson's School#Houses. As you will see from the article, each of the 6 houses has a crest image in the article, in a rather ugly table. And each seems to have been contributed by the same editor Ricagambeda ( talk · contribs) and are annotated to say he is the copyright holder. But they also seemed to have been designed by someone else - a J Shaw. I would have thought that such crest images would be owned by the school itself rather than an individual. Also most of these crests are likely to be quite old and therefore may be out of copyright? Are these copyvios or not? I ask the experts. CalzGuy ( talk) 10:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion about uploading acceptable non-free images of deceased persons at WT:NFC. I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:cc-by-sa, currently a redirect to Template:cc-by-sa-1.0, has been nominated at RfD. The discussion would significantly benefit from the participation of those with knowledge of media copyrights and licensing issues. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The box at the top currently says: "It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images; even if rules at your company, school, or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content."
Please change the incorrect semi-colon (marked) to a comma. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What the policy says: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.
In general, the absolutist approach to copyrights in this policy is (IMO) the correct choice. However, on this very narrow point, I think that this statement is wrong, because we accept links under two significant circumstances:
I think we should consider clarifying this somehow (possibly not directly in this policy). What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
(Also posted in blocking) I recently created an article that in the opinion of another editor was a breach of copyright. Perhaps it was ... but I had a good reason in my own mind and felt it was fair use ... which is a separate point. Point is I did it in good faith, please take my word for it. Then one day I got this message, threatening blocking:
It felt unpleasant. If someone can give some thought to how we can be a bit more pleasant to each other would be good. Supcmd ( talk) 22:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
At Milkshake Duck, a meme started by a Twitter message (as well-documented in sources), it would seem to make sense to include the attributable Twitter message in full since the joke is partially based on how the text message was given. Technically this is the "whole work" if we're talking fair use issues, but it's also a tiny work and one that makes no sense to try to quote only part of (we can paraphrase though). Is it reasonable that as long as we include all relevant citations to include the full <=140 character Twitter message? -- MASEM ( t) 16:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a great article in its own right imho but could someone clarify two things, both under: Linking to copyrighted works please?
if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright
Should this read "or could reasonably suspect"?
linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use
If there is fair use, eg of a still from a movie, then isn't that a general position?
I am also confused as to why eg. citing words published in hard copy seems to be treated materially differently to citing eg. a clip from a movie. Are all creative works equal but some more equal than others? And should that for instance have been written with quotes and a citation reference approved by the author/publisher etc? I find it difficult to wrap my head around these apparent differences.
LookingGlass ( talk) 16:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use.
Please see my thread at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#ArbCom cases and attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Either "an" or "the" is missing in the lead, after the pink box, in the second paragraph, in the third sentence, in "Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license", before the penultimate word. License is a count noun, not a mass noun. I'm not an admin. Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 01:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Important note" with a pink background has its style set with margin-right:20em
but no min-width
. On a narrow screen, such as a mobile phone in portrait mode, this squeezes the box into a single-character column, which is impossible to read. Please add min-width: 20em
(or smaller, but not too small) to make it legible in such a situation.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
This journal article substantially duplicates a large amount of text from Wikipedia's amphetamine article without attribution, substantially duplicates 2 paragraphs of text from Wikipedia's Adderall article without attribution, and reused 2 images that I drew, uploaded to Commons ( [22] [23]), and published under CC-BY-SA-3.0, also without attribution.
Just to illustrate the extent of this issue, I've highlighted all of the sentences from the Wikipedia article and this journal article that are virtually identical in these pdfs: Amphetamine article (March 5 revision); journal article (March 10 submission date) (NB: orange highlighted text is copied from amphetamine; light blue highlighted text is copied from Adderall#Mechanism of action). Alternatively, see the results from the Earwig copyvio detector.
I'm not really sure how to provide an appropriate notice of copyright infringement in this context since the OMICS Publishing Group doesn't have a webpage dedicated to copyright issues. As far as I can tell, this contact page and the emails/phone numbers listed on that page appear to be the only means of communication with the publisher. Also, none of the model letters listed in Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter seem to apply in this context because this was published in an academic journal. Anyone have any advice? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 14:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
Psychostimulant addiction}}
into the lisdexamfetamine article (see
Special:diff/797902889/797906870). When viewing older revisions of the lisdexamfetamine article, it will show that figure as being a part of the article because it's being transcluded in from the current revision of the amphetamine article. In other words, at the time the journal article was published, only 1 of my diagrams was displayed in the lisdexamfetamine article. Even so, the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requires that a content creator be attributed unless waived by the licensor/creator (see the
Creative Commons FAQ for attribution) and the url where the content is hosted be specified if reasonable; consequently, citing the lisdexamfetamine article as an indirect citation to my figures isn't adequate at the very least because I didn't waive that right and I wasn't attributed. Moreover, several sections that were copied from the amphetamine and Adderall articles into the journal article are not transcluded into the lisdexamfetamine article (e.g., the text that was copied from
Amphetamine#History, society, and culture,
Amphetamine#Chemistry, and
Adderall#Mechanism_of_action).@ Crow: Roughly 12 hours after I emailed copyright@researchgate.net, they responded to me via email notifying me that they'd removed the offending content which I had specified in my email to them. They removed the pdf and HTML versions of the full text article on their website and all of the images from the article's figure preview page, even though only 2 of the 4 images violated my copyright. This is the pdf file from ResearchGate (NB: I'm hosting this file externally) that used to be available for direct download through this link, which now simply redirects to the article abstract on ResearchGate. The abstract contains no material that infringes upon copyrighted content from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons; I assume this is why they left that intact.
These are the urls that I indicated as containing material which violates my copyright in my email to ResearchGate
|
---|
|
I have yet to receive a response from OMICS. I'm going to wait a few days before sending a follow-up notice via email to contact.omics@omicsonline.org [nb 1] and request that they reply with information about how they intend to rectify the situation; if I receive no response to that email after exactly 1 week, I'm going to send a cease and desist notice. If even that doesn't elicit a response, I'm going to follow-up with a DMCA takedown notice roughly a week later. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear [redacted name]
We informed the mistakes in the pdf to author and he had done the corrections, once we receive the final corrected pdf we will update it online
Feel free to contact us for any further queries
With thanks,
Rezina
References
contact.omics@omicsonline.org
in my original email to OMICS. In my subsequent emails to them, I intend to add medical@omicsonline.com
(the contact address for medical journal content), contact.americas@omicsonline.org
(the contact address for "OMICS International Journals"), and contact.asiapacific@omicsonline.org
(the contact address for the world headquarters). Since the OMICS contact page doesn't include any email for copyright-related issues, I'm including every email address that is listed on the contact page which includes the journal in which the article was published within their scope.
The educational blog at Jokpeme has plagiarised the Wikipedia article Habitat without attribution. I know this because I wrote most of the article and took it to GAN. I was alerted to the blog when yesterday somebody added some information to the article that they had copied verbatim from the blog. Can this blogger, William Watson, be encouraged to acknowledge the source of his material? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This sentence: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely."
, in "Using copyrighted works from others", does IMHO not make sense, but has still been there since at least 2010 (which is as far back as I looked). Reading an encyclopaedia is legal even if there are copyvios in it, it's adding the copyrighted material, and keeping it in the encyclopaedia, that isn't legal. So the text should, again IMHO, say that it is legal to write about ideas, and describe copyrighted works of art, as long as editors use their own words when doing it, and don't follow the source too closely. - Tom |
Thomas.W
talk 15:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, the paragraph "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time." has been interpreted in one case as meaning "If you can't link to a current page because it contains a copyright violation, you can link to an archived copy instead".
That's clearly wrong. so I propose adding to the second sentence so that it reads "It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time (providing the original webpage does not itself contain a copyright violation)."
Any thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Where can I request an upload? I had an account that I lost the password to, but have no desire to create a new account? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question. 146.229.240.200 ( talk) 06:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we please add to WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER something like: "Non-open-access journals generally permit authors to make a pre-publication version of a paper available in many ways, sometimes with an embargo; many such journals do not give authors the right to make published versions of papers available anywhere - not even on their faculty websites. Linking to such published papers may be contributory copyright infringement and you should check the publisher's policy on authors' permission to post articles before linking."
Something like that. Folks have been using OAbot to add links to supposedly OA instances of published papers and I have been finding way too many links to published papers on academic websites, published by journals that do not allow this, as was done in this diff. Jytdog ( talk) 04:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
(and similarly for many other funders, many of them listed at [26], which are acceptable also , though the effective year of the policy varies.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_and_copyright_law. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I asked the owner of these websites about how he's handled copyrights. The response isn't remotely what I was expecting. He's definitely claiming he has the copyright for at least some of the manuals such as [27]. I'd like to have someone experienced with our copyright policy to ask him more specific questions so we can determine which, if any, of his manuals are appropriate as links. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
In the WP:COPYLINK section Contributory infringement points to a disambiguation page, it should point to Contributory copyright infringement. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Can we add a link to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources somewhere on this page? It explains a number of relevant copyright issues, and includes links to more detailed pages like Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia that readers of Wikipedia:Copyrights might be looking for. Daask ( talk) 20:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
By way of experiment, I put the article Sea urchin into Earwig's tool and it came up with a copyvio, a paragraph inserted in the article on 28 October 2008. Having found this violation, I thought I had better remove it and have now requested a rev-del, but that covers a vast number of revisions. If one searched diligently for copyvios, one might end up with large numbers of important articles being affected and needing rev-dels. Is that desirable? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 21:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Assault-on-Asilah.JPG asserts public domain because the tapestry is from 1471 (although, elsewhere on the page, it says 1852). But, this looks like a photograph of the original tapestry. Doesn't the photograph have its own copyright? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
A lot of articles about newer national anthems (e.g. National anthem of Mauritania, whose author is alive and well) have large quantities of copyrighted lyrics (and audio files), including multiple translations and unused verses. Is there some sort of exception for these or are they liberally abusing WP:NFCC? Jc86035 ( talk) 08:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Assistance is requested at User_talk:Neuroforever#Photographs_of_wax_works, the talk page of a good-faith user who has added his photographs of statutes in wax museums. The user has posed a question there which would best be answered by someone from this project. Thank you. Kablammo ( talk)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the redirect template for "C", I suggest that you should also list "C-class articles" as one of the options. I was trying to go there, and I got here. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the existence and notional use of Template:AHD-CC kosher? I was not under the impression that CC By SA 3.0 was compatible with CC By 4.0. -- Izno ( talk) 19:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Copyrights has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per WP:ORDER hatnote should be placed above the tag policy notice. I think the shortcut in the hatnote is redundant, you can copy paste the source code for the hatnote below:
{{Redirect-for|WP:C|Wikipedia:Consensus|Wikipedia:Civility|Wikipedia:Categorization|Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries|Wikipedia:WikiProject Council|Wikipedia:C-class}}
{{Redirect-for|WP:COPY|Wikipedia:Copyright problems|Wikipedia:Basic copyediting|Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia}}
Hddty. ( talk) 08:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)#Image use policy. I did not directly perform the cleanup I've called for, because it's conceivable there's a valid fair-use rationale. I'm not a US intellectual property attorney, after all, nor a copyright-policy-enforcement admin, so some consensus discussion might be in order before such a major change. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 4#Template:Trademark (seems to have a dubious use case on this wiki, even if it may serve some purpose on Commons). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
A new user, Artistscolony, has created a draft article on an American painter, Draft:John Thomas Andrew. The draft as created asserted a claim of copyright. I blanked that claim and the related text. I suppose Wikipedia could stand on the waiver in the edit box and strike the claim, but if the author would prefer not to have the text in the public domain the draft in the edit history could be oversighted. I will notify the new user of this discussion. Kablammo ( talk) 02:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if a user is allowed to send a screenshot of an image on my user talk page in order to clarify a certain factual detail, or if that would violate the image use policy (which I am not too familiar with). You can take a look at the bottom of my talk page for specifics. Thank you. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Appears to have been resolved since post and reply were deleted.
|
---|
Andy Prada Born in May 26, 1992 focused on innovation from the initial beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyprada ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
|
I looked at a MoS info, at WP:Copy-paste. While reading there it says to raise a concern on here or else where. (I might of been running in circles in the past hour. Where to put the concern at.) So, on the page/ article, I saw the episode summaries that was copied from Crunchyroll at this; t.v. show's web-site as you press the individual episode, it was almost the same episode summary from that web-site. While on this I took the info out. Then the user has some history on my talk page about occasional messages about writting an episode summary. On here and this next edit. But my reasoning is that, I'll be late to a job. If I did. As I have some memory issues. Tainted-wingsz ( talk) 03:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)