Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Android79 (talk | contribs)
10,494 edits
PDH (talk | contribs)
52,166 edits
→July 11: del resolved
Line 224: Line 224:
:::::*Could you update us on what is going on with this page. From the large number of deleted edits can I assume the copyvio has been dealt with?--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 09:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::*Could you update us on what is going on with this page. From the large number of deleted edits can I assume the copyvio has been dealt with?--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 09:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::*[[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] blocked this user for 24 hours for "''impersonating another user, personal attacks, and general disruption''" and he hasn't been heard from since. The user impersonated was [[User:Anon]]. The attacks and disruption were a heated debate about claimed ownership of the copyright on [[William Heyen]]. [[User:Bovlb|Bovlb]] 13:57:38, 2005-07-21 (UTC)
::::::*[[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] blocked this user for 24 hours for "''impersonating another user, personal attacks, and general disruption''" and he hasn't been heard from since. The user impersonated was [[User:Anon]]. The attacks and disruption were a heated debate about claimed ownership of the copyright on [[William Heyen]]. [[User:Bovlb|Bovlb]] 13:57:38, 2005-07-21 (UTC)

*[[:Image:Circle Line map, Singapore.gif]] from [http://www.lta.gov.sg/projects/images/ccl_map.gif] at [http://www.lta.gov.sg/projects/index_proj_ccl.htm]. The website [http://www.lta.gov.sg/home/home_conditions.htm says] they might modify the content as they wish (well...something on similar lines). I think the uploader misunderstood that to mean we could copy/modify/redistribute the content as we wish. -- [[User:Paddu|Paddu]] 20:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[:Image:Singapore Vanda Miss Joaquim.gif]] from [http://www.sg/explore/symbols_nationalflower.htm] and [[:Image:Singapore lion head symbol.gif]] from [http://www.sg/explore/symbols_lionhead.htm] -- are these fair use? -- [[User:Paddu|Paddu]] 20:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Evangelical Press Association]] from [http://www.epassoc.org/about_epa.html]. [[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch{{unicode|′}}]]{{unicode|↔}}[[User_talk:Sasquatch|Talk]]{{unicode|↔}}[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|Contributions]] 22:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Talk page indicates that the copyright owner created the article. [[User:RedWolf|RedWolf]] 03:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


====July 12====
====July 12====

Revision as of 04:28, 22 July 2005

Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates
WP:CP does not stand for Wikipedia:Community Portal.

This page is intended for listing and discussing copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.

For requesting copyright examination before including questionable content to a Wikipedia article use Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations instead.

Notice to copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may choose to raise the issue using Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

On the other hand, if you see an article somewhere else which you believe was copied from the Wikipedia without attribution, visit the GFDL compliance page or meta:Non-compliant site coordination.

Instructions

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, be sure to follow the instructions in the "Copyright infringement notice" section below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made. Add new reports under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. .

See also: Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, Wikipedia:Fair use

Actions to take for text

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following: 

{{copyvio|url=''place URL of allegedly copied material here''}}~~~~

Where you replace "place URL of allegedly copied material here" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. For example:

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Optionally, add template:nothanks to the article creator's talk page, to notify them of the problems with posting copyrighted material to wikipedia.

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page: 

{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image here>}}~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Finally, do not forget to add a note to the uploader's talk page to notify them that the image's copyright status is murky and it has been listed here.

In addition

In addition to nominating potential copyright violations for deletion, you could:

  • Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own: This can be done on a temp page, so that the original "copyvio version" may be deleted by a sysop. Temp versions should be written at a page like: [[PAGE NAME/temp]]. If the original turns out to be not a copyvio, these two can be merged.
  • Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!).
  • Ask for permission - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

Instructions for special cases

  • Category:Unfree images: These may be listed, if they indeed are not available under a free license or a reasonable fair use rationale. Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses.
These images are available for use on the Wikipedia web site, but are not released under the GFDL. According to Jimbo Wales, we cannot use images that are not GFDL and are not usable under a fair use rationale [1]. Images from these categories may be listed here, but be sure that the image is not also available under a free license, and that a fair use claim cannot be made.
From the mailing list:
As of today, all *new* images which are *non commercial only* and *with permission only* should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use". (Jimbo) :Full Email, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
See also this followup: [2]

Older than 7 days

Below are articles and images that have been listed here for longer than a week, but have not yet been dealt with for specific reasons.

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

When you originally report a suspected copyright violation, do not add it here, but at the very bottom of this page (under the heading for today's date). Typically, the issue will be resolved within the usual seven days. This section is intended for cases where a second opinion is needed, or where someone should follow-up by e-mail, and which thus need a little more time.

Fair use claims needing a second opinion

Dispute: Its a mere system map, which I uploaded out of convenience. There is basically no creative effort in the map whatsoever, especially since its schematic, with no cartological precision. I could basically duplicate it on memory on a piece of paper or using gimp/mspaint/etc. and it would look just as good, except it would be tedious to duplicate all 50+ stations mentioned. Is a non creative work eligible for copyright? I hardly think its intellectual property. -- Natalinasmpf 20:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The LTA may well think otherwise! Transport for London charges quite handsomely for the rights to reproduce its system map... Physchim62 20:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting information from Physchim62. I feel that fair use or fair dealing should apply here. The image is created for disseminating information. Fair use still protects the copyright holder, in case wikipedia go commercial in future, (hope not). Vsion 22:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. A schematic map does have creative effort put into it, more so than a more accurate map. As such, it is very definitely covered by copyright. --Carnildo 23:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a tourist map complete with illustrations, then yes. The LTA map is pretty simplistic, only tedious and repetitive - nothing creative. I could basically reproduce it manually myself, since its just the order of the stations, with my own colour scheme, except it would take say, 15-30 minutes to add every station. It becomes purely a mathematical thing, nothing creative. -- Natalinasmpf 18:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carnildo that schematic maps have creative effort, but let's not forget that it only needs the slightest creative effort to trigger copyright. The system map in its present form could not just be created from a mathematical function of the positions of the stations. It's copyright, and if the LTA don't want to let us use it under GNU then there's nothing we can do. Physchim62 17:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until someone contacts the LTA and clarifies the matter, the image should not be used. If someone wants to reproduce it (tediously) by hand, they're certainly welcome to. Alex.tan 02:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is NOT fair use. It CANNOT be fair use. It is on a server in Singapore and therefore the copyright law of Singapore applies as well as the copyright law of the United States. The copyright law of Singapore is based on British principles, modified by local acts after independence. British law does not have fair use, it has the much more restricted fair dealing. In order to use pictures downloaded from foreign servers people getting those pictures MUST obey the copyright laws of the nation where the server is physically located. David Newton 17:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dead wrong - we go by the copyright laws of America. Say America had no copyright, Singapore will do what to the American Wikipedia since no American laws were violated? Nothing, it has no duristiction as to the copyright laws (or any other laws) in another country.


Since this image is designed for public consumption, is publically available I say fair use is more than satisified under the Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair_use going by the United States Copyright Act of 1976 thus I say keep via fairuse, although I am open to reducing the resolution by some factor to push it more firmly into the center of fair use territory. --ShaunMacPherson 22:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ShaunMacPherson, please refrain from trying to "reason out" legal concerns. This is not something which can be dealt with in that manner. Either you know the case law involved or you don't. If you are going to contribute your own opinion, then you should at least know what international treaties bear on the problem, and how previous cases have been decided. Without that information your hypothetical is simply not useful. What's more is the damage that such an attitude could do to WP. For example, if a country feels that WP is explicitly ignoring their IP laws, they might require local ISPs to block access to it. I don't think a subway map is worth that, do you? -Harmil 14:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ShaunMacPherson, you very adequately describe your own opinion there. You are dead wrong, and citing American copyright law does nothing to alter that fact. The server is located in SINGAPORE. It is therefore the copyright law of SINGAPORE that applies to the images on the server.
Judging by the university that you graduated from, you may very well live in Canada. If you do, then it is Canadian copyright law that applies to you.
The Wikipedia itself is located in the United States. It is thus the copyright law of the United States that the Wikipedia itself is governed under.
I am located in the United Kingdom. It is thus British copyright law that governs me.
Hypothetically, let's say I was the one who had uploaded that image. I would have violated the copyright law of Singapore by using the image otherwise than that law dictates. To quote from the terms and conditions of the website, "By accessing this website and/or using the services offered through this website, you agree that Singapore law (including without limitation, the provision of the Evidence Act (Cap. 97) and the Electronic Transactions Act (No 25. of 1998) shall govern such access and the provision of such services and you agree to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts." Merely accessing the website after reading the terms and conditions means that you are bound to obey the laws of Singapore. So, if I had downloaded the image to my own PC, I would also be bound by British copyright law, and its fair dealing copyright exceptions, due to my physical location. Nowhere in those does it allow the reproduction of images for the purposes the uploader clearly intends for that image. The copyright law of the United States may also not be a defence. Claiming fair use is not a carte blanche to use the image as some assert. Besides, as I have already demonstrated, fair use CANNOT be claimed for images off websites where the servers are located outside of the United States where those images fall under copyright with all rights reserved or similar.
For public domain images outside the United States, or images outside the United States under copyleft licences it is an entirely different position. We are not talking about that here. We are talking about a copyrighted image the use of which, without the written permission of the copyright holder, violates the copyright law of Singapore, and possibly the copyright law of the country the person who uploaded the image comes from. David Newton 18:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Technetium.jpg in article Technetium. The source cited is online, but the picture looks to me like the one in the "Life Science Library" series book Matter. Either way, it is not clear to me that the fair use claim is justified. -- Dominus 12:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Hopefully these images fall under fair use but I listed here because I am not sure and this and the following image seems to fall into a grey area. Jtkiefer July 5, 2005 23:27 (UTC)
Does the plot-summary contain direct quotations from the book? Not that I can see. If it doesn't then there is no copyright problem to worry about. Since its source is acknowledged we don't need to worry about plagiarism either. David Newton 18:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that this is a derivitve work, and that the degree of "suubstantiality" in the amount of the work based on the original takes it outside of fair use. Of course I incline to think it should be deleted for otehr reasons, but that is up to VfD. DES 18:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at its current Vfd several people have referred to situations where very similar large summaries got sued. As it is, I could easily read this to know exactly what's what without ever buying the book! This matter deserves discussion (preferably on the Copyright Problems talk page) as we really need a definitive answer for future purposes. GarrettTalk 02:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These need a thorough check for online sources, and if none are found, a check for offline sources.

Additionally, the user responsible for this suspected copyvio is also behind a proven copyvio in the Manuel Marulanda / Manuel Marulanda Velez articles.Juancarlos2004 2 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

Others

FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2005 - this compilation of opinion is the property of FHM-US. RickK 06:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

    • How is this different than any other similar list, many of which are also the basis for a Wikipedia article? MK2 04:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this one. More opinions needed. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • FHM had creative input into the list, both in ordering and selection. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service#Implications. —Korath (IANAL) 12:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • FHM actually had no input on the ordering or selection. Both are the result of a reader poll. FHM's editorial content would be the selection of the pictures and text which accompanied the poll results and neither is included in the Wikipedia article. MK2 00:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a fascinating dillemma. On the one hand, I can't see why this list couldn't be copyrighted. On the other hand, we list the Oscar winners and runner-ups, and the Nobel Prize winners and nominees, which are essentially the same thing. I can't imagine it would be a problem to say "She was listed as one of FHM's sexiest women of 2005" in each woman's article, so why would it be a problem to list them in one article? I'd tend to vote keep, but if a lawyer wants to chime in, we'd all be obliged. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • 100 Greatest Cartoons - from [4] - intellectual property of Channel 4. RickK 00:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I question that a straight list can be copyrighted Burgundavia 03:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • See above. —Korath (Talk) 18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as we don't seem to be reaching a consensus here, I've raised this issue at the Village Pump. MK2 15:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korath that the FHM list is copyright as the "creative input" of the author(s) is non-zero. The list would have sui generis protection in other jurisdictions even if it were not copyright in the US. Physchim62 18:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that a reader's poll (with just the result list, no pictures, writing, etc.) has "creative input" from the magazine. I don't understand how either of these lists are copyrightable, where is the creative work by FHM or Channel4? They are both just results of readers polls.--Duk 15:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine chose to use to poll however. Superm401 | Talk 01:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a list like this is not copyrightable. I ask you to consider the following analogy: Some organizers had a sort of a contest. The results were made known, along with a a lot of interesting detail concerning the contestants and the contest itself. Later, a second party posted the rankings of the contestants. Did the second party violate the first party's rights in any way?
ExampleOrganizersContestMethod2nd Party
1Major League BaseballBaseball team standingsPlayed a bunch of gamesNewspaper Sports page
2FHMSexiest women rankingsAsked a bunch of peopleWikipedia
Why is example 2 any different than example 1?
However, that the New York Times disagrees with me. They have pursued action against other publications that have re-published their best-seller list. For example, they went after www.amazon.com [5] for using the New York Times bestseller list as a basis for providing purchase incentives (books on the lsit were to be discounted). This was quickly settled [6] with Amazon agreeing to certain terms, including; listing the books alphabetically instead of in-order, and sharing sales information with the New York Times. Since this didn't make it to a legal ruling, it does not set a legal precedent. Maybe someone can find an example that did go to court? Johntex 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New listings

June 3

  • House Ordos from several places. It isn't a complete copy but sopme sections are direct copies from places like this or this and here. Content minus copyvio should be moved to temp and the article deleted to remove the vio from the history. This link is Broken 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


June 21




July 9

July 11

  • This entry was deleted by 64.241.37.140 with no comment. The article is now a rather curiously-phrased request for speedy deletion. I am restoring this because I think it merits keeping an eye on. Bovlb 23:32:58, 2005-07-11 (UTC)
  • The article has been deleted and recreated. It is not an exact copy of the EB page, but many phrases are the same, and the overall structure tracks closely. It's as if someone sat down and tried to paraphrase the original sentence by sentence rather than constructing an article from scratch. I can't decide whether this is enough to make this a copyright violation or not. Comments welcome. Bovlb 05:46:23, 2005-07-13 (UTC)
  • Bovlb, As noted on your User page, I find your implications here quite distressing. What does any of that mean in the real world?! "Phrases the same", "sentence by sentence...paraphrase," "article from scratch," "can't decide"?! As writers, we research our subjects and fashion the results into something. But most of the sort of writing that appears in Wikipedia does not produce something "new" or "original." You don't seriously blieve that the online EB article you cite is "original", do you?

    I fear that many of you at Wikipedia have gotten bogged down in the sort of nitpicking which sees plagiarism everywhere. As I've stated previously, this has a chilling, inhibiting effect. Anon 06:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am in an ongoing dialogue with this user about copyright issues on my talk page. See Crapsey Deletion and the following section. Bovlb 03:50:39, 2005-07-16 (UTC)
  • Could you update us on what is going on with this page. From the large number of deleted edits can I assume the copyvio has been dealt with?--nixie 09:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamaliel blocked this user for 24 hours for "impersonating another user, personal attacks, and general disruption" and he hasn't been heard from since. The user impersonated was User:Anon. The attacks and disruption were a heated debate about claimed ownership of the copyright on William Heyen. Bovlb 13:57:38, 2005-07-21 (UTC)

July 12

  • Anon IP claims to be the copyright holder and has repeatedly removed this listing and the copyvio notice and left insulting messages. Gamaliel 05:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Gamaliel summarily and hastily Copyvio-ed my work, disregarded my posts to his User page and the Discussion, repeatedly removed my page, and now claims to be "insulted" by expressions of annyonace at his behavior. This sort of pre-emptive attack is not only petty and unprofessional but discourages people from contributing to Wikipedia. Anon 06:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Gamiliel posted a comment on an IP User page terming my replies/rubuttals of his contentious comments as "uncivil".

    Gamaliel also recently condescendingly told me to "prove" that work my colleagues and I authored was in fact ours -- "end of story!" But, typical of his frustrating, provocative behavior, he failed to provide any guidance as to how (or to whom) "proves" one's authorship. His attitude seems to be best summarized as "I'LL be the judge of what's proper. If you don't like it, get lost newbie!" Again, this sort of pre-emptive attack is uncalled for an unprofessional. Anon 23:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC) comment actually from User:64.241.37.140[reply]

  • I am in an ongoing dialogue with this user about copyright issues on my talk page. See Crapsey Deletion and the following section. Bovlb 03:53:21, 2005-07-16 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand this one. Surely a list is not a copyright problem. The list is also featured at MSNBC among many many other websites. It was also on TV so the information is technically general knowledge. K1Bond007 05:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I object to this one too. It's just a list. Gamaliel 16:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

This originally appeared 2 July 2005 23:38 (UTC) and was "resolved", yet not resolved...

Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"All content on this site, is Copyright © Joey-Jordison UK unless otherwise specified, and must not be reproduced without written permission of the webmistresses."
--TheParanoidOne 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

Bovlb 07:56:24, 2005-07-14 (UTC)

67.52.188.182 15:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now User:Cbevers says in Talk:Spadina_Expressway that the image violates copyright laws, unless credit is given. It's not clear whether he or the Govt. of Ontario is supposed to be the copyright holder and it's not clear whether the credit at the image description page is enough or whether credit should be given in each page that includes the image, and whether he or the Govt. of Ontario must be credited. -- Paddu 20:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deco correctly observes that this image is copyright and all rights reserved. This does not, however, preclude a fair use claim on this image. Fair use is a legal concept used legitimately to reproduce such images which are copyrighted. This includes news reportage!
Furthermore, BBC News operates for the public good. The corporation is a public non-profit entity and is funded by license fees paid by British television users. The BBC news website is not "commercial" (as asserted above) - none of the pages carry advertising and the BBC does not generate revenue through its news website. The BBC derives no direct commercial value from this photo, as Deco has claimed on my talk page. The idea that the BBC would sue another non-profit entity is risible. Can someone please explain, with reference to the fair use criteria, why this is inelligble for fair use? TreveXtalk 21:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, I'm still unsure. Our non-profit status does give us some leeway. It is a low resolution image. I wasn't aware that the BBC was a non-profit organization - I always thought they were a corporation like the New York Times. However, the BBC may have purchased rights to use the image from a professional photographer or a commercial news corporation, in which case we'd still be in trouble. U.S. legislation about fair use of media for news may not apply, partly because the copyright owner may be in Britain and partly because we're not technically a news website. I suppose as long as we have OCILLA there's no real harm in leaving it up, but I'm not sure if this image is covered by the criteria on Wikipedia:Fair use (you reach #9, "Does the nature of the image and source (if known) suggest it is intended for wide distribution?" but I'm not sure if it fails this). It seems like a murky enough case that I wouldn't bet money that it's fair use, at least if I weren't a copyright lawyer. At this point I don't really care all that much though. Deco 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image page is still locked, as it was recently on the main page. I have added a fair use rationale to the discussion page instead]]. TreveXtalk 12:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that it is a current news event. The copyright holder (apparently the bbc) wants to benefit from the work. Our reproduction of the image harms them in that it makes their website slightly less useful compared to ours, reduces the number of BBC web site users and slightly lowers their reputation as a bearer of unique news information. While I think it unlikely that they would sue, I think a fair use claim would be hard to defend. Wikipedia is non-commercial and the use of the image is transformative (in making an encyclopedic article), but the image is not an historical record so the nature of the image detracts from a fair use claim. The work is entirly reproduced - although at web resolution. The third factor is partially fulfilled. And surely there is an effect on the potential market, although the BBC might not be intending to sell the image, they hope to benefit from it in other ways. The BBC has an unusual status, deriving much of it's revenue from the licence fee and with a public service charter. But it's not a non-profit in the same way that we are. They are probably unlikely to sue, but I don't think that should be a major consideration. I think based on the nature of this image, our use isn't fair, and the image should be deleted as a copyright violation. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is full of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of images from news websites which are tagged as fair use. The current events section articles and the main page image for current events rely heavily on such images. Can I ask on what basis may any images taken from news websites be used on wikipedia as fair use? I cannot distinguish between this image and inumerable other similiar images which have never been listed on this page. TreveXtalk 14:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

  • User claims copyright ownership and GFDL release, both apparently in contradition to the notice on the website. See Talk:Jerry Lawson. Bovlb 18:02:06, 2005-07-16 (UTC)

July 17

Image:Amos John.jpg from [244] Image:Andy borowitz.jpg from [245] Image:Annacone-paul.jpg from [246] Image:Annacone.jpg from [247]
Image:Austin tracy.jpg from [248] Image:Billy martin.jpg from [249] Image:Canseco.jpg from [250] Image:Cash pat.jpg from [251]
Image:Chris evert.jpg from [252] Image:Dent taylor.jpg from [253] Image:Feherty.jpg from [254] Image:Fox rick.jpg from [255]
Image:Gerulaitis.jpg from [256] Image:Gilbert brad.jpg from [257] Image:Goolagong.jpg from [258] Image:Gumbel.jpg from [259]
Image:Hughley.jpg from [260] Image:Leiter.jpg from [261] Image:Loder.jpg from [262] Image:McCord.jpg from [263]
Image:Mike wallace.jpg from [264] Image:Parsons.jpg from [265] Image:Pinkettsmith.jpg from [266] Image:Robinson ted.jpg from [267]
Image:Robredo.jpg from [268] Image:Schaap.jpg from [269] Image:Sergi.jpg from [270] Image:Smith stan.jpg from [271]
Image:Tarango.jpg from [272] Image:Tatyana.jpg from [273] Image:Taylor jermain.jpg from [274] Image:Trevino lee.jpg from [275]
Image:Vergara.jpg from [276] Image:Walker jimmie.jpg from [277] Image:Wallacechris.jpg from [278]
Also, the following included the source URL, though I don't believe these are the original sources of these images (and, thus, not the copyright owners)
Image:Allen ray.jpg from [279] (who probably got it from the NBA, whose watermark is in the photo)
Image:BernNadette Stanis.jpg from [280]
Image:Smokey robinson.jpg from [281]
Image:McDonald michael.jpg from [282]
I've left a note about this at WP:AN/I#User:StockMail and copyrighted images. As of this posting I am still in the process of tagging the images. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

  • Join Java, some parts were copied from http://joinjava.unisa.edu.au/
    • Removed Copyright infringement notice, and reverted to last version of the article, the material was edited by the author: Yes I am the author (it is my Phd work). That is my website http://joinjava.unisa.edu.au. There is no problem with wikipedia hosting that material. This is of course limited to only the content that is there at the moment. (I am Dr-unifex). All other rights I retain.

Permission has been given to utilize material from both www.ftlmnh.org and www.pbmnh.org

Permission given notice is unconvincing, do not remove from this list.--nixie 04:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is supposed to be cut/paste from there. I am posting it in behalf of the author of the paper. It should not be marked as a copyright issue.unsigned edit by 157.127.124.134 (talk · contribs)
  • This is insufficient. Any user can claim to be a representative of the author, and claim the paper is released into the public domain or under GFDL. I will attempt to contact Dr. Lee Whitt directly at Northrop Grumman Corporation to confirm status of this material. If this does not succeed, it is likely the copyvio will not be cleared and the SmartCOP article will be deleted. Wikipedia's need to protect itself against copyright infringement outweighs the need to include an article on SmartCOP that appears to violate copyright. Also, please sign your edits on this notice board and talk pages by adding a "~~~~" to the end of your comments. Thank you. --Durin 15:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have contacted Dr. Whitt at the e-mail (lee.whitt@ngc.com} supplied in the original document at [346]. His response on July 19, 2005 was as follows:
"Yes, you have my permission to publish the contents of my paper on SmartCOP to Wikipedia. I have reviewed the terms of GFDL and accept them."
With his acceptance of these terms, I am now removing the copyright violation status on the article page, and noting such here. --Durin 20:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)--Durin 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

  • Has apparently been rewritten at Maura D. Corrigan, so should be replaced with a redirect. Bovlb 14:20:17, 2005-07-19 (UTC)

(Valuelabs from [380] and [381] - FreplySpang (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

And the True Author slapped a copyvio on it. I'll fetch the version before the copyvio out of history and put it on a temp page with some updated links. PKM 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

* Juggling convention from http://www.anfolk.com/articles/Juggling_convention -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

Wikipedia's current date is November 8, 2024. Before appending new notices, please make sure that you are adding them under the right date header. If the header for today's date has not yet been created, please add it yourself.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=19352336"