Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cryptic (talk | contribs) at 08:37, 13 June 2005 (→June 13: Michala Petri). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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 fairuse rationalle. Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses.
  • Category:Images used with permission: These images are apparently available only to Wikipedia, and 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 this category 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 liminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use". (Jimbo) :Full Email, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Older than 7 days

Below are articles and images that have been listed here for longer than a week old, but have not yet 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

Apparently the old Wikipedia:Fair use mechanism has fallen out of use. This section lists all cases (typically images) where a fair use claim was made during the initial seven days, and for which a second opinion is needed. Add your comments here, and when you remove an entry from here (and it is kept), copy the discussion to the (image) talk page.

  • Image:Columbia debris falling in the sky.jpg. Claimed as fair use on the grounds that we can't get a non-copyrighted image of the event. I have my doubts on this. --Carnildo 06:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Clim_map_kpngrp.jpg in article Australia. Doesn't look like fair use to me. --Robert Merkel 00:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This image is now being investigated by Image Slueths. It appears to be based on the far right photo (click on it) found here. This would appear to make it based on a Australian gov. source and therefore public domain, though once edited I don't know what its status would change to. Nrbelex (talk)  05:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Australian government works are crown copyright. But as copyright only covers the creative aspects of the image, not the underlying data this can be recreated. See WP:IRR
    • Thanks! Just found that out - dumb of me to assume Australia puts its stuff in the PD. Oh well... Nrbelex (talk)  02:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg. The copyright for this photo is being asserted by the New Zealand National Front, who claim to have purchased it from the photographer for the purposes of suppressing the image. Talk:New_Zealand_National_Front#"nazi salute" image. Some editors, including me, think that this qualifies under fair use. This version of the photograph has been edited down to a lower resolution, it is directly relevant to the article, and there is no way of recreating it. Any opinions? -Willmcw 03:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a reasonable fairuse rational. But when I run it through the Wikipedia:Fair use decision tree I get a delete result, because the image was never intended for wide distribution. The decision tree there is a recent addition, and something I've never seen before. It's also somewhat subjective. --Duk 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following was moved here from ifd:
    • Speaking as a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front, I herby advise that the image posted ( Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg Copyright © 2000-2004 New Zealand National Front. All rights reserved.) are the legal property of the New Zealand National Front, and it's use is restricted by published international copyright treaties and conventions of New Zealand and the United Nations. Legal ownership of the image (in both digital and hardcopy format) was transferred from the original copyright holder, the photographer, to the New Zealand National Front during the month of January, 2005. Use of the image is therefore restricted until ownership of the image is restored to the public domain, or explicit permission is obtained from the New Zealand National Front in writing. - Molloy
    • Molloy has provided no evidence that he is a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front (he's a teenager, so it's unlikely), and has offered no evidence that the New Zealand National Front is the copyright holder. This is an embarrassing photograph for them because it shows them making Nazi salutes, which is why Molloy, who is a member, would like to see it deleted. The photograph is widely available on the Web, a source has been provided on the image page, and we are claiming fair use under United States copyright law. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is a legal notice from the New Zealand National Front [2] - Molloy
        • This image is being used under the U.S. "Fair Use" and New Zealand "Fair Dealings" exemptions. Further, this is the wrong page to deal with this matter because it is a copyright dispute. It should be handled on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. -Willmcw 04:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
SHould this be deleted, or is it fair user?--nixie 13:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Image:Hindenburg.jpg is part of the Bettmann Collection and is copyright Bettmann/CORBIS[3] I'm sceptical about a fair use claim. How think you? Kbh3rd 03:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a duplicate of lower quality at Image:HindenburgSenorAnderson.jpg, which is tagged as a US gov work, though I think that's just because it was found on a .gov site. Regarding the fair use claim, I'd like to think we could use a low res version, because how else can you illustrate such an event? There is no other way to get the visual information other than through that photograph, and our usage would not impact whatever commercial value it has. I'm leaning towards fair use on this. Postdlf 06:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unique and unrecreatable images of newsworthy events such as this are broadly acknowledged to have fair use and fair dealing status for applications such as our own. Shouldn't be a problem. Fawcett5 16:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)

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

  • Women's healthcare in 20th century China has that certain scent to it - it's the in-text citations and the slanted quotation marks around “China” that give it away for me... could be someone's paper for school. -- BDAbramson talk 04:14, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Italian exports and Islam in Italy all smell like copyvios but I can't tell where from. They were all put up by User:82.43.213.217, and share the same writing style. Dave6 05:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No copyvio notices on these articles. -- Infrogmation 14:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that these are almost certainly copyright violations, although they might be school papers this guy wrote. I can't find the sources either. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Listed by User:Denni on VfD: The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), Pleven (horse), and Russian Trotter were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. - Mike Rosoft 17:47, 9 Jun 2005 (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 [5] - 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 [6] 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 [7] 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

May 18

  • I have nominated Definitions of capitalism and Definitions of socialism for deletion; there doesn't seem to be consensus either way. It has been argued that the articles violate copyright (the definitions have been copied from commercial dictionaries and encyclopedias). Other users have disagreed and suggested the lists to be kept, merged, or moved to Wikiquote. Are they acceptable to be kept anywhere on Wikipedia? - Mike Rosoft 12:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting a definition from a dictionary or is not a copywrite violation. It's fair use. I don't know about "copyright" though.. RJII 20:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitions of socialism was listed here as a copyright violation of thirteen paper dictionaries on 2005-05-08 and deleted after the discussion period on 2005-05-16. This is the same copyrighted material re-posted, and is is a speedy deletion candidate. Definitions of capitalism contains exact copies of text from twenty-six (non-GFDL) copyrighted dictionaries and three encyclopaedias, and is a copyright violation on a massive scale. (This isn't "quoting a definition from a dictionary" as the author, and those who are for the inclusion of this text not because permission has been granted to use this copyrighted content but simply because they don't want their edit war with the author to start up again, would have us believe.) Like definitions of socialism, there is no non-infringing version to revert to. The article began with these violations. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
      • And it IS spelled "copyright" (right to copy), not "copywrite". If you can copy definitions of a word from a number of dictionaries, you can certainly look up another word in a single one. - Mike Rosoft 16:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If definitions of socialism was deleted for that reason, it was wrongly deleted. The number of dictionaries is irrelevant. If it's not a copyright violation to quote one dictionary then it's not a violation to qoute one thousand dictionaries. RJII 03:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I doubt that either of these is a copyvio, they are just short quotes from many different sources. More context should be provided to be on the safe side, however, like adding a short comment/description/interpretation to each quote.--Fenice 08:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, how do we know if this is resolved so we can get the article back up? RJII 16:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

  • UTVA 75 from [8] --Rlandmann 02:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This issue has not been resolved yet - the original contributor says he obtained permission for the photo to be used (by Wikipedia only). Last I heard, he was going to approach UTVA to ask if the material could be released under the GFDL. This was on May 19. --Rlandmann 02:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 20

  • The Imperial March includes a full length(3:03 min) version as an .ogg file. I strongly doubt that this is PD in any way. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this) Fornadan 23:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will contact uploader to ask them to upload a shorter version.--nixie 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 27

May 28

May 29

May 30

  • Wikipedia DVD from [13] --Rlandmann 02:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakash M Apte from [14]] (NOTE that this is a .doc file!). RickK 08:51, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Air properties Unsure about this one, but better safe than sorry. Article copied more-or-less directly from a U.S. gov (NASA Glenn) website [15] which has no clear copyright notice that I can find, but OTOH there is a single author of the original listed. Apparently some .gov sites are public domain, others aren't. Expert opinion needed. Soundguy99 20:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorism in Kashmir from [16] and [17]; a massive expansion of this article on May 20 was a copy-paste job cobbled together from BBC news; I reverted to the version prior to that edit, but was reverted myself and accused of "slaughtering" the article by the perpetrator himself; unfortunately, the article had been changed quite a bit before my revert and again after that; I don't think it should be my job to prove the pedigree of every single paragraph derived from the copyvio, and I don't agree that changing a few words makes a copyvio go away, as some editors seem to believe. There is no copyvio tag on this article, and I left the article as is, because I don't fancy getting into an edit war over this. Rl 20:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 31


June 2

I'm re-listing these - they were listed on the 16th of May and removed from this page, but not dealt with. Note that Gun Quarter contains a second copyvio on the new page from [29], which I have just removed. --Brumburger 10:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: this article has been previously deleted, there has been editwaring over inclusions of copyright violations.--Duk 17:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thomas_Ridgway/Temp is revised and ready for reinstatement. RayGirvan 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Author released material per the GFDL and confirmed via email. Article is now on VFD.--Duk 02:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Portions of Ponchomon from portions of [67]]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Author has reverted the changes to remove the copyvio notice and added one sentence. Article is still a copyvio from the same place. QBorg 23:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Two 1930s Edward Weston photos apparently taken from "fair use" site containing copyright attributions, and with non-commercial-use-only terms for their scans [68]. Tverbeek 22:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aren't album covers understood to be fair use? 64.252.73.23 02:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) (User:Suntiger)

June 3

June 4

  • The Icon Painter Onufri again word-for-word from [104] -- ~~~~ 17:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Dennis Palmer from [105] (didn't remove text from page due to Vfd) - Who?¿? 01:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yuvaraja Kanteerava Narasimharaja Wodeyar. No results on Google but it is obvious that the text is copied from somewhere. Hedley 02:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Bill watrous from [106] -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spectramind from [107] --InShaneee 03:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Lavely & singer corporate vanity puff from [108]. -- Hoary 05:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  • Dahv, attributed to AP by [109] which Google suggests is keen to plaster this hagiographic guff in as many places as possible -- but which is not described as GFDL or public domain. -- Hoary 05:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  • Las Flores Middle School from [110] Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 06:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • AnnaSophia Robb from [111] RickK 06:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ronald Peter Fabbro from [112]. Tupsharru 07:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is Wally Nelson a copyvio from [113]? Aecis 09:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that the article was created fully formed in a single edit, I think we have to assume it was copied from the external site, and not vice versa. sjorford →•← 23:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The article was created in 2005, whereas the site/page was created in September 2003, which leads me to conclude that the article was copied from the site. But does the author (Moorlock) hold the copyrights to the site the article was copied from or does he/she have explicit permission to copy from the site? Aecis 11:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I run sniggle.net, and am the author of the 2003 page that I myself altered for inclusion on wikipedia. I am the copyright holder and approve of the relicensing of the wikipedia version forked from my original article. The same is true for the Juanita Nelson article, BTW -Moorlock 16:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Although we assume good faith, I hope you can understand that Wikipedia can't run any chances with possible copyright violations. Such violations, and the possible consequences, can't be taken lightly. So we need to have more to go by than your word. So is there any way in which you can prove that you are indeed the holder to the copyrights of sniggle.net? If so, the copyvio-tag will ofcourse immediately be removed. Aecis 20:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • "Can't run any chances?" Please. This sort of google sleuthing is hardly foolproof. You got a false positive here, but I'd imagine false negatives are even more common. What if I'd copied the material from a book or some other source that isn't on-line? In any case, I can't prove any such thing, but if you send email to the mailto: link on sniggle.net, I'll be the one who replies, so at least you'll know that the same person who runs that site also posted here.-Moorlock 16:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • That is exactly the kind of proof the Confirmation of permission is about. The mail is on its way, so if you would be so kind as to respond to the mail, the copyvio tag can be removed and this issue can be settled. To prevent future cases about this site, I will then add a comment to the talk page verifying that you are the holder of the copyrights and that this article is not an infringement of copyrights. Aecis 22:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • And there we have the proper confirmation of permission. I hereby declare this case settled and closed. Moorlock does indeed hold the copyrights to the site the article was taken from. This article is therefore not a copyvio. Aecis 10:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Chito-ryu from [114]. Original editor says they have permission ([115]), but I would like to see some Confirmation of permission to be sure. The site that this is taken from doesn't appear to have any overt copyright notices. --bainer (talk) 14:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KK Partizan from [116] --TheParanoidOne 14:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Baker Botts from [117] - SimonP 14:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Empress myungsung1.jpg from [118]. According to [119], this picture was created in October 1995. Feigenbaum 14:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ghoom from [120] -Frazzydee|✍ 14:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • E Ink from [121] Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 15:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • George Strickland Kingston from [122] --Canderson7 15:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • UIML from [123] --Canderson7 16:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Francois du Duquesnoy possibly from [124], but I can't be 100% certain as I do not speak French. --TheParanoidOne 18:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Diet Pepsi A.M. from [125]. Very little content so just VfD IMHO. Samw 21:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Richard M. Freeland not really linked to from anywhere so probably can just delete AaronSw 21:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mayflower Primary School from [126]. RickK 21:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • JFFS2 from [[127]]. Please note that Tony Sidaway not only violated procedure by rewrting the article over the copyvio boilerplate and therefore leaving the copyvio in the article history, he deleted this listing without discussion. RickK 21:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • It was a putative copyvio and I rewrote it. I'll selectively delete the disputed history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I want to apologise to Rick for a statement (since removed) that could be construed as a personal attack. That was unworthy and unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Cerner from [128]. --Canderson7 22:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cranleigh school from [129] --Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Perseus Group from [130] sjorford →•← 22:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Shara Nelson from [131]. RickK 23:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Matthew Wayne Selznick from [132] Wikibofh 23:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Site is a Wikipedia mirror. Even says so. --Kiand 23:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 5

  • Interior Design The article on Interior Design is largely composed of copyrighted material. It was copied from this site: [134] (copyright 1999) and this site [135] (copyright 2005) Further the article should be on "Interior Design" not one "Canna Patel"
    • I rolled back the Canna Patel stuff to the previous version; still looking into the NCIDQ material. I then had to go all the way back to an August 2004 stub to clear the other copyvio. A large amount of material was merged from Elements of interior design along the way, which may be salvageable. --rbrwr± 20:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sarvastivada from [136]. All the additional links connected are copied as well.
  • Danton's Death from [137]. -83.129.52.141
  • XH-17 from [138] --Rlandmann 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Jerry Weintraub from [139] --Polynova 01:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anti-aging skincare from alt.skincare User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 01:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • SIP (Turkey)
  • John H. Secondari from [140] Mr Bound 02:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Swive from [141]. CryptoDerk 04:17, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Doug Lebda from the top of [142]. ErikNY 04:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Uploads by Jessebreceda newcomer and may be unfamiliar with Copyright issues on Wikipedia. Could someone remove her uploads? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    User:Jessebreceda has systematically been pillaging the picture portal http://www.enmas.com for images, which have been added to many blank articles (i.e. with image but no text). Most of the images listed below are stamped with the enmas logo. None have any copyright attribution. A few of the following images don't have a logo on them, but given Jessebreceda's approach to copyright I suggest that they should be deleted as probable copyvios. Unfortunately Jessebreceda has not heeded an earlier warning about copyright so has been blocked for 24 hours to give him/her an incentive to read the Wikipedia policy on this issue.
Image:Alejandra Guzmán.jpg, Image:Edith González.jpg, Image:Roberto Gomez Bolaños.jpg, Image:Bibi Gaytán.jpg, Image:Adriana Fonseca.jpg, Image:Fey.jpg, Image:Juan Ferrara.jpg, Image:Alejandro Fernandez.jpg, Image:Consuelo Duval.jpg, Image:Aarón Díaz.jpg, Image:Eugenio Derbez.jpg, Image:Kate del Castillo.jpg, Image:Arath de la Torre.jpg, Image:Ana de la Reguera.jpg, Image:Alfonso Cuarón.jpg, Image:Karla Cossío.jpg, Image:Ninel Conde.jpg, Image:Veronica Castro.jpg, Image:Christian Castro.jpg, Image:Irán Castillo.jpg, Image:Yadhira Carrillo.jpg, Image:Eduardo Capetillo.jpg, Image:Itatí-Cantoral.jpg, Image:Jacqueline Bracamontes.jpg, Image:Angelique Boyer.jpg, Image:Julio Alemán.jpg, Image:Anahi2.jpg, Image:Anahi.jpg -- ChrisO 17:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
civilwar.com, like lots of other places, probably copied it from the National Park Service which I presume is public domain, being US government. 203.49.133.65 22:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 6

  • Lake Harriet from [185] —Mulad (talk) 02:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Andrew York from [186] — Gwalla | Talk 02:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Dubai Media City From [187] --Duk 02:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Eddie Trunk From [188] and other parts of eddietrunk.com, as admitted by the user. ErikNY 02:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Lovely & Amazing From [189]
  • Richard Teague From [190]
  • Ibogaine from [191]. This has been on Wikipedia for over two years, but according to archive.org, that site's text predates the Wikipedia article by over a year. That, combined with the fact that the first cut at this article on Wikipedia was an unwikified blob of text from an anonymous user, suggests that someone copy/pasted it here. --Delirium 03:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Lillian Gilbrth from [192]]. Kelly Martin 03:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sodium Erythorbate from [193] and by its own admission from "The concise Biotech Dictionary" Samw 03:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Kirtland_Community_College from [194]
  • Image:Vuco.png.
  • Acmar International Group from [195]. Page was created by User:Acmar, but there's no way to know if this person actually has the authority to post the information. --Xcali 06:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Acmar then removed it, it was then replaced. Acmar then removed it again, I replaced it again. Note that this page is just a corporate puff; if it's established that there are no copyright problems, it deserves to be rewritten (or deleted). The page is further debased by an animated GIF, which I've left. -- Hoary 06:52, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Image:Mammothmountainskiarea.jpg from [196]. User:Geographer claims fair use, but it doesn't conform to Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines. -- hike395 06:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Taska & Tadika Sri Acmar from [197] — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Includes Image:Taskatadikasriacmar.jpg again from [198]. Incidentally, if these Acmar-related pages are eventually deleted, various other graphics that appear within them should probably be deleted too. I'm not listing them as their use seems to be fair (they're corporate logos and the like) -- but without pages on which they appear, they'll of course be pointlessly using up disk space. -- Hoary 07:41, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Bandar Baru Klang from [199]. Another in a series of articles advertising Acmar International Group by User:Acmar: if not copyvio, then corporate vanity. -- Hoary 07:05, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • And Sekolah Sri Acmar from [200]. User may be copyright holder; if not copyright violation then needs cleanup at least (advertising). — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Number of words in English from [201], which incidentally says "All Rights Reserved". Note also that a number of pages redirect here; for at least one of these, there has at one time been a copyvio notice, to which somebody responded that he/she was the copyright holder and granted WP permission to reproduce; but (a) no evidence was presented to show that this person was indeed the copyright holder, and (b) it seems to me that there's a flat contradiction between GFDL and the "reservation" of "all rights". -- Hoary 07:22, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC) .....PS sorry to have been a bit vague there; please see User_talk:Pjjp. -- Hoary 07:59, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
    • User:Pjjp has now responded on his talk page; I think that all is OK now. -- Hoary 05:38, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Tee Leh Teck from [202]; I've left the photo for now, as I think this photo (from here) may be used fairly in any article about this chap that's judged to be legitimate. -- Hoary 07:29, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Listings from Category:Possible copyright violations Duk 09:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Update: Received comment¹ from author of said page, will work on a rewrite.
…Guy M… (soapbox) 10:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

This submission was added BY the Copyright owner of the biography. Suspected page violation updated with a copyright permission notice.

June 7

June 8

This is clearly a 2D reproduction of 18th century art and thus, according to US law, not copyrightable. My question is: Is that enough? I don't think there's any such clause in Icelandic law and I've found out that the Arnamagnæan Institute actually seems to claim copyright for the reproductions. Their website states:

"Hægt er að panta myndir og filmur vegna rannsókna og til birtingar í ritum, gegn greiðslu. Þær eru afgreiddar stafrænt á geisladiskum. Stofnunin selur birtingarrétt á þeim myndum sem hér eru teknar og farið er fram á að þess sé ævinlega getið hvaðan myndirnar eru komnar."

My translation of this:

"For a fee it is possible to order pictures and films for research and publication. Those are delivered digitally on compact disks. The Institution sells the right to publish pictures made here and it is demanded that the source of the pictures is always mentioned."

Doesn't exactly sound like Public Domain, does it? My inquiries to them have gone unanswered. Now, there are actually a number of images on Wikipedia taken from the AM Institute. Do these have to be removed or can we ignore (what I assume is) Icelandic law in favor of US law?

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this inquiry and if it is I hope someone moves it. Haukurth 19:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have prepared a replacement page at The King's Demons/Temp if an admin would kindly delete and move. --TimPope 17:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of the content of the wikipedia article and the content on the page www.coachpaterno.com page are taken from the press release provided by the Virginia Tech Athletic Department (see source link). No copyright violation there. Rtphokie

June 9

June 10

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 11

Same applies to Jan Kukuzeli, Architect Kasemi, Kostandin Kristoforidhi, Elena Gjika (aka Dora d'Istria, Viktor Eftimiu, Kristo Kono, Gjovalin Gjadri, Tefta Tashko Koco, Marije Kraja, and Aleks Buda.--Jyril 20:55, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

June 12

June 13

About these two images concerning Scatman John (which I put on the copyright problems page): It says on the main page, "(C) 2001- all respective owners. Unauthorised copying and/or use of material on this site is prohibited." HOWEVER, the website has been down for about 4 years (its last archive was on 22 Sep 2001), and after it went offline it turned into a gay porn site for a number of years after that (currently, it is nothing) and I was wondering because it has been down for 4 years would it be ok to copy the material? ---User:Hottentot
Copyrights take 75 years to expire. Gamaliel 03:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, lack of use by the copyright holder doesn't mean the copyright protection lapses. Postdlf 03:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then the article should be deleted. But what about the image? ---User:Hottentot

[564]ilovemagic

Wikipedia's current date is October 17, 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=15106907"