Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DJ Clayworth (talk | contribs) at 15:08, 21 April 2005 (→April 21). 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.

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.

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.
  • Non-commercial use images:As of June 30, 2004, images where permission is granted for non-commercial use only are not allowed. This is official Wikipedia policy pronounced by Jimbo Wales. [2]. As a result, all of these images now need to be removed from any associated articles and deleted. Before they are deleted, we should evaluate whether we can justify their use on other grounds, such as fair use. --Michael Snow 21:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, we are not yet to the point where wholesale deletions and actions against this type of image are warranted. We are still not to a satisfactory point in image tagging, and we want to finalize the new upload form (and get it active), so that we can better manage change in the future. It is advised not to upload any new non-commercial images now, and to seek replacements for non-commercial images that we have, but for today anyway, I recommend against people trying to hunt these down and extinguish them. We are going to try to have a smoother transition than that. Jimbo Wales 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (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.

  • Identity based encryption from [3] — Matt Crypto 22:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Article posted by copyright holder Matt Pauker from Voltage Security - original definition of IBE needs to be reverted and article provides simplified explanation of how IBE works and should be re-posted - but it may make sense to link back to Messaging Pipeline since they agreed to post article also
      • See the article's talk page for more. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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: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)

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

  • Italian exports, Italian Government, 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)
  • Intorsura Buzaului: In Romanian. No online source, but it really reads like a scan from a book. Un-wiki-like formatting, use of abbreviations, professional level of thoroughness, arrived all at once, anonymously, with the edit summary saying only "(nice to know)". -- Jmabel | Talk 04:01, Apr 18, 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)

New listings

April 12

April 13

April 14

April 15

INFO FROM SUBMITTER: I am webmaster of the site, creator of the article, Director of the New England Folk Festival Assn. Inc. I believe I have the authority to create this page.
I have removed the copyvio tag. - Jersyko 15:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

April 16

April 17

. Used all over the place [173], but copyright is Ford's. 62.252.64.18 21:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 18

April 19

April 20

20 April Pope Images

This article is innudated with copyvio images, is our position "it's copyright and I want to use it" so it's fair use? I don't think these reasonably qualify as fair use especially when such images can be obtained from the Holy See thus negating our need for these.

Withdrawn -- this is a Vatican pool photo, copyright holder is now credited as required. Someone else has put this on IFD though. --Wgfinley 13:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Withdrawn -- Vatican pool photo, copyright holder is now credited as required. --Wgfinley 13:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Wgfinley 01:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uploader is systematically removing the tags now claiming as "screenshots", isn't engaging in communication. --Wgfinley
In any event, we should get some PD pictures. It's the Pope, for God's sake. How do we do it?
Yahoo is hosting the images for Christ's sake. Yahoo stores the damn Wikipedia! —Cantus…☎ 03:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yahoo hosting WP and has nothing to do with this, Yahoo pays Reuters to have those photos, we can't turn around and use news agency breaking news photos as we see fit. Some of these are from the Vatican pool which is fine, they still need to be credited on all the pages they are used. --Wgfinley 05:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yahoo obviously has nothing to do with this. The images from newsagencies are clearly copyright violations. The Vatican press office should release official photos soon, which would count as promotional and thus fair use. They already have picture of him as cardinal here and here. — Asbestos | Talk 09:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 20

April 21

  • Nonsense. "{{:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse|suppress image=-5px|mWf={|mWb=}</font></div><div class="boilerplate metadata" id="violence" style="background: #dff; border:..." does not violate the GDFL... no more violated the GDFL than any other template. Reverting. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT. This is no more a violation of the GFDL than Gmaxwell's user page, which does not credit its original author on the title page, as required by a reading of the GFDL sufficiently strict enough to implicate Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures). Shall I {{copyvio}} that, too? —Korath (Talk) 12:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • No more a violation of GFDL than merging one article into another, as is frequently done on WP:VFD. In those cases, the history on the original article is enough for GFDL. In this case, the history of the original article, which is linked to at the top of the censored article, is enough for GFDL. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Asbestos | Talk 12:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current date is January 10, 2025. 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=12615525"