Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheParanoidOne (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 2 May 2005 (May 2: Capromyidae). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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)
  • Captain_Josias_Rogers: One large upload. Attributes Oxford DNB which looks like it is unlikely to be either PD or out of copyright. Don't have a subscription to check. Wikibofh 22:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Panko - unwikified, and claims "Source: Prepared Foods Magazine". Reads like a magazine article, too. Haven't been able to find the magazine article online, but... Grutness|hello? 13:15, 29 Apr 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)

New listings

April 21

  • Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures) from Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner_abuse. The history for the article shows the identity of the censors, not the authors of the text. This is... discussion continues here
  • Image:Shantideva2.jpg from [6] Burgundavia 07:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Soc-klaus-teuber.jpg from [7]] Site states ©2004 --Wgfinley 08:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The image is also available under CC-by-nd-nc [8]. I've contacted the copyright owner requesting a free license. --Millsdavid 10:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think that is the original source, the one I cited is because if you look at the pages it's made up of photos the author said he took on a trip/convention and that page indicates it's copyrighted. Would contact the author on the page I'm referencing (his email is on there I believe) and try to get a free license, I will withdraw this one if that happens. --Wgfinley 18:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, but I think you'll find that the person who uploaded the file to BGG [9] is (almost certainly) the same person that owns the website you've linked to. In any case, I have emailed him for a license. --Millsdavid 23:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 22

copyright/author asserted "2000 Nezihi Ozduzen" in page source; gives "mail@adiyamanli.org", too. — Davenbelle 22:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


April 24

April 25

  • Image:Foron2.gif A photocopy of the text of a German patent. Uncle G 23:51, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
    • I'd like to disagree. The actual text of the patent is not protected by copyright because the very essance of a patent is to publish an invention to the public domain.

Here follows a snippet from 'Petentti ja rekisterihallitus' FAQ: 'Patent and register bureau' FAQ:

Tuleeko keksintö julkiseksi, kun hakee patenttia?

Tulee, ainakin jos patentti myönnetään. Patentoitu keksintö on aina julkinen keksintö.

Which translates to 'Will an invention become public when a patent is being aquired?' 'Yes, if the patent passes. A patented invention is allways a public invention' This relates directly to the actual patent as a document. http://www.prh.fi/fi/patentit/useinkysyttya.html#10 This is factual law in Finalnd and in the EU. Zaphood 16:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 26

April 27

April 28

The image is part of the logo from the cover to X-Men(v2) #157. Its not a copyright violation. --DrBat 14:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
-- Ferkelparade π 14:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 29

Nonsense, none of them was used to create this list. Danny 10:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not a copyvio - see Danny's comment on the talk page. -- sannse (talk) 10:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-- Ferkelparade π 07:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Privacy International. Would someone PLEASE take responsibility for a problem that we've encountered and give me some advice. On April 22 the entry for Privacy International was removed and replaced with a copyright violation notice. As it happens I had asked one of our interns to expand the existing story (on request from Wikipedia users). So there is permission. I've placed this information both on the PI discussion page and on this page, but no-one has responded and the page is still removed. My apologies for bringing up this issue here, but it seems to me that whoever took this action has not taken responsibility for following it up and sorting out the mess. Many thanks. Simon Davies, Director, Privacy International simon@privacy.org

Restored. Note that you could probably have got away with doing this yourself. --bjh21 18:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please see the Talk section of this page for an explanation.
Restored. --bjh21 18:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 30

May 1

May 2

Copyright (c) 2005 Lichtenstein Creative Media, Inc. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

Temp page is created. Added contents, removed most points dealing with copyright violation by changing style and most POV. - Svest 05:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current date is October 11, 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.