Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JeLuF (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 14 December 2003 (Image:Library.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Add links to pages that you suspect of being copyright infringements here. If you list a page here, 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.

In addition to nominating potential copyvios 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: [[Talk: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!). You can also ask for permission too - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission.


See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Image description page, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may choose to raise the issue using this page and the standard copyright infringement notice as described below. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Note that Wikipedians do not have the ability to remove copyright infringements from an article's page history. Therefore, if you believe that material in an article's page history infringes your copyright, you should contact Wikipedia's designated agent, rather than using this page.

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following text. Replace PAGE NAME with the name of the page that you're editing, and replace ADDRESS with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text.

Removed--possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]]. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from this source:
:ADDRESS

This page is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please so indicate on [[Talk:PAGE NAME|the talk page]]. If there was no permission to use this text then please rewrite the page at:
:[[Talk:PAGE NAME/temp]]

or leave this page to be deleted. Deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]] page. If a temp page is created, it will be moved here following deletion of the original.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission of the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[wikipedia:copyrights|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

Thanks, ~~~~

Notice for images

This image is a possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]] and should therefore not be used by any article. <explain reason for suspicion here>

This image is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this image under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are its copyright holder, then please indicate so here (click ''Edit this page'' in the sidebar) - see our [[wikipedia:image use policy|image use policy]] for tips on this. NOTE: deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[wikipedia:copyright|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

If you believe that this image may be used by Wikipedia and by all sublicensees under the [[fair use]] doctrine, then please add a detailed ''fair use rationale'' as described on [[wikipedia:image description page]] to justify this belief.

Thanks, ~~~~

November 25

The first two are clear copyvios and should be deleted. Image:Image:rjafF-16.jpg says "permission granted", though doesn't say whether that was Wikipedia-specific or GFDL permission. The source site is down, so I can't chase the website owner, sadly. Martin 17:46, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

November 28

  • Pierre Edwards from [1]. --snoyes 19:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Website needs to be contacted to see if what the talk page says is true.
    • Delete. Not famous enough anyway whether copyvio or not. Angela. 03:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


November 29

  • The following are orphans and possible copyvios. Their current format would not be acceptable anyway and the uploader of these seems to have left: Image:Basalflangeturtlebird.jpg, Image:Codexplate.jpg, Image:Codexshaman.jpg, Image:Incisedserpant.jpg, Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg, Image:Regional-Chevron.jpg, Image:Regional-Chochola.jpg, Image:Screwtopvessel.jpg, Image:Tabascovessel.jpg, Image:Trimamimfrom.jpg. Angela 20:50, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Except for Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg these are not copyrightable in US law because they are accurate mechanical reproductions of works which are out of copyright, with no creative lighting or other creative input. Not fair use - no copyright at all, so not even a need to consider fair use. Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg is not photographic but it appears to be a scientifically accurate hand reproduction of the works and my view is that it is properly treated in the same way as the mechanical reproductions and hence not copyrightable either. (added: this opinion is in part based on a case where an architectural drawing was described as only copyrightable if it had creativity - if it was simply accurate, it wouldn't be copyrightable) Given the way we're having troubles with links right now I'll try some searching for articles relting to Mayan civilisation to see if there are uses of these images out there. Jamesday 12:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've used several of these at Maya ceramics, where the edit history shows that the uploader apparently intended them to be used. I'll list on images for deletion any I don't eventually add to that page after editing them as required to make sure that they are suitable for presence here. Most are suitable, once text removal and cropping has been done. Jamesday 18:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)




December 6

  • Image:MissVan041.jpg no source or copyright information given. Maximus Rex 05:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As a thumbnail image in a biography of the artist, this one looks like easy fair use. Jamesday 19:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


December 7

  • Spellevator --Imran 17:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • From where? The page itself says from http://everything2.com/?node_id=550073 but I just went to that page, and the text isn't there! -- Oliver P. 17:15, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I assume that's because e2 is down, but I think as the statement was put there by the person who created the webpage that we can believe them. --Imran 19:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Olaus Murie from[25] - from a book © 1990 Eastern National Park & Monument Association - therefore I presume not PD. Secretlondon 17:51, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • History of Cossacks. Very difficult case. Immense text from [26]. However, the website claims the authorship of a certain W. V. Chereshnev in 1952. Under Soviet law, as I understand, Col. Chereshnev has/had very few rights of authorship over this piece. Its presence on a museum website, with a byline, seems to confirm that it is not copyrighted. -Smack 22:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Just because Soviet law didn't give him rights to it then doesn't mean that United States law today doesn't, I note. Morwen 08:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think not infringement. Assuming that it was in the public domain in Russia and was never published or intended to be covered by US copyright law, this work is also in the public domain in the US, as a work ineligible for US GATT/Uruuguay foreign copyright restoration because of its public domain status.[27] I see no sign of the required Notice of Intent to Enforce for this work, so its use in the US appears not to be infringing if it wasn't in the public domain in Russia and wasn't published in the US. It may have been published in the US, though - the use of English language suggests some publication intent of some sort in some English-speaking country. I see no sign of any US copyright registration, so it appears if published in the US to be out of copyright and in the public domain in the US. However, I haven't conducted a full examination of the law in this area. See [28] to search copyright records. I found none for this work or this author. Jamesday 15:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • The document does not appear to be explicitly put into the public domain and is thus protected by copyright. I don't know whether the copyright is held by the Russian government or the actual author, but it is copyright nevertheless. Daniel Quinlan 02:26, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see there is no evidence that the works copyright expired in the USSR (who were a signatory on the 1952 UCC). --Imran 17:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Any idea of the general copyright status of the works of Soviet or Russian government employees produced in the course of their work? Ignoring that for the moment, the language and introduction strongly suggest US publication. That eliminates Russian law as a consideration and leaves us with the apparently expired US copyright, making this a public domain work for the US-based Wikipedia. Jamesday 14:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I believe (although I'm not sure) that the copyright would be held by the Russian government (the closest well-known example I can think of is the USSR government holding copyright on Tetris). --Imran 23:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like a copyvio to me. To be public domain, it needs to be explicitly placed in the public domain, either by Russian or Soviet law or by an active declaration by the owner. What's more, the site includes a Copyright smack dab on the front page: Copyright R 2001 Russian military-historical society.
      • The easiest way to enter the public domain in the US at the time of publication given was to publish without a copyright notice. All such works were immediately in the public domain. The second easiest was to let the copyright expire, which happened for about 90% of all works whose copyright was registered for the first term. For this to be anything other than public domain, we have to assume that it's a document which is fake and wasn't really published where it claims to have been published for the audience it claims to be for. It's not completely impossible that the Russian Military History Society is presenting faked documents but I'm not inclined to think so - I assume that it does have a reputation to protect.:) Jamesday 03:03, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • What you're stating only applies to works of American authorships published first (or within 30 days of first pub.) in America, which doesn't apply in this case. --Imran 03:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 8

  • Kofi Annan - Much of it comes from a UN web page [30], which is linked as a main source. The UN material seems to be copyrighted, and the Terms of Use on their web site [31] prohibits distribution, creation of derivative works, etc. Tomos 08:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Dilip Kumar - from [32] Morwen 08:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've created a fresh article at Talk:Dilip_Kumar/temp and it has no references from the earlier copyvio article. The issue can be cleaned up. Jay 19:28, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Deneb - much from [33], may be salvagable. We definately need an article on it! -- Pakaran 14:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure which notice to use, all those above seem intended for when the entire article is copied. Help? -- Pakaran 14:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Where part of the article is infringing, remove the portion which is believed to be infringing and leave the rest, making a note in the edit history that it was removed as a possible copyright infringement. Jamesday 15:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • The original version of the article is essentially the sourcetext, verbatim. It's been over a year, and many people have tweaked it, so removing the original is impossible. So the whole thing is irrevocably a derivative work thereof, and absent the permission of the author of the original sourcetext, the whole thing must go. It may as well get the "this whole thing is copyvio" notice. -- Finlay McWalter 15:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Just about everything was from there, so I removed just about everthing, leaving only the subject and mythology section. If someone wants to do a copy and paste job to eliminate the history after its had its time here, that's fine by me. Jamesday 16:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm rewriting now. Looks like [34] copyvio'd it from us! -- !Pakaran 18:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • It looks more like we copied it fom [35] before Nationmaster copied it from us though. Nationmaster is one of the Sites that use Wikipedia for content. Angela. 18:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
            • Ok, didn't realize. I'll rewrite the article at some point. I just wonder what should be done with it now. As a user, I never had to worry about these issues. Pakaran 18:39, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Rewrite in progress at Deneb/temp, as suggested by Angela on IRC. -- Pakaran 19:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 9

  • Neighbourhood Watch copied from here.Bmills 12:47, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No it wasn't! I wrote the text myself and can find no similar text in the link provided. Please explain! -- Ppe42
      • Honest mistake from Bmills. He meant to put David Edwin Hughes here. Probably had both pages open at the same time, and worked with the wrong one. Andre Engels 13:14, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • OK, thats fine. I just panicked when my nice brand new article was obliterated (temporarily).  :-) -- Ppe42
        • Yes, sorry. Haveleft apology on talk pare, too. Mixed up my stub and my copyvio. Some days I am even more stupid than normal. Bmills 13:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • David Edwin Hughes - see just above.
  • List of well known ports (computing) from here --Imran 17:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this is okay. Firstly, the site you quote isn't the original source - the original is IANA's list of assigned port numbers [40] (notice the dodgy "who's" grammar on the 513 line in both). Secondly, I think this falls firmly into the "raw information can't be copyrighted" thing. Thirdly the list is the accumulation of years of ongoing RFC updates (none of them with copyright notices) so it's very hard to imagine anyone being able to honestly assert copyright over the list. And lastly many of the entries were compiled by the US government or its contractors (particularly BBN and SRI on DARPA contracts) and so those parts specifically are in the public domain. -- Finlay McWalter 18:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree with your first point, however or your second I disagree. While the individul entries are not copyrightable, as a hand-selected collection the list is probably covered by compilation copyright. If the list was comprehensive or chosen in a machanical manner then you might be right, but as someonehas had to choose what to put in and what not to put in (i.e. Why include the port used by Doom but not those used by other games?) I believe it qualifies for copyright. --Imran 20:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't see a problem neither. By the way, neohapsis.com assembled a very big list from IANA, nmap and trojan discussion groups, including information on "trojan" ports. It's GPLed: http://www.neohapsis.com/neolabs/neo-ports/ nikai 18:30, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • GPL is not GFDL compatible so we can't use it. --Imran 20:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC).
    • Not copyrightable in US law. There's no significant creativity - the real original work is simply comprehensive coverage of factual information in the obvious arrangement. See Feist v. Rural and the West cases referenced there. The full Bender decision mentions a case where thousands thusands of edits were found not to create a new copyright. Note that the losing party in Bender was the leading US publisher of legal decisions and it failed to obtain copyright coverage for its publication. I recommend reading the Bender decision to anyone who wants to get an idea of just how broad "not copyrightable" is in US law. Jamesday 14:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • See my above statement, the list isn't comprehensive, compare it with the neohapsis list linked to by nikai. --Imran 23:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the Bender logic: [41] "selection from among two or three options, or of options that have been selected countless times before and have become typical, is insufficient. Protection of such choices would enable a copyright holder to monopolize widely-used expression and upset the balance of copyright law". At this point, it's really tough for anyone to have a copyright in anything resembling a complete compilation of these ports - they have become typical. The presentation is obvious, the data is the core of the presentation, the descriptive material is obvious and the selectivity appears to be excluding very little. Seeing Doom there but not other games isn't surprising - most games don't need registered ports and the registered ports or common collisions are the ones which made it into the lists. Not many equalled Doom, nor were around so early that they made it into widely distributed lists. Jamesday 03:39, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • That case wouldn't seem to cover this topic, as there are many possible combinations of well known ports. Also the fact that a significantly large number of these lists use the term "well known ports" leads me to suspect that they've all copied from one source (probably the IANA). I disagree with your non-selective opinion, as the list isn't comprehensive and hasn't be selected mechanically. Also note the title of "well known ports" specifically implies a selective criteria excluding lesser known ports. Given the lack of a formal definition of "well known" it means that there has to be a level of human selection involved in the process. If you had a hundred people and told them all to make up a list of well known ports, then you would almost certainly get 100 different lists. --Imran 04:21, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 10

Author has posted the following "Hi, I'm Jonathan Broxton, the copyright holder of the info on this page from the Movie Music UK website. I hereby give full permission for it to be used as the details for this composer (as I posted it myself!)" Secretlondon 15:53, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

  • Richie Furay - someone claiming to be the author has complained on this article's talk page. It is similar to [49] and [50]. The original page was written DEcember 2002, however. Secretlondon 19:06, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

December 11

  • Dalton Gang from [53] - Bmills 13:04, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • United States government websites are in the public domain. I included the url of the government site. --Greenmountainboy
  • Yes, it is public domain. Maybe this should be indicated more expressly. Zocky 13:27, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Ok. Thank you. Sorry for the trouble I caused by not indicating public domain. I did not know that that was the policy, but next time I will include the text "from public domain". Greenmountainboy 13:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I have reverted to the original text. Needs to be formatted and wikified. Bmills 13:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep all; those are all stubs, not mass import of text. --Jiang | Talk 23:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • While I like your vote, you're on the wrong page.:) This is possible copyright infringement, not VfD. A stub can infringe. Would you like to argue that some of those aren't copyright infringment? Jamesday 00:59, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I know very well what this page is titled, thank you. How do these infringe, especially if you convert these copied statements into complete sentences? It's generic text that I could have created without consulting the place from where you claimed these were "copied". --Jiang | Talk 04:06, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • William D. Phillips, Steven Chu, Pierre-Gilles de Gennes identify a GFDL site as the infringed site. Could still be infringed, though - what was your reason for thinking that those three were infringing the GFDL of the source site? Jamesday
      • Looks like those ones came originally from EB, see [54]. --Imran 01:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm inclined to think that the EB is not infringing the copyright of someone else. I assume that nobel-winners.com is infringing their copyright and falsely claiming GFDL status. That is, assuming there's no GFDL declaration compliance somewhere at EB, which seems most unlikely.:) Jamesday 03:57, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Synopsys - Huge POV company profile. Company is important enought to justify an article, but this ain't it. Anjouli 13:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like a lift from the company Web site. Delete. Bmills 13:46, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Copyviol, perhaps. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • opird from here. My guess would be that someone from the company created the page and they own the copyright, so not really a copyvio. Bmills 13:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Could they be this pathetic? They are quite a large company, I think. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • The IP 207.83.113.69 that wrote it is from Synopsys's network. Definitely self-advertising. -- Jake 14:23, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Delete. Secretlondon 17:18, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite. Isomorphic 19:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all adverts. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep but rewrite. Revenues of $1.8 billion might put it on the small side of significance for an encycolpedia, but we have good articles on smaller. Contents appear to be lifted from an SEC filing which would put them in the public domain - no copyvio. Also, I don't think that you can call the article an advertisement just because the author works for the company. Who else is going to start the article? Will we forbid every member of the military from contributing to articles on the US Army? A POV article just means the rest of us have an obligation to fix it. It's at least a usable starting point. Rossami 15:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think it was called an ad because it replicated the contents of the company Web site which presumably exists to promote the company. Bmills 15:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If it's rewritten as a history of the company, I'll change my vote. Ortonmc
    • Move to Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. No way to know if the contributor / Synopsys employee owns the copyrights to the company website page, unless the contributor responds. Jay 09:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)



  • CompUSA - Looks like an advertisement, text is from CompUSA website. Ortonmc 22:04, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I just did some NPOVing on it. It's not really that bad after deleting a few useless sentences and rewording a bit. Isomorphic 22:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Neutral - I created page because dead link to it already existed from Dallas page. Wasn't attempting to advertising. Thanks for killing the POV material. Happety
      • Question though... if the text is from the CompUSA website, do you have authorization to use it, Happety? Could be a copyvio. Isomorphic 22:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • It absolutely is a copyvio. And an incremental rewrite of it (which is what we've got presently) is a derivative work thereof, and thus a copyvio too. Y'all should blank the current copy and start the rewrite from a tabula rasa, to avoid problems. -- Finlay McWalter 23:46, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • This has been a rough first contribution. :) - I have re-written the article from scratch. Facts were obtained still partially by viewing the official website, but also from multiple public press releases and independent articles on business and news sites. It should now violate no copyrights and simply state NPOV facts regarding the company.
          • Looks good to me. Ortonmc 05:36, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's still a derivative work. Better to delete and start from real scratch. Daniel Quinlan 02:09, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

December 12

  • Notker, from [60], which says info on the page is copyrighted. RickK 20:52, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Some of the material in the Internet Medieval Sourcebook is public domain, but I can't find that specific piece of text on their site so I can't say whether it's a copyvio or not.--Imran 01:22, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Davy DMX from [61]. Morwen 21:02, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Map nauru.jpg - source [62]. The image description says it's public domain, however on [63] is a clear copyright notice. andy 22:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be too difficult to take a map of the area and replicate the facts and produce a clearly non-infringing version... while it's easy enough to make a fair use case for this one (the effect on sales is likely to make the use fair, since we're telling people their route map...:) ) I'm not inclined to do so in this case. Of course, if the uploader wanted to do so... I would advise them not to bother, just take a map of the area and put on the same information. :) Jamesday 01:54, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems to be clearly infringing. No evidence it's public domain. Daniel Quinlan 02:03, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • Sounds as though you need to read fair use and Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation. Not public domain is not the same as infringing. Kelly was commerial reuse of commercial work and was fair use. Same for VCRs, cable TV and player pianos, all of which were found to be fair use. Jamesday 02:34, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • First, they had to go to court to prove it (which we don't want to do, we should be more conservative in order to preserve the freedom and availability of Wikipedia). Second, it only allowed thumbnails and links, not complete copies (which this is). Third, the poster claimed public domain, not fair use. I think the fair use case is so-so, but given the map is 100% copied, I think we should delete and ask a few sites to provide an image with permission. (Which is exactly what I've done recently for a place that provides maps and has a history of granting permission, so hopefully we'll have another source besides the CIA soon.) Daniel Quinlan 02:45, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • I hadn't seen the public domain claim - thought you were suggesting that it was PD or infringement. I agree with your conclusion (let it be deleted, unless someone other than me does a fair use analysis). While I'm happy enough to say that things are fair use when that appears to be the case, this is one case where I'd decided that I simply wasn't interested in doing the work to make a fair use argument. It's easy enough to take a map of the area and put on the points and it would take me longer to do the fair use work than it would take me to make the map. One correction on Kelly - the court didn't decide on the question of inline linking. It told the lower court to take another look and do that (unless that has been completed and I've mised it, that is). Good to hear that someone is actually doing the work to get licensed use for a broad range of work! I'm happy enough to say that something is fair use when it looks as though it is but it'd be nice if there were more people getting broad licenses and saving everyone time in the long run. You mentioned "has a history of getting permission". Is that actually recorded somewhere here so others can easily find out who has and hasn't granted permission? Jamesday 04:17, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • The historic tendency for the particular source I've mentioned is mentioned on their own site and I tend to believe this particular site. I'm not going to mention who, though, I don't want a horde of Wikipedia authors descending on them asking for permission. I'm asking for a single image, while hinting at some form of blanket permission. Daniel Quinlan 05:32, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
        • The list of currently known ones is Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Daniel Quinlan 05:35, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

December 13

  • Undergraduate Projects Lab is the same as the text from a University of Wisconsin page, which I don't think would be public domain. There's a copyright notice on the page claiming copyright for the Projects Lab.Meelar 22:06, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The contributors claim to own the copyright, and have released it, but there's another copyright at www.wisc.edu which, I would assume, covers everything in their domain space. RickK 22:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Given the student work described (computer lab admin) I accept that the uploader is the original author, who created the work and made it available to both the university and us. Jamesday 02:02, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • There is no reason to believe an anonymous IP when they claim to have copyright. If you feel the content is worth keeping please send the Confirmation of permission letter. Angela. 02:08, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree with Angela. If they own it, they can surely grant permission on the source web page or grant permission in response to an email permission letter. Daniel Quinlan 02:27, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
        • The IP resolves to the University of Wisconsin. I've no interest in keeping this but deleting it for the right reason (not notable) beats the copyright infringement which it appears not to be. Jamesday 02:29, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I agree with you there. I have no problem with listing an article on two deletion pages at once. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 04:00, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Shull from [64]. Angela. 22:27, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's also a vanity page, so even if it weren't a copyvio, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. RickK 22:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks as though it's from one of her students, Emily in the fifth grade judging from the edit history for Igor Stravinsky. Doesn't seem to merit an entry, does seem to be a copyright infringement. Jamesday 02:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 14

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=1955846"