Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KeithD (talk | contribs) at 11:39, 25 August 2005 (→August 19: Up Versus down "Peg" Spectrum - permission granted by website's owner. What's the next step?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WP:CP does not stand for Wikipedia:Community Portal.

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

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

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

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

Instructions

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, follow the instructions below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made.

I.
New page, existing page, or image?


If a new page, go to II.
If an existing page, go to III.
If an image, go to IV.

II.
Replace content with {{copyvio}}


Blank the page and replace the text with {{copyvio|url=[insert URL here]}} ~~~~ .
Note that that is the "pipe", or vertical bar character between the words "copyvio" and "url", not the letter l.
Then go to today's section and list the page. The task is now finished.

III.
Revert the page


The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. The task is now finished.

IV.
Add {{imagevio}} to the image page


Add the following to the image description page: {{imagevio|url=[insert URL here]}} ~~~~
Then go to today's section and list the image. The task is now finished.

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

Optionally, add {{nothanks}} to the article creator's talk page, to notify them of the problems with posting copyrighted material to wikipedia. Use the format {{subst:nothanks|article title}}. For images optionally add {{idw-cp}} to the image uploader's talk page, using the format {{subst:idw-cp|Image:file name}}

In addition

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

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

Instructions for special cases

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

See also

Older than 7 days

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

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

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

Author claims to be owner of copyrighted material on article's talk page.
If this survives the copyvio process, please see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Bi-moments, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Co-moment, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tri-moments, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-moment, as this probably article should be nominated for deletion too.. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use claims needing a second opinion


Comment Hopefully these images fall under fair use but I listed here because I am not sure and this and the following image seems to fall into a grey area. Jtkiefer July 5, 2005 23:27 (UTC)
    • I think they should be deleted and replaced with the original national geographic cover.--nixie 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this listed here. There is no concept under fair use that allows you to copy an entire picture from a photographers website. This is a copyvio. Chuck 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, I can't see any possible justification for this under fair use guidelines. DreamGuy 18:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • You cannot give or refuse permission for fair use, it's a right entirely unrelated to licencing, and nothing short of a contract can take it away. Given how famous the picture has become, I think we can claim fair use in articles about the photographer, the girl or national geographic. --fvw* 22:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


  • Image:London2005Bus.jpg: The claim is that this is fair use, but it seems clear to me that it is not. This photo is copyright, all rights reserved, and used on the commercial BBC website on a page of photos. It's evident that they derive significant value from it. And we display this image on the Main Page! We're practically begging to be sued. Some photo related to this event would really be helpful for the article, though. Deco 21:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deco correctly observes that this image is copyright and all rights reserved. This does not, however, preclude a fair use claim on this image. Fair use is a legal concept used legitimately to reproduce such images which are copyrighted. This includes news reportage!
Furthermore, BBC News operates for the public good. The corporation is a public non-profit entity and is funded by license fees paid by British television users. The BBC news website is not "commercial" (as asserted above) - none of the pages carry advertising and the BBC does not generate revenue through its news website. The BBC derives no direct commercial value from this photo, as Deco has claimed on my talk page. The idea that the BBC would sue another non-profit entity is risible. Can someone please explain, with reference to the fair use criteria, why this is inelligble for fair use? TreveXtalk 21:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, I'm still unsure. Our non-profit status does give us some leeway. It is a low resolution image. I wasn't aware that the BBC was a non-profit organization - I always thought they were a corporation like the New York Times. However, the BBC may have purchased rights to use the image from a professional photographer or a commercial news corporation, in which case we'd still be in trouble. U.S. legislation about fair use of media for news may not apply, partly because the copyright owner may be in Britain and partly because we're not technically a news website. I suppose as long as we have OCILLA there's no real harm in leaving it up, but I'm not sure if this image is covered by the criteria on Wikipedia:Fair use (you reach #9, "Does the nature of the image and source (if known) suggest it is intended for wide distribution?" but I'm not sure if it fails this). It seems like a murky enough case that I wouldn't bet money that it's fair use, at least if I weren't a copyright lawyer. At this point I don't really care all that much though. Deco 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image page is still locked, as it was recently on the main page. I have added a fair use rationale to the discussion page instead]]. TreveXtalk 12:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that it is a current news event. The copyright holder (apparently the bbc) wants to benefit from the work. Our reproduction of the image harms them in that it makes their website slightly less useful compared to ours, reduces the number of BBC web site users and slightly lowers their reputation as a bearer of unique news information. While I think it unlikely that they would sue, I think a fair use claim would be hard to defend. Wikipedia is non-commercial and the use of the image is transformative (in making an encyclopedic article), but the image is not an historical record so the nature of the image detracts from a fair use claim. The work is entirly reproduced - although at web resolution. The third factor is partially fulfilled. And surely there is an effect on the potential market, although the BBC might not be intending to sell the image, they hope to benefit from it in other ways. The BBC has an unusual status, deriving much of it's revenue from the licence fee and with a public service charter. But it's not a non-profit in the same way that we are. They are probably unlikely to sue, but I don't think that should be a major consideration. I think based on the nature of this image, our use isn't fair, and the image should be deleted as a copyright violation. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Dispute Er... correct me if I'm wrong, but I am sure that the image in question was from a London CCTV camera. As such, the BBC has no copyright claim on it. Cynical 13:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is full of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of images from news websites which are tagged as fair use. The current events section articles and the main page image for current events rely heavily on such images. Can I ask on what basis may any images taken from news websites be used on wikipedia as fair use? I cannot distinguish between this image and inumerable other similiar images which have never been listed on this page. TreveXtalk 14:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If these images were fair use then other news organizations could use them without permission. Associated Press and UPI and BBC and everyone sells their content to other papers, or sometimes does exchanges for other content back. If the real news organizations can't just get away with taking them without permission, how can we be expected to? DreamGuy 18:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Others

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

    • How is this different than any other similar list, many of which are also the basis for a Wikipedia article? MK2 04:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this one. More opinions needed. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • FHM had creative input into the list, both in ordering and selection. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service#Implications. —Korath (IANAL) 12:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • FHM actually had no input on the ordering or selection. Both are the result of a reader poll. FHM's editorial content would be the selection of the pictures and text which accompanied the poll results and neither is included in the Wikipedia article. MK2 00:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a fascinating dillemma. On the one hand, I can't see why this list couldn't be copyrighted. On the other hand, we list the Oscar winners and runner-ups, and the Nobel Prize winners and nominees, which are essentially the same thing. I can't imagine it would be a problem to say "She was listed as one of FHM's sexiest women of 2005" in each woman's article, so why would it be a problem to list them in one article? I'd tend to vote keep, but if a lawyer wants to chime in, we'd all be obliged. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • 100 Greatest Cartoons - from [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)


July 26

July 27

  • Image:Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg from [9] with copyright notice at [10] The article attributes the source images to the US Navy. This is not correct, as they were taken by the Royal Australian Navy (the linked slideshow says "Photos and Mk-48 Torpedo information provided by Maritime Headquarters and DSTO Australia. Photos by PO Scott Connolly and AB Stuart Farrow"), which has the its copyright notice at [11], which states that you may "reproduce this material in unaltered form only". However, I don't know if this will require the image to be deleted and replaced with an original, or just deleted altogether, or whether because it was placed on the US Department of Defence sites, whether public domain then applies. A photo from the sequence is at [12], and I have also seen a video of the whole sequence (both on the Internet and at Defence Jobs displays) but I can't find the URL to it.--Nthnl 03:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The submitter is claiming that *he* is allowed to license the image simply because he pasted together other images he has no rights to? Taking images from elsewhere and putting them together does not mean you have a copyright that you can then choose to license out to people, that's not how things work at all. DreamGuy 04:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
It seems I have mixed up the sources, and the images originate from the Australian Navy. In this case, the source images have not been in public domain. To DreamGuy: As I understand it, Images in the PD can be used, and if modified can be given another copyright. That is why there are CC and GFDL licenses, otherwise we could just use PD, and everybody else has to continue to use PD for the images and derivatives. The arranging of the images (cutting, adding lines, etc.) was not a huge job, but still took some time. Hence I added a free license so that the derivatives created by me would stay free. In any case, this is no longer a point for this image, since they were not PD to begin with. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've asked Chris to de-commons it again and upload it here with a legal copyright tag. Once that's done this discussion can be removed. --fvw* 00:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

July 28



August 2

  • Crosstar3.gif - Nationalist image lifted from [15]. Crosstar 2 August 2005
    • I uploaded and added this image to the Nationalist Movement article under fair use guidelines. Please see image description page for details. Kaldari 01:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, limited permission was granted by a user purporting to represent the copyright owner, Crosstar. [16] "(Copyright (C) 2005 Skinheadz, PO Box 2008, Learned MS 39154 USA. Permission is granted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this licensed image, but changing it is not allowed.)" That user also consented to the GFDL by uploading it. -Willmcw 09:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • The copyright/trademark owner specifies that permission NOT granted for use of its image and places violators of its rights on notice accordingly. 10:56, August 2, 2005
      • The image was uploaded under Wikipedia:Fair use, and is thus allowed to be used in this context. The "copyright/trademark owner" may not stop a legitimate fair use claim on the image, and subesquent use thereof in an article. [[smoddy]] 13:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material..... When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." U.S. Copyright Office [17] 14:00 August 2, 2005
    • I doubt that this symbol, also called an arrow cross, can be copyrighted or trademarked and is therefore in the public domain. It is basically a copy of a popular fascist symbol used in Hungary before World War II and if anyone "owns" it this entity is defunct and could not now assert any rights against such claims [18] [19] [20]. It is a variation of a common symbol that is used for many purposes[21]. It is stated that this symbol has its origins with the Magyar tribes of circa 1000 A.D. [22] Just because someone is using a common symbol does not mean that they can then claim copyright ownership or trademark status of that symbol that has a well-documented prior history. — © Alex756 17:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I have replaced the original image with a new version that is not based on the specific image found on the crosstar website. It's still the same insignia, but a different version of it. Hopefully this will eliminate any copyright concerns raised by the proprietors of that site. Kaldari 22:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second copyright-violation notice posted after Kaldari tried to ignore/circumvent the first notice with a "different version" of the same image. [23] 9:31 August 4, 2005
      • Well I tried to replace it but then Crosstar reverted it. I'm not sure why he would want to revert it to the previous version since that's the one he's complaining about. Kaldari 22:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very impressive selective reading. The sentence continues, "... unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation". We argue that it does. A lawyer's advice confirms this. Fair use applies; we are allowed to use the image. [[smoddy]] 15:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regardless -- why don't we just replace the one he's complaining about with one of the many other arrow-crosses freely available out there? Since there's nothing unique about this particular gang of racist thugs' use of the icon, there's no reason to waste any more time with this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good idea. Here are some depictions which might either be in the public domain or permission might be readily obtained. (smoddy appears to be 16-years-old, by the way). [24] [25]. 9:50, August 4, 2005.
                • Firstly, I cannot understand how that is in the remotest bit relevant. If it was in any way meant as a personal insult, I request you delete it immediately. My age has no bearing on my position in Wikipedia. I would suggest, however, that using the logo of the Nationalist Movement to illustrate the page makes considerably more sense than an image that just happens to look a little bit like it. [[smoddy]] 22:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I have not been able to locate any trademark registration for such a symbol in the USPTO database. I still believe it would be fair use regardless of trademark status, however. Kaldari 01:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt there is any trademark or copyright registration, and it probably would be rejected from any application for copyright registration as having no originality or creativity, see PrimeSource v. Personnel Resource, 48 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1940 (1998) and John Muller & Co., Inc. v. N.Y. Arrows Soccer Team, 802 F.2d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 1986) where a logo with four arrows was considered not original enough to be copyrightable. Regarding using uncopyrightable trademarks in an article identifying the trademark, this would not create any legal liability for the person posting it because such speech is protected by the First Amendment, something these Nationalist people know about. — © Alex756 14:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

I think this may be from the catholic enclycopedia.Geni 20:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01253b.htm - I've removed the copyvio tag; will the next person to review this please delist it? JesseW 23:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

  • HIV Progression Rates from [43]. Note link is to a Google search which shows first the few words of the single hit ([44]) as identical to the first few words of this article. I am unable to view the full text of the article. Ken 01:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I can view the full text and it isn't the same.13:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

August 5

*Updated copyvio url on that page to [84]; I found signs it'd rather be from that place in the edit history
  • This one was added by a staff member of Hellgate Guru, and a former staff member of RPG Codex, which explains the content at both these sites. He simply copied his page onto Wikipedia as he thought the article needed to be fleshed out. Reverting the content at Hellgate: London#Factsheet. -- Jugalator 17:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Listings of ingrediants (as in a recipie) cannot be copyrighted [95]. However, instructions and commentary can be. --Duk 07:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the quotes from Cornell News. the remaining text contains basic ingredients and very basic instructions, along with my own personal commentary on introduction and cooking technique.--Ajaxlex 19:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

[137] Clearly copyrighted image lifted from [138] 9:53, August 6, 2005.

Does it count as a copyvio when the "copyvio" content is included as a quote and sourced? Granted there was very little content aside from the quote, but doesn't that mean it's a stub? AlistairMcMillan 20:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • article is identical to link in question, specifically the single paragraph towards the top labled, TERRY J. LUNDGREN in purple. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 16:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea where I'm supposed to leave this message, but my name is Josiah Roe and I own Coptix and the copyright to st-elmo.org and the history page can and should be used for the wikipedia page for the Saint Elmo Historic District

August 7

The text and the copyright are mine! Lidia Vianu
Original research and vanity page are more the problem. Tearlach 16:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

(c) Goanet 2005 Creative Commons -- http://www.creativecommons.org Feel free to reproduce this compilation in its entirety, with all credits retained. But the text is only a snipet and without author credit. Also the page doesn't state which CC licence they adhere to. feydey 11:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

Image:Adam_Gilchrist.jpg from [277]
Image:Dirk_Nowitzki.jpg from [278]
Image:Javed Miandad.jpg from [279]
Image:Moin_Khan.jpg from [280]
Image:Waqar.jpg from [281]
Image:Wasim_Akram.jpg from [282]
Image:Wasim_Bari.jpg from [283]
Stephen Turner 16:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Scudder | Talk 22:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

I have composed this article after 3 months of research & have recieved acknowledgement mails from Tata Chairman's office too. This article has been published on 2 sites [326] and [www.indiainfoline.com/bisc/ari/kaut.pdf] I am new to Wiki, so please guide me on uploading the same. Navendu 06:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the copyright, it looks like original research to me. Tearlach 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
wu-wo Please revert back, There is NO COPYRIGHT PROBLEM.
We are the uploaders and the othersite's owners/authors Tsai, Rong Tsang (蔡榮章) and Steven R. Jones Taipei,Contact-- sherdwen@yahoo.ca, icetea@email.com

--Sherdwen 14:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)sherdwen[reply]

User 81.136.114.95 claims to be the copyright holder; I have written for confirmation of permission. --Ngb 13:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Permission received [348] -- I have rinstated and wikistyled the material. --Ngb 10:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry and Music of the Syriac Orthodox Church from [350] --malathion talk 13:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Marth Mariam Church from [351] Malathion 13:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The information on this page was given with permission from the Marketing Department at Desire2Learn Inc. No copyright infringement exists with this page Jeffish 18:29 10 August 2005 (UTC)

August 11

Book cover, fair use presumably... there's even a tag specifically for book covers. DreamGuy
  • I don't think fair use applies in this case. Reason; the image was directly taken from the PH website. It's not a scanned image of the book front, photograph of it, or a reduced focus replicate. It's the actual image, lifted from their website. From [398]; "The entire content of this Site and any supporting software are the proprietary property of Pearson and/or its licensors". --Durin 18:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See above. DreamGuy 12:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
See above. DreamGuy 12:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC) 
RSpeer 20:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

August 12

Meditation guru from [478] Sasquatch讲看 05:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

August 13

Regards,
Michael L. Richardson, M.D., Professor, Department of Radiology
University of Washington. mrich@u.washington.edu
  • The picture (Image:Po image01.jpg) appears to be from an old historical print and thus public domain for age... although it would be a good idea to crop the website name right off of it if it is going to be kept.DreamGuy 08:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

http://aldowning.bamacher.com Bamacher 23:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was added by Antaiji. The article was submitted by the author of the text on the mentioned homepage himself, so there should be no copyright problems (I am the copyright holder - Muho Noelke)

  • Hey, this page was added by Zen Mountain Monastery (http://www.mro.org/zmm) from our own website. So there is no copyright problem. Thanks -- Nickrophelia 19:16, 13 August 2005

**John Beecher should not have been listed as a Wikipedia:Copyright problems#August 13. I admit that the original article from back in March (at [574]) was indeed a copy violation of [[575]]. Unfortunately, I didn't know this when I started editing the article. Despite this lack of knowledge, the article has been expanded and rewriten. Now it only has parts of two sentences which are the same as the original source (a problem which can be easily fixed). The article also has a good deal of info not in the original link. Any similarities to the original link are now due to the fact that the article follows the main points of his life. In short, while the article may have originally been a violation, it is no longer one. I don't think we should delete an article merely b/c it started out as a copyright violation.--Alabamaboy 00:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Removing objection. I still disagree with posting this as a copyright violation, but since I wasn't the one who did this violation I'm okay with the article being deleted. I'll write a new, non copyright violation article on the guy at some point in future.--Alabamaboy 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New listings

August 15

The text is almost word-for-word with minor modification made to fit it onto Wikipedia. Please remove all text immediately as this is a clear breach of my copyright. No permission has ever been given to ANYONE to use the text from these links for their own purposes.(posted by User:203.118.142.186)

August 16

Please see MIA's 100% free pledge: http://www.marxists.org/admin/legal/charter.htm.
The original author's main and subsidiary pages do not have copyright notices:
Written permission from the original author has been obtained and can be provided, for reference, via off site email. DJ Silverfish 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright problem has been resolved by rewrite, and article has been moved to Orlando Theatre Project. --Metropolitan90 04:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a repeat offender: Image:Ickenham.PNG, Image:Fpark.PNG, Image:Greenwich.PNG, Image:Cgarden.PNG, Image:Cwater.PNG, Image:Arnos Grove.jpg, Image:Angel.PNG, Image:Moorgate.PNG, Image:Canarywharf.PNG, Image:Hammersmith.PNG, Image:Bankmonument.PNG, Image:Kcps.PNG, Image:Queensway.PNG, Image:Westminster.PNG, Image:Waterloo.PNG, Image:Tubemap.PNG, Image:Hillingdon.PNG, Image:Ruislip.PNG, Image:Ruislip.PNG, Image:Raynerslane.PNG, Image:Westruislip.PNG, Image:Eastcote.PNG, Image:Eastindia.PNG, Image:Aldgate.PNG, Image:Ealingbroadway.PNG, Image:Swissrelogo.PNG, Image:Bakerstreet.PNG, Image:Baker street.PNG, Image:Cockfosters.PNG, Image:Wembleypark.PNG, Image:Uxbridge.PNG.
Edward 23:29:19, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

August 17

January 16, 1937 issue Birth Control Wins
article | posted March 6, 2002 (January 16, 1937 issue) Birth Control Wins Hannah M. Stone
This article originally appeared in the January 16, 1937, issue
Zoe 08:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

August 18

  • There's no proof of a copyright violation. The article's been significantly updated now and the copyright violation notice removed, as the original text is gone. --Durin 18:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perpendicular Universe appears to have been largely copied from [855] --SteveHFish 03:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

User:4.245.115.188 claims to grant use of it. Have emailed the website owner to confirm. KeithD (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've received email confirmation from the owner of the website, granting permission to use it (and indeed anything from his website) under the GNU Free Documentation License. Can I revert the page, or does an admin have to do so? KeithD (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like hell "none has been sought". I've had extensive email contact with the owner of the site & images, and even shown him Template:SocEur and "Category:Soccer-europe images", both of which have been approved. The category page contains a "licence" of sorts (which I was advised to put there by the very helpful and patient EagleOne), approved by the webmaster. --fuddlemark 21:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have reverted it. Qwghlm 21:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Amapola from [900]; direct cut/paste. --Durin 23:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC) I am the writer, producer and webmaster of this website for Miss Amapola. She has given me permission to the Copyright of any of her articles that I had written. I am including the Copyright paragraph here as you have suggested:[reply]

Copyright (c)2005 Mack T. Manx/ 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".

August 20

See comment under malamute, below. Elf | Talk 00:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll use the "temporary subpage" to rework the article. The article had some useful information that wasn't copied directly from the other site. BTW, I used to own one. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 00:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief, the talk page already addressed the issue with the source from which this came. Maybe the samem material is at multiple sources, but there's no need to go to a subpage or nuthin.' Elf | Talk 00:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See comment under malamute, above. Elf | Talk 00:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrtie to avoid copyvio now at the /temp page. RJFJR 15:58, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • A'Lelia Walker from [945] which was added as a long block. we can probably go back to an older (smaller) version. RJFJR 16:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Blenko Glass from [946] RJFJR 16:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Hott_Butter-Popcorn_Melody.PNG, marked with GFDL but is an image of the notes of a copyrighted song. The song in mp3 format on WP is marked with "fair use" and contains, for a musician exactly the same info. I suspect the image is to be treated as a derivative work - as such, only the image can be licensed under GFDL, and not also the melody as is now implied. The image should possibly be changed to fair use just as the song in mp3 format. TERdON 16:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. The notes of a song (or, equivalently, the MIDI representation of a song) are not remotely the same as a recording. Just as MIDI files of copyrighted works are considered different enough from their original songs to not infringe on copyrights, so sheet music derived from hearing a copyrighted work should not be considered infringement. Nominating this image as you have done sets a chilling precedent where not even the notes or tablature of most songs are allowed to be uploaded to the Wikipedia. --Ardonik.talk()* 20:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • (fixed image link, sorry for that one). It should be allowed on en:, that I'm sure on. The question is under what license - GFDL or Fair use. The reason I have nominated it because the question if we could use it on sv: (where fair use isn't allowed) came up, i.e. I only want clarification of the license status (licensing under wrong license is copyright infringement!), I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to report such questions on en:, please move it to where it should be asked then and put a note on my talk page. To give you some parallels - 1) why is the mp3 playing this exact melody marked fair use and not GFDL then? As I've unerstood the reason is even the melody itself is copyrightable... 2) On sv: at least, we don't allow song texts at all (copyrighted, remember, no fair use). What is the difference with the song melody? 3) I have in my possession numerous note papers, lots of them for instrumental works, and as far as I know all of them have copyright notices on them (although it could be argued that applied to the graphics only)... 4) Notes actually only are a "language" similar to normal english etc. If we reformat a copyrighted english text, it's not enough to not make it infringement...
I know this is kind of a special case, I have read quite a few of WP:s copyright info pages, and I don't remember seeing any info on it at all. Actually, I didn't really imagine the problem at all... TERdON 12:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC) PS. For me personally, as a musician, I see uploading of notes or tabulature (I play the guitar so I know what it is) no differently than uploading the music itself... To me it's no different than translating the latest Harry Potter into wallon and then uploading the translation to wikipedia (or perhaps, in this case, wikisource). TERdON[reply]
As I have said before, my stance is that the notes or MIDI instructions of a song are sufficiently different from the original as to constitute a unique, derived work. I cannot reproduce Smooth Operator or even a wordless song like Popcorn given onlt the notes; at best, what I'll get it something that has the same melody as the original. MIDI sequencers of pop music have had to deal with this issue for years before the Wikipedia even existed; you'll notice that most MIDI sites aren't issued takedown notices like MP3 hosting sites are. Personally, I think you're letting m:copyright paranoia get the better of you. --Ardonik.talk()* 17:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have a counterexample - I hope this holds true in the US as well. Cell phone ring tones! At least in Europe, they are considered derivative works of the original copyrighted ones, even though most of them isn't closer to the original than for example this one. And what happens in practice isn't equal to the letter of the law always. :) I just reacted when the Mp3:d version of the song (which just is MIDI that has been MP3 converted FYI) was marked fair use, and the image of the notes of the same part weren't. And as said, there's no question that it belongs on en:, I'm just unsure if I dare use it on sv:, where we have chosen to be copyright paranoids, partly because european copyright is different from american, partly of principle. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anyone that really knows a lot of this stuff on sv: that I could ask. Perhaps a better solution would be to upload the image to commons, report it there, and await the result of the discussion instead of keeping it here? Or look for similar discussions there. The commons copyright guidelines are more similar to the swedish ones. TERdON 17:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Hyacinth's transcription of Popcorn at File:Hot Butter Popcorn Melody.mp3 is currently marked as fair use. (This seems strange to me, because it's likely that Hyacinth created the file note for note by ear--I think it's a liberal interpretation of copyright law to call that infringement. What does copyright law have to say about cover songs anyway?) But regardless of the MP3's copyright status, how can you extend the principle of fair use to the notes themselves? They are not 1s and 0s that can reconstitute the original song in whole or part when sent to the right software; they are just glyphs representing the underlying melody in abstract, about as far removed from from the original as you can get. I think GFDL is exactly the right license for the image, and I'd have the same opinion even if the image were placed on Commons (which doesn't tolerate "fair use" excuses like En does.)
Ring tones are just MIDI files, so if European law considers the creation of a ring tone of a copyrighted work to be infringing, that doesn't bode well for the European music scene. In particular, a lot of the Popcorn remixes I've heard came from Germany, and it seems more popular over there than over here!
I am definitely not convinced that Image:Hott_Butter-Popcorn_Melody.PNG is a copyvio or that we cannot license it under the GFDL in both Commons and En (the license of Hyacinth's Hot Butter Popcorn Melody.mp3 nonewithstanding.) We should get a third opinion on this matter. --Ardonik.talk()* 19:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to let some one more consider it, I am not convinced myself of anything, I just want to be sure. Even though the mp3 file can't be rendered automatically from the image (there is no note OCR program that I know of!), the process of making it is totally noncreative - use a MIDI edit-by-note program and enter what is on the picture. A monkey-job - i.e. for a musician, the notes ARE 0's and 1's and I could reproduce the mp3 file in ca 10 seconds (I hope the file isn't 15 secs, then I'm lying! :) )... And yes, the copyright laws in Europe do forbid it AFAIK (but IANAL!), though in common practice it isn't always followed (ie no one cares in practice). Cellphone ringtones is a big income for the record companies here btw... About cover songs: to my knowing, they are considered derivative works, where copyright in part is belonging to the original artist and in part to the cover maker. In Sweden (and probably most of Europe) you have to pay money to the original artist for playing covers publically or releasing them on CD etc... (and as GFDL is a license to do that gratis, I see a problem). Not sure if the original creator can stop you from distributing a cover totally though - at least it isn't normal practice.
And I don't think exactly this song is going to be a problem (I just see the potential problem when Wikipedia put notes all over the place and the notebook publishers get angry), it's already quite widespread, but I would like it to be marked correctly, considering the question of use on other wikipedias. I would probably not even have reacted if it was only one bar or so - but considering it is the whole main theme (it's a kinda repetitive song) I reacted. If we don't get a third opinion here on this page, I'll upload it to commons, and paste this debate as reference material when immediately report it for deletion :) so one of the guys good at this stuff there can consider it. All I know is that if I found the notes for one of my songs (forgetting the question of vanity!) I would be quite pissed. My songs are only released under a cc-bc-sa-nc-similar license and the noncommercial part in that would, IMHO, be violated if releasing notes under GFDL of the songs... TERdON 20:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correct link would be [958] GeeJo 22:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

August 21

All material used here is with permission of the author to confirm email admin@breakscore.com

August 22

August 23

" Please note: I do hold copyright for the Gandhi Information Center webpage and it is granted: no copyright problem from our side. Christian Bartolf (Chair) Gandhi Information Center http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/ - What to do next?"

August 24

August 25

Wikipedia's current date is November 13, 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=21797746"