Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahoerstemeier (talk | contribs) at 12:45, 21 January 2004 (The Green Howards). 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.

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, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?

Alternatives

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!).
  • Ask for permission - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

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.

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

Please do not edit this page until the copyright issue is resolved, even if you are rewriting it (follow the instructions below).

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, ~~~~

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)


December 17


December 21

  • The flag used in the Gangneung article comes from a © page (see talk page). Kokiri 00:24, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I removed it from the article and added a boilerplate notice and contacted user:Egon, who uploaded it. Give seven days from now. Martin 01:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)


January 2

  • Clinton-Gore Administration contains verbatim passages from [5], not sure if all is a copy vio or just parts. Maximus Rex 04:18, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The same text also exists in the history of Clinton Administration, which currently redirects to Bill Clinton. Maximus Rex 04:22, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The link on the C-G page clearly states that it is from a public domain. The McNair article was written by me this time, not JockBios. What is the problem? McNair article is now a new one written by me. Clinton Gore administration text come verbatim from Wikipedia's passage on 1992 election here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992 --ChrisDJackson
    • Delete and redirect to Bill Clinton (where clinton administration redirect). It's inapporiate, even if not copyvio, since it's a biography of Bill Clinton. --Jiang 07:56, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If it was from a government site, please give us the link. We should not cross-post wikipedia content in different places. --Jiang
      • The US National Archives and Records Office archive of the Clinton Whitehouse page at [6] is the source of the accompishments portion of the article. It is a US federal government work, so is in the public domain. Jamesday 10:46, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The Clinton-Gore page better not get deleted. We can have one of each admin over time. That page has nothing to do with Bill Clinton's bio. It clearly states the elections and their accomplishments/appointments/legislation, ect. I have already gave the link and it is on the page itself: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/history/ch13.htm#1992
      • Agreed on keeping it and having one of these for each administration, though it seems unlikely that an archived copy of a Clinton-Gore whitehouse accomplishments page presented a neutral point of view, so the article does need NPOV work. :) Jamesday 10:46, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Which specific portions need blanking as possible copyright infringements - there's no apparent possibility that the whole page is one, so it doesn't all need to be removed. Absent a specific possibly infringing passage to consider (and remove if infringing), this looks to me like political opponents of Clinton trying to get a useful article about the administration (rather than the person) removed through a bogus infringement claim. Jamesday 23:54, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


January 6


January 10

Looks fine, per the discussion on the image page and what appears to be intended as a license. Looks like fair use otherwise - it's a press release in effect, when used in the way the group intends it to be used (complete). Hard not to use this in a way which isn't fair use, so long as the image is intact, so this would apply to most reusers of the content as well. Getting explicit permission, which appears to be under way, is also good, even if not really required, IMO. Jamesday 12:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


January 12

January 13

  • 203.59.171.56 is submitting a lot of articles that appear to be copied from [14] but Jamesday might regard these as acceptable as they are largely lists of facts so I haven't bothered putting the copyvio boilerplates on them. Angela. 06:36, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • There's not a lot of non-factual material there and what there is between the facts seems in the samples I've seen not to be very likely to be creative or, alternatively, to be so difficult to express differently in about the same number of simple words that protecting it would unacceptably limit expression by others. I wouldn't choose to mention any of those I looked at as copyright infringements. You might ask Alex what he thinks - the point at which lists of facts in minimalist flowing sentences can become creative and distinct enough to protect is one where I haven't yet read as many decisions as I would like and he may disagree or may know of a decision which would cause me to have a different view myself. Meanwhile, I've tried an alternative sugar tack on the talk page of the contributor, which might get us more comprehensive and assuredly non-infringing articles. I'm not really keen on simple copying, particularly not from non-PD sources, regardless of whether I think it's infringement or not. Jamesday 10:47, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think this is somewhat sketchy. Facts aren't copyrightable, but their layout is, and even if one article were okay, it may be hard to defend copying wholesale their entire catalogue of ship descriptions word for word. To use the old phone book example, that's less like reusing the numbers out of the phonebook, and more like just photocopying it and republishing a verbatim copy, which is infringement. --Delirium 06:36, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • See Feist v. Rural (1991), in which Feist copied Rural's telephone listings. The Supreme Court found that the listings in telephone directories are not copyrightable. Also see the West Publishing and Assessment Technologies cases referenced in that article and the merger doctrine (about which we don't yet have an article, I think - says that you don't get copyright when there's little difference between the facts and their expression). The West case included many changes from the original works but it was still fine for their derivative work to be copied because their changes were found not to be creative. There's insufficient creativity in these works for them to qualify for copyright protection, IMO - just the minimal basic connective text between facts. If you think there's sufficient creativity in some of them, please do list those where you think it applies, so we can consider them on their own. Should be easy to extract the facts and keep just them from any article you think does show significant creativity. I recommend reading at least one of the West Publishing decisions first, though - the decisions give lots of examples and may make it clearer why I don't think this is infringing. Jamesday 09:36, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)


January 15

  • Image:BarbaraFeldonInASafariJacket.JPG appears to be a frame grab from TV Land. The user who uploaded that one (User:Michael Reiter) seems to have uploaded a lot of similar things [22] (apparently has a thing for trench coats…) —Mulad 06:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The screen grab looks like fair use. What's the likely effect of a single frame screen grab used here on the market for the TV show it was taken from? Minimal to positive is the answer I come up with. Quantity used is only sufficient for the purpose, so that's two of the four factors in our favor and we'll get one or two of the others as well. These two factors will apply to most reusers also, so it's likely that their uses will also be fair. This reasoning is likely to apply to most screen grabs. Jamesday 12:00, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Regarding factor two, since the images, as used in the Barbara Feldon article, take up more than half the article, I'd say that factor goes in favor of this not being fair use. If the Barbara Feldon article were more than just a stub with a few images, this might change, but as is I think there are serious questions. Furthermore, what is the purpose? These images are not really being used for criticism, scholarship, research, or news reporting. Anthony DiPierro 07:34, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • The amount and substantiality factor relates to how much of the original work is used. This is one frame from what I assume is around 45 minutes of 60 frames per second video, making this something under one frame from 100,000. Several minutes of video (a few thousand frames) would be fine, provided they were serving some useful illustrative purpose, like these. Yes, our article is criticism and commentary - all of our articles on actors probably are. The images illustrate her appearance at that time and the clothing and other styles used in the series. (orignal 09:49, 20 Jan 2004 , revised as signature) Jamesday 19:59, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • "We also agree with the Court of Appeals that whether 'a substantial portion of the infringing work was copied verbatim' from the copyrighted work is a relevant question, see id., at 565, for it may reveal a dearth of transformative character or purpose under the first factor, or a greater likelihood of market harm under the fourth; a work composed primarily of an original, particularly its heart, with little added or changed, is more likely to be a merely superseding use, fulfilling demand for the original." [Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, emphasis mine] Anthony DiPierro 20:14, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Indeed (and see here for the decision, which is also notatable for saying that commercial use is not presumed to be not fair use) However, one part in 100,000 is not substantive and is extremely unlikely to be the heart of a video work, since by its nature, a video work involves change, not static images, and any static image will inherently be a transformative use. Consider the examples here, scroll to the bottom and read upwards, showing significant portions of musical works to be fair use in the later decisions. It's also, of course, worth reading the next paragraph in the decision you quoted from, where the Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court and proceeded to find the use fair even if it was the heart of the work. Context is key and our context is fine - we aren't seeking to replace the original work. Jamesday 20:42, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Lady louise.jpg - how is this fair use? --Jiang 07:34, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks like an official portrait for press release purposes, which qualifies without trouble as fair use in an article about the subject of the image. Jamesday 14:37, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 16

  • Lemonade from [32]. Maximus Rex 06:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I doubt it was infringing (facts with minimal creativity, not copyrightable) but it was incomplete so I rewrote it at temp anyway. Jamesday 11:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 17

  • Pete Carroll from [48]. The introduction has been partially rewritten, but still clearly a copyvio. Morwen 21:22, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

January 18

January 19

  • Grace Aguilar and Henry Acland. User 194.109.232.171 is adding the following comment to these articles: This entry was taken from Project Gutenberg's soon to be released public domain Nutall Encyclopaedia. If this material is not yet in the public domain, are these then copyvios? RickK 03:12, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing not; typically Project Gutenberg just releases stuff that is already in the public domain (they just OCR, copyedit, and format it). --Delirium 11:12, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope. Nutall encyclopedia wasp published in 1909 in the US putting it clearly in the public domain. --Imran 17:28, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I withdraw my objections, then. RickK 19:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • History of the NBC logo from [64] Secretlondon 07:45, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC). Third time this has been submitted now.
    • First submitted 2nd Jan, then resubmitted 11th Jan. Deleted for second time on 18th Jan 6.03. Submitted for 3rd time 23.17 18th Jan. This page needs watching... Secretlondon 07:56, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • I deleted it immediately, on the grounds that the user hasn't made any comments besides resubmitting (twice!). But let's leave this listing on the page for a bit to keep tabs on it. --Delirium 11:07, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

January 20

January 21

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=2200382"