Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jas01724 (talk | contribs) at 06:30, 6 October 2004 (→October 6). 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 copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, be sure to follow the instructions in the "Copyright infringement notice" section below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made. Add new reports under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. See Wikipedia:Page history for details and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages for discussion.

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk: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?, m:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use, copyright

Alternatives

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

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.

Actions to take for text

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following: 

{{copyvio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied material here>}}

~~~~

Where you replace "<place URL of allegedly copied material here>" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page: 

{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image here>}}~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Special cases

Amazon copyrights

An interest has been expressed in the Wikipedia community to use images from Amazon.com, particularly with regard to cover art from commercial music recordings (albums).

When approached about permission to use images from their site, Amazon.com's official response was that such permission simply wasn't theirs to give. They say that the copyrights still belong to the holders of copyrights in the original works.

At this time, there is no official Wikipedia policy for or against using Amazon.com as a source of images such as album cover art. Note, however, that Wikipedia copyright policy is still in effect—uploaded images' descriptions should still contain proper attribution, a copyright notice if copyrighted, and a fair-use rationale if fair use is being claimed. (Simply make sure that the copyright is attributed to the true copyright holder and not Amazon.com.) For specific guidelines on images and copyright, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines.

Pokémon images

The discussion on Pokémon images has been moved to Template talk:Pokeimage.

Used with permission images

These are all "used with permission" images (or have no info as to source) and thus cannot be used by third parties, thus they are not in the spirit of the GNUFDL and hinder the redistribution of Wikipedia content. Jimbo Wales said we cannot use those type of images as a result. [1] --mav 21:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of these images merely require credit and do not otherwise restrict usage. Since we are required by the GFDL to maintain authorship information, I don't see how that is incompatible. —Morven 21:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of removing those from the above list and re-classifying them as fairuse. --mav

Image:Amcoa.jpg Image:LondonEye1.jpg Image:BARBER01.jpg Image:Nokia-mobilephoneearpiece010.jpg Image:Belcourt.jpg Image:W D Hamilton.jpg Image:Ascaphus truei.jpg


Image:Peppered moth Biston betularia betularia f typica.jpg

This appears to be an accurate scientific photograph. Does anyone see any sign of artistic creativity in lighting or other aspects of the presentation? Recall that in the US there must be some creativity to have copyright. Jamesday 13:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Image:JohnBalance.png Image:JohnBallance.png Image:MichaelJosephSavage.jpeg Image:MichaelJosephSavage.png Image:NormanKirk.png Image:KeithJackaHolyoake.png Image:SirWilliamFergusonMassey.png

I was the one who uploaded the images of New Zealand prime ministers: Image:JohnBalance.png, Image:JohnBallance.png, Image:MichaelJosephSavage.jpeg, Image:MichaelJosephSavage.png, Image:NormanKirk.png, Image:KeithJackaHolyoake.png, Image:SirWilliamFergusonMassey.png, and one or two others. I did so with the explicit permission of the National Library of New Zealand, which holds the rights to those images. At the time, I believed that Wikipedia text and Wikipedia images were treated separately under our implementation of the GDFL. I based this on Wikipedia:Copyrights, which merely says (at the top) that the text of Wikipedia is under the GDLF. Looking at things more closely, however, I see that I was mistaken in my interpretations - the same page also says "We do not allow special permission content to be included in Wikipedia since such content cannot be used by downstream users of Wikipedia content unless they also obtain permission." As these images most definitely cannot be used by third parties without permission (or even on other Wikipedia pages without permission), they should be removed as quickly as possible - the National Library was very explicit on that point. The permission for using these images is null and void unless we can adhere to their terms, and it appears that we don't. It's unfortunate, since I think the images do improve the articles, but I suppose that's just how these things work. I apologise for my mistake. -- Vardion 00:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes - no big deal. :) I see they also claimed copyright to some public domain images. I fixed that since it is a bogus claim. We still might be able to use the images under the fair dealing/fair use doctrine. See Wikipedia:Fair use. --mav
When was each picture taken? Who took them and held the rights to them? At least one or two appear likely to be in the public domain, given the dates of death of the subjects. Jamesday 12:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial use images

As of June 30, 2004, images where permission is granted for non-commercial use only are not allowed. This is official Wikipedia policy pronounced by Jimbo Wales. [2]. As a result, all of these images now need to be removed from any associated articles and deleted. Before they are deleted, we should evaluate whether we can justify their use on other grounds, such as fair use. --Michael Snow 21:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we are not yet to the point where wholesale deletions and actions against this type of image are warranted. We are still not to a satisfactory point in image tagging, and we want to finalize the new upload form (and get it active), so that we can better manage change in the future. It is advised not to upload any new non-commercial images now, and to seek replacements for non-commercial images that we have, but for today anyway, I recommend against people trying to hunt these down and extinguish them. We are going to try to have a smoother transition than that. Jimbo Wales 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the link to http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/index.html from Wikipedia:Public domain image resources due to the non-commercial restricton. Shame, I was just about to use his Edvard Munch "Scream" image as it was from an "approved" source. PhilHibbs 12:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

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

Fair use claims needing a second opinion

Apparently the old Wikipedia:Fair use mechanism has fallen out of use. This section lists all cases (typically images) where a fair use claim was made during the initial seven days, and for which a second opinion is needed. Add your comments here, and when you remove an entry from here (and it is kept), copy the discussion to the (image) talk page.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Swrdrose.JPG is a copy of the video box card for the Walt Disney film Sword and the Rose - No mention is made of copyright imagine it belongs to Disney Lumos3 15:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone will no doubt make a claim for fair use. Secretlondon 23:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:JC2004.jpeg is a glamour shot of Jennifer Connelly from http://www.maximonline.com. The Maxim copyright notice is on the image, no note about permission, and even if there was I doubt it would extend to sublicensees. - Eisnel 05:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • We have thousands of similar cases - and they are generally excused as being fair use. Someone who knows US copyright law better than me should look at it. Secretlondon 23:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • That is most definitely a copyvio. Fair use doesn't apply since it's a creative photo. It even says "All rights reserved" on the photo. You can't get more explicit than that. ☞spencer195 05:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Saab91safir.jpg - this is box art for a commercial model kit. While it could probably be contended to be fair use to use it in an article describing the specific kit itself, I suspect that it might be problematic to use it outside that context, but "I am not a lawyer". --Rlandmann 12:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The scan is used in both the Heller and the scale model articles. That's within context. 213.51.209.230 16:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Uploader claims fair use. Lupo 12:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

  • Student Loan Consolidation - reads like an FAQ or ad, last sentence doesnt pertain to the article, google test reveals multiple sources. KirbyMeister 20:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The Sword of Shannara - reads like a copy, but I can't find it. RickK 23:37, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Legnica from [24], which claims to be from Encarta 2001. --Zigger 01:59, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
    • Can you double check? At a quick glance the content appears to be different. Maximus Rex 00:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Voice production reads like a copyvio, and the original version looks like one (first line begins mid-sentence, odd formatting (double spaced, short lines), only two wikilinks), but the only hits I get on Google are from Wikipedia mirrors. Suspicious, but I have no proof — Gwalla | Talk 17:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Your comment suggests that original non-copyvio wiki articles must be bad and good articles must be copyvio :( 80.131.78.65 08:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? I have no idea how you could get that from what I wrote. The first version was not good—it began in mid-sentence and had extremely broken formatting. — Gwalla | Talk 23:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Arthur Omar - can't find where it's from, but it reads like a copyvio. RickK 23:57, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Mar05.jpg, possibly copyrighted. No response to query from the uploader since June. Jay 22:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Remaining image uploads of User:Avnionur are probably also copyright violations, but I didn't find them. Articles are all checked. Lupo 09:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Music of Palau and Culture of Palau. Probably from History of Palau: Heritage of an Emerging Nation which was mentioned on the first revision of the articles at [25] and [26]. Angela. 03:00, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler Was pasted in one go by an anonymous user. That seems suspicious to me. --P3d0 18:04, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome Appears to be lifted verbatim from a printed or on-line brochure (heck, it includes a copyright notice!), but since I don't have a hard reference (a google search on key phrases came up empty), I don't know how to format the copyvio markup. --Kaszeta 19:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Added copyvio notice today. Lupo 22:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Geobacter seems to be a copy paste from an article of the The Tallahassee Democrat. Even the copyright notice is still left in the article. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/ is the source of the text and the article shows up in the search but requires a user to log in before being able to read the full article. Also the the lack of formatting clearly shows no serious attempt was made to create a decent article. --Jimius 17:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Rutan Defiant seems almost certainly an OCR from a presumably copyrighted printed source (perhaps a sales brochure?) - note "conventjonal" for "conventional", "prQvide" for "provide", "stalt" for "stall", "ful1" for "full, "I.is" for "his" and many other similar errors. --Rlandmann 00:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The Gashlycrumb Tinies is most certainly copyvio of the book -- it's the entire text thereof, just cut and pasted from the UK website that it points to that is also a copyvio. Is this the right place to mark such things? --Jpgordon 19:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Charles Steen
    • Sadly from [27], which seems copyrighted. If someone wants to do the copyvio boilerplate I will rewrite the article over the weekend... -Fastfission 13:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation
    • I'm not sure if this is copyvio or fair use. This article quotes one of the user-submitted plot summaries from IMDb in its entirety (the second one at: [28]). It acknowledges it as a quote from IMDb. Does fair use cover quoting the whole thing? In this case, it's not the whole IMDb page, just one of the two plot summaries. The IMDb legal page ([29]) says that summaries uploaded by users are still owned by their writer, the uploader just implicitly gives IMDb unlimited use of their work. I've noticed other movie articles that do this, and I'm wonding if there's been any concensus about whether it's legal. - Eisnel 01:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Holkar
    • This article appears to be entirely copied from two other articles, one of which seems to be copied directly from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (with citation). Probably should be marked for deletion. Rbsteffes 17:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Unfree images
    • Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses. anthony (see warning) 10:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Images with missing copyright information
    These should replaced and many should be listed for deletion. Those that are currently orphaned can be listed on images for deletion. Guanaco 00:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Beasts of England and discussion in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Beasts of England
The article consisted originally of the full seven stanzas of Beasts of England, from Animal Farm, and little else. Commentary has since been added. Depending on how the vote goes and how the article develops, it is likely either to be kept or transwikied to WIkisource, if there are no copyright problems. The only thing I would insist on vehemently is that the copyright situation is not simple. See my lengthy note in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Beasts of England. The complicating factors are that the work seems to be public domain in some countries but not in others (specifically the U.S.); the work is definitely not out of print or unavailable and indeed has plenty of commercial value; what's being quote is short, but on the other hand is an entire poem, or song lyric; but then again it is not a real song that has any real existence outside the context of the book (it's not anthologized by itself, don't think it's performed or played except in dramatizations of Animal Farm). It's been suggested by User:Jmabel that the copyright holder be asked for permission; well, what's the current policy on "used-by-permission" with respect to text? Help, help, my head hurts. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:09, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to see The Internationalle text directly adjacent to the lyrics here to facilitate comparison (and make it more obvious just why the whole of the poem is included) but I don't see a copyright problem here. It's review and commentary and I do think that to compare the whole of two short works (or portions, in this case) you need those works so that those who don't know them can see what you're talking about. I don't see much prospect of an independent market for a poem from Animal Farm and the poem itself certainly can't compete with or replace the book Animal Farm. Personally, I think this article is more likely to make people curious about the book and cause them to consider reading it... therby helping sales of the book. Jamesday 08:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Images by Donar. Images from various web sites. --Amillar 22:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vertreibung_2.jpg
    • This is unverified (I doubt the web page using it is the original copyright holder) but is highly political which I guess is why it ended up here. Unless someone can find out who it actually belongs to I don't see why it should be deleted above the other thousand unverified images. Secretlondon 23:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The articles originates from 'Die Welt' dating 23.02.2004 , dealing with the expulsion of people from German origin from Czechoslovakia after WWII. The photo must have been taken in June 1945. There is no mention of any copyright. The site, referred to, is a site of neonazis; the photo itself has no connection with neonazi propaganda. JoJan 20:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Data recovery: parts are from [30]. Other parts may be original text. Samw 12:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The whole text is from Infocog - but I wonder if this is a non compliant mirror. Some text also seems to be from [31]. Secretlondon 00:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • USAir Flight 427 from [32] Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • But this is a reprint of a document submitted to the US NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD - does that make it PD? Secretlondon 00:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Flecainide -- Seems that this was copy-and-pasted from a number of different web pages. See the talk page for more information. Matt 15:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Common Alerting Protocol from [33]. Copyvio noted by User:Meelar, but not listed here? -Rlandmann 01:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500) and Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000) - is the compilaton of this information copyrighted/ RickK 22:00, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hollis Center Maine partly from [34]. Diberri | Talk 21:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • It all looks to be original except for the first sentence. Either coincidence or a fair use. Guanaco 05:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The current version of Image:Pravda-otsovruk-c.jpg is from 1991, but the tag marks it as Pre-1973 Soviet copyright. We should revert. Shouldn't we?

Old

  • Image:Persian Cat.jpg - No info on source and the photo looks like a professional shot Guanaco 00:23, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
    Also used on the Polish Wikipedia (copied from en). Grayscale image. A hit-and-run by the uploader. Lupo 13:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • AA Grapevine from [35] - Lucky 6.9 22:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone ignored the instructions to draft a rewrite at the /Temp page, so now the copyvio is in the edit history. --Diberri | Talk 04:36, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Mikhail Alekseev from text of Great Soviet Encyclopedia and current paper edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. (<- dunno who posted this Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • The copyright of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia may well be expired. Can someone weigh in on Soviet copyrights? Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Unlikely that the copyright of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia has expired. English translation was late 1960s. -- Jmabel 10:15, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tony Knowles (politician) - Much of the page, including several randomly-selected sentences, appears to be modified from [36] (Google cache of Knowles's election campaign site). Jxg 01:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    From the campaign web site's press kit. Would that be allowed? Anyway, has serious NPOV problems. Note: the /Temp replacement looks identical to the article itself. Lupo 11:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Saint Vasilije copied from [37] where there's no copyright notice and [38] (copyright notice here). Also image:svvasilije2.jpg is from [39], with no copyright notice on the site.--leandros 00:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The art, though, is definitely old enough to be PD by now ... —Morven 00:01, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps I should at least add a tag that defines the situation like {{verifieduse}} or {{PD}} but I'm completely lost with these tags. Should maybe also add the URL where the image is taken from.--leandros 08:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Part of Edirne Province from [40], the rest from 1911 Britannica.--leandros 20:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 23

August 24

  • Image:Devon1.jpg some random porn star. Picture has, erm, "artistic merit", it is not explicit but probably a bit embrassasing if you're at work. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • But is this necessarily a copyvio? (I know it looks like one, but you should have proof). If this is about prudence, you might want to list it on Wikipedia:Images for deletion, but I doubt it will be deleted for moral reasons. Besides, there are far more NSFW pictures on Wikipedia. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:10, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

August 25



August 28

  • Mabel McDowell School from [46]. -- Angela. 15:54, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • The work is the by the US government and therefore public domain. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Works produced by the US Federal government are PD. As the "Form Prepared By" section of that document says, the copy was written by "Storrow Kinsella Partnership Inc.". Unless we can show that the submitter explicitly agrees to placing their submission in the public domain (which certainly isn't the same as merely submitting a form to the federal government) then copyright resides with Storrow et al. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • It was at a .gov domain, and has no copyright notice. Anyway, I've got some more in Columbus, Indiana. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • We need to be super-careful about inferring PD from .gov. For example, a bunch of NASA stuff is co-produced with ESA, and most (all?) of the US national labs are run by universities. And lack of a copyright notice doesn't mean lack of copyright. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • First Baptist Church, Columbus, Indiana
  • First Christian Church, Columbus, Indiana
  • Irwin Union Bank, Columbus, Indiana
  • North Christian Church
    • While I agree with Finlay that we have to be careful, we shouldn't go out of our way. The NPS says very clearly at [47] that "Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." They do not indicate that their sample application forms were not PD, and hence we can assume that info to be in the public domain, even if the original write-up was made by someone else. If it wasn't PD, the NPS would have stated something like "information reproduced courtesy of...". I do not know U.S. law well enough to decide whether information submitted voluntarily to U.S. government agencies (e.g. by filling out a form) automatically enters the public domain, but it is a possibility that should be researched. Lupo 08:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This is from a National Historic Landmark Nomination. All such submissions become part of the public record, just like legal briefs submitted by lawyers. US Public records are available for reproduction by anyone. The application contains details of the preparers. If anyone is really concerned that this is not a public record, or has some other reason for believing that it's a problem, I suggest asking for their opinion. Jamesday 09:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August 29

  • Image:Platypus1.jpg - self-admitting copyvio, from a Google image search. Tom- 00:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I like this one. Could we try to get them to release it under the GFDL? Guanaco 14:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Another search finds [48] which says that the painting is courtesy of Rod Scott and is copyright 1988 Australian Geographic Journal. Mr. Scott identifies it as being from issue number 12, Oct-Nov 1988. They can be contacted for permission [49]. Since you've indicated an interest in doing so, over to you...:) Since they did grant permission to Mr. Scott it seems possible that htey will grant a GFDl image for a thumbnail image like this - thumbnail because I assume that the image filled a cover and this is much reduced from cover art resolution. Jamesday 09:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Anne-real.jpg Historical picture of Anne Frank, but the Anne Frank House aggressively claims copyright on all such pictures, as can be seen at [50]. --Shibboleth 02:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Image is taken from a U.S. source [51] and used here under the fair use doctrine. I don't like to take proactive action—this should stay unless a lawyer really complains and the Wikimedia foundation then decides to remove the picture. As an alternative, consider using nl:Afbeelding:Dagboek anne frank.jpg, scan of a book cover showing Anne Frank, from [52]. Lupo 09:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August 30




September 3

  • Under the request by Rigel who reported many copyright violated edits in ja.wp. Rigel left a message on my User talk:Aphaia and warn that the edits by User:rantaro and anonymous user User:61.22.157.95(ja) in the below are similar to the Jehovah's Wittnesses publish matter (tr. in Japanese) according to their content:
Rigel pointed out Jerusalem Council are consisted by two Jehovah's Witnesses document, and Christian Cross has a similar part of their document in Japanese; Rigel suspected other edits by same contributers might be so and it is the same person of User:K.M. who has been banned from ja.wp because of copyright violation. See also Rigel's comment on my talk page. --Aphaea 17:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC), pointer added (by Rigel)
You will have to point out what exactly are the suspected copyright violations, and where they are supposed to be from. Then we'll see what is to be done about all this. Lupo 18:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rigel said Jerusalem Council from JW published Insight and Holy Spirit(I don't know their avialbilities). All of materials are suspicted by JW database Watchtower or its latest version Watchtower2003 which are only available to faithfuls. (I am not a JW faithful and have no copy. Information has been available in RfD on ja.wp). For exact information we need a cooperator and JW faithful who have materials in English; on ja.wp two faithfuls gave us information. --Aphaea 23:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please verify the contents of his contribution one of these days.And furthermore, see his first contribution.Rigel(ja-user) 04:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Joice Heth, reworded from [71], but still too close for comfort. RickK 23:43, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry... I was planning to add more later, make it a better page... I did not mean to infringe on anyone's copyrights. I will be more careful in the future. See article's discussion page. --PlantPerson
    • Left for the moment to give him a chance to do a rewrite at /Temp. Also left instructions at his talk page. Lupo 10:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 4

  • Sayeret Matkal from [72] - rhyax 06:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • On the one hand, the external site claims © at [73], but state right after "If you see no author you are welcome to repost the page but you MUST mention specwarnet and give us a link back." The page in question has no author mentioned, and isn't attribution (maybe with a backlink on talk) compatible with the GFDL? Lupo 09:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


September 7

  • Image:Meteor.JPG from [74]. Diberri | Talk 22:25, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • The permission says "The photos on this site are the property of BAE SYSTEMS (Copyright© 2004 BAE SYSTEMS. All rights reserved) and are made available for publishing and personal use." That they are made available for publishing sounds like a pretty blanket grant of permission to me. --Delirium 19:15, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • And then they go on to say at [75] that "They may not be changed or combined with other images in any manner without prior written consent of BAE SYSTEMS". I think that is the showstopper. Lupo 21:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 8

  • Image:Domingo.jpg from [76] (URL given by contributor), "© 2003 Sony Music Entertainment All Rights Reserved" Tregoweth 23:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Photo submitter (Marcus2) has removed copyright violation notice[77]. Tregoweth 23:00, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • I returned the notice which the submitter removed without explanation. Rmhermen 12:32, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fair use? --Delirium 19:36, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

September 9

  • Image:Xmen1.bmp - scan of copyrighted material, Fair use at best.--Deelkar 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • There's a bunch of similar BMP images on X-Men, uploaded by the same person who claims they are GFDL. I don't see very good evidence they're GFDL, but relatively low-res scans used to illustrate an article on the subject (made into something other than BMP please!) seem like they should be fair use, like our album cover images. In either case, something consistent should be done about them as a group. --Delirium 03:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • CAR-15 is identical to the text at [78]. I don't see a copyright notice there, so it may not even be original to that site. 128.183.113.35 14:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 10

  • Malaria (some parts) from [79]. Diberri | Talk 18:56, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a long enough article that we should excise only the copyrighted parts, rather than deleting the article. --Delirium 03:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


September 11

  • Student loan - I removed a large section of this article that was copied from [82] and it needs to be rewritten. --Chessphoon 01:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The Cubby Creatures relies on a lengthy quote from epitonic.com [83] - over a third of epitonic's text becoming more than half of our article. This is pushing the boundaries of "fair use" a bit far, isn't it? --rbrwrˆ 19:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


September 13

  • Constitutionalist Party Platform from [84] --Timc 16:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone (anon) restored this saying it was used by permission. This seems doubtful, and in any case we don't need the complete text on Wikipedia, since the complete text of their platform is not an encyclopedia article about their platform. --Delirium 03:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)



September 16

  • SPQR: The image of an "SPQR flag" used in this article, Image:Romastemma.jpg, has had a note added by an anon user claiming it to be copyright NovaRoma Inc.: The flag appears on novaroma.org's main page. In any case it's anachronistic for the article so I've commented it out, but I raise whether the image should be deleted. -- Arwel 18:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 18

  • Allende's Last Radio Boadcast Message. It looks like at least the translation has been "borrowed" here without the owner's (?) permission — see History and Talk page! I'm reverting to Spanish version, and mailing the Warwick Univ. faculty member for info. Bishonen 17:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Now is a double redirect to Wikiquote page. Leave? -- Infrogmation 03:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


September 20

From Talk:Jan Nieuwenhuys by User:Bajazzo
I made a page about the Dutch Painter Jan Nieuwenhuys and I`am allso the owner of the website jannieuwenhuys.com
I wrote the origenal article and am the beholder of all the copyrights. Allso over the images of his work.
best regards
Arthur Nieuwenhuys
Rasmus (talk) 15:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 21

September 22

September 23

September 24

Series of untagged images uploaded by User:Magnum1 (there are more) -Wikibob | Talk 23:11, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

September 25

September 26

September 27

September 28

September 29

September 30

October 1

October 2

October 3

October 4

October 5

October 6

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=6374204"