Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahauser (talk | contribs) at 06:47, 29 December 2004 (→December 28). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
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
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. For example: 

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Actions to take for images

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

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

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

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]

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)
  • Image:Lichfield3spires.jpg is from FreeFoto.com. The uploader asserted it to be a copyright-free image, but the rules seem to be pretty clear to me that it's non-commercial only (and indeed personal-only, which would rule out use by the Wikimedia Foundation). Could I have a second opinion please?

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.

  • River Valley Ranch. User claims on talk page to have copyright. Wyllium 06:57, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Image:Sinitic Languages.jpg This image seems to be copyrighted, and the uploader has not stated that he has permission to use it, although a request for it now is a month old. --Vikingstad 14:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dentsu from [3] (according to vfd discussion on talk page) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Dentsu, author claims to be copyright holder. However if this turns out to be the case the page would need to be re-listed on vfd for content. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Egale Canada from [4] and others - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Claims to be copyright holder on talk.Maximus Rex 23:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Tsubasa from [5] , but the (possible) vio was uploaded by the (claimed) author of the website: does this indicate she gives permission for it to be used under the GFDL, or just that she doesn't understand the GFDL? Pyrop 23:56, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    No copyvio notice. E-mail given at extlink mentioned in article ends in "@dragonmount.com". www.dragonmount.com resolves to 66.221.104.33. No such IP ever edited the article. Somebody wants to follwo-up by e-mail? Lupo 11:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Carlos Martínez. Uploader is not the author but claims to have permission, see Talk:Carlos Martínez. Also, the site on which I found the text is apparently not the original either. I've reverted the copyvio, assuming good faith. Also I have contacted the email address informing that I've reverted and put the page here. If anybody feels the need for a follow-up, please do so. Sander123 11:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • article is now at Carlos Martínez (actor) and I don't see that allowing the text under GFDL has been resolved. If we can't confirm, should be relisted. -- Infrogmation 21:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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.

  • Charley_Patton - first off, patton died in '34, and therefore all recordings should be public domain, correct? What about when effort was put in to remaster the tracks, like the Grammy award winning "Screamin' And Hollerin' The Blues: The Worlds of Charley Patton"? (article) lastly, much of the article is a lenghthy and (relatively) widely published quote, is this fair use as well?
    • As to the recordings, while 1922 is the year for print PD-US, I do know that pre 1930 recordings are PD-US (and somewhat later... I'm not sure if it goes up to '34 but it might). BUT! That is only if the recordings are taken from original pre 193* discs, not some reissue. -- Infrogmation 22:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • thanks for responding to my charlie patton copyright check. i don't really know who else to ask this of, or if it's polite to start the discussion on this page. i've checked at copyright.gov, and music that age qualifies for 95 years protection if renewed. the online database is only post 1978ish, so it could have well been renewed sometime earler. the research fee is 75$/h, and the plane ticket to dc's even more. -_- so since i'm not fronting the research fee, i should probably take the music down, i think. will someone second that thought? that still puts the question in my head whether reissuers who do naught but transfer music to a new medium (and add no value other than packaging) receive copyright when i use them to do the same kind of transfer to get it to ogg.. i hope not.. --evilmousse 1am 12/14/04 CST
        • US copyright law for recordings in the early 20th century was different and provided less protection than that for compositions and printed matter. While I don't have the details at hand, I can vouch for the following: Already by the 1980s pre-1930s recordings were PD in the US, even if the compositions and sheet music of the same tunes were still under copyright. Hence, companies both in the USA and Europe reissued audio from pre-1930s recordings without permission or royalties. A few times some of the big record companies still in business since the early 20th century did sue some of the independent reissuers, but the cases were decided in favor of the reissuers, confirming the PD status of the audio. (Hm, sometime we probably need to have such info and the exact date this situation goes up to now on some Wikipedia copyright FAQ.) -- Infrogmation 21:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Winter Soldier Investigation#Origin - several paragraphs copied, not entire article - moved to Talk page. Editor claims fair use of plagiarized text in "Origin" section. Source has copyright notice. [6] Text and copyvio notice was reverted within 2 hours. SEWilco 21:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:MichelineBernardini.jpg in article Bikini. This is a significant event in the history of 20th century fashion, so I believe the image is under fair use in the related article. But I read a sceptical opinion in the article discussion page, so I need confirmation. -Hapsiainen 22:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
  • Images by Donar. Images from various web sites. --Amillar 22:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Data recovery: parts are from [7]. 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 [8]. Secretlondon 00:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • USAir Flight 427 from [9] 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)
  • 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)
    • Well then. Should a copyvio notice be added to those articles? -- Infrogmation 07:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Apheresis has word-to-word copyvio sections from WebPath. I'm doing a rewrite. JFW | T@lk 18:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Early Childhood Autism - Comes from a private wiki where content is copyright contributors. Contains several images that are almost certainly copyvios. See link from original author's pages. It's unclear where the article came from (e.g. was generated on that wiki or not). This will require some research to sort out. --Improv 18:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Content is copyright contributors on this wiki too. I don't see anything wrong with it. The images are such low quality that they are almost certainly fair use.
      • Someone else who was looking into this on IRC has said that that wiki does not mandate GFDL. With regards to the images, it may be that the content (i.e. text that is used for medical purposes) is copyright. If so, regardless of image quality, it may be covered by copyright. We need to be careful (low-res pictures of an entire short story are not fair use) --Improv 14:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cerrone has very similar text to artists own website [10]. --Harriv 22:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is Arun Gandhi too similar to [11], [12], and [13]? 68.81.231.127 10:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Could someone look over the images User:Mjvinegrad has uploaded? I think I got all the copyvio text, but I don't know much about images. The user appears to be well intentioned, so be nice :) 68.81.231.127 14:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Tagishsimon listed them under December 22. Thanks. 68.81.231.127 05:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • User:mikerussell could use some guidance with copyright issues from someone more familiar with them than me. A number of his contributions, especially images, seem questionable. kmccoy (talk) 09:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 [14]. --Shibboleth 02:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Image is taken from a U.S. source [15] 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 [16]. Lupo 09:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 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:
  • Shwebomin from [23] -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Original poster removed the copyright violation notice! -- Infrogmation 04:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This whole group of articles and images is claimed on the talk pages to be used with authorization, but the authorization doesn't seem particularly official, so would require some follow-up. --Delirium 03:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

September 24

  • Brazil for Christ Pentecostal Church - totally looks like it was lifted from somewhere else, but I couldn't prove it (thus I didn't put the message on the page). Can someone help me find where it came from? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:07, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems unlikely a direct copy considering the odd mispelling of "nationalwide". Angela. 07:22, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems like it's been poorly translated from another source... very tough to call. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I would say it's slightly rephrased from [24]. Search for "Mello". Lupo 14:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)




October 30



November 11

  • Sharon Lee from [26] --jpgordon{gab} 21:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Permission was gained from the subject (via her husband whose article I sourced from the same document): the pertinent email has been added to talk:Sharon Lee. The link cited was sourced from the same original material that I used. --Phil | Talk 09:16, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • According to the talk page, attempts at clarifying the release are still ongoing as of December 13. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 12


November 19

November 21

  • Vedas (old edition) from [29]. From "There is hardly any Hindu" up to "Why this circumlocution?" - Vague | Rant 07:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • List of "Shit happens" jokes from [30]; new material has been added since, but the copyright on the jokes individually and the collection of jokes is probably valid against the page still Mozzerati 22:11, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
    • Tag removed. This page has no copyright for the jokes listed due to prior art.Mikkalai 23:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Prior art is for patents. What you need is a release from the copyright owner. The claim that it comes from an unknown usenet posting makes this even more unlikely. If it came from a known and linked to usenet posting then we could check directly who wrote it and what they said about copyright. I'm going to revert the removal of the tag (one time). Mozzerati
        • Mikkalai has removed some contested jokes and removed the tag. At the same time a discussion has started on the village pump. If this reaches the end of the copyvio process without completion of the discussion it should be put into the long term problems section. Mozzerati 20:36, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)


November 24

  • Uku Masing and Image:Uku.Masing.jpg from [31]. Would an Estonian government site be fair use by default? It's not documented, however, and there is no information on the part of the site that's in English. 68.81.231.127 13:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, nothing is fair use "by default"; every fair use has to be justified. Works of the U.S. federal government (and possibly some other governments) are public domain by default, but that's another matter. I don't know what the situation is with Estonia. --rbrwr± 13:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I know I meant public domain, but apparently it didn't come out that way. :) 68.81.231.127 17:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've perused translations of Estonian copyright law and can find nothing that indicates works of the Republic of Estonia are in the public domain by default. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The Lost and Found Department presents more articles and images tagged as copyvios but not currently listed on this page... --rbrwr± 20:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Diane Duane from [32]
      • This is from Diane Duane's official biography. She has contacted me about it and as a result of our discussions has agreed to produce a version of it which will be released under the GFDL. Hopefully this will be done within the next week or so. --rbrwr± 12:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 26

  • In the absence of any reply from User:Esparkhu, it might be a good idea to take a look at all of their edits. See User_talk:Esparkhu for discussion. An example: Bloom syndrome and [33]. Note also Image:Autorecessive.jpg, and it might also be worth looking at the pages linking to that image, too. -- Karada 19:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

December 3

December 4

    • Titus Pomponius Atticus from The Modern World Encyclopædia: Illustrated which, according to text in the article, will be out of copyright in 2005. There is a previous version to revert to; the offending material was merged from Titus Pomoponius Atticus. See also User talk:Muriel Gottrop and other places...
      • Given that it's now December 27 (UTC) and nobody's touched this, I'm just going to leave it here for the extra few days. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 7

  • FLUiD CMS 4.5 from [41]. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 16:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Used with permission, according to /Talk. Not surprising, given that it's an advert. --rbrwr± 15:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


December 9

These seem to be public records of a city government. Are they copyrightable? --Gene s 08:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
They are not under copyright, they are in the public domain Micah 23:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The discussion at /Talk is quite interesting; it seems possible that (almost) all Wisconsin government documents are PD, in which case this should be recorded somewhere ([Wikipedia:Public domain resources]]?) to guide (a) future WP:CP cases and (b) provide Wikipedians with a source of PD materials. Having said that, wisconsin.gov has a copyright policy which implies that they do have copyright. --rbrwr± 17:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After looking at the Wisconsin Copyright page, it says that "The fair use guidelines of the U.S. copyright statutes apply to all material on theWisconsin.gov and linked agency Webpages." Then it says "For copy or use of information on the State of Wisconsin website that is outside of the fair use provisions of copyright law, please seek permission from the individual listed as responsible for the page." Isn't Wikipedia using this for fair use? Micah 23:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 10

  • Speaker of Lok Sabha from [47]. Oddly, user seems to be well aware of Wikipedia, going so far as to include interwiki links. However, the titles of those pages were all in English. Shortly, I will check to see if they, too are copyvios. - Vague | Rant 02:47, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Odd. The articles did not exist on other Wikipedias. - Vague | Rant 02:49, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • The original contributor restored the text, went on editing it and left a mesage on Talk saying it was government work and it didn't have a copyright statement on it. I have replied and put the copyvio biolerplate back. --rbrwr± 19:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
i changed the page to a stub. I have also emailed the webmaster of the site for clarification and permission to use content of the website. kaal 23:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


December 12

I have rewritten the trivia item in question at The Six Million Dollar Man/Temp. 23skidoo 03:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So how long are we supposed to wait for the rewritten material from the temp to be reinstated into the main article? The copyvio was resolved weeks ago. 23skidoo 02:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 14

  • Kamal Nath &#0xfeff;--fvw* 22:58, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
    • Anon poster at Talk: claims it's PD --rbrwr± 07:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Source site says "Contents published on this website have no legal sanctity and are for general reference only". Perhaps someone with some familiarity with India copyrights can tell us if that is a form of public domain or not? -- Infrogmation 20:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 15

  • Cagua (a volcano) from http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/Volcano/Volcanolist/cagua.htm - (seems to be a government site but says "all rights reserved".) Kappa 00:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a government site, but not an American government site. Not all governments are so free with copyright as the U.S. - Vague | Rant 02:20, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Babuyan claro from [67] -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Visiting card partially from [68]
    • The problem seems to go back to the earliest revision of Business card. No copyvio notice on either page yet. --rbrwr± 07:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Korea University from [69]. - Vague | Rant 02:17, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • /Temp currently consists of a few headings, one image and no text. --rbrwr± 07:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • L33t programming language from [70] — Asbestos | Talk 10:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Hi - I'm the author of both pages so copyright shouldn't be a problem. See what I wrote in the discussion page for l33t. Cheers, Stephen McGreal.
  • LSE/OS from [71]. Thue | talk 11:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • OK for LSE/OS text to be published, we are the copyright holders. Vianney Rancurel, IONIS group. [comment moved from 21 December, below, by rbrwr± 19:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
  • Oldman River from [72] Uses about two-thirds of text and nothing else. Rmhermen 23:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • K is for Killer is taken from the author's website. [73] Cdc 23:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Same user seems to be going through the entire Grafton alphabet.  :^) Several other cut-and-pastes from the same user and source. I don't have time to tag and bag them, however. Left polite word on the talk page, though. - Lucky 6.9 00:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 17

December 18

December 19

December 20

Am currently attempting rewrite. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:01, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Please check the new temp version. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:44, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

December 21

looks like spam to me MartinBiely 23:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

December 22

This article can just be deleted. There is already an article called Los Angeles class submarine. DCEdwards1966 19:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

December 23

About IU South Bend from the same source. Dbenbenn 14:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 24

  • Inserted the template for you. --BesigedB 23:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Thanks-W.)

December 25

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=8913265"