Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickK (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 5 February 2005 (→February 4: Httptunnel). 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
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)
  • Henry de Monfreid from [6]. 68.81.231.127 00:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Author claims permission on talk page, so I'm delisting and putting it up here. Could someone verify? 68.81.231.127 22:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, the same author added material from the same website to Sadhu (from [7]), and claimed permission in a later edit summary. I've asked for more details on the user's talk page. Could someone verify this at the same time? 68.81.231.127 22:23, 2 Feb 2005 (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.

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

  • Bring da Ruckus complete (or near-complete) song text of recent song. Outside fair use IMHO, and not an article anyway Lady Tenar 21:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Pitts Special, smacks of copyvio though I can't tell where from. First sentance is used all over the internet though (Google it). -Lommer | talk 07:16, 26 Jan 2005 (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)
  • Images by Donar. Images from various web sites. --Amillar 22:55, 11 Jun 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)
  • 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 [9]. --Harriv 22:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is Arun Gandhi too similar to [10], [11], and [12]? 68.81.231.127 10:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Copyvio from [13] and [14], but not [15] AFAICT. But the offending material is probably small and can be easily reexpressed in one's own words. I'm too lazy for it, though;) -- Paddu 19:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Spanish Civil War: I've made major reversions, dealing with material added by the same user noted Jan 1 for Millán Astray, Battle of Brunete, Legion Irlandaise. Material largely seems to come from pages subordinate to [16]. It may not be all copyvio, but I figured better safe than sorry. Further discussion at Talk:Spanish_Civil_War#Detailed_chronology. I won't be surprised if this one gets dicey. User:Rdsmith4 advised me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that I should just block the guy. That seems excessive to me, but I'm not sure what should happen. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just added History of Tulsa, but there are at least four images associated with the copyvio article that need to be checked as well. The images were uploaded by User:Pfox7, who is probably the same person as User:68.15.193.216, and User:68.124.59.63. In fact, their whole history really needs a going-over. 68.81.231.127 12:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just checking upload logs and found a Ludacris image where the uploader says "courtesy of www.sixshot.com" without posting proof of permission. Can't find the exact as u need members access to the site to see the photos. --Sasquatch 20:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Entire sentences and chunks of text Instituto Oswaldo Cruz are copied from [17], and the associated Image:Instituto Oswaldo Cruz.gif is unflagged. The website is clearly copyrighted. While wikified and reorganized, this appears to be a fairly clear copyvio; but since the user has a long history of edits, I'm asking for a second opinion. 68.81.231.127 13:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old

  • 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 [18]. --Shibboleth 02:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Image is taken from a U.S. source [19] 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 [20]. 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 [27] -- 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)

November 21

  • Vedas (old edition) from [28]. 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 [29]; 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

  • 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 [30]
      • 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)
        • Have you heard back? Can we resolve this soon? Thanks, -- Infrogmation 17:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I sent a reminder e-mail on 3 Jan 2005, but have not yet had a reply. Sorry for dragging this out so long. --rbrwr± 23:21, 9 Jan 2005 (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 [31]. 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 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)
Maybe so, but Fair use is not the same as public domain. If you want to assert fair use, go ahead. I would still like to know whether it really is PD, because it makes a difference to future copyvio cases. --rbrwr± 19:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington from [41]. - Vague | Rant 11:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • This was rewritten in /Temp mainly by User:Brianiii, and the rewrite was then cut-and-pasted over the copyvio by the original anon poster. Be careful to preserve appropriate history on this article... --rbrwr± 20:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • This would be an interesting test of the power to undelete selected revisions which has been granted to sysops in MediaWiki 1.4; we could delete the article, move the /Temp across and then undelete clean revisions of the original article (i.e. 2004-12-09-16:52 and later), thus leaving a clean version with the correct history. Would that be unduly controversial? --rbrwr± 17:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Haig from [[42]] - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 10

  • Speaker of Lok Sabha from [43]. 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

  • Onhan from [45]. - Vague | Rant 02:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rewrite in history, not sure what to do --rbrwr± 13:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Barbara Lawton, from her own web site. <KF> 02:37, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • See 9 Dec above for discussion of Wisconsin copyright law --rbrwr± 23:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I have had another trawl for lost & found copyvios. --rbrwr± 14:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Image:Rateatingplacenta.jpg from unknown, asserted to be PD by uploader; again, I thought this had been dealt with already.
      • It seems that the uploader of the image (ChuckF) and the user who added the imagevio tag to it (Reithy) are long-standing antagonists. The latter has been banned for violating an ArbCom injunction. There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that this is a copyvio, so I'm minded to remove the imagevio tag and accept it as a PD upload. --rbrwr± 18:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Lovcen from [46]; reposted at Lovcen/Temp; asserted to be PD (Montenegro government information) at Talk:Lovcen
    • The Six Million Dollar Man - part of #Trivia from [47]
      • 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)
        • I think this is one of those cases where we just have to put the new version into the article and leave the copyvio in the history. It would probably be best if 23skidoo just goes ahead and does it. --rbrwr± 18:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Scratch that. I did it and credited 23skidoo and 68.6.220.141 in the edit summary. --rbrwr± 11:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Battle of Chattanooga I from [48] - Johnteslade 17:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • We seem to have our battles of Chatanooga all mixed up; I'm not sure whether I should move an accuracy-disputed /Temp into place. --rbrwr± 18:28, 29 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)
          • First of all I AM NOT A LAWYER. IMHO that is just a disclaimer, saying that the content shouldn't be used in a court of law (e.g. if the site provides a date of birth, that alone shouldn't be treated as an evidence for alleged superannuation of a person in the ministry). As the site further says, one should "refer to the official documents published by Department of Commerce to ascertain the facts". I don't think that disclaimer makes it public domain. Note that it might be a work of the Govt. of India, but again, that doesn't necessarily mean PD. -- Paddu 19:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

December 15

December 17


December 24

December 27

January 1

  • Yayoikusama from [69]. Marked "copyvio" by Angela but left nearly for a year! --Nanshu 00:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Very interesting. Where copyright boilerplate was just copied into the page, before templates and categories were invented, an unlisted copyvio might just sit there indefinitely, and would not have been caught in my recent "lost+found" trawls. There are probably more like that hiding in the database. I am looking at this page's "what links here" to pick them up, and it seems that even some pages that are tagged with {{msg:copyvio}} haven't been picked up by the category. As the time of writing Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli is a case in point; it has had a /Temp since June which has not been dealt with (!) --rbrwr± 12:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Winterguard from [70]. - Vague | Rant 03:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • ConceptNet from [71] -Rholton 06:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Bolognese has a copyright notice, but I could not find the source online -- Chris 73 Talk 07:23, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • [72]. - Vague | Rant 08:15, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • FYI--The online page cited isn't really a good example of the copyvio; however, the text does come verbatim from the book by Bruce Vogle (as the page stated). Elf | Talk 19:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Deleted article. Elf | Talk 22:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • OfficialWire from [73]. - Vague | Rant 08:12, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • A copyright ownership claim was made on the article's talk page an on mine, so I've reverted the article. - Vague | Rant 08:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ashbury from [74] -- Chris 73 Talk 08:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wade McClusky from [75]. Also on VfD. —Korath (Talk) 10:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli as described above.; source unknown at the moment --rbrwr± 12:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Twinport from [76]; please note that the link did not copy properly onto the copyvio template, the second "http://" seems to have split it in half. Rje 14:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Worked around that by putting it in brackets --rbrwr± 14:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of the articles in Category:Maltese nobility seem to have been authored mainly by Charles Said-Vassallo, and they seem to be verbatim copies or derived from text on his website, maltagenealogy.com, and on maltesenobility.org, another website with which he is associated. He has added the text "This research was kindly carried out by Charles Said-Vassallo" to the bottom of most of these articles. However, on several of the articles, such as Ghariexem e Tabia, the following text appears, possibly copied from the original website, "The information contained in this site is the sole property of the owners of this site and no part may be reproduced without the specific permission of the owners." This suggests that the user does not realize that he has granted users of Wikipedia license to copy and use his text under the GFDL. I notice also that on some of the Talk pages related to these articles, and on his User Talk page that there is some evidence of possible misuderstanding of the status of this text now that it has been put into Wikipedia articles. --BM 20:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Dolcetto di Dogliani --fvw* 21:48, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

January 2

  • Flacq (old revision, not the original copyvio, it occurred before this) from [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] and [86]. It's been in the history through several edits. - Vague | Rant 09:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please could I have a second opinion on RMS Caronia - aleged copyvio text was commented out, then restored to the article as "widely published in the Public Domain". --rbrwr± 15:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • On the net, it's only published by [87] (which asserts copyright) and our mirrors. (Though I'm sure you already knew that.) The 1950 brochure mentioned in the article's current version is still under copyright unless it was explicitly released into PD, and in any event, no such brochure is mentioned in the site's bibliography. "RMS Caronia" has enough google hits that if it were public domain, I think it's reasonable to expect at least one other non-WP hit for specific phrases. —Korath (Talk) 16:06, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

January 3

January 5

January 6

  • VVAW and Winter Soldier Investigation from various sources, documented here [91]. I would also add that these violations are continualy reinserted into the article by a particularly persistent anon [92],[93] TDC 00:06, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) .
    • The Winter Soldier Investigation article has been disputed for a while, with multiple page protections. It should be noted that the "particularly persistent anon" (who signs as "Rob") made this edit to Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation on December 30, in which he responded to TDC's allegation of plagiarism. (That edit also restored considerable material that TDC wants archived and Rob wants kept current. To see the new comment on alleged plagiarism, skip to the last three paragraphs.) Since then, TDC has twice returned to the talk page to keep up his part in the revert war over what to archive, but has not deigned to address Rob's December 30 comments on the charge of plagiarism. Instead of continuing the discussion, TDC made this edit on January 6, slapping on the copyvio template. As for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the "discussion" has been confined to edit summaries in a revert war. After several reversions by TDC in which he reiterated "RV, plagarized content will not be allowed to stay", an anon (presumably Rob) made this edit with the edit summary, "Cite the material on Discussion page please, you know the rules". TDC's only response was this edit adding the copyvio template (no edit summary, no comment on Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a page that incidentally has seen no action since November 1). A listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems is not a sensible way for the Wikipedia community to try to resolve this situation. I suggest that the listing be removed and that TDC and Rob be strongly urged to accept mediation. And that all of us, even we agnostics, should pray for the soul of the assigned mediator. JamesMLane 06:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Paul Bénichou from [94] DCEdwards1966 06:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • World Bank (partially) from an unknown offline source as of this edit User:Dracoling 15:30, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Possibly from one of the two books that the same anon added to the References section in the following two edits. But until someone goes and has a look at them, we won't know for sure. For the moment there's no evidence that this is a copyvio rather than an original summary of criticisms described in those works. --rbrwr± 21:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 7

  • I added a copyright violation notice to the article today. -- Infrogmation 07:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 9

In response to the above and the page citations made above, all but the pre-existing stub and other material added by various editors was drawn from one source -- an employee of Augsburg College. Please send an e-mail to this user and you will receive in response an e-mail from a staff e-mail account at Augsburg College (not a student account, not an alumni account ... a staff account). --MacSigh 07:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
How do you know this? And what would this response indicate? Dbenbenn 08:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And even if this is true, does that staff member have the authority to release College property to GFDL? RickK 21:31, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
The problem with them being an employee and submitting the information is that the information still isn't in the public domain, and they may have not received official permission from the college to post that information elsewhere on-line. I live in Connecticut, but I can't take information from the state tourism website and post it at Connecticut, even though my tax money pays for that site. (Maybe a poor analogy, but I think my point is clear.) Rather than contacting that specific user, the college itself should be contacted about this. Just because they work there, that doesn't mean they can give free access to copyrighted material from the institution. Beginning 16:07, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
OK everyone ... the matter of the Augsburg College article has been brought to the attention of appropriate college officials. The question about releasing that material into GFDL has been raised with them as well. I expect some noodling around will occur for awhile. The question remains: Once the appropriate people make a decision, how does "the institution" make its wishes known?
The Center for Global Education is a program of Augsburg College. This whole thing is a bit of a mess but the reasons for raising the concerns are understood and it's fixable. --MacSigh 05:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
In the matter of the Grahm Jr. College article, a dialogue is now underway with the author of the material from which it is drawn. The solution there is going to be developing a new article on the "temp" page. It is hoped that the author of the source article will consider preparing the first entry. --MacSigh 05:28, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whig history either this has been lifted from [118] or the latter is in violation of the Wikipedia GNU (whatever) license
    • copyvio text wasn't very encyclopedic in style (read more like a marketing brochure); I've written a semi-stub replacement article in IEEE 802.1Q/Temp if someone cares to short-circuit the process. 18.26.0.18 23:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Controlling Drug Prices from [119] -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Also Controlling Drug Prices in the United States from the same source, by the same author -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • User has left a message on my talk page claiming to be the copyright holder and may well be for all we know. Now just the minor isue that what they've posted is a colege paper and not an encyclopedic article.. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't believe we can absolutely accept that as a principle where anons are concerned (I traced parts of the content elsewhere too) (and there is the 'no original research' thing anyway) but the poster has now replaced the copyvio notice twice so I have reinstated it and locked the page temporarily. An acceptable wikified version - if such there can be - can be put on the indicated page in any event. --Vamp:Willow

January 10

  • Aishwarya Rai from [120] and [121]. - Vague | Rant 09:04, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The first of those sources includes the tell-tale words, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." The second copyvio needs further investigation. --rbrwr± 23:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks like 2nd copyvio in history; someone care to rewrite to remove it? -- Infrogmation 12:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 11

  • BBCLONE from [122]. David Johnson [T|C] 18:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Seems to be GPL, though it's not clear if that means the web pages or just the software. --rbrwr± 20:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Data quality is a giant quote, unwikified. Suspecting copyvio. KirbyMeister 21:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Given the typos ("inteneded", "qualitay"), it was probably hand-copied from a book, maybe this one. --rbrwr± 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Possible sources listed on talk. No copyvio notice on article until I added one today. -- Infrogmation 20:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 14

January 15

January 16

January 17

January 18

  • First Test Match from [174] citation given to cricinfo.com. It's a list of stats for the match. Is that copyrightable? (but this is not the historical first test but the first test in Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 2004-05 between India and Australia) RJFJR 05:58, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • See also Second Test Match; I raised some questions about these pages at Talk:Cricket last month but never came to any firm conclusions. --rbrwr± 06:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think they're technically copyrightable, although we don't really need a straight copy and paste from CricInfo (if people just want the scorecards they should go there first anyway). I'd say if nobody improves them, then treating them as copyvios is right. sjorford 10:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Vibha, A Brighter Future for Children from [175]. RickK 06:17, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • The (arguably flaccid) article only states the Vision and Mission statements. Fair use I would've thought... mordemur 13:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 19

If it's not a copyright violation, it should still be deleted as an advert. -- Walt Pohl 05:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 20

January 21

Did you bother to read the references section of the page in question? Author gave permission for its use. User:Alkivar/sig 02:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To quote:
Sources
This history written by Joey Gardner, (a highly respected DJ of this type of music). Reproduced from his homepage with permission.
Original poster has responded on Talk:Rolf Dahrendorf. DanKeshet 21:49, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

January 22

January 23

January 24

Company Registered in England and Wales and Limited by Guarantee, No. 908758. Registered Charity No. 313690. RickK 06:04, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

January 25

January 26

Image:Aphyonus.jpg
Image:Lizard fish.jpg
Image:Umbrella mouth gulper eel.jpg
Image:Hatchetfish.jpg
Image:Crab.jpg
Image:Coffinfish.jpg
Image:Chimaera pup.jpg
Image:Chimaera fish.jpg
Image:Blob fish.jpg
Image:Basketwork eel.jpg
Image:Fangtooth1.jpg
Image:Prickly shark.jpg
As stated on the source site, "© Commonwealth of Australia, 2001. This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 all other rights are reserved." (Bolding mine.) These images are therefore copyright violations unless proof of permission is given. -- Hadal 04:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 27

January 28

January 29

(Aside. I received a human-to-human voice telephone call from Salem AlSudairy about the above! I detest his sort of music so I was not minded to give him any help. In fact at least one of the four guys he copyvio'd would probably pass a VfD inquisition even though his own vanity article will fail. RHaworth 15:30, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC))

January 30

January 31

  • Object. It's just a list of names of the people on the program. It's hardly a copvio. Gamaliel 09:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

February 1

February 2

February 3

February 4

---

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have expanded the article Max Heindel (1865-1919) with the entries (under the section «Max Heindel's books») of this Danish & North-American author's 23 books published from 1909 to 1919 ((all entirely available online and all edited in almost every languages in the world); I have added to each entry (article) the official description of the books from this page http://www.rosicrucian.com/describe.htm which is not subjected to copyright and it contains material which may be used at the Rosicrucian Fellowship students' discretion (please read my user page).

Thank you --GalaazV 05:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I used the descriptions of this author's work from a webpage, it was my thought it would be good brief descriptions to present his work in the articles related in Wikipedia . It has been proven I was wrong and so I will rewrite all of them with my own words, as my english may allow, and if you still allow it. Thank you --GalaazV 17:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


---

The current date is November 14, 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=9954296"